이 사건은 바이든 (Biden) 대통령, 블링켄 (Blinken) 국무 장관, 오스틴 (Austin) 국방 장관이 이스라엘의 가자 지구에서의 팔레스타인인들에 대한 제노사이드를 막아야 할 법적 책임을 회피 햇다고 비난하고 이스라엘 정부에 대한 미 행정부의 지원을 금지를 사법부에 촉구하기 위해 취해진 소송입니다.
이런 소송은 소송의 특성상 참 오래 오래 갑니다....실제적인 판결을 받게 될때는 이미 전쟁이 끝나 이후가 되는 뒷북 치기가 대부분이지만...이런 소송이 진행 되면서 여론을 만들고 정부를 압박 할 수 잇기 때문에 사용됩니다.
ICJ의 판결은 이스라엘의 행위가 제노사이드임을 인정한 판결입니다.....당사자들이 이런 판결을 어떻게 받아 들이던..일단 논쟁에서의 논리와 명분의 우위를 점 할 수 잇습니다.
바이든 행정부는 제노사이들을 전폭적으로 지원하고 잇는 악질적인 행정부라는 것을 피 할 수 없습니다.이는 미 행정부가 입만 벌리면 나발 거리는 ...민주주의, 인권, 평화, 휴머니즘 따위를 공식적으로 뒤집어 버리는 것으로 미국이 그런 것엔 눈꼼만큼의 관심도 없엇다는 사실의 확인은 물론이고...미국의 이중성과 사악함을 전 세계인들에게 다시 한번 확인해 주엇습니다..
ICJ의 판결은 ....그런 인종청소질 하는데 사용할 무기 따위 팔아 처 먹지 말라는 것이지요.
Here’s why the ICJ ruling on genocide is a crushing defeat for Israel
The Hague-based court has not called for a ceasefire and has no enforcement power, but its decision is resounding nonetheless
By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory
People celebrate a landmark 'genocide' case filed by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice, in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah on January 10, 2024
The United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled on the case that South Africa has brought against Israel. Those who mistake realism for simplistic materialism – the ‘it’s only there if I can touch it’ variety – may underestimate the significance of that ruling. In reality, it is historic. Here’s why.
First, and most importantly, the court has ruled against Israel. South Africa’s well-prepared brief was over 80 pages long, closely argued, and very detailed. But its gist was simple: It had applied to the ICJ – which only handles cases between countries, not individuals – to find that Israel is committing genocide in its attack on Gaza, thereby infringing on fundamental Palestinian rights as brutally as possible.
Such a finding always takes years. For now, at this preliminary stage, South Africa’s immediate request was for the judges to decide that there is, in essence, a high enough probability of this genocide taking place to do two things: First, continue the case (instead of dismissing it) and, secondly, issue an injunction (in this context called “preliminary measures”) ordering Israel to abstain from its genocidal actions so that the rights of its Palestinian victims receive due protection.
The court has done both, with a majority of 15 to 2. One of the two judges dissenting is from Israel. Those voting, in effect, against Tel Aviv* included even the president of the court, from the US, and the judge from Germany, a country that has taken a self-damagingly pro-Israel line. As to the Israeli pseudo-argument claiming ‘self-defense,’ the court rightly ignored it. (Occupying powers simply do not have that right regarding occupied entities under international law. Period.)
This is a clear victory for South Africa – and for Palestine and Palestinians – and a crushing defeat for Israel, as even Kenneth Roth, head of thoroughly pro-Western Human Rights Watch recognizes with commendable clarity.
It is true that the ICJ has no power to enforce its rulings. That would have to come through the UN Security Council, where the US is protecting Israel, whatever it does, including genocide. Yet there are good reasons why representatives of Israel have reacted with statements so arrogant and aggressive that they only further damage Tel Aviv’s badly damaged international standing:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance, has displayed his legal nihilism by dismissing as “outrageous” the closely reasoned finding of the court, at which Israel had every opportunity to argue its case. Israel’s far-right Minister of National Security, convicted racist and terrorist supporter Itamar Ben-Gvir, has derided the ruling with an X post simply saying: “Hague schmague.”
And, of course, as always, everyone not toeing Israel’s line is smeared as an “antisemite”: The ICJ is now joining the UN, the World Health Organization and, by now, almost everyone and everything outside the ideological bubble of Zionism on the list of those slandered in this manner. (One side effect of this rampant abuse of the accusation of antisemitism is, of course, that soon it won’t be taken seriously anymore, even when it should. And we will have Israel to thank for that.)
