I'm not sure if this is unexpected or not, but the International Court of Justice has basically ruled in Israel's favor in South Africa's genocide case against it:
In a series of near-unanimous votes, the world court on Friday ordered Israel to ensure that its military not violate the Genocide Convention, and that it punish incitement to genocide and report back to The Hague on its compliance. But the court stopped short of ordering the fundamental objective South Africa and its allies sought: an end to Israel’s military response to the Oct. 7 attacks Hamas launched from Gaza.
The court also called for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages Hamas took from Israel.
Basically, the court ruled that Israel wasn't committing genocide but it needs to be careful not to start. It also ruled that Israel has a right to defend itself; that it needs to reduce civilian casualties; and that it needs to allow more aid into Gaza.
This is not exactly a clean bill of health, but the basic ruling allows the Gaza war to continue.¹
¹Not that either side would have stopped regardless.
The International Court of Justice and Bitcoin. Both are aspirational, neither has an army.
I am making 285 Dollars each hour for working online. I never thought bx03 that it was legit but my best friend earns 29,000 dollars every month doing this and br50 she showed me how.
Check It......................... https://easybusiness78.blogspot.com/
That seems accurate to me, although it doesn't necessarily say much. If Israel forces Palestinians out of Gaza by making it unlivable, that's ethnic cleansing. If they occupy Gaza and the WB permanently, that's apartheid. If the Palestinians die in vast numbers due to war, famine, or disease, that's genocide. The question is, which way is this going to go?
Israel's leaders have said they do not support an independent Palestinian state. I don't know how this can be resolved without that or without giving Palestinians in occupied territories full citizenship to Israel, which is also off the table. So it's not clear what the endgame is or how this will be resolved. But they are teetering right on the brink of ethnic cleansing or ultimately genocide. I hope they don't choose that route.
The most important thing right now is to stop the killing, secure the release of hostages, and get aid to those who need it. Things aren't going to improve without that.
Israel has displaced nearly all Gazans, and killed what, 20-1 civilians, while not allowing in enough food and water and denying them sovereignty. And the IDF is approaching having killed more POWs than they've rescued.
What else is it, then?
This has long since passed self defense.
Hey @Crissa, you are a frequent and vociferous critic of the Israelis, and in your comments here and elsewhere you characterized the Israeli response as excessive. But legit question... what would you have considered an appropriate Israeli response against an enemy that committed gross atrocities, is dedicated to your destruction, and which hide among its civilian population so fighting them means there are going to be civilian deaths? Especially if the Israeli goal is to destroy this existential enemy rather than just "mow the grass" again? And please no "well I WOULDN'T comments --- I want to hear what you WOULD have done." What you would have considered legit.
Are you asking, "What would you have done, given the past decades of Israeli tolerating Hamas in order to divide the Palestinians, while humiliating Fatah in many ways, despite its moderation?"
Or are you asking, "What would you have done for the past several decades to work with the Palestinians and the international community, to create a path toward Palestinian self-determination and eventually statehood, thus undercutting Hamas and encouraging Palestinian moderation?"
You know exactly what I was asking. You just do not have an answer. Next.
Then your question is undeserving of an answer.
And your criticisms of Israel are unworthy of being taken seriously.
Ken's got my back. I'm going to call genocide genocide, no matter who does it.
So you also do not have an option for what the Israelis should have done that you would consider acceptable after October 7th other than Ken's (best as I can tell) "first invent a time machine" solution?
When you call something disproportionate or inappropriate but you refuse to say what you would consider appropriate, well, you are not being serious.
And the failure of ANY of Israel's critics in any forum that I have seen including this one to actually address that question suggests that a lot of the criticism of Israel on these pages and elsewhere is more an emotional tribal identification ritual than a legit coherent thought-out intellectual position.
Enjoy your day, boys!
That is exactly it.
What would you have done after October 7th. What’s your answer?
It’s an illegitimate question, like “Have you stopped beating your wife?” I have thought that Likud policy was wrong for decades; ask them how to fix it, not me.
Nevertheless, I’ll answer your hypothetical with an equally hypothetical answer: since Israel has had to evacuate border areas, allow the UN and NGOs to set up there to feed and shelter displaced civilians from Gaza. Refugees can be searched and screened at border crossings. Guarantees of return would be backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., EU. That would deprive Hamas of ‘human shields’. Scale back offensive operations to allow safe passage for non-combatants. Negotiate for the release of hostages; in return, Israel should release Palestinians held more than, say, 30 days without being charged.
First of all, Israel cannot and will not be able to "destroy this existential enemy" since most of its leadership are in another sovereign country a couple of thousand miles away. Therefore, as a rhetorical exercise, this is already meaningless.
As a counter, I'd like to ask, if you consider their actions up to this point to be acceptable, what actions _wouldn't_ be acceptable under the circumstances you describe. Nuking Gaza City? Chemical and/or biological warfare? What are your uncrossable red lines?
