The UN International Court of Justice will issue its order January 26 on South Africa’s complaint against Israel about genocide in Gaza, Palestine

By Robert Willmann

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), part of the United Nations organization, is going to make public a decision and opinion on Friday, 26 January 2024, at 1:00 p.m. Netherlands time (6:00 a.m. central time). The case is entitled, “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)”.

After an attack coming out of the Gaza strip into Israel on 7 October 2023, with casualties on both sides, numerous captives were taken back into Gaza. Some have been returned, some have died, and some have not been released. Israel has a sizeable air force, and it is estimated to be the ninth largest in the world, according to the World Directory of Modern Military Aircraft [1]. Israel’s army is largely made up of reservists, and after they were assembled, Israel attacked the Gaza strip with soldiers and military hardware. The Israeli Air Force also attacked Gaza. The violence and destruction in Gaza became extensive, with many civilian casualties, and with a lot of civilian infrastruction being demolished, including schools, hospitals, residential buildings, and so forth. To a significant extent, Israel controlled the availability of electricity, water, food, and fuel into Gaza prior to the present conflict, and began to restrict and cut off those basic supplies.

With a population estimated to be around 2.1 million people in the small area known as Gaza in Palestine, the destruction done to it and the number of civilian casualties prompted the country of South Africa to file a complaint against Israel in the ICJ about genocide. The court is located in The Hague, Netherlands. The case was filed on 29 December 2023, and oral arguments took place at the court on Thursday, 11 January 2024 by South Africa, and on the next day by Israel. The court procedure was not a trial in the usual sense with witnesses and the introduction of evidence. Instead, lawyers for the parties made arguments before the judges, which usually number 15. In this instance, two “judges ad hoc” were added, one from Israel and one from South Africa [2].

The ICJ does not have the ability to try to enforce its orders and judgments, since the only way that any action can take place is if it is authorized by the UN Security Council. But in the council, five permanent members each have independent veto power over any resolution presented to it.

Some material is available on the Internet website of the ICJ, and can be displayed or downloaded for reading. Here is the announcement that a decision will be made public on Friday, 26 January, and how the availability of seating will be handled–

The presentation by South Africa on 11 January–

The presentation by Israel on 12 January–

The application and complaint filed by South Africa to start the case–

A news blackout has basically been the situation in the U.S.A., especially in radio and television, after the complaint was filed by South Africa. This is unfortunate, because treaty law can have an effect on the behavior of governments, and includes such things as the structure of consular relations between countries. In this instance, despite the relative powerlessness of the ICJ, the existence of the case has become a factor that might contribute to reducing the real danger that the conflict in Gaza could expand militarily in a very bad way involving other countries.



This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Israel, Justice, Middle East, Palestine and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to The UN International Court of Justice will issue its order January 26 on South Africa’s complaint against Israel about genocide in Gaza, Palestine

  1. d74 says:

    It’s done.
    ICJ urges Israel to do everything possible to prevent genocide. Bibi cries scandal. Wrongly, in my opinion. “Israel” and “genocide” are not formally associated. “Risk of genocide”, yes, but no more.
    If Bibi has two pennies to rub together, he can carry on unchanged since, according to him, there is no genocide.

    One question: Hamas has stockpiled weapons: assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers, the means to make a lot of rockets that are almost missiles and even primitive torpedoes.
    But they have almost no anti-aircraft weapons.
    It’s as if “we” had allowed them to build up an arsenal as long as it wasn’t anti-aircraft… Who is this “we”?
    Hint: The air force is the Israeli state’s main means of indiscriminate coercion (destruction of material and human life)?

  2. Poul says:

    I’m surprised. Total defeat of Israel’s view.

    A 15-2 verdict in favour of starting a trial against Israel for genocide. Only the judges from Israel and Uganda were opposed.

    And a strongly worded order to stop the genocidal violations and follow the standards of international law in fighting Hamas. So no more stopping food, water, medicine etc.

    Interesting to see if the Israeli government’s response. They now have the risk of a war crimes case against each member of the cabinet a la what happened to the Serbs after Kosovo.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      The more interesting thing is the response from western governments.

      Kirby, for one, can no longer stand at the podium and declare that the South African case is “meritless”. Neither can Blinken. Nor can Lord Cameron.

      I mean, honestly, even the judge from the USA and from Great Britain agreed that there is merit in the case brought by South Africa.

      And once there is merit to the argument that Israel is carrying out a genocide then the Genocide Convention places an obligation upon all states to do what they can to prevent that genocide from happening.

      To do nothing is not an option as far as the Convention is concerned, and the USA/UK are now very vulnerable to the charge of “Complicity in genocide” in their attempts to intervene in the Houthi blockade of Israel.

      Furthermore, this isn’t just a case of handwaving away an inconvenient international convention: Article 5 forced both the USA and the UK to pass domestic legislation that gives teeth to the Genocide Convention, and so all the western politicians who handwave this away are leaving themselves exposed to future criminal prosecution within their own legal system.

  3. Stefan says:

    Israelis have already said they will ignore any decision. So it is academic. The US nor the international community will not lift a finger to do anything about it. Never again is an empty slogan.

    • d74 says:

      The Guardian doesn’t quite agree with you.
      He is writing two separate articles on the subject.

      -Headline 1:
      Gaza decision shores up rules-base orders and put west to test.
      -Headline 2:
      ICJ ruling increases pressure on Israel to prevent civilian deaths in Gaza.

      I quite agree with Guardian
      It “[ICJ] put west to test” and your “international community” are somewhat overplayed, at most 15% of the world’s population and a handful of countries (including 4 tiny Pacific island states and a few clients in Europe).

      Sure, nothing new under the sun, or rather an old habit, if Israel has its way.
      Israel is balancing on a tightrope and what’s more, he’s blindfolded himself.

    • Poul says:

      South Africa will not stop now. They can move on to the US, UK and other Western nations if they help Israel at any point of time from now on (with weapons, money, intelligence etc.).

      Will Westen leaders risk standing trial for aiding in genocide? Interesting test of the actual support for Israel.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        One point that is often overlooked is that the Genocide Convention required that signatories enact domestic legislation (Article 5) to give teeth to the provisions of that convention.

        So a western politician who assists Israel from here on is on notice that they run the risk of being “complicit in genocide” (Article 3) and that criminal liability isn’t JUST with the ICC, they are also at risk of being found criminally liable under their own domestic laws.

        Some may simply be too arrogant to care.
        Some may be too stupid to care.
        Some may be too venal to care.

        Most probably those will account for most of the politicians in the West who are in positions of authority to do something.

        But maybe not. If they take legal advice then that might be a sobering experience. We’ll see.

  4. Barbara Ann says:

    The judgement/order is here:

    I note that the ad hoc Israeli judge voted against the order that Israel must take steps to prevent its military from perpetrating genocide. What a mensch.

    The court has judged South Africa has a “plausible” case (section 54). This fact alone is immense. They quoted a UNHRC’s working group who noted “discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials” (no sh*t). I guess this will be crucial to any future case in order to show intent. Benjamin “Amalek” Netanyahu has tried to spin the court not calling for a ceasfire as a victory. That’s gonna be a hard sell when a case for incitement to commit genocide is lodged against him, Gallant and others.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      To my mind there are two important points that come from this interim order (and, please note, this is just an interim order).

      Point one: The court did find that the state of Israel has a case to answer. The court did NOT simply throw the South African case out the window on the ground that it was “meritless” (take that, John Kirby) or that it was manifestly absurd to even suggest that Israel could possibly be capable of such a thing.

      Point two: The actual vote was astonishingly one-sided. Fifteen to two, with one of the dissenters being the ad-hoc judge from Israel (color me surprised!) and the other being the judge from Uganda (who simply said the court shouldn’t take the case).

      Fifteen to two means that the judge from the USA (!!!) and the judge from Germany (!!!) both think that the accusation against Israel has merit and deserves to be tested in full and in court.

      It means that the judges from the USA, Germany, France, Australia, Japan and India *all* rejected the idea that Israel is being “blood-libelled!” and that it is at least arguable that the IDF is carrying out a genocide.

      If I were an Israeli big-wig I’d be very alarmed by that development.

      Very alarmed indeed, because it suggests that when the court listens to all the evidence and considers its final verdict then it ain’t gonna go Israel’s way.

