zlacker

> > 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.

Reading the actual icj ruling it seems like it only forbid it when done with genocidial intent. The court did not forbid collateral damage.

The specific wording included the line "...take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II..."

Earlier in paragraph 78 they said "The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above)."

So basically it is only forbidden if the intent is specificly to kill Palestinians and not if it is collateral damage to some other military objective.

I don't think this order will affect anything israel is doing.

>>bawolf+(OP)
The ruling is so politically ambiguous, so israel will probably be digesting it for awhile. Perhaps lowering the military activities.

>>Someon+im
I don't know, that part seemed really clear. I think the ambigious part would more be the order about aid (how much aid is sufficient?)

>>bawolf+bn
Because this ruling is clearly about reading between lines. It feels like it is simply directly chanelling US will.

>>Someon+im
That seems optimistic. It's not like they haven't already been made aware of their own activities by this point.

>>Someon+im
I agree the ruling is politically ambiguous like pretty much all things political - but it does pretty clearly signal that the international community has soured on the IDF's actions. This feels like a great opportunity for the Isreali government to say "Oh, my bad" and start serious de-escalation issues while losing less face because they're complying with "genuine humanitarian concerns".

Diplomacy isn't about hard rules - the ICJ can't say "We impose a cease-fire" and demand that the GM of the world step in an immediately cease hostilities. Everything in diplomacy is about posturing and implications - it's why the US has managed to maintain the frankly insanely incoherent "Strategic Ambiguity" of trying to appease the PRC and Taiwan simultaneously, and it works - both countries are happy that the US winks after every statement about the PRC or Taiwan and gives local politicians room to favorably interpret the US statements to their base and reinforce that "Actually they're on our side".