So you do not have an answer? If you wish to criticize Israel's response as disproportionate or inappropriate, come up with an alternative approach for Netanyahu on October 8th that you consider proportional or appropriate, or your criticisms are not worth taking seriously.
And even though you refuse to answer my question, I will answer yours. Nukes and chemical weapons are unacceptable. Actual genocide would be unacceptable (you know, a deliberate and systematic effort aimed at killing all the residents of Gaza like shooting every person you see at a crowd at a music festival, for instance). Deliberately targeting places with no military use/presence with the intention of simply killing civilians.
And I do not think EVERYTHING the Israelis have done is good; the Israeli shutdown of food supplies was not appropriate but not red line territory. But by and large the Israelis are acceptable.
Netanyahu had the choice of a different path two decades ago, but he chose one that could never lead to peace or security for Israelis. He bears responsibility for his surreptitious support of Hamas as a means of dividing Palestinians and avoiding negotiations, and he bears responsibility for failing to defend the border while being preoccupied with his schemes to avoid justice.
It does seem that tango doesn't have an answer, so why should I answer that lobbing bombs and destroy apartment blocks are valid goals, if the objective is to save hostages?
@Crissa, I am not sure what I have not answered. I answered what my red lines were, and that I mostly but not 100% endorse the Israeli response. And the objectives included saving hostages but mostly it has been about destroying Hamas. Which, even you have to admit, is an evil organization.
Israel could have honestly and seriously sought to establish peace, something it has not yet tried.
“Israel does not want peace and that, if it had, it would have made peace with the Palestinian Authority (PA) long ago." – The former chief of Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad, Shabtai Shavit.
So you think Israel’s response after the 10/7 terror attacks should have been to “try to establish peace”?
Largely agreed Kevin. But it was interesting to see the international reaction. The anti-Israel crowd seemed very happy with the ruling, the Israelis not so much. About the only thing you did not mention which I thought important was that the Israelis were ordered to allow aid into Gaza, although they can probably claim that they are trying but Hamas is blocking it, etc. Overall, I was impressed by how the court ruled here.
At this point, I just hope the Israelis can ruin Hamas, because unless they do so (and it will be hard), we are just going to be back here time and time again with more death and destruction.
I have to believe that there is another path, because 'eliminating Hamas' is extremely improbable, and the attempt to do so is increasing support for it or its successor(s), spreading resentment and the desire for revenge among the surviving Gazans.
Tell us your other path in dealing with Hamas please @Ken.
The time to deal with Hamas would have been at the time of the Gazan 'civil war', to have intervened to defend the Palestinian Authority and preserved its control over both the West Bank and Gaza. That could only have been possible if there had been good-faith, ongoing contact between Israel and the PA, and a serious commitment by the Israeli government to have a negotiating partner.
Since we don’t have a time
Machine, what should Israel have done after 10/7?
Tango, why do you keep asking this?
They've done raids before, My complaints are that they don't release children after they've been arrested.
They've bombed before. My complaints are they do this in the urban area, with little regard for collateral damage.
They've not tried this thing called 'humanitarian aid' or 'recognizing sovereignty'.
You know, things that actually work.
One of the blocks to aid entering Gaza is that Israelis are protesting at the border to disallow it.
Except if you compare it to the ICJ's other rulings. They gave a similar one to Russia. And Syria. And Myanmar. Basically, the ruling confirms Israel as being, morally, no different from those three.
Remember, the "we're just fighin thuh terrorists" line is literally the same the Assad regime used. And it's getting the same legal response.
But the US supported the ICJ's previous rulings, but somehow Israel is exempt.
I've not heard that the US is stepping in to save Israel this time.
That doesn't actually seem to be what the international court said at all. According to the article that you linked to the court accepted that Israel had a right to take military action in Gaza, unlike Russia in Ukraine, but demanded more information to determine whether this constitutes a genocide, something that was always expected to take years to determine. Courts tend to move slowly, and it is a mistake to take the lack of a pretrial injunction as a non-guilty verdict. And in this case there was far from a dismissal of the charge.
It is interesting that even the Israeli judge chose to upbraid Israel on two of the accusations, disregard for the life of civilians, and the genocidal language of some of its leaders. Only Uganda gave Israel a clean bill of health.
There are good reasons why South Africa and the Palestinians seem happier with this ruling than the Netanyahu government does.
!00%. This was only a "plausibility ruling". And in this case, the court found the charge of genocide plausible enough to continue with the legal process.