      (And I’ll note, in passing, that when the court issued its order to Israel to prevent and PUNISH Israeli officials who were inciting genocide the one Israeli judge on the court voted with everyone else. Some serious food for thought for Netanyahu in that…..)

      • kodlu says:

        One can also infer that the ruling almost asked Israel to cease fire, by stopping actions that were killing/maiming/displacing the Gaza inhabitants. Some have argued that the reason the expression “cease fire” was not used is that the other party to the violence is not a recognised state, i.e., Hamas, thus there aren’t two warring parties/nation states in the classical sense.

        I have no idea whether this argument holds water, not a lawyer, but it seems plausible that there will be consequences not just for Netanyahu or other Israeli officials, but supporting states such as US, UK, Germany. Who claim to be supporting a rules based order, so they should comply. They cheered when ICJ asked Russia to cease fire. Now they look like hypocrites.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          I agree with that PoV. The Court can’t order a ceasefire because one of the parties to the CONFLICT (i.e. Hamas) isn’t a party to the COURT CASE (South Africa vs Israel).

          So it would be manifestly absurd for the court to order Israel to stop shooting while leaving Hamas free to keep shooting. That is the one point where I agree with Israel’s lawyers.

          But note the point that it is very, very, very hard to see how the Israelis can comply with the court’s interim orders without negotiating at least a partial ceasefire with Hamas.

          I mean, honestly, how does the IDF ensure humanitarian aid (Order 4) without a ceasefire?

          The court is actually being subtle here by ordering Israel to do something that will require a ceasefire, without actually ordering that Israel stop firing.

    • Poul says:

      I sincerely doubt that judge Barak is a mensch. He has been one of the Israeli Supreme Court judges to give the green light for illegal settlements in the West Bank.

      What I do see is that he is privy to his fellow judges views on the case and sees Netanyahu and his war cabinet’s talk as a threat to Israel’s chances of win the Genocide case.
      Hence his support that any Israeli leader etc. who incites to genocide is shut down immediately and have a criminal case brought against them by the Israeli Ministry of Justice.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        I’ve just finished reading Barak’s dissenting opinion and, frankly, it is childish. THIS is the pre-eminent legal mind since the founding of the state of Israel? Really?

        The first half of his dissent is a, frankly, sniveling appeal for pity because he, personally, Has Been Through A Lot.

        It appears to be an attempt by him to claim that because he has been through a lot then he understands this issue better than the other 14 judges.

        But, really, it comes across as self-incriminating plea that he should be allowed to violate his solemn oath the leave his own prejudices at the door before entering the court, and to approach this case with objectivity and dispassion.

        As for the other half of his dissent, well, really, it’s laughable.

        It amounts to him saying “Don’t listen to what they said, listen to what they said.”

        As in: what they said in unguarded moments, well, forgetaboutit, pay attention only to what they said later when they were told to tone it down.

        Pardon, Barak?

        You want us to pay attention to the attempts to walk back their statements, as if we should expect that those walk-back attempts were the real deal. The genuine article?


        He never mentions any of them by name, as well he might, since that would force him to acknowledge the recalcitrant like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich who, no, no, no, refuse to walk back their genocidal incitement.

        All in all that dissenting opinion was an embarrassingly amateurish attempt to smear lipstick on a pig.

  5. Fred says:

    Has any nation filed a case against Hamas; or in this case “Palestine? After all an unprovoked attack killing hundreds, with concurrent rapes and abductions, is hardly keeping with international law.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      In the ICJ?

      No, because the ICJ is there to rule on disputes between states, and “Hamas” isn’t a state.

      They gotta have jurisdiction, Fred.

      • Fred says:

        Yeah, Right,

        Who’s been running Gaza since Hamas got elected? Gotta have “jurisdiction”! Since Israel left there in, remind us what year more than a decade ago that was, who might have been running the place, the UNRWA – or were they just spending money and hiring people none dare call terrorists?
        Excuse the reporting. That’s ‘alleged’ terrorists.

        If only “Palestinians” could write a declaration of the creation of the state of Palestine some “nation” would recognize their right to have one.

        Oh, that was the PLO who only controlled bank accounts when they did that….

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Listening to the Judge deliver the UN court’s ruling and all of the genocide definitions contained in it, it seems to me that Israel could bring a case of genocide against the Muslim world, but especially against Hamas and the 70% of Palestinians that polled approval of the Oct 7, 2023 attack on Israel + the perpetual indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli cities.

          IMO, Israel should flip this on Hamas, SA and the UN and file the case.

          • Stefan says:

            The ICJ has no jurisdiction over Hamas. The ICJ’s remit is with states, not non state actors. Facts….they are rather bothersome at times.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            …”it seems to me that Israel could bring a case of genocide against the Muslim world”…

            Wish-fulfillment. Feel-good nonsense.

            Israel would bring a case against “the Muslim world” to…. whom, Eric?

            To which venue, Eric?

            To whom, exactly?

            “IMO, Israel should flip this on Hamas, SA and the UN and file the case.”

            And deposit that document with……?

            Honestly, there are a lot of people here who are very shallow thinkers.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Fred, you asked a simple question: “Has any nation filed a case against Hamas”

          Filed. A. Case.

          So the first question is this: what court, Fred?

          Courts deal with matters of LAW. That’s what they do.

          So propose to me a court where you would like some nation (pick one, I don’t care) to take “a case” against Hamas.

          Because what I’m seeing so far is that *you* asked a specific question, and *I* gave a specific answer, and then *you* started dissembling from your soapbox.

          You want a “case” against Hamas. So, c’mon man, name the court you want that case brought to.

          • Fred says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The same court the South African’s filed theirs in. You left out who runs Gaza and who elected Hamas to do so. Apparently “people” recognize Palestine but not Nations so OMG we can’t go to court. Maybe we can appeal to the rule makers of the Rules Based Order.

          • TTG says:


            Hamas seized power in Gaza from the Palestinian Authority. Before that they were elected into the Palestinian Authority government along with Fatah. Gaza is still legally under the control of Israel.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            All of your legal mumbo jumbo leaves it clear that Israel is responding appropriately to the Hamas situation since there is no international body to make rulings that Hamas has to adhere to.

            This canard that Israel has to play by internationally accepted rules and Hamas doesn’t because – ha ha ha – it’s not a real government and the court has no jurisdiction seems to me to be one of the highest expressions of mid-wittery I have ever seen on this forum.

            So maybe Netanyahu should step down and form a “breakaway faction” that just happens to have lots of guns, tanks and air assets and looks a lot like the IDF and that pulverizes Gaza into dust. Israel can then say “hey. it’s not us”. And there is nothing that could be done about the Netanyahu organization because it’s not a recognized government.

            My gosh, it would be kind of like incentivizing fighting wars through proxies, mercenaries and other black\covert methods with lots of plausible deniability.

            Yep, I’m sure of it. That’s what the stupid do-gooder court would incentivize. Wealthier and more successful nations would rule by stirring up brutal proxy wars all over the globe and poorer nations would be subject to all of that. The poor nations, of course, could overtly fight each other as viciously as they want to. The do-gooder court would ignore those atrocities – or if the court did pay attention once every decade or so, the poor nation could just ignore the court’s rulings.

            Yep, I’m sure that’s how it would all play out. But, by all means, crow away and enjoy this little victory even if it is just ceremonial and semantic. It’s all you’re going to get.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            And here I thought that the Palestinians, like the Iranians, don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and insist everything about it is illegitimate. So now the court (and you) are admitting that “the Zionist Entity” is really internationally recognized as Israel and is a legitimate country with full rights and responsibilities?

          • Fred says:


            “Before that they were elected” AFTER getting elected they purged Fatah; and, of course, Israel is responsible? Who doled out all that UN money for a decade plus? Please. Fatah won’t hold an election in the West Bank because guess who wins – Hamas.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “The same court the South African’s filed theirs in.”

            Let me explain this as if to a petulant child: Courts can only hear cases if they have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

            That is true of ANY Court, because EVERY Court will ask these two questions before even agreeing to hear the case:
            1) Does the Court have jurisdiction?
            2) Does the Plaintiff have standing?

            In the case of South Africa vs Israel the answer is “Yes” to both questions (Yes because the Genocide Convention fingers the ICJ as the arbiter of a dispute between nations, Yes because South Africa is a nation).

            Israel could try to do the same by filing a case against Hamas, and it would be thrown out because Hamas is not a state.

            The Court will have Jurisdiction.

