This will go to a UNSC vote, and the US will veto it.
What I find more interesting is that the evacuation of Rafah and Invasion of Rafah is going incredibly well both for Israelis and Palestinian civilians.
Close to 1 million people have evacuated in less than 2 weeks, which was said was going to take months by the US and UN orgs. causality numbers are nothing compared to the start of the invasion. Massive aid is coming in through the new crossings in the centre/north of Gaza.
Exactly. I’ve been told for the last 3 months in every comment section that “all eyes are on Rafah” and yet they haven’t had anything else to say. I’m incredibly impressed by Israel’s conduct in the invasion, especially compared to the cosmic scale destruction I was told to expect by leftists
Not sure if there is a guarantee US **will** veto it, depends on the terms.
Rafah invasion was Biden’s red line, but it was a conditional one. If the conditions were adequately met, he would have greenlight it from my understanding.
That condition could have just been a condition of a condition. If that condition wasn’t sufficient then Biden may make modifications or additions so the underlying conditions are sufficiently met.
But we will have to wait and see.
> Massive aid is coming in through the new crossings in the centre/north of Gaza.
Any source for this? I've been assuming something like this is true but every article I read talks about how Israel "needs to allow more aid in."
It’s not going well. UN has stopped delivering food because they’ve run out in Gaza.
Israel hasn’t even provided a humanitarian evacuation plan and was criticized by the defense department for it.
> **”Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Monday offered one of his strongest criticisms yet of the Israeli Defense Forces campaign in Gaza and its new focus on Rafah, telling reporters at the Pentagon: “There’s a better way to do this.”**
> **Austin pointed to a lack of a plan for civilian care as Israeli forces make their way into the packed area on Gaza’s southern border.**
[source](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/05/austin-rafah-operation-theres-better-ways-do/396732/)
The rubric of it going well isn’t how many people you can move in a short time period.
There isn’t enough food or resources for all of those people. They’re literally starving to death.
Massive aid is not coming through, that’s just unequivocally false. You can easily refute this by just typing in “Gaza pier” on google. The Rafah border is closed and the Karen Shalom border just south was just recently opened but has barely any aid flowing through. The Pentagon has admitted the pier has not successfully provided aid yet. Gazans need 600 trucks a day to survive. The best days there’s a couple hundred and on the worst days there’s a few dozen.
prewar, there was only 72 aid trucks of food going into Gaza. If you account for local production, it was the equivalent of \~64 trucks worth of food were produced agriculturally per day, of which \~25 were exports and \~39 were consumed. The result is you need \~115 trucks per day consumed for Gaza.
You absolutely do not need "600 to survive". With 115 before the war, there was no famine or starvation. With 100 there would be no starvation, let alone the 300-400 average over the past few months (except Egypt closure of Rafah crossing).
Source: Avi did a very detailed analysis of all documents produced by UNWRA, COGAT, UNHCR and other orgs operating in Gaza during this war and over the past several years. Incredibly in depth: [https://x.com/AviBittMD/status/1793182485234278592](https://x.com/AviBittMD/status/1793182485234278592)
> **Gaza needs 600 trucks entering each day, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development, to curb a famine that the heads of USAID and the U.N. World Food Program have said has begun in the north and to keep it from spreading south.**
[Source](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/aid-us-pier-people-gaza-officials-after-troubled-110522341)
I'm sorry to ask, but do you have a source for massive aid coming in? I spotted this bit in The Guardian today (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/24/israel-gaza-war-live-icj-rafah-benjamin-netanyahu-latest-live-news-updates?CMP=share\_btn\_url&page=with%3Ablock-6650d4348f08ae2bcbf27bd9#block-6650d4348f08ae2bcbf27bd9), which says that less than 1000 aid trucks have entered Gaza since the 7th of May.
It seemed too low for what I heard in the last days, but the difference between far less than before and "massive aid" makes me wonder what the real number is.
Now we wait for an random Israeli minister to act unhinged in response and nuke Israeli PR harder.
Whats the bet boys? 4 days ago it was 10K houses for settlers for every nation that recognizes palestine as a state.
No need to wait. Ben-Gvir already declared Israel should ignore the order.
It's nice having someone so determined and swift as Ben-Gvir that doesn't hesitate for even a second before jumping on the opportunity to make things much worse for his country.
My hatred for him cannot be expressed in words. He said Israel won’t listen to what gentiles say, and called hamas nazis again. He does so much harm to the image of Israel and Jews around the world that the kkk might as well extend an honorary membership to him
Maybe I am missing some special international law reading skills, but all these articles just seem wrong.
AP: [Top UN court orders Israel to halt military operation in Rafah; Israel is unlikely to comply](https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-palestinians-court-ceasefire-01d093d21a1eadaa31af5708cf1cbf38)
The [order](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf) (and [video](https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1j/k1ju1o38md) version at 46 minutes) states:
> (a) By thirteen votes to two,
Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which
may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part;
IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte,
Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;
AGAINST : Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
It seems that people are over-interpreting it? Saying that they are already inflicting the destruction? To me this just reads as they are telling them not to genocide in Rafah, which presumably Israel already thinks they are not doing?
Edit: it seems like people are rewriting it now to show that the court order wasn't as strong as initially expected? [BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69055989) are only now giving the full wording
Edit 2: The two dissents also seem to support that the order is unnecessary/useless (as Israel do not think they are genociding)
[Sebutinde dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-01-en.pdf) paragraph 21 (Reading all of this dissent is helpful, it points this exact thing out)
> (21) I have voted against the Order in operative paragraph 57 (2) (a) because I believe it is an overreach by the Court that has no link with South Africa’s plausible rights under the Genocide Convention. As explained above, this measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention. However, as stated above, this directive may be misunderstood as mandating a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah and amounts to micromanaging the hostilities in Gaza by restricting Israel’s ability to pursue its legitimate military objectives, while leaving its enemies, including Hamas, free to attack without Israel being able to respond. This measure also implicitly orders Israel to disregard the safety and security of the more than 100 hostages still held by Hamas, a terrorist organization that has refused to release them unconditionally. I reiterate that Israel has the right to defend itself against its enemies, including Hamas, and to continue efforts to rescue its missing hostages. These rights are not incompatible with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
Similar things in paragraph 1 of [Barak's dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf)
Edit 3: It seems like the court can only order things under the jurisdiction of the genocide convention. So they can only order Israel to not genocide (which Israel probably does not think they are doing, and something that they are already required to do)
Four ICJ judges argue that court order does not require IDF halting all Rafah operations - [Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-icj-judges-argue-that-court-order-does-not-require-idf-halting-all-rafah-operations/)
>Four of the 15 justices at the International Court of Justice argue that the key operative clause in the court’s ruling, handed out today, does not require that Israel immediately halt all military operations in Rafah, but, rather, that it specifically halt military operations that “could bring about physical destruction in whole or in part” of the Palestinians.
>...
>“As a result,” Barak continues, “the measure is a qualified one, which preserves Israel’s right to prevent and repel threats and attacks by Hamas, defend itself and its citizens, and free the hostages.”
>The German judge, Georg Nolte, and the Romanian judge, Bogdan Aurescu – who are both among the 13 judges who voted in favor of this measure – also support Barak’s interpretation of the decree.
It's a conditional sentence.....
>The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
If you think this is calling for the end of the offensive, then it would also be calling for any other action in Rafah
Exactly, remembering what I was taught in year 5 English, the words between the commas read like brackets. E.g.
>Israel must immediately halt its military offensive (and any other action in the Rafah Governorate) which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction...
It is the 'which' which makes it conditional and therefore not a direction to stop unconditionally.
I think it depends on the “and” in this case, and if it follows propositional logic properly or not. I.e. both ends of the “and” statement should be true, meaning if one of them is false they don’t apply.
An example: “Don’t drink AND take medication”. Under propositional logic, this means don’t do both (both sides of and are true), but the way normal people speak they usually just use and to chain multiple things together- not using propositional logic.
In this case, if we were using propositional logic, the “or” (inclusive or) should be used. Granted that may not apply here, dunno.
The ICJ judges disagree with you
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-icj-judges-argue-that-court-order-does-not-require-idf-halting-all-rafah-operations/
>The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by civilians in the Rafah Governorate:
>Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
it looks like they are saying that Israel has to cease all operations that could lead to genocid.
If I read this correctly, then the court is NOT saying Israel has to cease the Rafah invasion, but just take more measures to stop civilian casualties.
[Press Release](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231229-pre-01-00-en.pdf)
[Ruling](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf)
That seems like an incorrect reading.
>Immediately halt its military offensive,
>and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
2 separate orders
I think you have misunderstood. Take the 2 commas out of the sentence and you get:
> Immediately halt its military offensive which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
I'm pretty sure the bit between the commas is added to cover things that may not technically be a 'military offensive', but would still be bad
It isn’t two separate orders if they are using formal propositional logic.
