Saeko wrote:My analysis of the ICJ interim ruling:
1. The court did not rule whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide. That will take years. It did, however, rule that there is sufficient evidence for the case against Israel to be plausible. This will have some major consequences. Firstly, it repudiates those western leaders, the Biden administration in particular, who claimed that there was no basis for the accusations of genocide in Gaza. It could also make it more difficult for Israel to acquire weapons from its allies because the ruling could expose politicians in those countries to domestic lawsuits.
This is doubtful given the ICJ did not order Israel to stop the military operations.
The bar for plausibility is low and any war that affects a large number of civilians - like one featuring urban battles - can be said to be "plausibly" genocide. I doubt it will damage Israel's PR if it's cleared of all charges.
Saeko wrote:2. The ruling rejected Israel's arguments about self-defense. (This is very important. "Muh HoOmAn ShIelDs!" and "THeY sTarTeD iT!" are not a defense against charges of genocide)
It did not address those at all.
Saeko wrote:3. The ruling rejected the sufficiency of Israel's measures to minimize harm to civilians and to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.
It didn't quite address this either. It did not say if Israel has done enough on this matter and it is also not the topic of the trial.
Saeko wrote:4. The court did not call for an immediate ceasefire. However, (2) and (3) above mean that the way that Israel is currently conducting its war against Hamas must fundamentally change. If Israel does not produce evidence that it is doing everything possible to minimize loss of civilian life and to allow for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, then, as I understand it, the court can compel a ceasefire.
5. (4) puts Israel in a double-bind. If they significantly scale back their military operations in Gaza, then it will be a tacit admission of genocide. If they do not do so, then they risk having the ICJ issuing an order for a ceasefire, and, further down the line, will have a very hard time arguing that their actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide.
The order did not order Israel to scale operations back either. What it did order it to do is to send more humanitarian aid, punish people like Ben Gvir and more generally comply with the Convention.
Saeko wrote:6. Ben Gvir was told to STFU. (I think everyone can be happy about that)
Yes!
Saeko wrote:7. Overall, the ruling was a major PR disaster for Israel.
How so? Since the ICJ didn't order Israel to stop military operations, if anything, this is a defeat for South Africa. It did not get what it wanted most, the star provisional measure.
The ICJ is also using a much lower standard to determine plausibility than the one it will use to actually rule on the merits.
It will be worse for South Africa's case if the ICJ, a month or two from now, says Israel is in compliance with its order.
Saeko wrote:8. The interim measures have some chance of actually preserving Palestinian life.
Maybe, it will depend on the situation on the ground. For instance, if Israel sends more aid by ground yet it is appropriated by Hamas it is unlikely the civilian population will benefit. If it's airdropped, I think it would likely work better (and would allow Israel to keep the border closed).
Also, the interim measures ordered are surprisingly... Well, kind of generic. I think everyone understands that, when civilians are involved, there should be an effort by belligerents to give them aid, or that incitement should be curbed, or that they should not destroy a population. Yet I would have expected the ICJ to order Israel to prepare for the return of the population of northern Gaza and Gaza City in particular. It would make sense for Israel to do it, both politically and militarily, and it is also the right thing to do.
Saeko wrote:9. Hamas was ordered to release all hostages unconditionally. Since Hamas has stated that they will release their hostages if and only if Israel releases all Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank (which they most likely will never agree to) the day before the ruling, I think they are signalling that they will not be releasing any hostages unconditionally. Additionally, if Hamas does not release the hostages, it will undermine the credibility of their claims that they are willing to comply with the rulings of the ICJ.
You know what's most notable about this? Israel did not request anything to this effect, since it was responding to the South African request. The ICJ, on its own, decided to talk about the hostages.
Saeko wrote:10. Ultimately, if the interim measures are effective in preventing the genocide of Palestinians, this is also a win for Israel in the long run. They may not understand this now, but my hope is that they will one day.
You mean the genocide that isn't happening?