            Israel could try to do the same by filing a case against “Palestine”, and it would be thrown out the moment the Judges ask the Israeli Lawyers this question: Is it the opinion of the state of Israel that “Palestine” is a state.

            Those lawyers will have to answer “No, your honor”, and at that point the Judges would throw the case out the window.

            Israel will have no “Standing”.

            It really is as simple as that.

            There may be OTHER legal avenues that Israel (or any other country) might have available to them. Hard to tell.

            But the ICJ isn’t one of them.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Sorry, “The court will have no jurisdiction”

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “And here I thought that the Palestinians, like the Iranians, don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and insist everything about it is illegitimate.”

            Well, you are incorrect as a point of fact, since “the Palestinians” do indeed recognize Israel’s right to exist, and have since 1993.

            A recognition that was given unconditionally, and never once rescinded by the organization that the Government of Israel recognizes as the sole representative of the “Palestinian people”.

            You are up to your old tricks of using the words “Hamas” and “Palestinians” as if they are interchangeable.

            No, they aren’t. It’s akin to me using the word “Israel” in place of the word “Likud”.

            Which would be dishonest. As are you.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “All of your legal mumbo jumbo leaves it clear that Israel is responding appropriately to the Hamas situation since there is no international body to make rulings that Hamas has to adhere to.”


            The question before this court is a simple one: is the state of Israel carrying out a genocide, and did it intend for this to be a genocide?

            Shouting “Self-defense, self-defense, blood-libel, self-defense, self-defense, Hamas!, self-defense, self–defense, self-defense” while laying waste to the Gaza Strip is a demonstrably self-defeating argument.

            Why? Because Genocide is a crime that is so heinous that there are no extenuating circumstances that excuse it.

            “I’m committing genocide in self-defense” is no more of a valid excuse than “I’m committing genocide because they are in my way” or “I’m committing genocide because they have a different skin color” or “I’m committing genocide because I hate them”.

            All are EQUALLY invalid excuses for committing genocide, because committing genocide is absolutely and unconditionally prohibited.

            Look, I can demonstrate the futility of your argument. Here is the interim order:

            You should read it, Eric, because I know that you haven’t.

            Look up how many times the Court gives consideration to the Israeli’s strident claims that the state of Israel is only acting in “self-defense!”.

            The answer: Zero.

            The order mentions it in passing, once, and only to note that Israel “claims that its right to self-defence is critical to any evaluation
            of the present situation”

            The Court never mentions it again, never considers it in the Court’s “evaluation”.

            And rightly so: the claim is irrelevant to the issue that is before the court, precisely because shouting “Sellllllllllllffffffff-deffffffeeeeeense!” is not an excuse for committing genocide.

            And, once more, yet again, that is the only question before the court: is Israel carrying out a genocide in the Gaza Strip?

          • Eric Newhill says:

            “All are EQUALLY invalid excuses for committing genocide, because committing genocide is absolutely and unconditionally prohibited.”

            This, from you, is ridiculous on so many levels.

            First, the definition of “genocide” seems to have become very fluid. Are there still Palestinians? Yes. So no genocide has occurred. But by your definition – which I realize you think you are acquiring straight from this ridiculous international body – any war is genocide because any war is going to target nationalities, ideologies, religious systems and all that. So any country engaged in war is committing genocide. No? Try it on and see how it fits. Pick a war. Let me know how it goes.

            Second, the court did not rule that Israel is committing genocide. You are saying it’s genocide, but the court is not. The court made it clear that determination hasn’t been made. So you are making extra-judicial rulings solely from your own very unofficial and internationally unrecognized brain.

            Then there’s your argument that only official governments – by some whacky definition of yours that makes no sense – can commit genocide. A couple million savages without an official government, can, apparently, in your world, target kill as many of whomever they want, and it wouldn’t be genocide. Whatever. And a man who cuts off his dick and wears a dress really is a woman. Because some group of nitwits says so. Excuse me for not playing.

            Fourth, genocide doesn’t always mean anything to the UN anyhow. The “law” isn’t consistently applied, which implies that it really isn’t all that serious. Turkey committed genocide – like real genocide – denies it, despite mountains of evidence, yet is a UN member. Azerbaijan is involved, with Turkey, in attempting more of the same, to this day, and the UN doesn’t care. There are genocides – real genocides – all over Africa and the UN isn’t doing diddly about those either.

            Nothing you have said convinces me that anyone is really interested in the Gaza situation beyond virtue signaling bleeding hearts and BRICS proponents and anti-western malcontents/sociopaths who hate the US and Israel and cheer any chance to give either a black eye (you).

          • James says:

            Eric Newhill,

            You assert that the fact that there are still Palestinians proves that no genocide has occurred. By that reasoning, the fact that there are still Jews proves that the holocaust never happened.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “First, the definition of “genocide” seems to have become very fluid. Are there still Palestinians? Yes. So no genocide has occurred.”

            I will leave it to James to point out how your argument has just shot down 80+ years of Holocaust guilt-tripping and hand-wringing.

            I want to look at the particulars of you claim i.e. the definition of “genocide” is a fluid concept.

            No, Eric, it is not. It has a precise legal definition curtesy of the Genocide Convention. Another document that, obviously, you have never bothered to read.

            The definition is in Article 2: “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

            Now, in that definition (which is also the definition that is incorporated into US law and UK law) I do believe we can see the phrase “in whole or in part”

            I’ll repeat that: in whole or IN PART.

            Eric: “any war is genocide because any war is going to target nationalities, ideologies, religious systems and all that”

            I shall take my quote from Napoleon, who knew a thing or two about war: “War is the destruction of armies, it is not the capture of territory”.

            If a belligerent restricts himself to the destruction of the enemy’s army then he can not be committing “genocide”.

            You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

            Plainly so, because you also said:
            Eric: “Second, the court did not rule that Israel is committing genocide. ”

            It was not asked AT THIS STAGE to rule that Israel is committing genocide.

            Go back through my posts and you will see that I have pointed out that this is an INTERIM order from the court.

            Eric: “You are saying it’s genocide, but the court is not.”

            And I am entitled to my opinion.

            And my opinion is that if the court decides FIFTEEN to TWO that there is merit to the case that South Africa has put forward so far then it is A GIVE that the court will eventually rule FIFTEEN to TWO that Israel has committed a genocide.

            Eric: “Then there’s your argument that only official governments – by some whacky definition of yours that makes no sense – can commit genocide”

            That is NOT my argument, and I’ll ask you not to verbal me, thank you very much.

            MY argument is that the ICJ is a court that only has jurisdiction to hear disputes that are between states. That’s how it was set up, and so that’s how it has to operate.

            Hamas is not a state. Israel doesn’t even acknowledge that Palestine is a state.

            So no accusation of genocide AGAINST HAMAS can be brought to this particular court, precisely because this particular court would have no jurisdiction over such an act.

            Honestly, a person would have to be either a fool or a shill not to understand that simple and irrefutable fact.

            So which one do you want to put your hand up for, Eric?

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “Fourth, genocide doesn’t always mean anything to the UN anyhow. The “law” isn’t consistently applied, which implies that it really isn’t all that serious.”

            This is a nonsensical argument. It can only be made by someone who has zero understanding of what the United Nations is.

            Eric, this may shock you, so you might want to sit down for this bit: The United Nations is not a court, it is not a legislature, it is not a law enforcement agency.

            It is a POLITICAL body.

            It is the world’s premier POLITICAL body, the premier place where diplomats come together and scratch each other’s backs, come to arrangements both overt and plausibly-deniable, or just stand around shouting at each other.

            That’s what it exists for, and that’s what it does.

            And in all things POLITICAL “consistency” is not a requirement, though the wheeling and dealing should always be taken “seriously”.

            Eric: “Turkey committed genocide – like real genocide – denies it, despite mountains of evidence, yet is a UN member.”

            You do understand that the United Nations didn’t exist in 1914-1916, right?

            Just as I hope you understand that the United Nations didn’t exist when the USA was doing terrible things to the Native Americans that were in the way of its Manifest Destiny.

            “Azerbaijan is involved, with Turkey, in attempting more of the same, to this day, and the UN doesn’t care.”

            I am faintly surprised you haven’t added the Urghurs. Maybe you just ran out of breath.

            Are you referring to the Khojaly massacre? I don’t think so, since that is hardly “to this day”.
            But it is hard to tell with some of your more meandering posts.