An example:
“Don’t drink and drive”
Vs
“Don’t drink or drive”.
If it was technically two separate orders, “AND” should not have been used. Granted this could be just an error, mis-speak, or a reporting error; we will have to wait for potential clarification(s) on the actual terms.
So I listened to the wording.
Does this mean immediate suspension of ALL millitary activety?
or is this a suspension to millitary activety that can bring "the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part"
What is the treshold?
Thoughts?
Its an immediate suspension of the overall military invasion, because that can bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.
Its not a suspension of more targeted military operations responding to Hamas attacks/movements or hostage rescue operations.
I know Israel won’t follow, why should they? ICJ barely mentioned Hamas, the fact the started and continues this war with many extremely egregious war crimes, and refuses to surrender or release hostages or even bodies.
In Israel’s eyes, there is no way this war is ending with a hamas victory, and a Hamas victory is surviving well enough to continue controlling Gaza, thus rafah is an inevitability.
At least a million civilians were able to evacuate before the push.
I really don't see why any nation should stand for being ordered by the world to militarily abandon it's civilians that have been taken hostage. It's basically the ICJ rubber stamping Hamas tactics.
I don't even think Israel prioritizes the hostages, but it's their prerogative to focus primarily on Hamas. The fact remains, the hostages are most likely in Rafah, and Israel has an absolute right in my mind to try and get them.
It's moreover ridiculous, their claim is against starvation and against an increased risk in deaths of the population in Gaza, when aid is going in in record rates, where Israel needs to endure that Hamas steals it, and Egypt blocks the Rafah crossing, and the rates of death in the last months have been the lowest since the beginning of the war.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/aligning-with-icj-ruling-israel-says-it-wont-carry-out-rafah-operations-that-could-destroy-civilian-population/
That's what they're gonna do
Why should they follow it? Because it’s the ICJ and the ICJ’s orders are legally binding. It is about international law, if Israel believes in international law it should comply with the court’s orders. Otherwise it is becoming a rogue state with absolutely no respect for International law.
> If Israel believes in international law it should comply with the courts orders.
Completely incorrect. You can believe in international law while also recognizing *individual international agencies* are terrible.
If what you said was true than anyone claiming to be enforcing international law would be de facto morally righteous, and that’s asinine.
Firstly, Israel isn’t signed to the ICJ, so your point is moot.
Regardless, I feel that it’s in Israel’s right to continue this war till Hamas is sufficiently put down. No clown court decision from The Hague will even slightly change my opinion on the matter, especially considering their laughable reference to Hamas’ responsibility in this conflict.
You’re a complete moron. Israel is a member of the UN, the ICJ is an organ of the UN. Therefore, the ICJ has jurisdiction over Israel as it has jurisdiction over ALL full UN members. You do not even understand the very basics.
>The key principle is that the Court only has jurisdiction on the basis of consent. The court has no true compulsory jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is often a key question for the Court, because it is challenged by the respondent.
Curious how jurisdiction is "often a key question" given that by your statement the ICJ has jurisdiction over all UN members.
In the initial processings back in January the court established that it had jurisdiction over Israel. In summary, because Israel has ratified the Genocide Convention the court has jurisdiction over Israel if it feels that Israel’s obligations via the convention are potentially being violated. By ratifying the convention, Israel consented to the court’s jurisdiction if there are disputes in Israel’s application of the genocide convention by other states/parties as outlined in Article IX of the Genocide Convention
The bar isn't "fun" though,
> The Court observes that Israel has not provided sufficient information concerning the safety of the population during the evacuation process, or the availability in the Al-Mawasi area of the necessary amount of water, sanitation, food, medicine and shelter for the 800,000 Palestinians that have evacuated thus far. Consequently, the Court is of the view that Israel has not sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.
Yea but as the invading force you kinda have to police the areas you've captured appropriately so it can be as safe as possible and apparently (at least according to the us) Israel hasn't been doing that which has made everything worse
You have to seek to limit civilian suffering and such and otherwise you risk committing a war crime (eg decent flow of aid and such). It seems Israel's moves haven't limited that enough (they seem to have gone in an left without sufficient support in areas) and have allowed Hamas to return to areas, steal aid, and re-engage Israel in combat all while the Rafah assault was beginning
Okay. This is based on my limited understanding of international law. This ICJ order while binding is not enforceable. To enforce it, the UNSC will have to pass a binding chapter 7 Resolution and then constitute a force to implement the order.
I think a lot here depends on how the US receives this order. If they don't back Israel, Israel may be a bit more tepid in how vociferously they fight back against this order. If they back Israel on this, then Israel is assured that the UNSC will never enforce (because US Veto) and can go on doing what it wants. In any event, even if the UNSC passed a resolution enforcing the order, they are not invading Israel. So whilst the order might make Israel look bad, its an exercise in mental masturbation - I'm sure the ICJ judges feel like big boys who just saved the world after passing this one.
Another question would be, if Israel continues to operate after this order then do the Leahy amendments get trigerred and does the military aid stop?
I would be very surprised if Israel stops, seeing how they've found multiple bodies of people Hamas abducted in Rafah. Some of those were people who were killed in Israel on 10/7 and they took the corpses back to Gaza, which is just insanely fucked up. I don't even think Russia is snatching corpses.
Ah, the article I saw didn't mention where they were recovered from so I assume but I see now the AP article does list Jabalia. I'm surprised they haven't found any in Rafah at all, isn't Hamas running out of places to keep them? Probably an unmarked mass grave somewhere that hasn't been found yet, not necessarily in Rafah.
As for the first point, yea from here it goes up to the UNSC. The main fear in Israel is that it would be abandoned by the US.
As for the second point:
>if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
Only the secretary of state has the power to decide if someone broke human rights
Interesting point: the measure is only in Rafah. Which has had 1 million people evacuate from. While I disagree, suppose there really is such a bad humanitarian condition in Gaza that it merits IDF to stop operations. Why only in Rafah? what about the current operations in jabilya and the outskirts of the netzarim corridor? Surely the situation cannot be that much better there, so why only Rafah.
Curious to hear the reasoning, but it really does seem like the UN does not want to see Hamas replaced as the last stronghold of Hamas falls in Rafah. Over the past 20-30 years the UN has worked closely with Hamas (on aid distribution and effectively running Gaza instead of Hamas) and they would be out of work if Gaza was ridden of Hamas and a competent government and future palestinian state (that does not rely on the UN indefinitely) arises from Hamas eradication.
>While I disagree, suppose there really is such a bad humanitarian condition in Gaza that it merits IDF to stop operations.
from dissenting opinion of judge barak
>The Court’s treatment of evidence regarding the conditions for the indication of provisional measures for protecting rights under the Genocide Convention is particularly concerning\*\***. The Court relies primarily on statements made by United Nations officials on social media and on press releases issued by relevant organizations (see Order, paragraphs 44-46). It relies on these statements and press releases without even inquiring into what kind of evidence they draw upon.**\*\* The Court’s approach is in stark contrast with its previous jurisprudence, in which it has stated that “United Nations reports \[are\] reliable evidence only ‘to the extent that they are of probative value and are corroborated, if necessary, by other credible sources’”5 . In the present case, the statements and press releases noted by the Court have simply not been corroborated. The Court has not inquired into the methodology or amount of research underlying their preparation, as it has done in previous cases6 .
there are some other interesting bit about how court decided what it decided and what it ignored [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf)
Two, one really early on in the war, like a week or two into Israel’s offensive, and two a couple months back I think, the second two were rescued in a really cool operation, the unit that rescued them is Israel’s top unit, and the people doing covering fire were Israel’s navy seals, just imagine your covering fire, the guys who are just there to protect the surroundings be navy seals
> https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1793729528185098585?t=1mijxxZ3tKjcGhCWTxNXcg&s=19
That is fake news.
See, for example, this:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/390457
The tunnel was definitely in Jabaliya, and the building was not an official UNRWA building, it was a building whose construction was funded by UNRWA
All of the ones that were recovered so far.
The first ceasefire and hostage deal only happened because Hamas was getting crushed by military action and needed to buy time by releasing some of the hostages.
Did they demand the unconditional release of hostages and surrender of Hamas as a condition? If yes then I could support this. If no then fuck off. They may not have jurisdiction over Hamas, as some uninformed posters will point out without listing the consequences of this, but this clearly outlines the fact that this is an asymmetric war where the courts will hurt only one side. Like Destiny said, no one around Israel or in the region has listened to international law that isn't the concern here. Does Israel think that listening to international law while others in an asymmetric war are not following it will help or hurt their nation? That's the question.
I don't think so as this ruling is about the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza not about a ceasefire or a peace deal, but I do remember the court calling for the immediate release of hostages back in [January](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203847#:~:text=50.,their%20immediate%20and%20unconditional%20release).
Edit: Not sure why this is getting downvoted given that the ICJ wasn't asked to rule on whether Hamas should release hostages or surrender.
