zlacker

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+(OP)
The measures ordered by the UN court are in references to Article II of the Genocide Convention [0], which limits the scope to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, where the court identifies the group as “Palestinians in Gaza”. So it’s the intent of genocide towards that group which is the deciding factor. As long as the actions do not carry that intent (and are plausible as such), they are not prohibited.

My reading is that the court is basically saying “You are presently running the risk of committing genocide, please take all measures in your power to prevent that.”

[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...

>>layer8+L5
They will claim they are attempting to kill Hamas militants and any non-Hamas Palestinians deaths are incidental. You can do anything with this excuse. Did the court close this loophole?

>>esafak+Ra
Any accusation of genocide will be for the relevant courts to decide. False pretexts (excuses) can be identified as such. The present court order is a shot across the bow. The court is explicitly saying that the intent of genocide appears plausible at this time, and explains the reasons for that assessment. Meaning that Israel will have to show with their actions if they want to turn it implausible.

>>esafak+Ra
Its not really a loop hole but kind of the main intention of the law.

Too many civilian deaths is for war crimes & crimes against humanity, not the crime of genocide.

>>esafak+Ra
I don't think it's really a loophole. For example, the Nazis could not possibly claim that the people they killed in death camps were merely collateral damage.

>>smooth+(OP)
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.

>>bakuni+jR
You might find this to be an interesting read, even if it may not change your mind. “What Did Top Israeli War Officials Really Say About Gaza? Journalists and jurists point to damning quotes from Israel’s war cabinet as evidence of genocidal intent. But the citations are not what they seem.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/is...

Archive version: https://archive.ph/GV14c