Armed Conflict and the ICJ 202

Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will give its decision on the South African interim request for provisional measures to prevent genocide in Gaza. Many are holding their breath for something that will help. How will this go?

You can read my views on some of the arguments in play in my article for Middle East Eye. There is no comment section on MEE, so feel free to discuss that article here.

You will recall that my observation of the demeanour of the judges at the Hague left me not too hopeful. They definitely appeared very uncomfortable to be taking a case which effectively puts the actions of the entire western political establishment on trial, not just Israel. Yet it was impossible to say that South Africa had not presented a strong prima facie case of genocide, including plentiful evidence of intent, which at this stage was all South Africa needed to do.

As I reported the judges got most visibly interested by the procedural arguments that South Africa could not bring the case because it was not in a dispute with Israel at the time of filing. But I don’t think that will stand. Firstly, it doesn’t pass the commonsense test; there is no doubt there is a dispute between South Africa and Israel over whether Israel is committing genocide. While the procedural problem does not in fact arise from the text of the Genocide Convention, but merely from previous jurisprudence from the court that indicates parties should aim to achieve a resolution before going to the court.

None of that previous jurisprudence relates to genocide. In any case of alleged genocide, there is obvious urgency. If Israel’s procedural argument is accepted, then any country committing genocide would only need not to respond to correspondence on the subject and nobody could take them to court for it, until after a “reasonable period” to reply, during which the genocide could continue. What is a “reasonable period” where scores of children are being killed every day? I don’t think the court is going to fall for that one, much as they visibly gasped to be let off the hook.

Judges are of course themselves highly privileged members of the ruling elite. The extent to which that elite is bought up by the Zionist cause has never been clearer to the world. But I retain some hope still because the ICJ has a truly strong record. If tomorrow we learn it has failed, we will know the notion of international law has been finally abandoned.

Both Israel and South Africa’s legal teams will by now probably have been given, in strictest confidence, an indication of the result by the President. This is done to head off any unexpected spontaneous eventuality in court. If they haven’t yet, they will first thing tomorrow morning.

But where there are seventeen judges of different nationalities, including one South African and one Israeli, and several of them are open to influence and discussion with their national governments, you would have to be extremely foolish to believe that the decision has not already leaked out to senior official circles. Which leaves me rather heartened by the fact that South Africa’s foreign minister is flying to The Hague for the decision. That would not be done if the result is a humiliation.

Where there is humiliation is in the willingness of the Western political class to abase themselves utterly in acknowledging the plain truth of Israel crimes. On a macro scale they state it is nonsense to claim that 15,000 dead children so far might indicate a genocidal intent. On a micro scale, in the past 24 hours Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer and the spokesman for the US State Department have all refused to say, point blank, that it is a crime to shoot an unarmed civilian carrying a white flag.

I expect tomorrow will be a fudge. The court will say it will decide on the case in due course, and in the meantime Israel should be careful to take all steps to comply with international humanitarian law and to take all necessary actions to crack down on incitement to genocide. Then nothing would change.

If, however, the court does order a ceasefire on the grounds of a prima facie case for genocide, then I do think you will see a serious moderation of the actions of western politicians, including a reduction in armaments to Israel. That will of course not stop Israel.

Israel has been engaged in the genocide of the Palestinians for 75 years. All we have since October 7 is a more intensive phase again. In the year to October 7 2023, Israel killed over 350 Palestinians. Israel will continue its genocidal policies until the Apartheid State of Israel is abolished. That is the fundamental truth that the ICJ will not address tomorrow.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

202 thoughts on “Armed Conflict and the ICJ

1 2 3
  • CabbagePatch

    Thank you Craig. I hope we see the liberation of Palestine, the establishment of a democratic secular Palestine on the 1947 borders, with the 93% of Palestine restored to the owners or their descendants following the “Looted Nazi Art” precedent.

    I hope your exile is short and you are in good health.

    Much affection and regard.


  • Highlander

    If the ICC doesn’t act, it’ll prove the United Nations the OPCW The WHO and the ICC are neutered neocon organisations. Once that is determined by the “players”, the world is going to go through a very unstable decade, humanity is going to suffer for generations.

    • Lysias

      If it is determined that the current UN and allied institutions are captured bodies, the rest of the world needs to set up a new UN.