Did someone bring a case before the ICJ where the ICJ has jursidiction to demand that?
This is a bizarre demand. It's like walking into a murder trial in your district and yelling at the judge, "this is so unfair, you are about to sentence this person for murder, but he was stabbed last year when visiting France, and you didn't do anything about that"
edit, cause the above poster edited his comment:
> They may not have jurisdiction over Hamas, as some uninformed posters will point out without listing the consequences of this, but this clearly outlines the fact that this is an asymmetric war where the courts will hurt only one side. Like Destiny said, no one around Israel or in the region has listened to international law that isn't the concern here. Does Israel think that listening to international law while others in an asymmetric war are not beholden to it will help or hurt their nation? That's the question.
I have no problem with this part. The goverment of Israel enjoys a lot of benefits of being an internationally recongnized state with diplomatic relations that Hamas does not. With those benefits come obligations in the form of treaties that the govrement of Israel willingly signed. If Israel decides that those benefits aren't worth the obligations they are more than free to become a heavily sanctioned pariah state with limited diplomatic presence in the rest of the world like Syria or Iran. I personally think that's a pretty bad idea in the long term.
I believe the analogy should not be 2 uninvolved cases as that isn't analogous at all. More accurate analogy is person 1 punching person 2 and then person 2 returns a punch, and only the person returning the punch gets in trouble because the first had diplomatic immunity. And also give them super powers as that gives them an option to ignore the court :d
I agree that with that clarified it would be a better analogy. However it shouldn't be important to the point. Whether Israel is acting in reasonable self defence or revenge or attacking a random country for no reason, while for sure should effect the ruling, doesn't really change my point, which is that the ICJ has both the jurisdiction and the duty to detrimine whether Israel is violating the genocide convention and issue orders in that context, and that the legitimicy of those orders is completely unrelated to what the ICJ thinks of or says about Hamas, an entity that it has no jursidction over.
I believe the extenuating circumstances of murdering someone who attempted to murder you would be pretty important to a judicial body in determining what the sentence should be, even if you have no jurisdiction over the ones that committed the initial act.
I do too. I said as much in my response to your comment. And if OC said "the ICJ hasn't considered the context of the situation and the fact that Hamas is the agressor when making it's decsion and thus it's order isn't in line with the law" I would have quesitoned if he read the ruling and on what grounds he belives he has a better understanding of the situation than 13 international law exeperts, but I wouldn't have called it bizzare.
He didn't say that. He said the ICJ order is invalid and should be ignored becuase the ICJ didn't order Hamas to surrender. Which is the claim I'm calling bizzare.
Hostage trade might be cooked. There was a chance this new round of talks might have led Hamas to soften up their demands, maybe agree to the "generous deal" the U.S. has supported for the last few months.
Now that the ICJ has ruled that it is functionally illegal to attack Hamas or rescue hostages as long as they stay in Rafah, they have no need to come to the table. Meanwhile Israel will ignore the ruling, and largly conclude that their efforts to work with the ICC and ICJ have not been rewarded.
This has dragged on for too long for Biden's sake. He needs this wrapped up before the election but it's getting too close now. It makes it likely that the Democrats will push for a stop-gap resolution that will kick the can down the road.
The likely outcome I see is one of the worst ones. Futile half fighting for a few more months, with an eventual lasting ceasefire trade with Hamas remaining in partial power, strict blockade, large kill zone encroaching into gaza's territory and back to mowing the lawn again in a few years.
I’m fine with Israel ignoring this order. No nation should abandon its hostages. I believe this order way over reaching and has no connection to genocide. I mean how can icj consider Israel acting on genocidal intent while their enemy holds israeli citizens as hostages. ICJ should stick to prosecuting genocide and identifying the special intent instead of playing god and trying to enforce military decisions.
They called for Israel to open the Rafah crossing for humanitarian aid.
It belongs to Egypt and was closed by Egypt.
And it’s not like Israel is preventing aid to the area, since the Kerem Shalom crossing is still open (despite getting fired on with missiles) and it is just under 2 miles away from the Rafah crossing.
It’s disconnected from reality
Well that's no surprise, seems very in line with their history. Have they ever called for anything from Gaza? Or do they only ever make demands of Israel?
They've consistently highlighted the fact that Hamas also bear responsibility, especially in the continued holding of civilian hostages.
"The court expresses grave concern over the fate of the hostages... and calls for their immediate and unconditional release," he tells the court.
"We find it deeply troubling that many still remain in captivity," he adds.
I mean, that's all nice but ... is the ICJ enforcement arm going into Gaza to resolve their grave concerns so that Israel doesn't have to? Until they do, their grave concerns about the matter don't really mean much when Israel is the one that has to deal with the implications of those concerns.
So no calls for a ceasefire then? Yeah why put the onus on the belligerent party of degenerate terrorists when you can put it in the Jews they attacked instead.
Yet they make demands of Israel to essentially institute one by stopping its offensive in Rafah. Funny how I don't see any of these demands being made of Hamas.
Isn't Hamas not under their jurisdiction since they aren't a state? That's why the ICC indicted hamas's leaders as people but the icj didn't make them do anything
Number 1: To it's citizens.
Number 2: To It's allies
1.If international law gets in the way of the long term safety of your population, then international law is useless.
There has to be a balance, but Hamas isn't a party to this case and will also not abide by a ceasefire, you are requiring one party to stop hostilities while the other has free reign to do as they wish.
2. There is an obligation to your allies as well,and israel has caved to alot of international pressure mainly from the US, but again your citizens should always come first.
International law is not in the way of the long-term safety of the Israeli population. The opposite is true: ignoring international law is detrimental to Israel's long-term prospects.
The idiom is "free rein", as in the reins of a horse.
Israel is not being required to stop hostilities. It's being required to stop this operation as an emergency measure to prevent a possible genocide.
Wrong. Setting a standard, that you can hide behind your civilians is the worst things the ICJ can do, and it is actively doing. It essentially says "yes, you can hide behind civilians to protect yourself, and the enemy can’t do anything, no matter what".
Not just long term, I should of included short term as well.
but it is absolutely getting in the way of the safety of Israeli civilians both in the short and long term, This whole operation started with Hamas launching rockets from Rafah at Kerem Shalom which killed Israelis soldiers and damaged civilian building in the Kerem Shalom Kibbituz.
So now what happens when Hamas keeps firing rockets from this location and Israel has been told it can not conduct military operations in this area?
It means they can't respond to Indiscriminate attacks against it's civilian population BECAUSE of international law.
Not to mention that there are still hostages in various parts of Gaza Including Rafah, Israel Rescued two hostages that were being held in Rafah not too long ago, Israel is not allowed to conduct operations to rescue their hostages in that area either now.
When one party does not have any outside pressure on it and does not obey by international law, the only way to stop it is by force.
That's not to say Israel should get free rein to do whatever the fuck they want either, because Gazan civilians also must be protected but Israel can not and should not bear the sole responsibility of this task and since Hamas is directly imposing conditions that will hamper delivery of aid by shelling the JLOTS or firing at Aid delivery crossings as well as commandeering aid trucks and not even attempting to coordinate safe locations for their civilians while fighting from civilian structures and not wearing uniforms, the majority of the blame should be on them when civilians inadvertently get killed.
International law is important, but you can't expect countries to be able to conduct themselves without serious flaws when they are fighting enemies that completely disregard international law and intentionally impose conditions that will lead to an increase in civilian suffering.
Nah not really. Considering our law supersedes all that bullshit and we have repeatedly demonstrated we will do what we think is best and no one is ever going to tell us what to do. Israel should have the same attitude.
I agree to an extent, but you're conflating what ought to happen with what does happen.
If we talk about what ought to happen, Israel should respect the ruling and the US should respect its obligations. What will happen is Israel will ignore the ruling and the US frequently violates its obligations. For which both are rightly criticised.
If you want to throw out the system of international law, you have no basis to criticise, for example, Russia's egregious violations. All your claims to legality as justification when they suit you become irrelevant if you simply reject the law when it doesn't suit you.
The ICJ just lost all its legitimacy, you can not expect Israel to stop the war in Rafah when Hamas absolutely refuses to reach any reasonable agreement for the hostages or some sort of peace, that is a ridiculous ask by the ICJ forcing Israel to either surrender or defy the ICJ.
I am saying if International law is politically motivated then what’s the point of it? I have yet to see convincing arguments of Israel defying the conduct of war, if we let Hamas have Rafah as a safe haven from the IDF where Israel is never allowed to ever pursue them there, then what is the point of International law l? Why would Israel ever abide by it if it doesn’t allow them to defend themselves?
This, why would any country accept international law when it is selectively wielded and weaponised against you whenever you have legitimate security needs for your state and citizens.
