All countries who signed and ratified the 1948 UN convention of Genocide (General Assembly resolution 260 A) are by definition of UN charter OBLIGED to do what ever means necessary to stop the ongoing genocide.

The text of the declaration is clear, so is the 72 pages report declaring Israel actions in Gaza as an act of genocide.
But so far, not a single county has done anything to react on this.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide
#Gaza #StopIsrael
#palestine #Israel #Genocide
@palestine@lemmy.ml
@palestine@fedibird.com

  • AliSaket@mander.xyzEnglish
    4·
    11 days ago

    @Farhad

    the big difference between ICJ ruling and UN report is that ICJ ruling was against individuals and not many countries are part of ICJ

    You might be mistaking it for the ICC (International Criminal Court). The ICJ (International Court of Justice) is the highest court ruling on international law and therefore the genocide convention of 1948. Only states can appeal to it. The order obliges Israel as a nation, not as individuals, to suspend military operations, etc. and not to commit the four out of five actions defining genocide in the convention. The wording is “The State of Israel shall (…)”.

    The biggest points out of that ruling to me are:

    • The Palestinians are a group protected under the convention.
    • The difficult to prove point of intention is met.
    • Four out of five genocidal actions are relevant.
    • They order Israel and all nations to prevent genocide.

    They basically all but called it a genocide, because usually that takes time and legal mubmo-jumbo and is ruled after the fact. I’m sure that political thinking played a role too, since the ICJ has no executive power to enact its orders. They rely on compliance of the states. The big difference with the new report is that they unequivocally see all the conditions (intent and at least one action under Article 2) met to call it a genocide (even if not by a court).

      • AliSaket@mander.xyzEnglish
        2·
        11 days ago

        Well… yes? The Rome Statutes establish the ICC (International Criminal Court). It prosecutes criminal individuals. Their chief prosecutor Karim Khan has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Deif last November.

        I was talking though about the ICJ (International Court of Justice) which was established through the UN Charter itself. Their jurisdiction therefore includes all UN member states. The aforementioned court order was a preliminary decision taken in the case brought forth by the state of South Africa against the state of Israel.

        • Farhad@freefree.psBanned from communityOP
          1·
          11 days ago

          @AliSaket
          I don’t think countries that are not joined ICC will be covered by ICJ. This is why Poland left it to welcome Netanyahu.

          But anyway, it’s just BS anyway.

          They will NEVER be able to bring western war criminals to justice. 22 years after Iraq invasion, not a single person was held accountable and freaking Tony Blair is now involved in ethnic cleansing of Gaza too.

          • AliSaket@mander.xyzEnglish
            1·
            11 days ago

            I don’t think countries that are not joined ICC will be covered by ICJ.

            The ICC and the ICJ are completely separate entities. While the ICJ stems from the UN charter, so every UN member has ratified it, the ICC can issue arrest warrants for any person on the planet, but only the signatories to the Rome Statutes are obliged to act upon them.

            22 years after Iraq invasion, not a single person was held accountable

            There is an argument to be made, that the rise of Trump was only possible, because nobody has ever been held to account. The whole Bush administration should have been brought to justice for their wars or detention and torture programs and other crimes, but Obama wanted “to look forward, not backwards” - and didn’t close Gitmo, while we’re at it. And he bailed out those, who made fraud their business model and crashed the economy for good measure, no accountability. The same goes for Tony Blair, who as you said, has been given yet another opportunity to get away with heinous crimes.

            • Farhad@freefree.psBanned from communityOP
              1·
              11 days ago

              @AliSaket
              You are right. I am getting old. I did a long post about ICJ rulings back in late 90s and compared the biased against developing countries both in their selections of cases and the rulings.

              Thank you for correction, I have to defrag my brain