The International Court of Justice (aka the ICJ or “the World Court”), is starting proceedings today in response to South African charges that the Israeli war in Gaza violates international conventions on genocide. Here are links to background and the text of the 84-page South African brief.
According the legal definition of genocide, violent acts are not enough. There must be “intent to destroy whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:
While acts of violence occur in any war, intent to commit genocide is usually difficult to prove. Perhaps the most damning section of the South African brief begins on page 59, which documents a long list of public statements from Israeli officials that show clear evidence of intent.
The court is does not conduct criminal proceedings, and any judgement would have to go to the UN security council for enforcement. The members of the panel who will review the case include one from Israel and one from South Africa.
What would the implications be of a judgement against Israel?
The genocide convention applies to those who aid genocide, not just the perpetrators.
What should be the response if the US faces similar proceedings?
A decision is likely well before the November election.
Biden has long supported military intervention to prevent genocide.
How would that logic apply to the Gaza War?
For generations, American leaders have waffled on genocide, and Biden broke that tradition in a splendid way when he very forthrightly said (according to my rushed notes): “I don’t have a stomach for genocide.” He advocated a no-fly zone over Darfur, a major push to get peace-keeper helicopters into Darfur, and a U.S.-led NATO action of some kind (in my view this would have more to do with Chad and Central African Republic than Darfur itself). He said: “When a country engages in genocide…that country forfeits the right to say, ‘you have no right to intervene.'” Biden, Palin and Genocide - The New York Times
The fact this coming from South Africa should make everyone laugh their heads off. South Africa has basically had a “soft genocide” going on against its white population for ten years now.
The Soviet Union boycotted the UN in 1950. The result was the UN military action in Korea since the Soviets were not there to veto the security council resolutions.
The UN is defunct no one cares of any significance what South Africa thinks they should get their own house in order before accusing anyone of genocide.
While I wish we would stay out of the war I wouldn’t blame Israel if they started WW2 style carpet bombing of Gaza. Egypt could open the door at anytime and let their Muslim brothers in but they don’t. No one wants them and it’s been demonstrated time and time again Palestinians are not going to coexist with Israel, nm how one might wish it.
The UN’s only value is as a forum where nations without diplomatic relations can have “unofficial” encounters in the lunch room, or other members offices. Other than that it is just a debating society. We don’t need full membership, only observer status to accomplish these things. I would say reduce to observer status, with a huge cut in fees paid, and let them talk all they want. We would still be the 2,000,000 pound gorilla in the room.
Sometimes it’s useful for us from a FP standpoint to be there.
The issue is that the organization brought in a bunch countries that did not even meet the minimum standards for membership during the downfall of colonialism. And we never enforced the “human rights” rule set that the original charter called for all members to accept.
Around half of the countries there don’t deserve to be there.
Observer status would provide all of the foreign policy benefits we have now. Our national power is what provides those benefits. No one would actually ignore our opinions, even if disagreed with. It comes with being the nuclear armed, massive military welding, significant economic influence welding, 2,000,000 pound gorilla in the room.