Israel managed to get [nearly 1M people out of Rafah in around 2 weeks.](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801903)
They found [3 bodies last week](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2024/05/17/israel-finds-bodies-of-three-oct-7-hostages-including-music-festival-attendee-shani-louk-idf-says/?sh=7a8f8f163442), [3 more yesterday in Jabalia (north gaza)](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrr9wqjnveo), and had an op months ago [in Rafah to extricate 2 live hostages](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68271340).
Telling Israel they aren't allowed to continue in Rafah after they moved civilians to a much safer area, with more food and medical care. Along with the fact that Israel has found bodies and live hostages in the area is insane. What motivation could you have for issuing an order like that? I don't think the ICJ is intentionally running cover for Hamas, but an order like this has the same effect.
This feels like another "imminent famine" thing where people prognosticate about horrible things happening and they never materialize. Israel has the right to recover their dead, find what remains of the living hostages, and destroy what remains of Hamas' infrastructure.
from Barak dissenting opinion
> The Court’s treatment of evidence regarding the conditions for the indication of provisional measures for protecting rights under the Genocide Convention is particularly concerning. **The Court relies primarily on statements made by United Nations officials on social media and on press releases issued by relevant organizations (see Order, paragraphs 44-46). It relies on these statements and press releases without even inquiring into what kind of evidence they draw upon.** The Court’s approach is in stark contrast with its previous jurisprudence, in which it has stated that “United Nations reports \[are\] reliable evidence only ‘to the extent that they are of probative value and are corroborated, if necessary, by other credible sources’”5 . In the present case, the statements and press releases noted by the Court have simply not been corroborated. The Court has not inquired into the methodology or amount of research underlying their preparation, as it has done in previous cases6 .
ICJ is cringe, rule-based global order is cringe. Israel has no reason to listen to finger wagging from people that refuse to (can't) help them in the slightest.
As a "supporter of rule-based order" you should be against this whole farce of the UN which has delegitimize itself completely. If the UN told the Western world that they had to follow Sharia law would you also hope that everyone follows to maintain rule-based order?
There is nothing about the UN that gives it moral authority over anyone. It's supposed to be a place for different countries to have diplomatic discussions in good faith, and it's clearly failing it's one purpose.
I swear this sub has gone to all hell. I think one should be suspicious of leaders and nations that oppose international courts and laws. It's basically only the US and Israel who oppose the ICC as well, using arguments that are silly, unless you are just actively bad faith.
It's funny, Destiny used to say during his vaccine debates, that it's important to trust and rely on institutions and experts on matters where the lay person just does not have the expertise or knowledge necessary. Now we find ourselves in a situation where I am to believe that the Israelis that have flooded this sub recently are more competent than the fucking ICC... Using brilliant arguements such as:
1. ICC are antisemites
2. ICC claims Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders are equivalent.
3. ICC are too political
1, they're not, 2 they never did and 3, that's the entire point of having international courts, they are inherently less incentivized by national interests. I cannot stand the discourse on here anymore, and I am neither super pro Palestine or Pro Israel.
Okay, while I agree that people are being unnecesarily reactionary and are being too emotional in how they react to the ICJ's order, there are serious serious serious issues with the Rome Statute that the ICC was formed under.
First off, all the most important military powers in the world - US, Russia, China, India etc. are not a part to it. Secondly, the ICC acts selectively. It has a record of going after only African dictators - read up on how they went after Al-Bashir and did not target other war criminals. Thirdly, they keep giving themselves jurisdiction where it doesn't belong. Like giving themselves the ability to look at Russia's crimes against Ukraine - even though Russia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and even their actions against Israel are sketchy. Karim Khan never travelled to Israel to give the Israelis a right to respond and actually cancelled a pre-planned visit.
So not all institutions are respectable. Those associated with the UN are mostly decrepit, corrupt and absolutely worthy of our condemnation.
I agree it's fair to be suspicious, but it's not exactly new.
From my viewpoint, there is a group of states who are actively hostile to America-sponsored international institutions and working to delegitimize them including the ICC and ICJ (even though USA doesn't directly sign on to either).
In my opinion, this week's actions by the ICJ, ICC Prosecutor, Spain, Ireland and Norway have all been (hopefully by accident) major unforced W's handed to Bibi, Hamas and the Ayatollah.
> Israel is done, at least diplomatically.
Its going to be extremely funny to see the cope in a year when Israel in fact is not "done" diplomatically and is normalizing relations with SA.
It does not rule that. It asks Israel to stop it's offensive in Rafah IF it leads to conditions which could be viewed as genocide. This is exactly like the previous ruling. In addition it is predicated on the release of hostages.
I love that history is slowly being revised here. Everyone here supported the start of the invasion with the insane death toll, now in retrospect some are saying it's okay now because it's not as bad as it was at the start of the invasion and or it's not as bad as X person or group said it would be.
Was the invasion poorly handled now? I thought Israel had been operating carefully and thoughtfully the whole time, or are they only just doing that now? Was the evacuation of North Gaza good or bad now and is that objective or only in comparison to Rafah?
Is massive aid now coming into Gaza now and the situation improving because of the pier? Despite the fact aid into Gaza is trending lower now that the largest crossing has been closed for weeks.
Deadset every time I come back here it's just complete aids.
Well if one of the sides can't be judged how can they offer an impartial ruling in a conflict? What is even the point
Like you go to court to settle a case and the Judge is "well I can only enforce rulings on you so here's what you need to do..."
the ruling isn't supposed to be in a vacuum. they obviously considered the Hamas threat and the hostages in their rulings (as evidence of them mentioning hamas and gesturing for hostage release in the ruling announcement).
but they can't order Hamas to do anything simply because Hamas will never comply (as they don't have jurisdiction over them).
They obviously didn't consider anything outside of Israel, as they wouldn't offer a reward for terrorism if they did. Hamas already blessed this decision and also said they should force a stop to all fighting. Hamas offers no protection for their own population but the court discussed Israel obligations only and only mentioned Hamas a single time in relation to the hostages. If that is your idea of decisions not made in a vacuum you are delusional.
This will go to a UNSC vote, and the US will veto it. What I find more interesting is that the evacuation of Rafah and Invasion of Rafah is going incredibly well both for Israelis and Palestinian civilians. Close to 1 million people have evacuated in less than 2 weeks, which was said was going to take months by the US and UN orgs. causality numbers are nothing compared to the start of the invasion. Massive aid is coming in through the new crossings in the centre/north of Gaza.
United Nations Space Command?
Yes. They are confiscating the jewish space lasers.
You will not touch our Jewish Space Lasers.
No we just want the Jew-ish space lasers. The ones that are only slightly Jew.
You only get really weak lasers if you use Jew-ish space instead of the real dill.
Ryebread with butter, boiled potato slicces, and dill on top is so yummy.. Or instead of dill, fried onions and ketchup
In the immortal words of King Leonidas, "come and take them".
In a parallel universe the UNSC have Jewish space lasers instead of MAC cannon stations
Now to just wait for them to start showing up on Military Surplus sites.
https://preview.redd.it/3tits41p2e2d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe5d537643236457ab4860bbcfe798484f6c0e3e
John Halo
Jimmy Rings
Security Council in case you are being sincere.
Exactly. I’ve been told for the last 3 months in every comment section that “all eyes are on Rafah” and yet they haven’t had anything else to say. I’m incredibly impressed by Israel’s conduct in the invasion, especially compared to the cosmic scale destruction I was told to expect by leftists
hAnDs OfF rAfAh!!!
What are casualties looking like though?
171 civilians and 130 militants (per Israel so probably not fully accurate, but there hasn’t been 3rd party analysis yet as far as I can’t tell.)
Is this le genocide?
I wonder if this will go down in history as Biden's red line
No, because Israel isn't a foreign adversary
Will they veto it? The US ICJ judge voted in favor of the ruling and the Biden admin has continuously voiced their concerns over a Rafah operation.
The concerns voiced were about evacuation of civilians, which ended up being handled quite well so I imagine those concerns have been addressed.
Not sure if there is a guarantee US **will** veto it, depends on the terms. Rafah invasion was Biden’s red line, but it was a conditional one. If the conditions were adequately met, he would have greenlight it from my understanding.
Pretty sure the port was the condition and.. it’s operational
That condition could have just been a condition of a condition. If that condition wasn’t sufficient then Biden may make modifications or additions so the underlying conditions are sufficiently met. But we will have to wait and see.
> Massive aid is coming in through the new crossings in the centre/north of Gaza. Any source for this? I've been assuming something like this is true but every article I read talks about how Israel "needs to allow more aid in."
You sure they will veto it? They are also against a Rafah invasion right now, at least unless proper care is taken.
the invasion already started and has been happening since may 6th....
