A momentus decision by the ICJ that is likely to start the political dynamics to end Israel's genocidal war on Gaza: there should not be an Israeli exception to the prevention of genocide.
Some initial thoughts:
Some initial thoughts:
ICJ dismissed Israel's arguments re jurisdiction, it ignored Israel's attempts to obfuscate genocidal statements, it made no mention of Israel's argument re self-defence because it is irrelevant. Thus, it mocks the western mantra of "Israel has a right to defend itself".
The court accepted that South Africa made a strong case that is compelling enough to proceed to the merits stage, thus putting all states on notice that there is possible situation of genocide and there is a duty to prevent it.
South Africa has pierced and cracked the political wall-to-wall support to Israel's savage war in the West. Western media barely mentioned genocidal statements before S.A. initiated its litigation.
Now the ICJ is also contributing to the crumbling of pathetic and uncritical narrative that western states and media have adopted since Oct 7th. Western narrative over the war is over!
Magazines versed in war propaganda like @theconomist called the S.A. application "flimsy", US, Canadian, German, UK officials and spokesmen dismissed the "premise" of the S.A. case. Now the ICJ shows they were pathetic.
EU, UK, German, and US Officials who met and indulged Herzog, Israel's president, and rushed to photos with Yoav Gallant, now need to confront the fact that their statements are exhibit A in the genocide case. Will European officials meet Israel's president now?
The court recited the UN and UNRWA statements that were ignored and dismissed by Israel and its backers. It thus gives them more prominence and credence.
The ICJ rejected Israel's claims regarding humanitarian assistance, thus Israel will have to show a major change, and ICJ order Israel should take immediate and effective measures to allow humanitarian assistance. This will require scaling down military actions and bombardment.
The order to cease from genocidal acts including those that are calculated to bring about the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, having cited famine and mass displacement, means also that Israel have to drastically change its military action.
Propaganda outlets like @nytimes who published puff pieces, claiming Aharon Barak the Israeli judge is not an emissary of his state, also stand disgraced. He was in a tiny minority.
This ruling comes at a time in which there is an increase in the controversy over the war (war aims not achieved, hostages families protests, start of anti-war demonstrations, accusations that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his political survival).
What does the ICJ ruling mean for western legal systems? It will increase the legal activism inside domestic states in Europe and US against arms trade and complicity in the genocide.
The increase in internal disagreement over the war and external opprobrium against Israel, following the ICJ order, is likely to create the dynamics that may bring a prompt end to the genocidal war.
Should Israel dismiss the case as it dismissed before the ICC opening an investigation, and as it dismissed HRW/ Amnesty reports on apartheid, it will confirm its status as a pariah state, a rogue state.
What does the ruling mean to Zionism? Zionists treated 7 Oct as an attack on all Jews in the world and defended Israel against all charges. This shows that zionism has an eliminations logic that gets accentuated in such conditions. Zionism is racism and genocide.
What does the ruling mean for anti-war demonstrations in London and elsewhere? It will give them backing and invigorate them despite the tabloids and corrupt pro-genocide political class from Labour to Tories.
What does ruling mean for BDS? More efforts now need to be made to boycott Israeli academia and economy to pressure Israel to end the apartheid and end the genocide and grant equality and freedom to all.
A question follwoing the ICJ ruling (on the risk to genocide in Gaza) to Western universities and academics:
What does it mean for the *liberal* character of these universities that not a single one called for a cease fire?
What does it mean for the *liberal* character of these universities that not a single one called for a cease fire?
Regarding lack of cease fire measure: 1. there was no cease fire order in the Myanmar case. 2. the Russia v. Ukraine case is not a genocide case. 3. Courts are reluctant to order measures that will not be enforced exposing their weakness.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