Notwithstanding the ICJ’s lack of an army to compel Tel Aviv to obey the law, these outbursts of rage betray great fear. You may ask why. After all, the one thing the ICJ did not do was order a ceasefire. Some commenters have focused on that fact, to argue – gleefully on the side of Israel and its allies, with great disappointment on the side of Israel’s victims, opponents, and critics – that this vitiates the ruling.
They are wrong. As, for instance, the Palestinian legal expert Nimer Sultany (based at the London School of Oriental and Asian Studies) has explained, a direct ceasefire order was always unlikely. There are several reasons for that: The ICJ cannot issue such an order to Hamas, so issuing one to Israel alone would have been difficult in principle and, by the way, would also have provided ammunition for Israeli propaganda. Since only the UN Security Council could give teeth to the ICJ’s ruling, trying to decree such a one-sided ceasefire would have made it easier for the US to sabotage the Council by discrediting the court’s ruling as biased. Although it was consistent for South Africa to ask for a ceasefire at the ICJ, the best institution to order one is still the Security Council. And it is plausible to interpret the specific demands that the ICJ has made of Israel as practicable only under an official or de-facto ceasefire. Indeed, Arab countries are now, it seems, gearing up to take that position and use the court’s ruling to demand a ceasefire at the Security Council. This may very well fail again, but even that failure will serve to weaken the position of the US, Israel’s vital sponsor.
Beyond the issue of the ceasefire, there are other – and, from an Israeli perspective, probably more frightening – factors. For even if the US keeps shielding Israel, this is a bigger world. Western governments and politicians that have supported Tel Aviv unconditionally – with arms, diplomatic and public-relations cover, and by repressing Israel’s critics – will feel a chill: The UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute don’t just condemn perpetrating a genocide but also not preventing or being complicit in one.
With the ICJ now having confirmed at the very least that genocide is probable enough to merit a case and require immediate action, Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Ursula von der Leyen, Olaf Scholz, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Annalena Baerbock, to name only a few, should start worrying: While the ICJ does not go after individuals, the International Criminal Court (ICC) does. Despite dragging its feet as much as it could, it is now especially likely to be compelled to open a full-fledged investigation.
In addition, cases can also be brought under national jurisdictions. All of this will take years. But it could end very badly for hubris-addled Western politicians who never imagined that such charges could escape their control (where they serve as politicized tools to go after African leaders and geopolitical opponents) and become their very own, potentially life-changing problem. In sum, the cost of siding with Israel has gone up. Not all but most politicians are solid opportunists. Tel Aviv will find it harder to mobilize its friends.
It is true that some Western governments and leaders, for instance, Canada or Rishi Sunak, have hurried to show their disdain for international law by attacking the ICJ’s ruling. But there’s an element of desperate bravado, of whistling in a darkening forest. And there’s a Catch-22 as well: Because, the more representatives of the West display their arrogance, the more they alienate the world. They may think that they are relieving Israel’s isolation. In reality, they are joining it on its downward trajectory: They are showing, once again, that their touted “rules-based order” is the opposite of the equal rule of international law for all.
Non-Western powers like China and Russia that have long resisted the hypocrisy of that ‘rules-based order’ and are not complicit in Israel’s atrocities, are earning global good will and geopolitical advantage. Hence, their positions and strategy will be confirmed by the ICJ ruling. This, as well, will weaken Israel further in the international arena.
If the world is bigger than the US or the West, it also contains much more than politics in the narrow sense of the term. In the realm of narratives, this is also a harsh setback for Israel and its supporters: Those who arrogantly dismissed the South African case as baseless or “a mockery,” for instance in The Economist, are now paying with their credibility. Their value as weapons in Israel’s struggle for global public opinion is reduced.
Last but not least, the domains of politics and narratives intersect, of course, with that of war: It is inevitable that those fighting Israel with arms will feel encouraged, and rightly so. For forces such as the Palestinian Resistance, the Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement de facto ruling Yemen, Hezbollah, and Iran, this ICJ ruling coincides with Israel’s military failure in Gaza: For while its troops have massacred civilians (and obsessively recorded proud evidence of their crimes that is now coming to haunt them), they are far from either “eradicating Hamas” (the putative war aim) or freeing the hostages by force. Seeing that Israel’s international isolation is getting worse, its opponents will have ever less reason to give up.
This, in short, was a great setback for Israel. Its political model, combining apartheid, militarism, and a might-makes-right outlook, is not ‘working’ any longer, not even on its own terms. The future is not predictable. That Israel will be in worsening trouble is.
Palestinians, Genocide Expert Provide Historic Testimony In U.S. Case.