      • Highlander

        Just as the same nations destroyed its predecessor the League of Nations … it’s a dose of reality in English voters’ brains that is required. Open conversation instead of bbc garbage being pumped into the brains of those daft enough to listen to the propaganda.
        But now as many Tory, Labour and Liberals are “friends of Israel”, large brown envelopes are the order of the day! You cannot have two masters!

          • Tom Welsh

            Er, who in British politics is “a friend of Russia”? I can’t think of a single one.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Um…have you seriously never heard of Conservative Friends of Russia? Founded by Matthew Elliot and, if I’m not mistaken, co-run by Johnson’s wife? Johnson who also liked to help “clean” money via tennis matches…

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Bayard do you remember how long it took for the Tories to actually carry out any sanctions against Russian officials over invading Ukraine?
            Or the Polish former general who stated that Johnson had been compromising Zelensky’s location?
            Or the cosy relations the Tory Party still maintain with the likes of Elliot?
            Or the yet-to-be-published unredacted Russia Report that Johnson sat on through the 2019 GE and all the way through his period in office?
            Or his attending, unaccompanied, at least one bunga bunga party at the Italian villa of a senior KGB operative?

            It wasn’t “disbanded” in 2016; it was in 2022 – if you seriously believe that it’s actually been disbanded…

      • Nota Tory Fanboy

        What’s the risk that the ICJ rules in Israel’s favour on the procedural point, Israel immediately withdraws its troops from Gaza and then nukes it as a massive fuck you to any future ICJ case because by that point the genocide would be complete and nothing could be done to stop Israel.

        • Pyewacket

          Interesting angle to be sure. Well, they do have the Means and also the Motive. Question remains are they Mad enough to do it ? Quite possibly.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            I should imagine that the answer to your question is a resounding “yes”, given the doubling down by their *Heritage* Minister on his nuke statement and Regev’s beloved “Samson Option”…

        • Ian Stevenson

          I don’t think Israel is going to use a nuke. The radioactive fallout would be all over the country in hours – and over the neighbours. Not even the US govt would back them on that.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Yet the US Govermment had no problem spreading large amounts of ionising radiation across the US in their above-ground nuke tests over many years… (see a recent study determining its spread)

          • Pears Morgaine

            The US hasn’t conducted an atmospheric bomb test since 1963. The last countries to carry out atmospheric nuclear bomb tests were France (1974) and China (1980).

          • Bayard

            Not just the US, NTF, the whole world. The levels of background radiation are now far higher than before WWII.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Piers Morgaine, that really doesn’t matter when the half-lives of some of those isotopes are measured in hundreds of years.

            The point is, why/how would they seriously stop Israel from nuking Gaza when they’ve already had no problem irradiating their own population.

            Indeed, Bayard. How crazy we are.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Most radiation exposure originates from natural sources, such as radon gas, Bayard. Almost none is due to atmospheric nuclear testing.

            As I’ve mentioned before on another comments thread, nuclear weapons can be used without generating any appreciable fall-out by detonating them at a sufficiently high altitude, NTF.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Lapsed Agnostic, I read your comments on that thread with interest, however it doesn’t change the results of the recent study into radioisotope dispersion across the US as a direct result of those above-ground tests, taking into account weather data.
            Also, if you think it’s not a problem because of background radiation, why the increased incidences of cancer? Ever heard of radiation sickness?

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply NTF. The tests that generated almost all of the fallout in the US were detonated close to the ground (less than 100 metres) or underground (Operation Plowshare). As far as I’m aware, the only people to die of acute radiation sickness in the US as a result of its nuclear weapons programme were the scientists Harry Daghlian & Louis Slotin, who were messing around with plutonium cores when they shouldn’t have been.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Lapsed Agnostic, radiation sickness is certainly survivable but, if you do, it is likely to have a material impact upon your life expectancy, or at least medium/long term impact on quality of life.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply NTF. Non-fatal acute radiation sickness is believed to result in around a 10% increase in your lifetime chances of contracting cancer, so on average not a huge impact on people’s long-term quality of life. Having said that, I don’t know of any non-scientists or non-military that suffered from acute radiation sickness in the US as a result of its nuclear weapons programme.

  • Brian c

    Commonsense suggests it is folly to put faith in the consciences of careerists who have clamboured to the top of an elite profession. Especially ones selected to represent an institution set up by the US and W Europe. Their lifetime dream was to become elites and they did not achieve it by contravening the unwritten rules. Such types instinctively care more about not treading on powerful toes than about powerless poor people being exterminated. I am not expecting a verdict that will anger Washington although I hope I am proved wrong.

