The ICJ indictment does not charge genocide. With good reason. Overheated rhetoric does not help unless either there’s clueless self righteousness (see the song) or the objective is to inflame passions rather than to persuade (bad faith actor). In either case, life is too short to continue this.
The ICJ doesn't indict, it adjudicates. And it has ruled against Israel in it's adjudication of the Genocide Convention many times. This isn't clueless self righteousness, it's a legal determination by the highest court in the world substantiated by basically every human rights org, even in Israel
Aside from the highly conditional 1/26/24 ruling (“some acts may be close; don’t cross the genocide line”) please point me to an ICJ ruling on Israel and genocide. Given how things are going in Gaza, they may cross the line, but I know of no ICJ ruling that they have already done so.
Israel violated the conditions of the 1/26/24 ruling. www.un.org/unispal/docu...
Read it carefully. No holding of genocide. I believe that Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Netanyahu will cross the line and that there will be such a ruling, but they haven’t yet. And screaming “genocide” won’t create an adjudication of genocide where none exists.
Israel violated the provisional orders to mitigate the risk of genocide. Short of a final determination which will take years this is the most definitive adjudication the court can possibly make on being in violation of the genocide convention.
Then say “Israel is committing war crimes and is unwilling to impose safeguards against genocide. Under Netanyahu, Israel is a rogue state.” Constant bleating that they have committed genocide when the elements of the offense haven’t been proved and/or aren’t crystal clear cheapens the term.
Being unwilling to impose safeguards against genocide is in fact a violation of the genocide convention. What cheapens the term genocide is insisting that the killing be long completed before we call it a genocide when there is an obligation under IHL to prevent genocide before it is completed.
Your first sentence is wrong as a matter of law. Your second sentence is an opinion, fine to have though I disagree. That being said I believe that you are sincere and not a troll, and I hope that whether it’s via your agitation or my lawyerly approach, Israel’s policy changes soon.
It is not, there is a reason why even the mere risk of genocide is sufficient to trigger protections under the genocide convention. If you had to wait for the genocide to be completed then the genocide convention would be completely toothless.
Very Minority Report-y perspective. Not the way the convention works. If there is a chance of genocide, other countries should use political pressure to prevent it, but a country can’t be judged to be in violation of the convention just because someone fears genocide may happen.