Historic International Court Of Justice Ruling Against Israel Comes Out Hours Before Federal Case Is Heard.
January 26, 2024, Oakland, CA – A federal court heard arguments in the case Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden today, including extensive live testimony from Palestinian plaintiffs and a scholar of genocide and the Holocaust. Attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights, together with co-counsel from Van Der Hout LLP, asked the court to immediately order the United States to cease military support for Israel’s unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and opposed the government’s efforts to have the case dismissed. Earlier today, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued provisional measures, finding that South Africa has made a plausible case that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.
One plaintiff testified from Gaza, one from Ramallah, and five plaintiffs provided live testimony in court, of the death, displacement, and destruction their families and communities have faced since Israel began its campaign of retaliation for the October 7 Hamas attacks – in just one example, approximately 60 members of Ahmed Abofoul’s extended family have been killed since the complaint was filed on November 13, underscoring the need for the court to issue an immediate injunction.
“The images of our families and communities, Palestinian babies, children, women, and men from Gaza, are shaking us to our core,” said Ayman Nijim, a plaintiff in the case. “These are times of genocide, and we desperately need a U.S. court to intervene. So much hangs in the balance. Today, Palestinians spoke out in court and made a powerful case for why a preliminary injunction is necessary: we are hopeful the judge will agree with us and issue an order soon.”
The case charges President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin with failing in their legal responsibility to prevent – and their complicity in – Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. It seeks an emergency court order to halt U.S. support for Israel’s assault, including by enjoining the transfer of more weapons and unconditional support to the Israeli government.
“Our plaintiffs’ testimonies today demonstrate just how urgent it is for the Biden administration to finally do what they and the vast majority of the people of the world have demanded: stop sending weapons to enable Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians in besieged Gaza and instead uphold its clear legal duty to end, not further, genocide,” said Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who argued in court today. “These are clear legal duties under U.S. and international law, and we call on the court to uphold its Constitutional role to hold President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin to legal obligations and issue a preliminary injunction to stop the flow of weapons for Israel’s genocide.”
Dr. Barry Trachtenberg, a genocide and Holocaust scholar who submitted a declaration with other historians and also testified today, said, “Israel’s assault on Gaza has been funded by the American people, fought with U.S.-supplied weapons, and encouraged by a complicit White House,” he said. “Unlike past genocides, which were adjudicated long after they had concluded, we have an opportunity to halt this one in its tracks. Palestinians have suffered far too much and for far too long.”
Notably, in its responses, the U.S. government has not challenged the facts that Israel is committing genocide or responded to the facts setting out the way that U.S.-munitions and other forms of U.S. support have furthered the genocide, but has rather focused on technical jurisdictional issues, arguing that the court cannot review its policy choices and that it is Israel, an “independent actor,” causing the injuries, despite the U.S.’s considerable influence over Israel.
Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys argued today that the court has a constitutional duty to enforce the government’s legal obligations to prevent and not be complicit in genocide, and that it is clear, as both Israel and the U.S. have acknowledged, that Israel’s unfolding genocide could not happen without U.S. weapons and diplomatic cover.
Since the complaint was filed, Israel’s siege and assault has killed over 14,700 more Palestinians, for a total of 25,700 people, and injured over 36,250 more, for a total of 63,740. The U.S. has continued to transfer millions of dollars worth of weapons and ammunition. A previous filing in the case cites reports from early December that the United States had transferred to Israel at least 15,000 bombs, and more than 50,000 155mm artillery shells, which are inherently indiscriminate.
Co-counsel Marc Van Der Hout of Van Der Hout, LLP in San Francisco said after court, “The testimony of our clients today and that of Dr. Trachtenberg was both heart-wrenching and compelling. Defendants merely argued in response that whether or not there is an unfolding genocide by Israel in Gaza that the U.S. is assisting, no court has jurisdiction to tell the president what he can and cannot do. But as this administration itself has argued countless times, no president is above the law, and it is up to the courts to make sure the executive branch follows the law. That is what we are asking Judge White to do.”
The complaint was brought by the Palestinian human rights groups Al-Haq and Defense for Children International – Palestine; Palestinians who live in Gaza – Dr. Omar Al-Najjar, Ahmed Abu Artema, and Mohammed Abu Rokbeh; and Palestinians in the U.S. with family members who live in Gaza – Mohammad Monadel Herzallah, Laila Elhaddad, Waeil Elbhassi, Bassim Elkarra, and “A.N.” They are seeking an emergency court order to halt U.S. support for Israel’s genocidal assault.
A recording of the arguments and testimony will be available on the court’s website.
For more information, see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page.