    • Hans Adler

      There is no reason to put faith into them, but it’s also not completely unlikely that they will do more or less the right thing. After all, they are typically not working so hard to rise in society just for the sake of having power. It’s about status, about how others think about them. The last thing they want is being slighted by their neighbours, and their children mobbed in school, because they supported a high-profile verdict that is obviously corrupt and genocidal.

      • Brian c

        A good point I didn’t consider. Doubtless a big factor in this extraordinary and brilliant ruling. They certainly have trod on the toes of powerful this time!

  • El Dee

    I think the idea that the court could claim there is no dispute because Israel has not replied has not legs. I say this because in responding to the case at court they are ALSO replying to SA and have done so to deny the accusation. If they did deny it due to this reason then couldn’t SA simply resubmit the case immediately stating that Israel have now replied?

    I think this is a tipping point. I read the entirety of SA’s submission and it was strictly based on publicly available facts and how they relate to the Genocide (Act?) It can’t be denied as being a case, dispute can’t be denied either. Even arch supporters have been vocal in asking Israel to rein in their activities – perhaps in anticipation of this day.

    As Israel is likely to pay no heed to this and it’s not the actions or policy of a specific government this SHOULD free the court to go further than any of the governments of Israel’s supporters ie to go beyond criticism and requests and to call it for what it is. I know that’s not the reality but many countries might be made more comfortable speaking out and taking action as a result of the announcement.

    This is what the Genocide Convention is for, if they fail to take action then this is a tacit admission they are no longer fit for purpose..

    • Nota Tory Fanboy

      If they do try to rule on procedural grounds, it would be great if South Africa do as you describe and simply file the case immediately afterward – adding to it all the documented evidence of what’s occurred in the time since they originally filed it.

  • AG

    I would assume SAs SoS would attend regardless of expected outcome. Since this is a case over principle not policy. As such it was a unanimous symbolic act by the SA government. A signal to the world. Going well beyond the court.
    In such a daring and idealist intent the outcome is important but towers well over earthly verdicts.
    The case is absolute in its aspiration and legitimacy. The court is not. It can rise to the occasion however.
    Lets wait and see if they dared seize this historic opportunity.

  • harry law

    Israel has indicated that it will not abide by any ICJ decision if it is unfavorable to Israel (see my comment on David Cameron’s pathetic performance in front of the armed services committee on the Man in the Hague part 2.)
    Then of course other ICJ member states are under an obligation to act; if they do not, as Craig implied, then International Law is a dead letter. Then the ‘arc of resistance’ will have no other choice than to destroy Israel.
    On the procedural matter Alexander Mercouris (lawyer) said it would be a simple matter to refile the complaint, I agree with Craig, the Court would look ridiculous.

  • Bob (original)

    Yes, it might be a fudge tomorrow as you suggest, but well done to South Africa for lodging the ICJ case.

    And it was apt, on several levels, that it was SA who dragged israel into court.

    We might not get the full result we hoped for, but israel has – most definitely – lost emphatically in the global court of public opinion!

    Proud to be an anti-zionist.

    • Mr Mark Cutts


      Yes, nothing practical may come out of it, but a Moral Marker has been put down by South Africa … who know it could revive the UN from its impotence.

      It is only Vetoes that count though.

      Nevertheless it was worth doing.

  • Johnny Oh45

    Forgive the naivety but is there any chance, if the ICJ delivers a reasonable verdict, that Prime Minister Netanyahu will become the scapegoat for the ills both domestic and international for the citizens of Israel ? That a general election will then need to be held and that during this period the Israeli army will withdraw from Gaza ? Just a hope.

    • Urban Fox

      Scapegoat, as in blame everything he did right on him?

      Netanyahu has been a persistently malignant influence, on Israeli political life for decades. His motivations have always been base & venal.

      Right now they revolve around staying out of prison for corruption, that’s why *he* wants to keep the war going. Bibi has always been a fascist by opportunism not conviction.

      • Johnny Oh45

        I wouldn’t question your assertion that he could be base and venal, but the problems afflicting Israeli society are not restricted to just one person. But the process of removing him could be cathartic and allow for (hopefully) a change of direction that would benefit the Palestinians. That would be the hope.

