In an interim judgment delivered on Friday, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention.

The court stopped short of granting South Africa’s request to order an immediate ceasefire to the war, which has destroyed much of the Gaza Strip and killed more than 25,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities.

The ruling is not the final word from the court on whether Israel’s actions amount to genocide, but it provides a strong indication that the judges believe there is a credible risk to Palestinians under the genocide convention. Granting South Africa’s application for special measures, the court did not have to find whether Israel had committed genocide, which will be determined at a later date, but only that its acts were capable of falling within the genocideconvention and that urgent preventive action was necessary.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Let me play devil’s advocate for a second:

      “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy”

      Can be said about buildings, not just humans or a people. It is militarily necessary to destroy those buildings, Hamas is using them as bases.

      Smotrich

      may have genocidal intent, but he’s finance minister, his utterances do not match government policy or statements by relevant ministers. He has been reprimanded (if he hasn’t, make sure that he has before using this argument)

      David Azoulai

      Is a mayor. Of a town. See Smotrich, times a hundred.

      bombing evacuation zones

      Hamas used those zones strategically. It’s a pity it had to be done but it was militarily necessary, Hamas is to blame for the deaths by using civilians as shields.


      I would recommend to take another approach: Read South Africa’s case against Israel. It’s much, much much more water-tight than what you came up with. If you had been the one filing the case you would not have gotten a preliminary order, Israel’s lawyers would have torn your case apart in mid-air and the ICJ would have had no choice but to throw it out.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you had been the one filing the case before the ICJ you would not have gotten a preliminary order

        Well, duh! I’m not a lawyer. I’m just a guy on the internet wasting my time pointing out the obvious to the wilfully obtuse.