Who wants to place a bet if Israel is going to give a shit?
My vote is on “keep going and keep denying”.
Full text of the order. Juicy bits start at paragraph 75, page 24 thereabouts (goddammit pdf page numbering).
In particular, this:
The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
“Immediate and effective” is very clear language, and can be easily assessed. If Israel doesn’t do that it opens the doors wide open to actually be found guilty of genocide, no wiggling “but we didn’t mean to”, no nothing. A legal tripwire if I’ve ever seen one.
Also make note of the one judge who voted against everything, including ordering that humanitarian aid be provided. No, it’s not the Israeli one.
I also noticed that judge Sebutinde voted against everything. I wonder why? Why would anyone vote against an order to provide humanitarian aid?
Edit: removed a word
She voted against a resolution wherein even the Israeli judge voted yes.
Not ideal, but the reasoning behind it could be practical. If the ICJ demands a ceasefire, Israel will ignore it completely and keep doing what it’s doing. Netanyahu has already said so multiple times. Ordering that measures be taken to limit civilian deaths and allow more aid could result in at least some compliance that would help alleviate the suffering in Gaza.
Live thread of the court ruling here:
ICJ is completely useless
Such provisional measures issued by the world court are legally binding,
That’s impossible. Israel is a country, there’s no legal authority above that. That’s what “sovereign” means when we refer to a country as one.
It’s entirely possible Israel has signed treaties whereby it agrees to follow World Court orders, but if it violated said treaties, that wouldn’t be illegal (since Israel would give itself permission to do so, making it legal under Israeli law). Legality isn’t really defined when countries interact with each other.
This is semantics. International law is a concept. You can say that disobeying the treaties you mentioned is illegal.