        • zoot

          there is not a shred of evidence that there are “good” zionists who abhor genocide and are being let down. that old fallacy has been put to bed forever.

          • Johnny Oh45

            No I think that is the point I am trying to make (he did not vote himself in to power) but his unique selling point was that he would keep Israelis safe and he hasn’t done that. That this may become more evident if the ICJ galvanises greater international pressure isolating Israel still further. The current options then appear to be: to pursue the genocide still further but without the international cover being available that enforced the view that Hamas had to release the hostages (which the ICJ verdict has stripped away) or to revise their options and blame their country being dragged down the thorny path by the villain Netanyahu who “deceived” the country.

  • Khalida Manzoor

    I think the attack on khan Yunis today was Israel showing two fingers to ICJ because of the decision tomorrow. If as you say the two countries involved have been given an indication of the decision. I think Israel showed ICJ & the world that they don’t care about International law and will continue to do as they please! If it goes against Israel tomorrow, what do you think Israel will do? What else can we do if it goes the other way, God forbid!

  • Peter

    Craig will apparently be giving a (presumably) live response to ICJ ruling tomorrow on the, wait for it … , Judge Napolitano “Judging Freedom’ show at 2pm.

    It’s already cued up and you will be able to see it live, or later if you miss it, here:

    ‘Craig Murray (Former British Ambassador) : Analysis of ICJ Ruling’ –

  • Ian

    Good summary. I expect you are right about the fudge, and they will kick the can down the road, which they appear to be very expert at – for years if necessary. Meanwhile, no-one who spends even a small amount of time on the subject can deny the legitimacy of the South African case. Netanyahu should go down in history as one of the worst and most despicable of savage, bloodthirsty monsters and be forever remembered as such, along with his willing accomplices in Israel and the West. I don’t believe for a second that if we had a functioning media which informed the populace, Western public opinion would not agree.

  • Carina Escaname

    There’s already been submission of war crimes, against Israel. This will not be any different. It will just solidify the fact that there is no hope or peace for Gaza. As I sit here crying, for the pain and suffering of a people, whose only sin was to born in Gaza. Why are we fooling ourselves.

    • Nota Tory Fanboy

      What’s the point of the ICJ if it just spends years kicking the can down the road?

      Isn’t it supposed to be a tool for preventing a serious risk of genocide from occurring and for immediately ending genocides already underway?
      If it kicks the can down the road for years, that’s a long time during which a genocide can be continued, after which point it might be complete!

      One can see that in the past it might have been necessary to compile all the evidence necessary but in this case such an excuse is without merit since all the evidence is being compiled live, for the whole World to see and hear in real-time.

  • Patricia

    Dear Mr. Murray,

    I have learned that your comments are so correct that I am afraid now. I am an old lady from Latinoamérica (62). I thought I would end my life without “great world conflicts” in my life. Seems I was wrong. I am sooo sad I can not fight for this one because I have no energy anymore…. In my country, I fought for what I thought would be a change. I think we were right, and I continue to think we did the right thing. But I am ashamed now for not fighting more for this world generation 😞. May the Universe guide them.

  • Nota Tory Fanboy

    With regard to the representatives of Israel inciting genocide, do you think the ICJ will remind Israel of its obligations to deal with them according to Israeli statute (i.e. the death penalty) ?

    Also, does the ICJ have to make a simple majority ruling or a qualified majority?

  • Jack

    Personally I have zero expectations on the outcome from ICJ, I am prepared for the very very worst. Most likely in my view, as other commentators here have touched upon, it would likely be some ridiculous legal technicality from the pro-western judges that will save Israel. One should also be perfectly clear that, inherent bias by the judges aside, there is of course a colossal covert lobby/influence-campaign going on from the west and Israel directed against the ICJ staff/judges etc.
    In my view, as a layman of course, it would have been much an easier case to initiate a lawsuit against Israel on the issue of “crimes against humanity”, or an even easier lawsuit, that of “warcrimes”. Such a case would be won easily and would be a great PR/optics win and from there one could trigger a lawsuit on the issue of acts of genocide. A lawsuit regarding “crimes of apartheid” could be trigger too for the situation in the West Bank.

    What is so daunting was that so very few nations came out in the public supporting South Africa and their case which in turn stalled the important momentum needed and instead Israel and the pro-israeli west came out more abrasive in rhetoric to the point that they now even claim, freely, that Israel is not even committing warcrimes at all.