            So, please, educate me.

            Or don’t, because I don’t really care about your whataboutisms.

            “There are genocides – real genocides – all over Africa and the UN isn’t doing diddly about those either.”

            You are Gish Galloping all over the shop, careful you don’t do yourself an injury.

            Eric, baby, the UN is a political organization. It can only do – or not do – what its member states agree to do, and sadly it is a truism that in “geopolitics” the Great Powers have the power to prevent the UN from doing anything they don’t want done.

            That isn’t a flaw in the system, it is a feature: none of the P5 would ever have allowed the UN Charter to be open for business if that Charter didn’t explicitly say that any one of them can put a spoke in its wheels.

            Which they do, and often.

            That’s precisely why I think that South Africa’s case against Israel is a much, much bigger deal that you consider it to be.

            The interim order ALONE blows away any pretendies from Washington or London that the accusation of genocide is “meritless” because, clearly, the ICJ has now said that it has merit.

            That the vote for this interim order was 15-to-2 is, honestly, a complete surprise to me.

            Even the judge from the USA couldn’t stomach what Israel was arguing, so I consider it a given that Israel will eventually be found guilty of committing a genocide.

            That’s unfair, in your view? Well, boo-hoo, grow up and get a life.

    • F&L says:

      Two points, maybe more:

      1- The Slaughter of Gazans is ongoing, the attack of Oct 7 lasted one day. So an action to cease and desist from Oct 7 makes no sense, while 194 Gazans were killed on the last day that the IJC deliberated.
      2- Most of the deaths of Israelis on Oct 7 were caused by Israeli fire.
      3- Billions of $$$ of fence and surveillance equipment AND warnings from Egyptian and US intelligence (at least) that an attack was pending but Israeli troops were elsewhere on the day of attack. I’m not allowed to say here that only an idiot believes this wasn’t set up purposely to fail so that Netanyahu could get his ethnic cleansing and relocation rolling. But if I was allowed to say it I would.

      • Barbara Ann says:

        3 is transparently the case.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        The Palestinians are still firing missiles at Israeli cities (i.e. civilians) and there have been at a least a couple of murders of Israelis by Palestinian terrorist, in Israel.

        Sheesh, Arab terrorists have been killing Israelis fairly continuously since I was a kid. I recall watching the coverage of the slaughter of Israeli athletes in Munich (1972, wasn’t it?).

        How anyone can overlook the sheer blood thirsty barbarity of the Arabs escapes me entirely; except when I view such behavior in light of Marxism and antisemitism.

        • walrus says:

          Mr. Newhill it must be sad living in perpetual fear for no apparent reason. You talk of Arab “sheer bloodthirsty barbarity”? Your previous posts indicate that you have a fixation about arabs, or is it muslims?

          Lets look at the facts; There are aproximately 15 million people that identify as Jewish – about evenly split between the U.S. and Israel.

          There are approximately 1.9 BILLION Muslims in the world and last time I looked, the vast majority were going about their daily business – pursuing life, liberty and happiness for themselves and their children just like you and me.

          It therefore stands to reason that if the Muslim religion was antithetic to Judaism and has always been bent on its destruction, Judaism would have been a footnote to history by now.

          OK so, then say you just mean “Arabs” (or Camel Jockeys, sand niggers or whatever you usually calll them) well the Wiki tells us that there are 464 MILLION Ayrabs – so if they were all bent on the destruction of Israel it would no longer exist.

          So lets look at Gaza – 2 million population – about 0.1 % of the Muslim world and Israels population is over 6 million, backed up by the most technologically advanced U. S. equipped army in the world, with its own NUCLEAR DETERRENT no less and Oy Vey! Hamas is an “Existential Threat”? On what planet?

          As for Hamas bloodthirsty attack on 7 October, after 50+ years of living in what passes for an Israeli Concentration camp according to multiple authorities, they finally decide they have had enough? Can you blame them? What did Rabbi Hillel say? “If not now, when?”.

          If you ask me, the biggest threat to Israels existence comes from Benjamin Natanyahu because his actions may indeed trigger two billion Muslims to decide to put a stop to what the ICJ suspects may be genocide. True friends of Israel dont want to watch the country destroying its reputation and ending up a pariah nation like North Korea.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            The Arabs/Muslims have indeed attempted to destroy Israel several times. In spite of their superior numbers, they have failed because they are incompetent backstabbing infighters; always focused on short term gains, being shrewd and clever as opposed to wise.

            The fact is, Walrus, in any society, the great majority are not movers and shakers. They are followers. It is not important to control the masses of other countries. It is important to control their leaders.

            For example, Iran would love to wipe Israel off the map and has stated so. If the leaders ordered an attack on Israel, the followers would attack. These are the same dumb asses that fought Iraq to the tune of million dead, human wave attacks, the whole works. But Iran’s leaders are controlled and restrained from doing what they want to by the fear that Israel, with the US’ help, would deploy everything in the arsenal, to include nukes. So, Iran backs down and is relegated to sitting in the corner hissing like a viper and taking potshots at Israel via proxies.

            Now, how about we rain some missiles down on your town? Add in an occasional bombing of a local restaurant now and again, a shooting at a bus stop. Then let’s talk about living in fear….oh wait. You live in Australia where the people are so afraid, they eliminated private gun ownership and you’re the guy who was triple masked and quintuple booster jabbed because he was so afraid of the flu. I never got the stupid jab.

          • Fred says:


            “hey finally decide they have had enough? Can you blame them? ”

            Yes as they didn’t attack any of the architects of what you call a concentration camp nor any of the leaders who maintain Israeli policy. The kidnappings and rapes were no more justified than the killings.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “Yes as they didn’t attack any of the architects of what you call a concentration camp nor any of the leaders who maintain Israeli policy. ”

            Fred, on October 7th they overran the Bahad 4 Army base in Zikim,

            In total Hamas attacked 11 IDF bases and managed to completely overrun four of them.

            I’d call that a concerted effort to attack “architects of what you call a concentration camp”. Wouldn’t you?

            I am not disputing that some of them committed atrocities against civilians, but to claim that this was their ONLY aim or that they were uninterested in attacking IDF positions is demonstrably false.

      • Fred says:


        A bunch of tech failed? Surprise. All that killing, because Palestinians have no agency and Bibi was behind it all. Palestinians are ‘mostly peaceful’ lovers of their neighbors and would never ever kill anyone. Repeat in the MSM over and over and over again; for the rubes to have something to latch on to.

        All those people dead? Don’t kill us back! Stop killing us back! We promise not to come back again, unlike that last promise we just violated on 10/7. Israel killed most of the Israelis, it’s NOT OUR FAULT. . Here’s the proof:

        Who is responsible? Bibi did it. The IDF did it. Not “Islam; not moderate Muslims;” and certainly not Palestinians. Bibi and the people who voted for him! They did it. No government or groups connected to the War on the West prodded anyone though, and sacred Ukraine and the EU. No no no. Only USA USA USA. And Bibi and the boys.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          the IDF just flying helos over fleeing Israeli concert goers and emptying mini guns and rockets on them and then blaming the Palestinians. Why it’s just like Dick Cheney blowing up the towers and shooting a missile into the Pentagon so he could start a war of global conquest! That’s how Amerika and Israel roll. I saw it all on Youtube. It sucks because there would be peace in the world if those two countries were brought down, a veritable Global Garden of Eden.

          Does anyone free of psychiatric diagnoses actually believe that crap?

          • Fred says:


            They take an incident of friendly fire and beat the drum rather than address the rot in their own society. Then ignore what the other side did to provoke a response.

            “A pox on both your houses.”

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Right. Like I said a while back, a goat screw of a region full of stubborn people that love to hate.

            But at least I know the Israelis don’t want to kill me. F’ing Muslims have the whole putting apostates and infidels to the sword thing going on.

            So I’ll support the enemy of my enemy, even if they too have greed and belligerence in their hearts.

          • James says:

            Eric Newhill,

            Why is Israel allied with the Islamofascist states of Bahrain and UAE while daily attacking Syria (the only country in the region with separation of church and state and freedom of religion … which allows women equal rights and freedom to dress and behave as they please … and whose mantra is “practice any religion you like but don’t even THINK about trying to impose it on anyone else”).

            Why is that?

