International court of justice stops short of granting South Africa’s request to order immediate ceasefire

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.

  • blunderworld@lemmy.caEnglish
    235·
    10 months ago

    So many pedantic asshats on lemmy who spend hours arguing about which word to use. We’re witnessing an unprecedented loss of innocent lives on a massive scale, and it’s being treated like a fucking reality tv show on the global stage. These are real people with families, careers, dreams… Just like the rest of us.

    I honestly don’t care what we call it. Just stop murdering civilians.

    • barsoapEnglish
      41·
      10 months ago

      Overview of the pedanticism: The ultimate question here is whether Israel is guilty of genocide, or mere war crimes. The whole thing hinges on intent, which will have to be proven, which is why it is expected that the ICJ will take years to reach a verdict. A whole international court, 16 judges, uncountably many lawyers, years.

      Commenters here trying to adjudicate that distinction between wanking sessions is, frankly speaking, presumptuous. From both sides.

  • BringMeTheDiscoKing@lemmy.caEnglish
    83·
    10 months ago

    Ya know what word has lost all meaning? “Antisemetic.” Last I heard it wasn’t defined as “anything the current government of Israel disagrees with.” But the current government sure wants it to be defined that way. I wonder how those who have actually faced antisemetism feel about it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    3·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    “The court is also of the view that Israel must take measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to the members of the Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip,” the US judge said.

    “The court further considers that Israel must 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.”

    Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defence minister, whose call for a total siege of Gaza as part of a battle against “human animals” was noted by the court on Friday, said the ICJ had “granted South Africa’s antisemitic request”.

    It recalls that the military operation conducted by Israel after 7 October 2023 has resulted inter alia in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale.

    The 1948 genocide convention, enacted after the mass murder of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, defines it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

    A Reuters report on Thursday said the director of the US CIA and his Israeli counterpart would meet Qatari officials in the coming days for talks on a second potential Gaza hostage deal and a pause in fighting.

    The original article contains 1,066 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
      86·
      10 months ago

      Maybe because this objectively IS an actual genocide and as such, claiming otherwise IS misinformation.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
          75·
          10 months ago

          Whether or not the Gaza genocide is a genocide depends on the definition of genocide as per the Genocide Convention , not similarity to other genocides. The definition of genocide is

          any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

          • Killing members of the group ✅️
          • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; ✅️
          • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ✅️
          • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; ✅️
          • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. ❌️

          In conclusion: it is so ridiculously clear that it’s a genocide that you literally have to be completely ignorant of what a genocide is or lying on purpose to claim otherwise.

          • barsoapEnglish
            32·
            10 months ago

            Genocide requires intent to destroy a group, otherwise it’s just war crimes. Which is btw why SA didn’t bring the case in earlier: Israeli members of government hadn’t run their mouth about the seed of Amalek and stuff yet.

              • barsoapEnglish
                21·
                10 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.worldEnglish
                  22·
                  10 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.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
              22·
              10 months ago

              Actually the definition of genocide is quite fluid

              No it’s not.

              bunch of examples of single event mass murder

              That clearly ain’t it. Just stop already.

              Please think because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

              Take your own advice. You can’t possibly be this obtuse.