    What is the next move? ICJ rule to the favour of Israel, what should or even could be the next step? The alternatives are running out.
    As Chomsky said, palestinians need a patron because they lack agency, they need someone that could represent them, protect their interests.
    “Part of the tragedy of the Palestinians is they have no international support.” Noam Chomsky
    And as we have seen, not only have the rule-based west deliberately abandoned the palestinians but also the awfully politically corrupt arab, muslim world (excluding Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran) cannot even lift a finger, remember it took like 1 month or so before the Arab League could vocally support for the South African case! What hinder each of these 20+ arab members to initiate their own case at the ICJ, what the heck are the leaders in these nations do every day anyway!? They have all time in the world to report, investigate, compile all the crimes Israel commit right in front of their eyes! They are nothing but nasty scum and after Israel is finished with palestinians, they will be next.

    If Israel indeed win this case, one must be prepared for more unabashed ethnic cleansing, more genocidal murdering, more support for Israel by western politicans, media than we are already are seeing. There will be a drop of interest amongst pro-palestinians in the west too.

    • craig Post author


      Your cynicism is understandable but you are mistaken on procedure. There is no mechanism that would have got a case against Israel for crimes against humanity or war crimes speedily before the ICJ as you can with the Genocide Convention. And war crimes are the province of the totally corrupted ICC. There are indeed cases in train against Israel for both of those.

      • Jack

        To prove war crimes vs proving genocide in court is not the same. As you of course know, to prove genocide you need the additional element of intent..
        To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
        Will the statements from israeli reps. when they speak of all palestinians in Gaza being a legitimate target be enough to meet the intentional aspect of genocide according to an already prowestern/israel ICJ group of judges?

        Omer Bartov, Professor of genocide studies (and somewhat with a pro-israeli bent), said this in november:
        As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.

  • Allan Howard

    Whatever the outcome of the court’s deliberations, Netanyahu will be regarded and remembered in the same vein as Hitler and Pol Pot by most of the people on the planet for generations to come – ie a totally evil monster. And once it gets through to them that BN and Co had advanced knowledge of the Hamas attack and decided to let it go ahead so that they could then justify slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians and bombing Gaza back into the Stone Age, many Israelis will regard him and the political and military and intelligence elite in Israel as totally evil as well. I say many, because it is undoubtedly the case that a significant minority already know the truth and approve, and for the obvious reason that THEY are totally evil too.

    And here’s an example of that evil at work:

    • Allan Howard

      I just did a search and I see that this kicked off a couple of weeks ago, and was widely reported in the media, and there were literally dozens and dozens of results listed for ‘Lawsuit filed against Havard….’. But I don’t suppose many of these media outlets systematically dismantled the mendacious claims in the same way that Glenn Sacks did in his Counterpunch article.

      Yes, there are some demented morons who are Jew haters (and many other minorities), but most of the ill-feeling towards Israel by people in general is because of their treatment of the Palestinians during the past seventy/eighty years or more, and the more they falsely attack people around the world for their criticism of Israel, the more they will be despised. They throw their weight around in every direction, a weight that uses the Holocaust as a weapon, and a weight that has more-or-less the full force of the Western MSM on its side, including in Australia and New Zealand. And as we know all too well, will even subvert democracy.

      Initially I was saying: When will the Israeli people realise that they brought October the 7th on themselves?, but the reality is the BN and Co ‘brought’ it on the Israeli people. But, then again, a majority of them voted for BN and his fascist buddies, so…..

  • harry law

    I am optimistic on this case, it is not the first time the US has been found to be in the wrong by the ICJ; in this case the ICJ has received a slap in the face from Israel, who said they would ignore any ruling. If I was an ICJ Judge, that attitude would be like a red rag to a bull…. The case of Nicaragua v United States is instructive in relation to International law here is what the ICJ determined:
      1. Did the US violate its customary international law obligation not to intervene in the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed, equipped, and financed the contra forces or when it encouraged, supported, and aided the military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua?
      2. Did the US violate its customary international law obligation not to use force against another State, when it directly attacked Nicaragua in 1983 and 1984 and when its activities in point (1) above resulted in the use of force?
      3. Can the military and paramilitary activities that the US undertook in and against Nicaragua be justified as collective self-defence?
      4. Did the US breach its customary international law obligation not to violate the sovereignty of another State, when it directed or authorized its aircrafts to fly over the territory of Nicaragua and because of acts referred to in (2) above?
      5. Did the USs breach its customary international law obligations not to violate the sovereignty of another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to use force against another State and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce, when it laid mines in the internal waters and in the territorial sea of Nicaragua?