I have no idea why Kevin is claiming otherwise.
trump dinged $83 million total in carroll case
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/26/nyregion/trump-carroll-defamation-trial
WTF? The Court didn't rule whether or not Israel was committing genocide at all. Because IT WASN'T ASKED TO at this stage. It did clearly rule that there was a plausible case to be made of genocide RIGHT NOW. Otherwise it wouldn't have imposed provisional measures. Even the Israeli judge considered that statements by Israeli officials showed a plausible case of genocidal intent and such statements should henceforth be prosecuted.
"Basically, the court ruled that Israel wasn't committing genocide but it needs to be careful not to start." That's not just a misreading of the ruling, it's a misreading of what the case was about to begin with.
Pro-Israels and pro-Palestinians can argue about the scope of the provisional measures (do they implicitly impose a ceasefire?) but nobody can seriously argue that South Africa lost and Israel won on the key question. The highest court in the world found with a stunning majority that the plausibility of genocide is so high that immediate action is required.
Sorry, Kevin, but this is a seriously and egregiously wrong headline. The court ruled that South Africa has standing and has won its case that there is enough evidence that Isreal may be engaged in genocide that interim measures are warranted. Isreal's ad hoc judge was in a 15-2 minority on almost all of the issues.
How can that be summarized as "Isreal basically won"?
This is yet another in the long-running series, "That think you're worried about (possible genocide in Gaza)? It's not a big deal to me, Kevin Drum."
*ThinG
The provisional measures requested by South Africa can be found here, on page 82.
I'm 100% certain the South African goal was to stop the war and stop the killing. It failed on both, in terms of its request of provisional measures.
For instance, (a) as noted by the WSJ article, it did not agree to stop Israel's military action, (b) it did not rule out the killing of Palestinians, presumably because some of them are Hamas, and (c) did not rule out the disruption of the lives of Gazans, including their displacement, presumably not wanting to dictate to Israel how to prosecute its military action.
I'm sure that, had the ICJ seen sufficient evidence that the war was criminal in nature, it would have ordered a stop to military action, per prior cases. Instead, the ICJ appears to believe that there are instances of genocide but on the whole, it is not Israel's intention to commit genocide.
This was not the question before it, so such an order would not be appropriate. However, it's first of six ordered measures is impossible to square with Isreal's current military tactics, so while not ordering a stop to the war entirely it is hard to comply with without a huge change in attitude and action.
This is the court's determination:
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
THE COURT,
Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this
Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; and
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
...
(2) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
...
(3) By sixteen votes to one,
The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
...
(4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of
urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;
...
(5) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
...
(6) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this
Order.
I'm not sure what you mean.
- Are you saying South Africa did not ask the ICJ to step in and order Israel to stop?
The first provisional measure South Africa sought was, "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza."
- Are you saying South Africa did not ask the ICJ to make a finding on genocide?
South Africa specified that "the following provisional measures in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the Genocide Convention. These measures are directly linked to the rights that form the subject matter of South Africa’s dispute with Israel."
To accept any provisional measure, the ICJ had to come to some findings.
If you carefully read the measures ordered by the ICJ as opposed to the ones they rejected, they in fact did make two judgments: (a) a formal finding of prima facie of genocide, and (b) an informal finding that there wasn't enough evidence to show that Israel's war was not genocidal in nature.
I just mean "the war was criminal in nature". They were not asked to reject an Isreali right to self defense.
The court did not order a cease fire, granted that was a specific request of south africa's. But they did order a lot of things that will be difficult to do without one.
You're splitting hairs. All the ICJ requested was that Israel abide by the specific requirements spelled out by the Rome Statute / UN Convention on Genocide.
The Court stated that it did not yet have the information necessary to rule it a genocide, but that it is "plausible" that it is a genocide.
And by the time they finalize their findings, the war will be over. So what's your point?
Graeme Wood sums it up best:
And yet, only one side is destroying entire neighborhoods.
The rocket excuse is bullshit. Like complaining to someone to stop throwing punches as they're being stabbed and gutted.
It is. But that's how the laws of war work. We, the US, already have the green light to fire dozens of missiles at Houthis and destroy entire buildings -- no damage necessary on the part of the US fleet in the Red Sea.
The law of proportionality would be cited, but that's not going to be used as the basis of a war crime anytime soon.
Can you imagine how much better the world would be without all these religious fanatics?
No, because you keep showing up with them.
Yes, it gloriously marched into WW II with no religious motivation whatsoever. And into so many other wars. It seems to me religion used to be a flag and a trumpet for conquest and plunder, until kings and presidents discovered they could do those without paying the priest.
True the settlers are religious fanatics and so are Hamas but would they be less extreme if they were secular? I doubt it. In fact most terrorist groups in Israel/Palestine used to be secular, from Irgun and Stern on the Jewish side to the PLO and FDLP on the Palestinian one.
Kevin, for this war you should avoid US news, particularly the Wall Street Journal.
The Court did repeat that it was "plausible" that Israel was committing genocide, and called upon Israel to stop doing what it is doing: implying that what it is doing is genocide.