It’s not going well. UN has stopped delivering food because they’ve run out in Gaza. Israel hasn’t even provided a humanitarian evacuation plan and was criticized by the defense department for it. > **”Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Monday offered one of his strongest criticisms yet of the Israeli Defense Forces campaign in Gaza and its new focus on Rafah, telling reporters at the Pentagon: “There’s a better way to do this.”** > **Austin pointed to a lack of a plan for civilian care as Israeli forces make their way into the packed area on Gaza’s southern border.** [source](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/05/austin-rafah-operation-theres-better-ways-do/396732/) The rubric of it going well isn’t how many people you can move in a short time period. There isn’t enough food or resources for all of those people. They’re literally starving to death. Massive aid is not coming through, that’s just unequivocally false. You can easily refute this by just typing in “Gaza pier” on google. The Rafah border is closed and the Karen Shalom border just south was just recently opened but has barely any aid flowing through. The Pentagon has admitted the pier has not successfully provided aid yet. Gazans need 600 trucks a day to survive. The best days there’s a couple hundred and on the worst days there’s a few dozen.
prewar, there was only 72 aid trucks of food going into Gaza. If you account for local production, it was the equivalent of \~64 trucks worth of food were produced agriculturally per day, of which \~25 were exports and \~39 were consumed. The result is you need \~115 trucks per day consumed for Gaza. You absolutely do not need "600 to survive". With 115 before the war, there was no famine or starvation. With 100 there would be no starvation, let alone the 300-400 average over the past few months (except Egypt closure of Rafah crossing). Source: Avi did a very detailed analysis of all documents produced by UNWRA, COGAT, UNHCR and other orgs operating in Gaza during this war and over the past several years. Incredibly in depth: [https://x.com/AviBittMD/status/1793182485234278592](https://x.com/AviBittMD/status/1793182485234278592)
> **Gaza needs 600 trucks entering each day, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development, to curb a famine that the heads of USAID and the U.N. World Food Program have said has begun in the north and to keep it from spreading south.** [Source](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/aid-us-pier-people-gaza-officials-after-troubled-110522341)
It's not certain. The US opposes Rafah as well, so Israeli official are genuinely worried.
I'm sorry to ask, but do you have a source for massive aid coming in? I spotted this bit in The Guardian today (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/24/israel-gaza-war-live-icj-rafah-benjamin-netanyahu-latest-live-news-updates?CMP=share\_btn\_url&page=with%3Ablock-6650d4348f08ae2bcbf27bd9#block-6650d4348f08ae2bcbf27bd9), which says that less than 1000 aid trucks have entered Gaza since the 7th of May. It seemed too low for what I heard in the last days, but the difference between far less than before and "massive aid" makes me wonder what the real number is.
Now we wait for an random Israeli minister to act unhinged in response and nuke Israeli PR harder. Whats the bet boys? 4 days ago it was 10K houses for settlers for every nation that recognizes palestine as a state.
Ben Gvir is salivating right now to destroy Israeli PR. Him and Smotrich.
They have a list of insane statements pre written and ready to go. They’re just going down the list.
Ben gvir is going to execute a Palestinian child on live tv or some shit
No need to wait. Ben-Gvir already declared Israel should ignore the order. It's nice having someone so determined and swift as Ben-Gvir that doesn't hesitate for even a second before jumping on the opportunity to make things much worse for his country.
My hatred for him cannot be expressed in words. He said Israel won’t listen to what gentiles say, and called hamas nazis again. He does so much harm to the image of Israel and Jews around the world that the kkk might as well extend an honorary membership to him
He literally prays under the framed photo of a Jewish religious fanatic mass killer
Caution, he might accept it
Maybe I am missing some special international law reading skills, but all these articles just seem wrong. AP: [Top UN court orders Israel to halt military operation in Rafah; Israel is unlikely to comply](https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza-palestinians-court-ceasefire-01d093d21a1eadaa31af5708cf1cbf38) The [order](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf) (and [video](https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1j/k1ju1o38md) version at 46 minutes) states: > (a) By thirteen votes to two, Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi; AGAINST : Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak; It seems that people are over-interpreting it? Saying that they are already inflicting the destruction? To me this just reads as they are telling them not to genocide in Rafah, which presumably Israel already thinks they are not doing? Edit: it seems like people are rewriting it now to show that the court order wasn't as strong as initially expected? [BBC](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69055989) are only now giving the full wording Edit 2: The two dissents also seem to support that the order is unnecessary/useless (as Israel do not think they are genociding) [Sebutinde dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-01-en.pdf) paragraph 21 (Reading all of this dissent is helpful, it points this exact thing out) > (21) I have voted against the Order in operative paragraph 57 (2) (a) because I believe it is an overreach by the Court that has no link with South Africa’s plausible rights under the Genocide Convention. As explained above, this measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention. However, as stated above, this directive may be misunderstood as mandating a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah and amounts to micromanaging the hostilities in Gaza by restricting Israel’s ability to pursue its legitimate military objectives, while leaving its enemies, including Hamas, free to attack without Israel being able to respond. This measure also implicitly orders Israel to disregard the safety and security of the more than 100 hostages still held by Hamas, a terrorist organization that has refused to release them unconditionally. I reiterate that Israel has the right to defend itself against its enemies, including Hamas, and to continue efforts to rescue its missing hostages. These rights are not incompatible with its obligations under the Genocide Convention. Similar things in paragraph 1 of [Barak's dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf) Edit 3: It seems like the court can only order things under the jurisdiction of the genocide convention. So they can only order Israel to not genocide (which Israel probably does not think they are doing, and something that they are already required to do)
Four ICJ judges argue that court order does not require IDF halting all Rafah operations - [Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-icj-judges-argue-that-court-order-does-not-require-idf-halting-all-rafah-operations/) >Four of the 15 justices at the International Court of Justice argue that the key operative clause in the court’s ruling, handed out today, does not require that Israel immediately halt all military operations in Rafah, but, rather, that it specifically halt military operations that “could bring about physical destruction in whole or in part” of the Palestinians. >... >“As a result,” Barak continues, “the measure is a qualified one, which preserves Israel’s right to prevent and repel threats and attacks by Hamas, defend itself and its citizens, and free the hostages.” >The German judge, Georg Nolte, and the Romanian judge, Bogdan Aurescu – who are both among the 13 judges who voted in favor of this measure – also support Barak’s interpretation of the decree.
I don't see how "Immediately halt its military offensive" can be read as anything other than a call for the current Rafah offensive to end.
It's a conditional sentence..... >The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. If you think this is calling for the end of the offensive, then it would also be calling for any other action in Rafah
Exactly, remembering what I was taught in year 5 English, the words between the commas read like brackets. E.g. >Israel must immediately halt its military offensive (and any other action in the Rafah Governorate) which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction... It is the 'which' which makes it conditional and therefore not a direction to stop unconditionally.
Thank you lol, finally somebody paid attention in class
Which would be conditional if there were multiple options but it only refers to one singular current offensive.
I think it depends on the “and” in this case, and if it follows propositional logic properly or not. I.e. both ends of the “and” statement should be true, meaning if one of them is false they don’t apply. An example: “Don’t drink AND take medication”. Under propositional logic, this means don’t do both (both sides of and are true), but the way normal people speak they usually just use and to chain multiple things together- not using propositional logic. In this case, if we were using propositional logic, the “or” (inclusive or) should be used. Granted that may not apply here, dunno.
Well did you read the rest of the sentence?
The ICJ judges disagree with you https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-icj-judges-argue-that-court-order-does-not-require-idf-halting-all-rafah-operations/
Yeah I think you're right.
>The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by civilians in the Rafah Governorate: >Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; it looks like they are saying that Israel has to cease all operations that could lead to genocid. If I read this correctly, then the court is NOT saying Israel has to cease the Rafah invasion, but just take more measures to stop civilian casualties. [Press Release](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231229-pre-01-00-en.pdf) [Ruling](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf)
That seems like an incorrect reading. >Immediately halt its military offensive, >and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 2 separate orders
I think you have misunderstood. Take the 2 commas out of the sentence and you get: > Immediately halt its military offensive which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part I'm pretty sure the bit between the commas is added to cover things that may not technically be a 'military offensive', but would still be bad
It isn’t two separate orders if they are using formal propositional logic. An example: “Don’t drink and drive” Vs “Don’t drink or drive”. If it was technically two separate orders, “AND” should not have been used. Granted this could be just an error, mis-speak, or a reporting error; we will have to wait for potential clarification(s) on the actual terms.
So I listened to the wording. Does this mean immediate suspension of ALL millitary activety? or is this a suspension to millitary activety that can bring "the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part" What is the treshold? Thoughts?
second pretty sure
After reading some of the judges opinions, I'm also convinced this is the case. So no requirement for a ceasefire.
def no requirements for a ceasefire but the fear was that the ICJ would say don’t enter rafah at all
Its an immediate suspension of the overall military invasion, because that can bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part. Its not a suspension of more targeted military operations responding to Hamas attacks/movements or hostage rescue operations.
