If Trump can get off, why not the zios too? Let’s be real about the true purpose of “judges”.

I didn’t know that the current president of the court is Lebanese and that he was elected to that role in 2024, after the start of the most recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. (He was elected to the court in 2017.) I don’t think any human being could be impartial in those circumstances.

Edit: Sebutinde was elected to the court in 2011 and then elected as the vice president in 2024, but there was no vote now for her to become president. She does so by default when Salam resigns.

Indeed, the basis on which she dismissed the provisions is quite important. She highlights that one of the fundamental parts that according to the ICJ are necessary to constitute a genocide (intent) is not present. For all of you interested, her full opinion is available to read here. In short, she stated that because of the lack of intent there is no genocide in Gaza (as defined by the ICJ).

I will note that she hadn’t before this ruling been considered “pro-Israel”. Though it has historically been the opinion of some moderators in this community that statements like hers constitute “Pro-Israel propaganda”.

The relevant part from the genocide convention:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical…

Here are some excerpts from the opinion of judge Sebutinde:

… Some of the preconditions for the indication of provisional measures have not been met — South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention — Similarly, since the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the rights it asserts and for which it seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures are plausible under the Genocide Convention — The provisional measures indicated by the Court in this Order are not warranted.

Later in the document there are more detailed explanations, but I will spoiler them to avoid a huge wall of text:

spoiler

>A. There are no indicators of a genocidal intent on the part of Israel … >What distinguishes the crime of genocide from other grave violations of international human rights law (including those enumerated in Article II, paragraphs (a) to (d), of the Genocide Convention) is the existence of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Accordingly, the acts complained of by South Africa, as well as the rights correlated to those acts, can only be capable of “falling within the scope of the said Convention” if a genocidal intent is present, otherwise such acts simply constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and not genocide as such. … >21. … Having examined the evidence put forward by each of the Parties, I am not convinced that a prima facie showing of a genocidal intent, by way of indicators, has been made out against Israel. The war was not started by Israel but rather by Hamas who attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 thereby sparking off the military operation in Israel’s defence and in a bid to rescue its hostages. I also must agree that any “genocidal intent” alleged by the Applicant is negated by (1) Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza; (2) its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks; and (3) its facilitation of humanitarian assistance. A careful examination of Israel’s war policy and of the full statements of the responsible government officials further demonstrates the absence of a genocidal intent. Here I must hasten to add that Israel is expected to conduct its military operation in accordance with international humanitarian law but violations of IHL cannot be the subject of these proceedings which are purely pursuant to the Genocide Convention. Unfortunately, the scale of suffering and death experienced in Gaza is exacerbated not by genocidal intent, but rather by several factors, including the tactics of the Hamas organization itself which often entails its forces embedding amongst the civilian population and installations, rendering them vulnerable to legitimate military attack. > >22. Regarding the statements of Israeli top officials and politicians that South Africa cited as containing genocidal rhetoric, a careful examination of those statements, read in their proper and full context, shows that South Africa has either placed the quotations out of context or simply misunderstood the statements of those officials. The vast majority of the statements referred to the destruction of Hamas and not the Palestinian people as such. Certain renegade statements by officials who are not charged with prosecuting

I resent the outlet’s labelling of the judge as “pro-Israel”, because that implies that the other judges are “anti-Israel”. The job of the judges is not to be pro or anti whatever country. It is to be judges and interpret the law to the best of their ability.

One more thing that the article fails to do is explain what the ICJ president, giving the impression that the president has the power to shift the opnions of the court in this or that direction. For those interested, here is what the president does.

In effect, the article, as written, politicizes the ICJ and pushes a narrative that legal proceedings against Israel’s conduct have nefarious “anti-Israel” motivations. Fuck. That. When the ICJ ruled against Ecuador, it was not “anti-Ecuador”. Israel is not special.