          • Fred says:


            The Israelis are quite happy manipulating the US to work in their interests not ours. Jonathan Pollard is their national hero. What they did to us then was not the actions of a ‘best ally’.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Oh, I don’t think Israel is the best ally, but I don’t blame them for manipulating us. They need to do what is in their best interest. I blame congress for being so readily manipulated. Our elected reps will take money from anyone and sell us down the road without a second thought. It’s not just Israel – it’s everyone from China to the Mexican cartels.

    • Christian J Chuba says:

      I would love to see Israel provide the necessary documentation to file such a claim.
      Here is a list of 10,000 Palestinian children killed by the IDF

      • Yeah, Right says:

        The Israelis would not be able to file such a claim with the ICJ.

        Such a claim would be thrown out the moment the court asked “Palestine” if they were responsible for Oct 7.

        Abbas (the recognized representative of “Palestine”, remember) would answer “No. Nothing to do with me”.

        Case dismissed.

        Israel might have more luck taking the documents to the ICC, but that court tries individuals for crimes, not states.

        So, no, Israel can’t take “Hamas”, let alone “Palestine” to the ICC.

        Maybe the Israelis could name names when depositing a case with the ICC, but that leads to a serious procedural issue: the ICC only intervenes in war crimes where the state refuses or is unable to prosecute the criminals.

        And it is beyond dispute that Israel is attempting mightily to visit “justice” on all those responsible for the events of October 7 (well, excluding those IDF who killed indiscriminately that day).

        So even then the ICC will say that it won’t get involved, because the State of Israel is already involved.

        There is a lot of feel-good nonsense being spouted by people who are doing nothing more than grandstanding.

  6. F&L says:

    Capitalist: Ok, so that’s the deal, got it?

    Houthi: Yes I think so … we are to shoot missiles and launch artillery shells at boats in the Red Sea and anywhere else you say.

    Capitalist: Right.

    Houthi: Can you remind me why? Is it something to do with how it will be used to explain to the public why the prices of everything they purchase will rise which will greatly enrich you?

    Capitalist: Yes, that’s it, precisely.

  7. Eric Newhill says:

    Sure, antisemites like this court and its ruling because they like any shot at Israel, but this, so far, is more of a blank than a real shot.

    As far as I can discern, the court found that SA does have standing to bring the complaint, that the court does have jurisdiction in the matter because it would be *possible* for some of Israel’s action to eventually be found to be genocide – though the court made it clear that at this time it had not – and could not – make a determination of whether or not genocide is taking place. That determination was out of scope for the court at this time. The court did not rule that Israel has no right to wage war on Hamas and other Islamic terrorism groups in Gaza. BTW, I actually listened to the judge reading the ruling, not someone else’s fantasy about what she said.

    Regardless of how far the court ultimately goes with this matter, it’s completely useless. What possible reinforcement of court orders there could be? Israel would be an international “Pariah”? Better to be a pariah than dead. Who cares what a bunch of effete UN toadies think? Would it actually hurt business? I doubt it.

    • Stefan says:

      You are calling the US and other western states anti Semitic? They voted for sending Israel to trial for genocide. Must be anti Semitic.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Yep. I am. The government is infected by the kind of wokeness that you represent. And Europe has a long history of antisemitism. Hardly a secret.

    • Christian J Chuba says:

      Only anti-semites oppose the starvation and mass murder of civilians.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      Your factual recitation is quite good, Eric.

      The court has issued an INTERIM order. That INTERIM order can’t make any finding of facts precisely because that would be putting the cart before the horse.

      “The court did not rule that Israel has no right to wage war on Hamas and other Islamic terrorism groups in Gaza. ”

      This is correct, but it is also a straw man.

      Nobody – certainly not South Africa – disputed that Israel had no right to defend itself following an armed attack by Hamas. So given that point the court is never going to even address that issue, because it is a given.

      But this interim order is not useless. It makes a complete mockery of western statements that the South African case is “meritless”, and does so overwhelmingly.

      And BECAUSE the court has stated – overwhelmingly – that there is, indeed, merit to the accusation (and, remember, it is still just an accusation) that Israel is engaged in genocide then that DOES trigger provisions of the Genocide Convention.

      You should read it, Eric.

      The allies of Israel have been put on notice that there is merit to the accusation of genocide. They have all enacted domestic legislation (Article 5 of the Convention) that makes “conspiracy to commit genocide” a criminal offense under their own domestic law.

      This will impact on Israel, and if it doesn’t then it will impact on those politicians in the western world where the Rule of Law still means something.

      That’s not nothing.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        So this court is going to send someone to arrest Joe Biden and Netanyahu? Is that what you’re saying?

        Maybe damaging economic sanctions will be put on the US and Israel?

        Well, this is a pleasant change. You’ve got me laughing good honest belly laughs. Pure comedy gold. Thanks.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          “So this court is going to send someone to arrest Joe Biden and Netanyahu? Is that what you’re saying?”

          I’m saying that the ICJ is not a criminal court, and so it can not send anyone to arrest anybody.

          What it can do is rule that a grave violation of the Genocide Convention has taken place (and, based upon this interim order, that is pretty much a given now).

          That is, this court can rule that what the IDF is doing in Gaza is a genocide.

          Once that ruling is made then the leadership of each state party to the Genocide Convention has to make its own judgement as to what to do, and what they do WILL have legal ramifications.

          Israel, of course, will reject both the interim order and the final ruling. That puts its leadership in jeopardy, because such a rejection will place that leadership (not the country, but the leadership) in danger of being indicted by the ICC (which is a criminal court).

          The USA can, of course, reject both the interim order and the final ruling. That puts its leadership (i.e. Genocide Joe, Blinken, Sullivan) in jeopardy before the USA’s ***own*** courts, because the Genocide Convention is incorporated into USA law.

          You laugh that off?

          Good for you.

          But I am quite confident that nobody in the halls of power in Washington is laughing now. Not if they have taken legal advice which, obviously, they should.

          It’s easy to have a good laugh when you don’t have skin in the game. Genocide Joe does now. So does Blinken, so does Sullivan.

          Only a fool would fail to realize that.

          I expect Israel to do nothing. Nothing at all.
          But I expect Washington will now panic, and the result of this panic will land somewhere between “Call a ceasefire, NOW” to “No offense, but we’re throwing you under a bus”.

  8. jim.. says:

    So…In The Real World…Its Been Jihad against The Jewish People..By Racist Exterminators..Like Communism and Naziism..and Klanism…And Radicalism….And Alliances with Global..Jew Killers Like Radical Islam.
    .Organized …in the Muslim World…Because Ishamel was More Important than Issac…
    and They were Hitler Supporters…Who …Have Created a http://WWW…of .. Oil Producers..
    Who Want to Do Genocide to Any and All…At any Level those Operations Can Be Conducted…Klan style…or Nine Eleven…And The Corruption that Followed..

    IMO…Ukraine has Been a Clear Act of Civilian Genocide…The AIDS Virus…”Out of Africa..” and COVID…Out of Africa ..Covertly…All Genocide…Kill a Few..or Kill Them All.. Thats the CALL…Tower to Tower..Ear To Ear..

    No One in the West..No Christian…or anyone..else..Should Do Anything.. But Agree..

    that the Actions By Hamas…and Their Supporters…Are For Genocide Againt Israel..and The United States…The Actions..of Lebanon…Qatar…Iran..Yeman..
    all Are The End call…To Total…United Muslim…JiHad…..Period..Its Delicate..

  9. Yeah, Right says:

    Article 5 of the Genocide Convention says this: “The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.”

    The USA, of course, being such a law-abiding country did enact such a law: S.1851 – Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987

    I wonder who sponsored that Act?

    Why, it was none other than “Sen. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE]”

    Oh, the irony…..

  10. F&L says:


    Camilo Montoya-Galvez reports from the southern border to Margaret Brennan of CBS.

    Biden and Senators on verge of striking immigration deal. (Race the Nation, oops, Face)
    The challenge is not to die laughing after reading what Biden promises to do if you haven’t died of something else already.

    Scenarios 1 and 2.
    1-Biden: “5000.7 is last week’s average? Didn’t I promise something about that?”
    Mr Big: “You did, you did, Mr President, but no one believes anything you say.”
    2-Biden: “It’s too high, Big, it’s almost 5001 last week, and I promised America.”
    Mr Big: “Right you are sir, right you are. Time to put Plan 4,999 into effect. On it.”

    Your mission, Mister Phelps, is to see that Plan 4999 is executed. As always, if you are apprehended, we and every other department of the United States Government will deny that we know you or anything about it.

