The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, with significant consequences for human rights protections in Palestine under Israel’s 57-year occupation. The opinion stems from a December 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to the court to consider the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

  • Beaver@lemmy.caEnglish
    13·
    4 months ago

    Help carry out the conviction notice of Israeli leadership by supporting BDS. No one will care about Israel when they’re broke.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      4 months ago

      This right here is why I walked away from my species.

      The less help, empathy and respect you need, the more you get.

      From my perspective, that makes us monsters.

      • Beaver@lemmy.caEnglish
        10·
        4 months ago

        Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, political movement that advocates boycotting Israel in support of the rights of Palestinian people

        • Tryptaminev@lemm.eeEnglish
          61·
          4 months ago

          Don’t you know that choosing not to buy products made under an aprtheid regime or by companies profitting of genocide is literally Hitler?!

          At least that is what many US states and Germany want us to believe.

  • zerog_bandit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    I’m confused. Gaza waged a suicide bombing campaign that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Israelis from Gaza in 2005. Are they saying Gaza is still part of Israel?

    • pyre@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      you right to be confused; clearly you come from a parallel universe. i would be too.

  • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    A global judicial body unrecognized is effectively moot. You, me, and a few other here on Lemmy could all denounce any nation’s treatment of others but that wouldn’t mean much. We’d just be some random people complaining on the Internet.

    Legitimacy and respect are critical to any court. Without them the courts have no merit.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      It has legitimacy and respect. What it doesn’t have is enforcement. That’s left to individual states

      • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        4 months ago

        Seemingly not among the involved party. What punishment can flow for this crime and the court’s finding that wouldn’t be levied otherwise.

        The indica of respect and legitimacy of a court is if their rulings are abided. Convince Israel a court with no Israelis should be the final arbitrator of their nations course of acts.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          If you’ve shifted your claim to “Israel doesn’t respect the ICJ” then yeah of course, they clearly have no respect for international law but that is a very different claim to what you posted earlier

          • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            4 months ago

            For the sake of clarity is my claim is that most nations won’t accept the legitimacy of any ICJ ruling against them as there is no practicable means of holding a nation to account. A judiciary without an executive is an exercise in futility.

            There is no crime without a consequence.

            Any nation at the point of which informed reasonable third parties declare them to have committed war crimes isn’t likely to just slap their knee and say “you know what, my bad” after a ICJ ruling.

            It’s one thing to respect the ICJ when you are a third party. It’s another when you are in the nation subject.

            If the ICJ declared that many European countries violated human rights by not allowing criminals defendants to face their accusors, I doubt many of them would reform their justice system.

            • kaffiene@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              4 months ago

              Ah well again, that’s a different claim. The court is respected but everyone knows they have no enforcement powers. Their strength is entirely diplomatic

              • bartolomeo@suppo.fiEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                I think what’s missing here is the existence of legal precedence. The UN had an arms embargo on apartheid South Africa starting in the 70s, so there’s precedent for that.

                Fun fact: Israel violated the South Africa arms embargo. Big time.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      4 months ago

      They’re not allowed to. This is basically all they can do: the equivalent of going "guys, this is without a doubt super fucked up and you should stop enabling it like you enabled the FIRST Apartheid regime for decades