    The court’s decision:
    The US violated customary international law in relation to (1), (2), (4) and (5) above. On (3), the Court found that the United States could not rely on collective self-defence to justify its use of force against Nicaragua.

    The US did not accept the court’s decision, and just walked away and refused to pay any reparations.

  • Philip Maughan

    An American commentator on I think Channel 4 News a couple of nights back (sorry to be so vague), said that Palestinian Statehood should be a matter for the UN to decide, rather than Israel, as is now the case. This sounded to me a very sensible and simple observation and would be in line with the creation of the State of Israel, which was itself a creation of the UN.

    • Eboe

      If the world worked properly that would most likely already have been done. The USA will simply veto anything that isn’t in line with Israel’s view point. Sadly. The UN is a defunked organisation and it was from day 1. How can any country be allowed a veto over the will of the rest of the world. The league of nations failed, the UN will fail and what ever follows it will also fail. I personally hold out very little hope for humanity.

      • lysias

        There needs to be a new UN. All nations that agree that it should not be possible to stop action against genocide with a veto should join the new UN, whose new charter would include that limitation on vetoes.

      • Franc

        Spotted on Craig’s Twitter ;
        Israeliars …. ” says the International Court of Justice is antisemitic
        The United Nations is antisemitic.
        The World Health Organisation is antisemitic.
        The 18.22 train from Stockport to Oldham is antisemitic.
        So are red squirrels. Especially the red ones, but the grey ones too. ”

        Some of my best friends are Red sqirrels!!
        Though the American Grey squirrels need to be banished.

  • Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett

    Craig Murray,

    ” I expect tomorrow will be a fudge. The court will say it will decide on the case in due course, and in the meantime Israel should be careful to take all steps to comply with international humanitarian law and to take all necessary actions to crack down on incitement to genocide. Then nothing would change.”

    Seems to me that you are prescient.

    Unless I am wrong – then if there needs to be compliance with the provisions of the Genocide Convention and a report from Israel within a month of the steps taken to ensure compliance – then I must ask this. Given the conditions on the ground in Gaza – then how is there to be compliance without an immediate end to the daily bombing of civilians ?

    Where next do we go?

    • Clark

      Courtenay, I think it is rather better than that. From Jack’s (Russia Today) link below:

      In addition to demanding that Israel refrain from committing genocide, the judges ordered the Jewish state to punish members of its military who commit genocidal acts, as well as officials who publicly call for the genocide of the Palestinians. Israel must also preserve evidence of any genocidal acts already committed, the ruling stated.

      Courtenay, do you know if the ICC can now prosecute individuals who do not comply?

      • Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett

        My understanding is that the ICJ and ICC occupy separate jurisdictional domains.
        I do not believe that the ICJ overlaps to jump from one sphere to another. The ICC can and does prosecute individuals. Unfortunately, and generally speaking, the really big offenders from e.g. US and UK ( Blair or Bush Jr.) get a free pass. The weak ones, such as African dictators, get attention and are prosecuted.
        The ICJ has jurisdiction to deal with applications from state parties.

  • Christoph

    only 2 votes against, i have to admit i am both surprised and relieved by this verdict.
    I am a bit anxious though as to where our quality press might take this.

  • Jack

    There we have it: ICJ stopping short of claiming Israel is commiting genocide, render instead a useless call to Israel to prevent a genocide, if killing children for 120 days straight is not genocide, well then what is!?

    International court orders Israel to prevent genocide
    The ICJ also demanded that humanitarian assistance be allowed into Gaza

    The ruling falls short of South Africa’s full list of demands, which included a measure ordering Israel to “immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.”

    They could not even call on Israel to stop their absurd, unlawful killing!
    As one expected, a mockery of justice.

    • Clark

      Jack, a determination of whether Israel is guilty of genocide was always expected to take much longer. Today’s judgement concerns only “Provisional Measures” to prevent (ie. halt the ongoing) genocide, and is the best we could have hoped for at present.

