This article is a joke. The Economist is a joke. The OP’s entire history is a joke.
Someone find the article of the Economist glorifying Britain’s genocide in India from a back in the day. It seems like little has changed.
It’s amazing that the narrative has shifted to “you can’t just call deliberately inflicting on a group of people conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ‘genocide’… shame on you!”.
Stupid publication that hates the ICJ as they know their own could be charged next.
With its case, South Africa is making a mockery of the court. Genocide requires that Israel is killing people in Gaza simply for being Palestinian. In fact it is targeting Hamas fighters in response to a deadly attack on its territory. Some far-right Israeli politicians have used hateful language, but they are not articulating government policy.
The court is filled to the brim with professionals who are more than able to determine if someone brings them nonsense. The fact that the case was not dismissed and a preliminary judgement was made indicates there could be legal merit to the case. They do not need some silly publication to “protect them”. The ICJ was founded for these kinds of cases.
I personally think that it important to shine a light on what’s going on and answer the most important question:
- Does the violence by Israel provably rise to the level of genocide as legally defined?
Because if it does, it will make it a hell of a lot harder for politicians to go on TV and defend Israel.
The ICJ will make a mockery of itself by the time this is all over, because even if it finds Isn’treal guilty years from now when the trail finally concludes, the US will veto any action at the Security Council.
Citations Needed podcast: News Brief: The ICJ Ruling and the Essentialness of Squishy Western Liberal Support for Genocide
In this public News Brief, we react to the media spin around the ICJ’s genocide ruling against Israel and how framing by the NYT and BBC seeks to uphold the logic of the so called “war” creating said genocide.
What does the security council have to do with this. These operate completely separate, and the most powerful party in the security council does not even recognize the ICJ’s authority.
Regardless of your views on the matter at hand, it is still important that these kind of processes exist, in an attempt to make the world a better place.
An advisory relation. The Security Council may act upon their advise, just like the Security Council can decide to do something because it’s Tuesday.
I think they should follow up on a verdict, but it’s unfortunately not legally binding.
deleted by creator
