“Israeli politicians have already said that they’re going to ignore the ICJ order,” Mark Lattimer, the executive director of Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, told Al Jazeera. “It is much harder for, particularly, the US and European states including the UK, to ignore the order because they have a much stronger record of holding or supporting the International Court of Justice.”
“The ICJ ruling puts a lot more pressure on the US and other Western allies to move on a ceasefire resolution,” Zaha Hassan, a human rights lawyer and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Al Jazeera. “It makes it a lot harder for the US, along with Israel, to make the case to Western governments that are still very much concerned with international legitimacy, to maintain the idea that Israel is acting within the constraints of international law in Gaza and that it’s acting in self-defence.”
Some evidence suggests that Israel knows this, too. Soon after South Africa announced that it would bring a case before the ICJ, Israel’s tactics on the ground started to change, experts said.
There was “a rush to wipe out any possibility for a Palestinian return to the north of Gaza”, Hassan said, pointing to controlled bombings of universities and hospitals. “Once you have hospitals taken out, you make it impossible for people in war to stay. That’s a part of a strategy to force Palestinian population transfer and permanent displacement.”
What the ICJ’s interim ruling means for Israel’s war on Gaza, in terms of realpolitik: pretty much nothing, to be honest.
I think it’s an important step to increasing international pressure on Israel. International pressure was a major reason for how the apartheid in South Africa came to an end. But I do agree it’s terrible more immediate actions aren’t being taken to help Palestinians like an actual ceasefire or aid not being prevented for possible “dual-use”
I agree that it’s important.
I also agree that it’s deeply frustrating that this is effectively just a slap on the wrist for Israel.
Yes this ruling puts pressure on the genocide enablers in Europe and the US. Israel will still act with impunity as it has done since it was founded but it is dependant on the political and military cover of it’s backers. If Western politicians are under pressure to comply with domestic laws against genocide then they will start breaking ranks.
International pressure was not a major reason for the undoing of the Apartheid, massive sanctions were. And there’s no way major sanctions will come upon Israel any time soon since everyone pretty much agrees that Hamas has to be removed, even if they don’t want to say it out loud.
We’ll have to see what happens with how the international community reacts to the ICJ ruling. I consider sanctions a form of international pressure.
Hamas should get tried for their war crimes, same for Israeli officials. But unless statehood is addressed I don’t see that happening yet. With the massive amount of settlers swiss cheesing the West Bank, I don’t see any practical two-state solution. A one-state solution is what I think needs to happen but the realities of creating that would be quite complicated and require a lot of international pressure
One state is delusional and neither party wants that… Well maybe the Palestinians want it to gain the population majority and vote for a bunch of anti jew legislation or simply pogrom them out of existence.
Two states with less shitty borders would be a bit more realistic, maybe the 1967 parameters or so. But currently both Palestinians and Israeli want to keep fighting because they both think it will help them reach their goals - and one of them is correct, guess who.
Sanctions are exactly that: international pressure.
Sure all sanctions are international pressure but not all international pressure is in the form of sanctions. The pressure we are seeing right now is mainly in the form of strongly worded letters and I don’t expect that to change unless Israel dramatically escalates its war efforts or annexes areas.
it MIGHT have an effect in the united states. israel is so reliant on us dollars and equipment to survive, it would not be much of a stretch to call them a client state.
I don’t think any (democratic) politicians want to be associated with or vocally support a genocidal nation. don’t be surprised if you see (democratic) politicians talk about pulling funds from israel. it’s something I think we should have done at least 30 years ago.
Removed by mod
This is not an opinion page nor is it about Qatar. Nor have there been any reported failed fact checks about Palestine, at least that I know of.
AJ has a left bias certainly, but is still a credible news source.
In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.
Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.
It’s not even ‘mostly factual’.
Yet the rest of the page, which I quoted, shows that
In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias
And the two articles that failed fact checks were an article about India and an article about South Africa both in 2018.
Here’s another metric for bias and credibility
https://adfontesmedia.com/al-jazeera-bias-and-reliability/
Ad Fontes Media rates Al Jazeera (website) in the Skews Left category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability.
When it comes to Qatar, India, or Africa then AJ is not a good source to turn to.