    • Jack

      This is what I meant earlier, a lawsuit should have started with war crimes and/or crimes againist humanity crimes before taking on the harder-to-prove crime of genocide. That idea was dead in the water in my view.
      The whole case have now fall flat as one expected, prepare for Israel to frame this as a win, as they should, from their perspective. Terrible day for the palestinian cause, this is as close to a judicial OK to exterminate them from the highest of courts in the world.

    • frankywiggles

      Ali Abunimah: “What the South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor said is correct: Israel cannot stop killing and other genocidal acts against Palestinians, as the court ordered, without a ceasefire. Therefore the order of the court is effectively an order for a ceasefire.”

    • Jack

      More absurd than I expected, like ICJ saying:
        Well there is a humanitarian crisis
        water is cut off,
        electricity is cut off,
        food/medicines/fuel is not allowed to enter Gaza,
        people are killed daily – openly – even small children,
        there are deadly diseases, famine and no shelter,
        there are vocal calls to target the whole of the population by Israel,
        the situation is soooo terrible
        it is not a genocide
        AND we see no reason for the humanitarian crisis not to carry on,
        so we will not call for a ceasefire.
        Carry on Israel but do not bomb with such brutality, would you. Thanks!

      ICJ took a pro-israeli line through and through. The only party that refused a ceasefire is of course Israel, the perpetrator!

      Obviously ICJ was not prepared to target one of their own – surprise surprise – therefore the absurd irrational reasoning we are now seeing from them.

  • frankywiggles

    Ali Abunimah, Director, Electronic Intifada:

    “People, sometimes you have to take yes for an answer. Everything worth getting from this court in legal terms we got. Don’t get hung up about the word “ceasefire.” Israel has been ordered to stop its genocide.

    ICJ ruled that the accusation of genocide against Israel is credible, that Palestinians face an urgent, catastrophic situation and that Israeli leaders expressed genocidal intent. It ordered Israel to immediately halt killing and all other prohibited acts under Genocide convention.

    This is a LEGAL ruling. Saying the word “ceasefire” wouldn’t have magically translated into a ceasefire. This LEGAL ruling contains significant findings about Israel as a perpetrator of GENOCIDE. To the extent international law and justice has any utility, this is a landmark case.”

  • harry law

    The provisional measures issued by court

    Anna Holligan

    Reporting from The Hague

    There was a lot of detail there. Here are the provisional measures the court has made:

      •  Israel must take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal – killing members of a group, causing bodily harm, inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group, preventing births.
      •  Israel must ensure its military does not commit any genocidal acts.
      •  Israel must prevent and punish any public comments that could be considered incitement to commit genocide in Gaza.
      •  Israel must take measures to ensure humanitarian access.
      •  Israel must prevent any destruction of evidence that could be used in a genocide case.
      •  Israel must submit a report to the court within one month of this order being given.

    The court also expressed grave concern about the fate of hostages being held by Hamas and called for their immediate release.

    • Jack

      It is like a useless watered down statement read out by Anthony Blinken! Israel should do this or should do that implying there is no genocide going on. This is Kafkaesque!
      Sorry for spamming. I need to take a break now; this is too much even for the dark and cynical.

      • Stevie Boy

        You’re absolutely right Jack. The apologists might like to dress it up any way they can but the reality is that Israel got a light tap on the back of its hoof and was told to stop doing things that may be misconstrued as naughty. Essentially telling a mass murderer to stop doing things that the law defines as murder. We’re back to relying on the Houtis and Hamas to pressure the zionist pigs because the west doesn’t care.

    • harry law

      The word ‘should’ is used for actions/responsibilities/duties that what one thinks is best for the concerned subject. The word ‘must’ is used for actions/responsibilities/duties that are considered compulsory/​necessary.

  • Allan Howard

    I just did a search, and the only media outlet that appears to have reported on the court’s provisional decision so far is Sky News:

    Middle East latest: South Africa claims victory after ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza

    I haven’t read it yet, but I will do as soon as I’ve posted this, but the main thing I’m wondering is if it will include a response about the court’s decision from Israel and, if NOT, are the rest of the MSM waiting for a response from Israel so they can include it.

    • Allan Howard

      So I’ve just read the Sky News article, and it DOES include Israel’s response to the court, including the following:

      « Israel’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has appeared to mock the World Court after it ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide against the Palestinians.

      “Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on X, the first Israeli official to comment after the court ended its reading. »

      And Netanyahu responded to it at some length.

1 2 3