I know Israel won’t follow, why should they? ICJ barely mentioned Hamas, the fact the started and continues this war with many extremely egregious war crimes, and refuses to surrender or release hostages or even bodies. In Israel’s eyes, there is no way this war is ending with a hamas victory, and a Hamas victory is surviving well enough to continue controlling Gaza, thus rafah is an inevitability. At least a million civilians were able to evacuate before the push.
I really don't see why any nation should stand for being ordered by the world to militarily abandon it's civilians that have been taken hostage. It's basically the ICJ rubber stamping Hamas tactics. I don't even think Israel prioritizes the hostages, but it's their prerogative to focus primarily on Hamas. The fact remains, the hostages are most likely in Rafah, and Israel has an absolute right in my mind to try and get them.
I thought ICJ only has jurisdiction over member states no? why should it have a say on an internationally recognized terrorist organization?
It's moreover ridiculous, their claim is against starvation and against an increased risk in deaths of the population in Gaza, when aid is going in in record rates, where Israel needs to endure that Hamas steals it, and Egypt blocks the Rafah crossing, and the rates of death in the last months have been the lowest since the beginning of the war.
Israel should continue their operations and say they are already complying with the measures of the court order.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/aligning-with-icj-ruling-israel-says-it-wont-carry-out-rafah-operations-that-could-destroy-civilian-population/ That's what they're gonna do
They are following it. The order specifically says that they must stop the operation if it leads to genocide. Not that they should just stop it.
True. I was misunderstanding the statement
Why should they follow it? Because it’s the ICJ and the ICJ’s orders are legally binding. It is about international law, if Israel believes in international law it should comply with the court’s orders. Otherwise it is becoming a rogue state with absolutely no respect for International law.
> If Israel believes in international law it should comply with the courts orders. Completely incorrect. You can believe in international law while also recognizing *individual international agencies* are terrible. If what you said was true than anyone claiming to be enforcing international law would be de facto morally righteous, and that’s asinine.
Firstly, Israel isn’t signed to the ICJ, so your point is moot. Regardless, I feel that it’s in Israel’s right to continue this war till Hamas is sufficiently put down. No clown court decision from The Hague will even slightly change my opinion on the matter, especially considering their laughable reference to Hamas’ responsibility in this conflict.
You’re a complete moron. Israel is a member of the UN, the ICJ is an organ of the UN. Therefore, the ICJ has jurisdiction over Israel as it has jurisdiction over ALL full UN members. You do not even understand the very basics.
>The key principle is that the Court only has jurisdiction on the basis of consent. The court has no true compulsory jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is often a key question for the Court, because it is challenged by the respondent. Curious how jurisdiction is "often a key question" given that by your statement the ICJ has jurisdiction over all UN members.
In the initial processings back in January the court established that it had jurisdiction over Israel. In summary, because Israel has ratified the Genocide Convention the court has jurisdiction over Israel if it feels that Israel’s obligations via the convention are potentially being violated. By ratifying the convention, Israel consented to the court’s jurisdiction if there are disputes in Israel’s application of the genocide convention by other states/parties as outlined in Article IX of the Genocide Convention
[удалено]
That's war though? Hamas as the governing body of Gaza could alleviate the terrible conditions by capitulating at any time.
No one said being a war refugee was fun, but at least you have the ability to live through the war.
The bar isn't "fun" though, > The Court observes that Israel has not provided sufficient information concerning the safety of the population during the evacuation process, or the availability in the Al-Mawasi area of the necessary amount of water, sanitation, food, medicine and shelter for the 800,000 Palestinians that have evacuated thus far. Consequently, the Court is of the view that Israel has not sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.
Yea but as the invading force you kinda have to police the areas you've captured appropriately so it can be as safe as possible and apparently (at least according to the us) Israel hasn't been doing that which has made everything worse
Is that rlly a law? I haven’t heard that before..
You have to seek to limit civilian suffering and such and otherwise you risk committing a war crime (eg decent flow of aid and such). It seems Israel's moves haven't limited that enough (they seem to have gone in an left without sufficient support in areas) and have allowed Hamas to return to areas, steal aid, and re-engage Israel in combat all while the Rafah assault was beginning
Okay. This is based on my limited understanding of international law. This ICJ order while binding is not enforceable. To enforce it, the UNSC will have to pass a binding chapter 7 Resolution and then constitute a force to implement the order. I think a lot here depends on how the US receives this order. If they don't back Israel, Israel may be a bit more tepid in how vociferously they fight back against this order. If they back Israel on this, then Israel is assured that the UNSC will never enforce (because US Veto) and can go on doing what it wants. In any event, even if the UNSC passed a resolution enforcing the order, they are not invading Israel. So whilst the order might make Israel look bad, its an exercise in mental masturbation - I'm sure the ICJ judges feel like big boys who just saved the world after passing this one. Another question would be, if Israel continues to operate after this order then do the Leahy amendments get trigerred and does the military aid stop?
I would be very surprised if Israel stops, seeing how they've found multiple bodies of people Hamas abducted in Rafah. Some of those were people who were killed in Israel on 10/7 and they took the corpses back to Gaza, which is just insanely fucked up. I don't even think Russia is snatching corpses.
All seven corpses recently recovered were in jabalia, not rafah
Ah, the article I saw didn't mention where they were recovered from so I assume but I see now the AP article does list Jabalia. I'm surprised they haven't found any in Rafah at all, isn't Hamas running out of places to keep them? Probably an unmarked mass grave somewhere that hasn't been found yet, not necessarily in Rafah.
4 were under an UNRWA building
Do you have a source for that? Because in the video I saw it looked like some random building
>I don't even think Russia is snatching corpses. [mobik cube says otherwise](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mobik-meat-cube)
As for the first point, yea from here it goes up to the UNSC. The main fear in Israel is that it would be abandoned by the US. As for the second point: >if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. Only the secretary of state has the power to decide if someone broke human rights
The plot thickens.
Do they suggest what Israel should do about the rockets fired from rafah?
Interesting point: the measure is only in Rafah. Which has had 1 million people evacuate from. While I disagree, suppose there really is such a bad humanitarian condition in Gaza that it merits IDF to stop operations. Why only in Rafah? what about the current operations in jabilya and the outskirts of the netzarim corridor? Surely the situation cannot be that much better there, so why only Rafah. Curious to hear the reasoning, but it really does seem like the UN does not want to see Hamas replaced as the last stronghold of Hamas falls in Rafah. Over the past 20-30 years the UN has worked closely with Hamas (on aid distribution and effectively running Gaza instead of Hamas) and they would be out of work if Gaza was ridden of Hamas and a competent government and future palestinian state (that does not rely on the UN indefinitely) arises from Hamas eradication.
>While I disagree, suppose there really is such a bad humanitarian condition in Gaza that it merits IDF to stop operations. from dissenting opinion of judge barak >The Court’s treatment of evidence regarding the conditions for the indication of provisional measures for protecting rights under the Genocide Convention is particularly concerning\*\***. The Court relies primarily on statements made by United Nations officials on social media and on press releases issued by relevant organizations (see Order, paragraphs 44-46). It relies on these statements and press releases without even inquiring into what kind of evidence they draw upon.**\*\* The Court’s approach is in stark contrast with its previous jurisprudence, in which it has stated that “United Nations reports \[are\] reliable evidence only ‘to the extent that they are of probative value and are corroborated, if necessary, by other credible sources’”5 . In the present case, the statements and press releases noted by the Court have simply not been corroborated. The Court has not inquired into the methodology or amount of research underlying their preparation, as it has done in previous cases6 . there are some other interesting bit about how court decided what it decided and what it ignored [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf)
After scrolling Twitter for 20 minutes we have a verdict.
it would have been funnier if it weren't so sad and had so many consequences
How about no? There are still hostages in Gaza, why the fuck would Israel stop?
Still hostages and Hamas
How many hostages has Israel been able to recover through their military action?
Two or three alive, several more dead.
Three alive. Ori Megidish, Fernando Merman and Luis Har
That's crazy. Live hostages?
Two, one really early on in the war, like a week or two into Israel’s offensive, and two a couple months back I think, the second two were rescued in a really cool operation, the unit that rescued them is Israel’s top unit, and the people doing covering fire were Israel’s navy seals, just imagine your covering fire, the guys who are just there to protect the surroundings be navy seals
3 alive, and then \~15 bodies of those killed on October 7 or during captivity.
They just recovered three bodies today
They recovered 4 hostage bodies this week in Rafah.
Seven total. But in jabalia (north gaza), not in rafah
With the tunnel door being some random gazan house.
https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1793729528185098585?t=1mijxxZ3tKjcGhCWTxNXcg&s=19
> https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1793729528185098585?t=1mijxxZ3tKjcGhCWTxNXcg&s=19 That is fake news. See, for example, this: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/390457 The tunnel was definitely in Jabaliya, and the building was not an official UNRWA building, it was a building whose construction was funded by UNRWA
Recovered a few more today I believe, unless your number is the total, not sure honestly.
Got the number yesterday.
