Quds News: ICJ rules by overwhelming majority:
⭕️ Israel must halt attacks on Palestinians
⭕️ Halt incitement against Palestinians as a group
⭕️Ensure Humanitarian aid
⭕️Preserve evidence
⭕️ Submit response to the court within 1 month
⭕️ All parties bound by international humanitarian law
⭕️Calls for release of Hamas held hostages in Gaza @israel @palestine
https://x.com/qudsnen/status/1750863344511209937?s=12&t=uM8me4uwdP7D0z4nanVVuw
https://nitter.net/qudsnen/status/1750863344511209937?s=12&t=uM8me4uwdP7D0z4nanVVuw
@Sherifazuhur @simon_brooke um, I'm getting very contradictory information on the first point at least. perhaps best to read the judgement.
@DetersHenning @Sherifazuhur @simon_brooke
Well, "There’s a new version of this post."
https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1750868389516513304
But who cares, as long as one can spread the original.
@DetersHenning @Sherifazuhur @simon_brooke I have a feeling that the post is intended to specifically* support "the court ordered a ceasefire" narrative, with a follow up of "Israel violates the court decision".
*) Given how the first point is phrased and then amended.
@dpwiz maybe, but I'm trying to be charitable.
@DetersHenning I've been following arabic media for a while and, unfortunately, this is par for the course. Every trick you can find in psyops book is deployed at large.
@DetersHenning @dpwiz @Sherifazuhur bearing in mind that any member of the #Israeli armed forces who takes part in such attacks is personally liable for crimes against humanity – certainly if they travel abroad and very probably even if they don't – yes. But if you were an Israeli conscript, would you feel that "I was just obeying orders" was an adequate defence?
@simon_brooke @dpwiz @Sherifazuhur
I'm just saying that the judgement doesn't say what the first bullet point in the original post says it says. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems quite obvious. Everything else may or may not be as you say.
@DetersHenning @simon_brooke @dpwiz NO - you are incorrect. Please read it more carefully. And keep in mind there is OVERWHELMING evidence of indiscriminate attacks on Palestinians “as a group” and zero effort to solely target Hamas.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
@Sherifazuhur So in your view the ICJ ordered Israel to retreat?
@DetersHenning @Sherifazuhur highly targeted attacks against #Hamas with no or very few civilian casualties, and minimal damage to civilian infrastructure, would be allowed under this ruling, I think. But whether the #IDF have sufficient discipline to carry out such precise attacks is very much another question.
Basically, #Israel are entitled to treat Hamas fighters as 'the enemy', but they're not entitled to treat the #Palestinian population as such.
@Sherifazuhur While we're at it, why did you explicitly link the older version of the tweet instead of just the recent one?
@simon_brooke As I recall, the defense of “I was just obeying orders” was not accepted at Nuremberg. Question is whether a combatant knows that an order is illegal.
And if the US is charged for training and aiding the IDF (as it aided the Khmer Rouge), that defense will also be used and rejected.
Here’s some examples - though US law differs from international law. https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-11-what-shall-be-done-with-the-war-criminals-(1944)/are-superior-orders-a-legitimate-defense
@Sherifazuhur well, the combatant certainly knows now that orders which involve risk to civilians are likely to be illegal, so the excuse that "I didn't know it was illegal" is from this point forward as untenable as "I was just obeying orders."
@simon_brooke @DetersHenning @dpwiz @Sherifazuhur
I would think every Israeli was familiar with the Nuremberg trials, where it was very firmly established that no, "following orders" is not a defense for war crimes.
@dpwiz @Sherifazuhur @simon_brooke I think the confusion arises from the section of the judgement that demands that Israel refrains from "killing members of the group", but this is to be understood in the context of Article II of the Genocide Convention, where it refers to killings "with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".