    Dr Watson to Sherlock Holmes: “The Strange Case of Plan 4999 – is the world ready for it Holmes?”

  11. F&L says:

    Talking doormouse: “And what did you learn today, F&L?”
    F&L: “Today I learned how to look up the word ‘Iconium’ on the web.”
    Talking doormouse: “Anything else?”
    F&L: “No, other than the fact that newspapers owned by billionaires are scheming bastards along with pastors, reverends, politicians etc etc.”
    Black Pastors Pressure Biden to Call for a Cease-Fire in Gaza.
    Black congregants’ dismay at President Biden’s posture on the war could imperil his re-election bid.
    By Maya King.
    As the Israel-Hamas war enters its fourth month, a coalition of Black faith leaders is pressuring the Biden administration to push for a cease-fire — a campaign spurred in part by their parishioners, who are increasingly distressed by the suffering of Palestinians and critical of the president’s response to it.
    More than 1,000 Black pastors representing hundreds of thousands of congregants nationwide have issued the demand. In sit-down meetings with White House officials, and through open letters and advertisements, ministers have made a moral case for President Biden and his administration to press Israel to stop its offensive operations in Gaza, which have killed thousands of civilians. They are also calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas and an end to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
    The effort at persuasion also carries a political warning, detailed in interviews with a dozen Black faith leaders and their allies. Many of their parishioners, these pastors said, are so dismayed by the president’s posture toward the war that their support for his re-election bid could be imperiled.
    “Black faith leaders are extremely disappointed in the Biden administration on this issue,” said the Rev. Timothy McDonald, the senior pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, which boasts more than 1,500 members. He was one of the first pastors of more than 200 Black clergy members in Georgia, a key swing state, to sign an open letter calling for a cease-fire. “We are afraid,” Mr. McDonald said. “And we’ve talked about it — it’s going to be very hard to persuade our people to go back to the polls and vote for Biden.” (More at link ..)

  12. F&L says:

    Was this blazoned across your screens and reading literature this morning? I saw it in this Russian online paper VZGLYAD (Viewpoint). Translation below dashed line.

    Harriet: “Did you see that, dear about our boys being killed overseas?”
    Ozzie: “No worries, buttercup, Joe Biden is going to let in 4,999 illegal immigrants if the average daily crossings average 5,000 over 7 days, so we’ll have plenty of troops with Joe and if Trump wins he’ll force them all into camps and we’ll have our pick from them – so it’s all good!”
    Harriet: “Sweety-cakes, does that mean 5,000 per day or per week? Margaret Brennan talks so fast I almost didn’t understand it.”
    Ozzie: “Hmm, good question, lovey-dove. I guess it comes down to either 260,000 per year or 1.82 million per year. Illegal immigrants, that is.”
    Three U.S. soldiers were killed in the attack on a U.S. base in Jordan.
    January 28, 2024, 19:40
    As a result of the drone attack on an American base in northern Jordan, three American soldiers were killed, CNN reported, citing officials.
    In addition, at least 20 American soldiers were injured. The U.S. base in question is located near the border with Syria.
    CNN sources said that the drone that attacked the base was launched by Iranian-backed militants, most likely it came from Syria.
    The U.S. Central Command also confirmed the death of three soldiers, but specified that 25 soldiers were injured.
    U.S. President Joe Biden commented on the attack. According to him, Iranian-backed militant groups in Syria and Iraq are responsible for the attack, RIA Novosti reports.
    The head of state confirmed that three U.S. soldiers were the victims of the attack. Biden stressed that the United States will continue to fulfill “combat terrorism obligations” and he promised to bring all those responsible to justice in due time and in the right way.
    Earlier, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq movement, which includes Shiite armed groups, said that it had attacked two U.S. bases in Syria with the help of a UAV.

  13. Peter Williams says:

    “You live in Australia where the people are so afraid, they eliminated private gun ownership and you’re the guy who was triple masked and quintuple booster jabbed because he was so afraid of the flu. I never got the stupid jab.”

    More lies from Eric Newhill. Australia did NOT eliminate private gun ownership. In fact there are more firearms in private hands now, than before the gun buyback. Mask mandates were instituted on a State basis and varied greatly. Vaccines were required for certain jobs, but were otherwise not compulsory. I didn’t get the vaccine because I didn’t trust a vaccine that was only available under an EUA.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      “Gun laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. In two federally funded gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders and State Governments’ gun amnesties before and after the Port Arthur Massacre, more than a million firearms were collected and destroyed, possibly a third of the national stock.[1]”

      “A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a “genuine reason” (which does not include self-defence) for holding a firearm licence[2] and must not be a “prohibited person”. All firearms must be registered by serial number to the owner.”

      • walrus says:


        (1) Yes, more than a million firearms collected back in 1996. Guns owned in 1996 about 3.2 million. Guns owned now: about 3.6 million.

        (2) “Genuine reason” to own firearms includes target shooting or other forms of competition and the catch all ” hunting vermin on public land” as well as hunting deer, kangaroos ducks and other species.

        (3) ‘” Self protection ” from humans has never been a reason to own firearms in Australia even before the gun law reforms except for security guards, etc.

        (4) Protection from “tyrannical Government” is not a valid reason either.

        What the gun laws have done is swept up a lot of firearms that would otherwise be gathering dust in cupboard somewhere with no designated owner to take care of it.

        In my experience, these are the ones that kids and idiots used to get hold of. You know grandfathers shotgun, etc. – which may have been laying under a bed, loaded, for twenty years, until found by someone cleaning out the deceased estate.

  14. English Outsider says:

    I don’t like any of it, Mr Willmann. My local District Judge has a better sense of his proper duty in such circumstances as these and, crucially, the power to enforce whatever decision he sees fit to arrive at. Deciding what course of action is appropriate or practicable, and the case calling out for immediate decision as well, is something well outside the remit or competence of this court.

    There’s more to being a judge than putting a robe on and looking solemn. This fadged up tribunal, this apology for a court, brings real courts into disrepute. International disputes of this gravity and urgency should not be settled by referring them to make believe imitations like the ICJ. “Hague, Shmuague” said Ben-Gvir. Repulsive politician but in this case he was right.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      EO, you are aware that the Genocide Convention explicitly says that in the case of a dispute between two states regarding violations of that Convention then the dispute goes to the International Court of Justice?

      You are aware of that, right?

      Because if you were then I fail to understand how you can possibly claim that the case that South Africa brought against Israel is “something well outside the remit or competence of this court”

      You say “No”, but the actual Convention itself says “Yes”.

      Have to say the Convention itself wins that one on points.

      • English Outsider says:

        Yeah, Right – My layman’s reasoning is that I don’t think a Court Judgement means anything unless there are means to hand to ensure it’s executed as given. I don’t see articles 8 and 9 of that convention as providing those means.

        Nor am I aware of any apparatus of enforcement independent of the UNSC. So this lot goes back to the Security Council anyway – am I right? If so, what the Security Council might do with the ICJ judgement is a matter of politics, not of law.

        The proceedings are even more of a farce since the ICJ doesn’t seem to have considered issuing the equivalent of an interim injunction – if this were a “proper court” that’s the first thing a judge would do in a case where the matter was urgent and continuing but further time was needed to submit or consider evidence.

        At root. we’re clothing this miserable simulacrum of a court in the awesome majesty of the Law with no justification for doing so except pretence.


        • Yeah, Right says:

          “I don’t see articles 8 and 9 of that convention as providing those means.”

          I keep pointing everyone to Article (5) as the most likely source for putting a stop to this ongoing genocide.

          “So this lot goes back to the Security Council anyway – am I right? ”

          Yes, that is the formal process.

          “If so, what the Security Council might do with the ICJ judgement is a matter of politics, not of law.”

          This is true, the UN Security Council is a political organization, just as the General Assembly is a political organization.

          “The proceedings are even more of a farce since the ICJ doesn’t seem to have considered issuing the equivalent of an interim injunction”

          Pardon? You’ve been asleep for the last week?

          Look, EO, he is what is going to happen: Genocide Joe is going to be told by his advisors that he is now at risk of criminal proceeding in the US court system if he continues supporting this assault on Gaza. Sunak in the UK will be receiving the same advice. Macron in France, ditto.

          They may take heed of that advice. They may not. It depends on how venal they are.

