zlacker

>>xbar+(OP)
Glad to see Israel face some responsibility for its horrific acts against civilians.

> The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them

Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using.

>>smooth+P
Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote and no more munitions landing in Israel. And the judges voted it down

This isn't a read between the lines situation, because SA's request was specifically for the court to temporarily rule for a full immediate ceasefire until the larger case could be heard

What is interesting here is that by mis-reading the verdict like yourself, and Israel assuming the worst, both sides immediately came out saying today was a huge win. So at least we have that, everyone (but the Palestinians, who aren't a side in this case) is happy

>>shmatt+ZM
Honestly I'm not trying to mis-read the verdict which is why I asked the question. I think all of Israel's strategies to date include the death of Palestinians. Since that's explicitly forbidden with that ruling, how will they continue to fight? Will they just ignore the ruling or change tactics?

>>smooth+HT
You are allowed under international law to lead war with significant amounts of civilian casualties. The issue being judged is claims of Israel committing a genocide. This is just a preliminary order while the full case is considered, and it might be bad PR to disregard it, but nothing else will come of it.

When hearing 'genocide', most people immediately jump to the Holocaust, but the definition used by the ICC and IL in general is far more permissible:

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

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A to E are horrible acts by themselves, but what makes a genocide is intent, and intent is very hard to prove. Personally, I think SA brought a very strong case forward, the genocidal tendencies of key Israeli decision makers and exeters are well published. In the US and Europe, the political class and general public just ignore the evidence currently, and a ruling of the ICC might help people 'wake up', but not much tangible consequences will result from it otherwise.