Searching for information on the International Court of Justice hearings yielded an Israel-sponsored ad calling the ongoing genocide hearing against it “meaningless.”


Israel is defending itself against allegations that its siege of Gaza is a genocide with Google search ads, in what appears to be a world first.

A Google search for the ongoing hearing against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) yielded an ad calling South Africa’s genocide case against it “meaningless” and linking to an Israeli government website for some users on Thursday. Motherboard viewed the ad, which appears above news coverage of the hearing being held in the Hague in the Netherlands. Google told Motherboard it reviewed the ad against its policies and did not take any action.

The ad was first noted on X when a user posted a screenshot of their Google search for “icj” which yielded a sponsored ad titled “Israel response to Hague ICJ” above the Google information panel for the ICJ. The ad includes subheadings of “October 7th: The Invasion” and “The North Border,” as well as survivor testimonies and resources.

Motherboard was not able to replicate the search using only the term “ICJ,” but was able to find the ad when searching “ICJ Israel.” The ad’s descriptive text reads in full, “SA’s claim is meaningless—the malicious blood libel advanced by South Africa seeks to slander the State of israel. South Africa’s claim lacks any factual or legal basis and renders meaningless.”

The ad links to the Israeli government website govextra.gov.il. The page lists information about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack which killed 1,200 Israelis, and a video claims that “Israel is doing everything in its power to prevent harm to innocent civilians in Gaza and is acting according to international humanitarian law.”

read more: https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b48q/israel-defends-itself-against-hague-genocide-allegations-with-google-ads

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members’_Protection_Act

    You have some exciting learning to do! The above act, also known colloquially as the “Hague Invasion Act” gives the president power to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”.

    So it’s not nonsense to suggest the US would rather invade the ICJ than recognize such a ruling.

    • hottari@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hold on there, the ICJ is not a country you can invade!

      And as I said earlier, ICC & ICJ are 2 different institutions.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Do you think such technical arguments are relevant to the question of whether the USA will abide by an ICJ ruling?

          • ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            A lot of these countries are at least ally of the US if not pupets, don’t count on those to do anyting about it if the US decide that they don’t care what the ICJ says.

            As for the coutries that aren’t, what they can do is very limited, they can place embargos and apply sanctions but that’s about it, they certainly won’t perform any military actions against the US even if they are in theory able to because they aren’t stupid and understand that a war with the US won’t end well for them even if they win.

            Even without going that far, the actions that can be taken against the US are limited because since in the real world coutries aren’t closed off pocket universes and are rather part of the same world and all connected by economy, politics, history and geography in some ways, any actions taken by one country against an other will have consequances for the PERPETRATOR of those actions as well.

            • hottari@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              A lot of these countries are at least ally of the US if not pupets, don’t count on those to do anyting about it if the US decide that they don’t care what the ICJ says.

              Don’t flutter yourself too much.

              If today the ICJ rules that Palestinians have been victims of genocide, that war is ending in the next few days/weeks.

              You can take that to the bank.

              • ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                If today the ICJ rules that Palestinians have been victims of genocide, that war is ending in the next few days/weeks.

                This is naive. Like we keep teling you, the US has made it a habit to go against decisions from intrenational institutions like the UN, the ICJ etc. Nothing has ever happened to them as a consequance of that behavior. If they decide to keep backing Israel’s genicide anyway, which they without a doubt will, there will be very little consequances for them at best.

                • hottari@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  And I will keep reminding you that Israel is not the US in this context.

                  But the US can fully back and support a genocidal “war” that came to an end all they want after Israel is expunged from Palestine.

            • hottari@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              10 months ago

              Case is against Israel. What the US wants and doesn’t want doesn’t really matter here.

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                Have you not paid attention to the last several decades? Israel has the nuke thanks to the USA despite international law.

                • hottari@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  There’s no international law forcing and/or forbidding any country from building nukes.

                  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    There is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty to stop nuclear countries from transferring the technology