          If they do take heed of that advice then Israel might be in for a very rude shock in the UN Security Council.

          If they are too venal to take heed of that advice then one or more will veto any UNSC resolution, and Netanyahu will look even more smug than usual.

          The former will force a ceasefire. No ifs. No buts.

          The latter will cause the stocks of the USA and/or UK/France to plummet even further than it already is.

          Their ability to influence states outside their already-captured orbit will drop to zero. That alone means the costs of vetoing this will be incalculable.

          And for what? So that the IDF can keep shooting civilians like fish in a barrel?

          Maybe. Wouldn’t put it past Washington.

          But this is a big deal. A very big deal, and we are only seeing the beginnings of what this will all lead to.

          My guess is it will lead to a complete disintegration of the entire “rules-based international order”, the deaths of tens of millions of people, and the destruction of Israel.

          Still, no biggie, heh?

          • English Outsider says:

            Yeah, Right. If this roundabout proceeding is the only way of stopping what’s happening in Gaza – and on the West Bank – then let’s hope it works!

            But where were the international tribunals when the Aidar was ravaging the Donbass? And would not the present confrontation between the international community and the West be much as it is now had the ICJ ruling been different?

            These international tribunals are chancy in practice and wrong in principle. Perhaps this is the wrong place to argue that. As you say, use of the ICJ in this case could be the most practicable way to stop the genocide in Gaza. But one swallow does not make a summer.


            That said, and returning to this specific case, the question of proportionality has not been addressed. How do the Israelis stop missiles coming over? Obviously not as they’re doing at the moment. But given that what they’re doing at the moment is unacceptable, what proportionate military means of stopping those missiles do we suggest that would be acceptable?

            Dumb question as soon as asked. There are no proportionate military means that would stop the missiles from Gaza and still avoid unacceptable civilian casualties in Gaza.

            Therefore the only workable solution is a solution to the wider Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And since the Jabotinsky faction reigns supreme in Israel now, and any solution allowing the Palestinians concessions would be unacceptable to the Israelis, the only solution can be a solution imposed from outside.

            That puts the matter squarely in President Biden’s hands. The US is the only party that could force the Israelis to accept a compromise. It’s the White House we must look to if there’s to be a workable resolution of the conflict, not the ICJ.

            It’d better get a move on. The ME’s going up in flames and all we see of President Biden is him delivering 1000 pound bombs for the IAF to use as they please, the while itching to have a go at the Iranians. “Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war” seems to be the only motto Washington can come up with so far. Won’t help the Gazans, that, and could well ignite a conflict in which the West would come off worse.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            I think you have an active fantasy life.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric, that is quite funny, because that’s also my opinion of you.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Exactly. All a little bag of hot air – for page B media headlines and wonks’ excitement.

      • English Outsider says:

        Eric – glad we agree but it would be disingenuous not to add that I dislike the Likud Party and all their works. Not that I like Hamas either.

        But I do query the increasing tendency to fob off difficult questions on some ersatz court, and expect them to come up with an answer that means anything in reality.

        Also, as Orban is finding, on big issues that have a heavy political or ideological dimension to them, the answer you get from any court is not arrived at as a result of impeccable deliberation conducted by some idealised Olympian conclave. The answer usually depends on who gets to pick the judges.


    • Barbara Ann says:


      Ben-Gvir’s comments and views go to the heart of this matter.

      It is not just the ICJ which Ben-Gvir and like-minded folk reject, but the whole notion that any law (or in fact any Gentile value system) should restrain their vision of Zionism and the means to implement it. Here he is berating the Israeli AG by suggesting that his (the AG’s) Zionist values do not give preferential treatment to Jews. To be clear; Ben-Gvir is advocating for straight up apartheid.

      And here is the Times of Israel again (hardly known for its liberal, left-wing views) arguing that Ben-Gvir’s party; Otzma Yehudit is well to the right of Germany’s AfD: They most certainly are and were they not Jewish and instead based in Europe or the US, Otzma Yehudit would be described as “Neo-Nazi” and “white supremacist”. Were he not a Jew in Israel, pretty much every one of Ben-Gvir’s utterances would be condemned as “hate speech”. As it is this Kahanist party is currently part of Bibi’s ruling coalition.

      Lest you think Ben-Gvir’s views over Gaza are motivated by pure revenge, please note that he and in fact a third of the Netanyahu coalition were partying yesterday at the Settlements Bring Security conference – a celebration of Gaza’s impending colonization. This is while the war is underway mind you. These folk are on a mission from God and mere courts, of any kind, are not going to stand in their way.

      Also, as to “disputes of this gravity and urgency”, aren’t these the very matters the UN and its court were set up to deal with? The ICJ have decided that South Africa’s case is within their jurisdiction. Ben-Gvir is welcome to disagree. The power to enforce the ICJ’s decisions rests with the UNSC. Yes, the US would almost certainly veto any UNSC sanction on Israel, but the power to enforce court decisions is nevertheless there.

      If Ben-Gvir’s value system truly represents the State of Israel then my suggestion would be that she leave the UN. The Chosen People can then be free to pursue their destiny unencumbered by the laws of men and its silly notion of a rules-based order.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Barbara Ann,
        I think that Hamas’ views, along with the other Palestinian groups’, go to the heart of the matter in a big way too. Also, you are assuming that an apartheid arrangement is some kind of unmitigated evil, never appropriate and the worse thing humans could do to each other. I challenge that view.

        If there is a group – even if a subgroup of citizens as opposed to a foreign group – dedicated to the destruction of your family and neighbors and civilization, then you really want to keep them apart, at the least. If that group insists on attacking you, then you must kill them, unless you’re suicidal. The history of the how animosity developed is irrelevant. The longer the history, the more irrelevant because a long history is always subject to myopia and deliberate revision.

        Furthermore, given irreconcilable animosity, homicidal attacks from which one has a recognized right to defend oneself, one of the questions before the court is whether or not the scope and scale of the defensive military action is reasonable and acceptable under international standards. The court even noted that very question exists. Finally, *if* defense through military action is deemed reasonable, whether or not the civilian deaths resulting from that action are in excess of what is reasonable and expected is another question the court noted, but did not decide. Evidence would have to be heard and arguments made.

        A lot of people want to believe that Israel is deliberately committing genocide for Ben-Gvir-esque reasons A lot of people want to believe that Israel is conducting a grim, but necessary, incursion and that they are doing their best to avoid civilians casualties; which unfortunately still occur frequently. Every society has its hawks and doves and most are somewhere in-between on the spectrum. Interesting that the pro-Palestinian camp insists that Hamas doesn’t really represent the Palestinians, but Ben-Gvir does represent the Israelis. To me, that is al hair splitting and navel gazing within the purple haze of personal psychological predispositions. All that matters is actions.

        So are the Palestinians really honest brokers? Can they be trusted to keep their word? Are they reasonable in what they are asking for? Are they willing to police their own and remove their own extremists? Is there any evidence to support your answer to those questions? What is the evidence contrary to your answer. You know there is some. Outside of Hollywood, fairytales and government propaganda there always is.

      • English Outsider says:

        Barbara Ann – E&OE? Razor sharp as usual. I shall endeavour to reform.

        On the error above I plead de minimis. It’s just a comma that went rogue.

  15. walrus says:

    Mr. Newhill, private firearm ownership is NOT banned in Australia, I own four.

    What you will find though is that there are thorough background checks, licensing and gun registration.

    While that process does not stop criminals from obtaining virtually any firearm they want, it does seem to stop the crazies and homicidal teenagers from accessing firearms and the associated massacres.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      What kind of guns? What is your genuine reason for owning them?

      It’s so sweet and nice that your government has given you an ok on the mommy may I.

      • Peter Williams says:

        So you’re OK with requiring permission from the State to cross the road wherever you like? Most of the civilised world, and I exclude the USA, does not have jaywalking laws.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Peter Williams,
          We have a Constitution and the right to bear arms is in it. Why that is specifically noted in the Constitution is very clear if one reads the signers’ correspondences.

          Jaywalking laws do not tell me I cannot cross a street; nor are they fundamental to the preservation of a way of life.

  16. Barbara Ann says:

    The display of Russian support for the Axis of Resistance against Israel and the US is unprecedented. The Foreign Ministry and Security Council meetings confirm there is now a new definition of “terrorism” in Russian warfighting strategy, in which there is both public and secret support for Hamas, the Houthis, and other groups in Lebanon and Iraq fighting for national liberation against Israel and the US.