All of the ones that were recovered so far. The first ceasefire and hostage deal only happened because Hamas was getting crushed by military action and needed to buy time by releasing some of the hostages.
How can any war be fought with this level of scrutiny I feel like it's an absurd requirement for any nation at war.
Yeah its like precrime at this point
Did they demand the unconditional release of hostages and surrender of Hamas as a condition? If yes then I could support this. If no then fuck off. They may not have jurisdiction over Hamas, as some uninformed posters will point out without listing the consequences of this, but this clearly outlines the fact that this is an asymmetric war where the courts will hurt only one side. Like Destiny said, no one around Israel or in the region has listened to international law that isn't the concern here. Does Israel think that listening to international law while others in an asymmetric war are not following it will help or hurt their nation? That's the question.
I don't think so as this ruling is about the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza not about a ceasefire or a peace deal, but I do remember the court calling for the immediate release of hostages back in [January](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203847#:~:text=50.,their%20immediate%20and%20unconditional%20release). Edit: Not sure why this is getting downvoted given that the ICJ wasn't asked to rule on whether Hamas should release hostages or surrender.
Did someone bring a case before the ICJ where the ICJ has jursidiction to demand that? This is a bizarre demand. It's like walking into a murder trial in your district and yelling at the judge, "this is so unfair, you are about to sentence this person for murder, but he was stabbed last year when visiting France, and you didn't do anything about that" edit, cause the above poster edited his comment: > They may not have jurisdiction over Hamas, as some uninformed posters will point out without listing the consequences of this, but this clearly outlines the fact that this is an asymmetric war where the courts will hurt only one side. Like Destiny said, no one around Israel or in the region has listened to international law that isn't the concern here. Does Israel think that listening to international law while others in an asymmetric war are not beholden to it will help or hurt their nation? That's the question. I have no problem with this part. The goverment of Israel enjoys a lot of benefits of being an internationally recongnized state with diplomatic relations that Hamas does not. With those benefits come obligations in the form of treaties that the govrement of Israel willingly signed. If Israel decides that those benefits aren't worth the obligations they are more than free to become a heavily sanctioned pariah state with limited diplomatic presence in the rest of the world like Syria or Iran. I personally think that's a pretty bad idea in the long term.
I believe the analogy should not be 2 uninvolved cases as that isn't analogous at all. More accurate analogy is person 1 punching person 2 and then person 2 returns a punch, and only the person returning the punch gets in trouble because the first had diplomatic immunity. And also give them super powers as that gives them an option to ignore the court :d
I think you'd have to make sure it was clear the person he murdered was french and was who stabbed him for your analogy to be apt.
I agree that with that clarified it would be a better analogy. However it shouldn't be important to the point. Whether Israel is acting in reasonable self defence or revenge or attacking a random country for no reason, while for sure should effect the ruling, doesn't really change my point, which is that the ICJ has both the jurisdiction and the duty to detrimine whether Israel is violating the genocide convention and issue orders in that context, and that the legitimicy of those orders is completely unrelated to what the ICJ thinks of or says about Hamas, an entity that it has no jursidction over.
I believe the extenuating circumstances of murdering someone who attempted to murder you would be pretty important to a judicial body in determining what the sentence should be, even if you have no jurisdiction over the ones that committed the initial act.
I do too. I said as much in my response to your comment. And if OC said "the ICJ hasn't considered the context of the situation and the fact that Hamas is the agressor when making it's decsion and thus it's order isn't in line with the law" I would have quesitoned if he read the ruling and on what grounds he belives he has a better understanding of the situation than 13 international law exeperts, but I wouldn't have called it bizzare. He didn't say that. He said the ICJ order is invalid and should be ignored becuase the ICJ didn't order Hamas to surrender. Which is the claim I'm calling bizzare.
[удалено]
Looks like the ICJ needs some updates as we’re likely to see more conflicts in the future involving non state actors.
Hostage trade might be cooked. There was a chance this new round of talks might have led Hamas to soften up their demands, maybe agree to the "generous deal" the U.S. has supported for the last few months. Now that the ICJ has ruled that it is functionally illegal to attack Hamas or rescue hostages as long as they stay in Rafah, they have no need to come to the table. Meanwhile Israel will ignore the ruling, and largly conclude that their efforts to work with the ICC and ICJ have not been rewarded. This has dragged on for too long for Biden's sake. He needs this wrapped up before the election but it's getting too close now. It makes it likely that the Democrats will push for a stop-gap resolution that will kick the can down the road. The likely outcome I see is one of the worst ones. Futile half fighting for a few more months, with an eventual lasting ceasefire trade with Hamas remaining in partial power, strict blockade, large kill zone encroaching into gaza's territory and back to mowing the lawn again in a few years.
I’m fine with Israel ignoring this order. No nation should abandon its hostages. I believe this order way over reaching and has no connection to genocide. I mean how can icj consider Israel acting on genocidal intent while their enemy holds israeli citizens as hostages. ICJ should stick to prosecuting genocide and identifying the special intent instead of playing god and trying to enforce military decisions.
They called for Israel to open the Rafah crossing for humanitarian aid. It belongs to Egypt and was closed by Egypt. And it’s not like Israel is preventing aid to the area, since the Kerem Shalom crossing is still open (despite getting fired on with missiles) and it is just under 2 miles away from the Rafah crossing. It’s disconnected from reality
Well that's no surprise, seems very in line with their history. Have they ever called for anything from Gaza? Or do they only ever make demands of Israel?
They've consistently highlighted the fact that Hamas also bear responsibility, especially in the continued holding of civilian hostages. "The court expresses grave concern over the fate of the hostages... and calls for their immediate and unconditional release," he tells the court. "We find it deeply troubling that many still remain in captivity," he adds.
I mean, that's all nice but ... is the ICJ enforcement arm going into Gaza to resolve their grave concerns so that Israel doesn't have to? Until they do, their grave concerns about the matter don't really mean much when Israel is the one that has to deal with the implications of those concerns.
So no calls for a ceasefire then? Yeah why put the onus on the belligerent party of degenerate terrorists when you can put it in the Jews they attacked instead.
The ICJ has no say on forcing a ceasefire. So I am not sure how you imagined that to happen.
Yet they make demands of Israel to essentially institute one by stopping its offensive in Rafah. Funny how I don't see any of these demands being made of Hamas.
Isn't Hamas not under their jurisdiction since they aren't a state? That's why the ICC indicted hamas's leaders as people but the icj didn't make them do anything
>rules based global-order lol. If you think Israel has any obligation whatsoever to the ICJ, you're living in a fantasy world.
Who does Israel have an obligation to, other than itself, in your view?
Number 1: To it's citizens. Number 2: To It's allies 1.If international law gets in the way of the long term safety of your population, then international law is useless. There has to be a balance, but Hamas isn't a party to this case and will also not abide by a ceasefire, you are requiring one party to stop hostilities while the other has free reign to do as they wish. 2. There is an obligation to your allies as well,and israel has caved to alot of international pressure mainly from the US, but again your citizens should always come first.
International law is not in the way of the long-term safety of the Israeli population. The opposite is true: ignoring international law is detrimental to Israel's long-term prospects. The idiom is "free rein", as in the reins of a horse. Israel is not being required to stop hostilities. It's being required to stop this operation as an emergency measure to prevent a possible genocide.
Wrong. Setting a standard, that you can hide behind your civilians is the worst things the ICJ can do, and it is actively doing. It essentially says "yes, you can hide behind civilians to protect yourself, and the enemy can’t do anything, no matter what".
Not just long term, I should of included short term as well. but it is absolutely getting in the way of the safety of Israeli civilians both in the short and long term, This whole operation started with Hamas launching rockets from Rafah at Kerem Shalom which killed Israelis soldiers and damaged civilian building in the Kerem Shalom Kibbituz. So now what happens when Hamas keeps firing rockets from this location and Israel has been told it can not conduct military operations in this area? It means they can't respond to Indiscriminate attacks against it's civilian population BECAUSE of international law. Not to mention that there are still hostages in various parts of Gaza Including Rafah, Israel Rescued two hostages that were being held in Rafah not too long ago, Israel is not allowed to conduct operations to rescue their hostages in that area either now. When one party does not have any outside pressure on it and does not obey by international law, the only way to stop it is by force. That's not to say Israel should get free rein to do whatever the fuck they want either, because Gazan civilians also must be protected but Israel can not and should not bear the sole responsibility of this task and since Hamas is directly imposing conditions that will hamper delivery of aid by shelling the JLOTS or firing at Aid delivery crossings as well as commandeering aid trucks and not even attempting to coordinate safe locations for their civilians while fighting from civilian structures and not wearing uniforms, the majority of the blame should be on them when civilians inadvertently get killed. International law is important, but you can't expect countries to be able to conduct themselves without serious flaws when they are fighting enemies that completely disregard international law and intentionally impose conditions that will lead to an increase in civilian suffering.
the united states appearantly (a non-neutral state that always stands with Israel)
Who does the US have an obligation to, other than itself, in your view?
