The order of the International Court of Justice is a root-and-branch rejection of the Western consensus that Israel has no case to answer for the devastation it has caused in the Gaza Strip
There is a hallucinogenic logic to the US cutting off funds to a relief agency because some of its employees allegedly participated in Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians and the US waving through billions of dollars in weapons to Israel for the specific, avowed purpose of bombing Palestinians. That logic is founded on an article of faith that Israel is a democracy, governed by the rule of law, served by the most moral army in the world, born of the Holocaust; therefore, regardless of how many Palestinians it kills or how it kills them, it cannot be guilty of war crimes or genocidal violence... Notice how all references to Hamas, the Houthis or the Hezbollah are prefaced by ‘Iran-backed’ while Israel fights its corner unhyphenated despite being armed by every major country in the West. That’s because Israel is cast as an autonomous moral actor, while its targets are agency-less proxies for an axis of evil.
GAZA casualties live statistics
United Nations Documentation on the Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem
The order of the International Court of Justice on South Africa’s request for provisional measures to prevent genocide in the Gaza Strip is, in the words of The Economist, a “stinging rebuke” to Israel. It’s more than that; it is a root-and-branch rejection of the Western consensus that Israel has no case to answer for the devastation it has caused in Gaza.
In response to South Africa’s case, Israel had argued that the war in Gaza did not fall within the jurisdiction of the ICJ, that the ICJ should “remove the case from the General List” and also reject South Africa’s request for provisional measures. Israel’s friends in the West agreed. The favoured description of the South African case by government spokespersons of Western nations was “meritless” or “unhelpful”. The most enthusiastic media advocate of Israel’s continuing war in Gaza, The Economist, led with a headline that read “Charging Israel with genocide makes a mockery of the ICJ”.
The ICJ didn’t agree. It rejected every one of Israel’s contentions. It ruled that the ICJ had jurisdiction over the case under the Genocide Convention. It further ruled that South Africa had the standing to bring the case. These two rulings prepared the ground for its most trenchant conclusions. It ruled that “… at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide…”
The reasoning behind this finding of the ICJ, that some of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention were plausibly threatened, was a rehearsal of South Africa’s arguments. When the president of the Court, Justice Joan Donoghue, presented its findings, she cited the same allegations of genocidal incitement by Israel’s political and military leaders that South Africa’s legal team had set before the Court. To have the prosecution’s arguments and evidence recited as valid reasons for finding the threat to the Palestinians under the Genocide Convention plausible dismissed Israel’s claim (and that of its Western enablers) that there was nothing remotely genocidal to see in Gaza….
*******************************************************************
Israel wants to slay the monster next door, but with this lethal bombardment, it is feeding it
Seth Anziska on Dominant Orthodoxies
The west’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten
Dogs of war / New acronym in Gaza: WCNSF – Wounded Child No Surviving Family
Michael Brenner: Europe-Jews-Muslims
More than 10 children losing legs in Gaza every day as dire health crisis grows
Bertrand Russell’s Last Message on Israel and Palestine
Is America like the Soviet Union in 1990?
Against homogenisation: Advancing diversity through Democratic Confederalism
After the truth-shower 