    John Helmer on Russian support for the Axis of Resistance now being overt.

    Together with China’s conspicuous lack of interest in helping with Prosperity Guardian this is starting to look to me more and more like a coordinated challenge to US/Israeli power in the ME.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      This is very clearly a cooperative effort from the BRICS states to dismantle US influence in the Middle East.

      Not sure Joe Biden is even aware of it. Certainly Blinken and Sullivan aren’t up to the challenge of pushing back on it.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Yes. Of course it is [coordinated challenge]. And lots of tools in the US are aiding China and Russia by becoming drunk on the grape flavored propaganda (Kool Aide) Russia and China are peddling via their social media mouth pieces – and even via left leaning MSM.

      But there’s more….. there are US Christians, who are more inadvertently tools of the same challenge. As much as fundamental Christians are accused of siding with Israel by aforementioned China and Russia tools, there is another substantial subset of US Christians, with bleeding hearts on their sleeves, that favor illegal immigration and the plight of the Palestinians and similar rubbish. Their desire to be super kind and Jesus-like makes weak idiot supporters of evil out of them.

      Then there are dopes – usually Georgetown international relations major types – that naively think that people like Hamas can be reasoned with – because, they imagine, all people want the same basics things in life (LOL). Such midwits will be the death of us all one of these days.

      • walrus says:

        Mr. Newhill, there you go again……… All you do is spout your opinion which is, as usual, unsupported by any facts.

        ….and your opinion is, as usual, that anyone who disagrees with your unquestioning support of Israel is either an anti-Semite or soft in the head, or both.

        Well here is a fact for you Mr. Newhill; Israeli opinion polls show that Netanyahu is deeply unpopular in Israel. There are also significant Israeli minorities who think that the war is a bad idea for recovering hostages and/or blame the Government for the war, so people here who are critical of Israels actions are not alone.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Thanks for offering your opinion of my opinions.

          It just so happens that my opinion regarding Israeli support for the Gaza operation and Netanyahu is based on evidence, like polls and other reports. I am a fact based analyst by trade and have been for a couple careers worth.

          Polls show overwhelming support in Israel for both of the above. The Oct 7 attack seems to have galvanized Israeli resolve much as 9/11 did here in the US.

          Of course, any society has its goofy liberal dreamers that don’t understand how the real world works and what’s good for them, but those appear to now be a minority in Israel. If you actually bothered to look into the data yourself, instead of offering and unsupported opinion, you’d be aware of that.

          Here, I googled Israel support of Gaza operation and Netanyahu. Randomly picked one of dozens of articles. Ap news is hardly a rightwing source.

          • walrus says:

            Oh I see, anyone who disagrees with you is a “Goofy Liberal” or worse.

            BTW, I didn’t say that everyone in Israel was against the war, i said there are significant minorities of Israelis who don’t support it.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Here is another randomly selected piece re; Israeli attitudes (“more hawkish than ever”)

    • Fred says:

      Barbara Ann,

      At least they aren’t an Axis of Evil. Of course Iran, the great bugaboo of the neocons, is behind it all.

      There are a lot of others with converging interest in seeing American influence reduced. Now if we drilled like under Trump, and didn’t outlaw export of LNG so that it implodes our own domestic industry, we wouldn’t be reliant of ME fossil fuel supplies at all. One wonders, well John Helmer doesn’t’, whose interests are served by eliminating US energy independence and making us as dependent as Europe is on MidEast petroleum supplies. I suggest he start looking at the City of London and that country that trained Christopher Steele.

      • TTG says:


        The US is now enjoying record levels of crude oil, gas and LNG production and export. The current rise started under Obama, continued under Trump, except for the pandemic led 2020 price/production collapse, and has continued since 2021. Our problem is that the oil we produce cannot be processed in our refineries. That’s an infrastructure problem.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          The trends in production levels can be found at the link. TTG is generally correct about production levels, which surprises me. I also assumed production levels had dropped under Biden.

        • Fred says:


          The latest executive order on LNG did what to exports and what is the impact on a company’s ROI when the price crashes?

          “That’s an infrastructure problem.”
          No, it is a regulation created problem.

          • TTG says:


            It did nothing to current exports. Maybe to future exports if the EO eventually ends up keeping new facilities from being built. And if anything this would increase prices rather than crashing them.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          So the USA has had at least 15 years to build that infrastructure, and hasn’t done so?

          Is that correct?

          Hmmm. Shouldn’t that bother you?

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The oil and companies aren’t building new refineries. They’re more likely to stop pumping oil to keep up the prices.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG, that is simply a recitation of bland facts.

            It doesn’t explain the reasoning behind it.

            TTG: “The oil and companies aren’t building new refineries.”

            Yeah, we’ve already established that fact. My question is: why not?

            TTG: “They’re more likely to stop pumping oil to keep up the prices.”

            And why is that more desirable? Why isn’t it more sensible to refine the oil domestically so that the USA gets value-added for its oil?

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            Oil companies don’t act on what brings value added to the USA. They operate on what makes them and their shareholders more money.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            In addition to what TTG says, the green policy push has oil companies nervous about a massive investment in new refineries. Markets do not like uncertainty. So why make a risky long-term investment when you’re already making money by limiting supply?

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG, I’ll repeat my question: doesn’t that worry you?

            Because when the neocons finally get their wet dreams realized and the USA is engaged in a multi-front war with Russia, China, Iran, Tom, Dick and Harry how does the Pentagon plan to prosecute that war when its overseas oil refineries are in enemy hands and its domestic oil refineries don’t exist?

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            I’d rather have the US be self sufficient in all things, but until the US becomes far more onerous in our industrial policy, private enterprise will never do it.

          • Fred says:

            Yeah, Right,

            EPA? Environmentalists? Climate Change? I wonder what impact that has on not building oil refineries. Or that pipeline Biden got cancelled.

          • TTG says:


            Here’s a list of refineries built/upgraded/expanded since 1976. Doesn’t appear to have ever been a priority for oil companies to greatly expand their refineries.


          • Yeah, Right says:

            I have to say that I am quite shocked at how cavalier you both are regarding this.

            The USA’s greatest strength in both world wars was its geographic location that meant that even as war was waging around the globe there was nothing anyone could do to interfere with the USA’s ability to build up and sustain its war machine.

            Not really true now if the oil that the USA pumps out of the ground has to go to overseas oil refineries before it can be used.

            What if those oil refineries are unavailable to the USA in the event of a war? How does the US war machine continue to function?

            If nobody in the United States is giving this any thought – certainly no-one here is – then any war that the USA starts with a peer-competitor isn’t going to go the USA’s way.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            You should look at the US, Canada and Mexico as a single oil producing and refining entity. Those three dominate the North American oil trade.

          • Fred says:

            Yeah, Right,

            Why worry about oil abroad, like is seen here:

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG, according to this article:
            there is only a single oil refinery in Canada that has been built since 1985, and that one refinery:
            doesn’t appear to be involved in the refining of fracked oil from the USA.

            Am I to assume from this that all the crude oil that the USA extracts via fracking gets refined in Mexico?

            Would that be correct?

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            No, that would be incorrect. Most of the Canadian oil is refined in our Gulf Coast refineries. Our East Coast refineries generally can’t refine the type of oil extracted through fracking. That is where most imported crude oil is bound. The Gulf Coast refineries can refine the fracking extracted oil. The rest is exported. We are still the largest producer of refined oil products in the world.

        • Keith Harbaugh says:

          I wondered why that was so.
          Found an article that discusses the reason for declining refinery capacity:

          “U.S. energy policy has been clear about the intent to phase out fossil fuels.
          If you are a refiner forecasting billions in losses — and you require massive investments in order to keep your refinery operating safely and in compliance with the laws —
          you may very well simply make the decision to close down.”

  17. d74 says:

    I’d like to know what Israeli Arabs think.
    They are second-class citizens and their place is not an enviable one.
    Do they have accessible media? Does anyone have any information?

    This silence, perhaps apparent, is similar to that of the Palestinian authorities in Samaria-Judea.

  18. mcohen says:

    International court of justice.Sounds like something out of a marvel comic.You know,like the justice league or the avengers.

    • Fred says:


      South Africa, the bastion of Justice to which ‘refugees’ of the world somehow don’t want to migrate. The riots after former president Zuma was jailed had nothing to do with the national sense of justice.

Comments are closed.