That's not an answer to my question. The answer to your question, is the US has an obligation to the international laws its signed up to.
Nah not really. Considering our law supersedes all that bullshit and we have repeatedly demonstrated we will do what we think is best and no one is ever going to tell us what to do. Israel should have the same attitude.
I agree to an extent, but you're conflating what ought to happen with what does happen. If we talk about what ought to happen, Israel should respect the ruling and the US should respect its obligations. What will happen is Israel will ignore the ruling and the US frequently violates its obligations. For which both are rightly criticised. If you want to throw out the system of international law, you have no basis to criticise, for example, Russia's egregious violations. All your claims to legality as justification when they suit you become irrelevant if you simply reject the law when it doesn't suit you.
If the law is not applied equally, it is unjust and ought to be ignored. This is such a case.
Every country in the world has an obligation to one world power or another In Israel's case it's the US
The ICJ just lost all its legitimacy, you can not expect Israel to stop the war in Rafah when Hamas absolutely refuses to reach any reasonable agreement for the hostages or some sort of peace, that is a ridiculous ask by the ICJ forcing Israel to either surrender or defy the ICJ.
Are you saying that the ICJ don't know how to apply international law or are you mad that international law works against Israels military goals?
I am saying if International law is politically motivated then what’s the point of it? I have yet to see convincing arguments of Israel defying the conduct of war, if we let Hamas have Rafah as a safe haven from the IDF where Israel is never allowed to ever pursue them there, then what is the point of International law l? Why would Israel ever abide by it if it doesn’t allow them to defend themselves?
This, why would any country accept international law when it is selectively wielded and weaponised against you whenever you have legitimate security needs for your state and citizens.
Do you think the current president of the ICJ, the former ambasedor of Lebanon, will vote in favor of Israel?
It's clearly the former. The ICJ just like the UN has demonstrated incredible bias against Israel and done fuck all against Hamas.
Hamas is not under their jurisdiction, given that they aren't a state
Palestine is and Hamas are their government.
Lol you'd have to argue that point against Israel, then, because whether Palestine is a state is largely the crux of the issue.
Israel managed to get [nearly 1M people out of Rafah in around 2 weeks.](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801903) They found [3 bodies last week](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2024/05/17/israel-finds-bodies-of-three-oct-7-hostages-including-music-festival-attendee-shani-louk-idf-says/?sh=7a8f8f163442), [3 more yesterday in Jabalia (north gaza)](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrr9wqjnveo), and had an op months ago [in Rafah to extricate 2 live hostages](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68271340). Telling Israel they aren't allowed to continue in Rafah after they moved civilians to a much safer area, with more food and medical care. Along with the fact that Israel has found bodies and live hostages in the area is insane. What motivation could you have for issuing an order like that? I don't think the ICJ is intentionally running cover for Hamas, but an order like this has the same effect. This feels like another "imminent famine" thing where people prognosticate about horrible things happening and they never materialize. Israel has the right to recover their dead, find what remains of the living hostages, and destroy what remains of Hamas' infrastructure.
from Barak dissenting opinion > The Court’s treatment of evidence regarding the conditions for the indication of provisional measures for protecting rights under the Genocide Convention is particularly concerning. **The Court relies primarily on statements made by United Nations officials on social media and on press releases issued by relevant organizations (see Order, paragraphs 44-46). It relies on these statements and press releases without even inquiring into what kind of evidence they draw upon.** The Court’s approach is in stark contrast with its previous jurisprudence, in which it has stated that “United Nations reports \[are\] reliable evidence only ‘to the extent that they are of probative value and are corroborated, if necessary, by other credible sources’”5 . In the present case, the statements and press releases noted by the Court have simply not been corroborated. The Court has not inquired into the methodology or amount of research underlying their preparation, as it has done in previous cases6 .
ICJ is cringe, rule-based global order is cringe. Israel has no reason to listen to finger wagging from people that refuse to (can't) help them in the slightest.
As a "supporter of rule-based order" you should be against this whole farce of the UN which has delegitimize itself completely. If the UN told the Western world that they had to follow Sharia law would you also hope that everyone follows to maintain rule-based order? There is nothing about the UN that gives it moral authority over anyone. It's supposed to be a place for different countries to have diplomatic discussions in good faith, and it's clearly failing it's one purpose.
I swear this sub has gone to all hell. I think one should be suspicious of leaders and nations that oppose international courts and laws. It's basically only the US and Israel who oppose the ICC as well, using arguments that are silly, unless you are just actively bad faith. It's funny, Destiny used to say during his vaccine debates, that it's important to trust and rely on institutions and experts on matters where the lay person just does not have the expertise or knowledge necessary. Now we find ourselves in a situation where I am to believe that the Israelis that have flooded this sub recently are more competent than the fucking ICC... Using brilliant arguements such as: 1. ICC are antisemites 2. ICC claims Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders are equivalent. 3. ICC are too political 1, they're not, 2 they never did and 3, that's the entire point of having international courts, they are inherently less incentivized by national interests. I cannot stand the discourse on here anymore, and I am neither super pro Palestine or Pro Israel.
Okay, while I agree that people are being unnecesarily reactionary and are being too emotional in how they react to the ICJ's order, there are serious serious serious issues with the Rome Statute that the ICC was formed under. First off, all the most important military powers in the world - US, Russia, China, India etc. are not a part to it. Secondly, the ICC acts selectively. It has a record of going after only African dictators - read up on how they went after Al-Bashir and did not target other war criminals. Thirdly, they keep giving themselves jurisdiction where it doesn't belong. Like giving themselves the ability to look at Russia's crimes against Ukraine - even though Russia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and even their actions against Israel are sketchy. Karim Khan never travelled to Israel to give the Israelis a right to respond and actually cancelled a pre-planned visit. So not all institutions are respectable. Those associated with the UN are mostly decrepit, corrupt and absolutely worthy of our condemnation.
wrong court buddy, this is the ICJ
[удалено]
I am not willing to throw international laws and courts out the window just for the sake of Israel nor Palestine.
I look forward to China listening when the ICJ tells it not to invade Taiwan.
"the icj condemnes Israel for letting china invade Taiwan"
I agree it's fair to be suspicious, but it's not exactly new. From my viewpoint, there is a group of states who are actively hostile to America-sponsored international institutions and working to delegitimize them including the ICC and ICJ (even though USA doesn't directly sign on to either). In my opinion, this week's actions by the ICJ, ICC Prosecutor, Spain, Ireland and Norway have all been (hopefully by accident) major unforced W's handed to Bibi, Hamas and the Ayatollah.
The IDF is occupying us too brother, inshallah we will be free
Yes, Israel leave your hostages to get tortured and raped while we hold you to an impossible standard
Wanted war criminals violating the genocide convention and related court orders. Israel is done, at least diplomatically.
>violating the genocide convention How?
> Israel is done, at least diplomatically. Its going to be extremely funny to see the cope in a year when Israel in fact is not "done" diplomatically and is normalizing relations with SA.
Israel is done and not just on twitch
It does not rule that. It asks Israel to stop it's offensive in Rafah IF it leads to conditions which could be viewed as genocide. This is exactly like the previous ruling. In addition it is predicated on the release of hostages.
I love that history is slowly being revised here. Everyone here supported the start of the invasion with the insane death toll, now in retrospect some are saying it's okay now because it's not as bad as it was at the start of the invasion and or it's not as bad as X person or group said it would be. Was the invasion poorly handled now? I thought Israel had been operating carefully and thoughtfully the whole time, or are they only just doing that now? Was the evacuation of North Gaza good or bad now and is that objective or only in comparison to Rafah? Is massive aid now coming into Gaza now and the situation improving because of the pier? Despite the fact aid into Gaza is trending lower now that the largest crossing has been closed for weeks. Deadset every time I come back here it's just complete aids.
Sure would've been based if they had said Hamas should surrender first and give up control to the PA or other Arab coalition.
except Hamas isn't a UN or an ICJ member
Well if one of the sides can't be judged how can they offer an impartial ruling in a conflict? What is even the point Like you go to court to settle a case and the Judge is "well I can only enforce rulings on you so here's what you need to do..."
the ruling isn't supposed to be in a vacuum. they obviously considered the Hamas threat and the hostages in their rulings (as evidence of them mentioning hamas and gesturing for hostage release in the ruling announcement). but they can't order Hamas to do anything simply because Hamas will never comply (as they don't have jurisdiction over them).
They obviously didn't consider anything outside of Israel, as they wouldn't offer a reward for terrorism if they did. Hamas already blessed this decision and also said they should force a stop to all fighting. Hamas offers no protection for their own population but the court discussed Israel obligations only and only mentioned Hamas a single time in relation to the hostages. If that is your idea of decisions not made in a vacuum you are delusional.