The International Court of Justice: Justice or Politics


    The court is expected to issue a ruling during January on a possible urgent resolution ordering Israel to stop the war, but the court will not rule quickly on genocide charges, this being an issue which may take years to decide. On January 11th and 12th, the International Court of Justice heard accusations presented by the state of South Africa, and the defense from Israel, which is accused of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip… It is also unlikely that the occupying state will abide by any UN decision issued by the court to stop the war immediately, or accept the court ruling should it decide that the charge of genocide is valid

    In general, the majority of the Earth’s population is in protest against the war and wants it stopped, and an absolute majority of the world’s governments are demanding, through the United Nations General Assembly, to stop the war, end the occupation, and establish a Palestinian state, but the forces of arrogance and injustice prevent the Occupying Forces from bring obliged to stop waging war, by means of their control of the Security Council, of which the United States, Britain, and France are all permanent members. They support Israeli policy, morally and financially and are engaged as active participants in the crime so that any court decision against Israel applies to them equally

    But what are the chances of the International Court of Justice making fair decisions where the Palestinians are concerned? There are fifteen judges from different countries who are elected every six years, five of whom always represent the permanent members of the Security Council. Decisions of the court are made by a simple majority, meaning at least the support of eight judges is needed. In theory, each judge is supposed to decide according to his vision of the validity of the claim and the validity of the evidence, and according to his conscience, but what is known is that they mostly decide according to the vision of their governments. If the judges decide according to humanity and international law, then the issue is clear, and they should first decide to stop the war until the accusation of genocide has been thoroughly investigated

Here is a political analysis of the voting results, with some clarifications. The United States, and Germany will have their judges vote to deny the charges and not demand a halt to the war. Australia and Japan often behave like satellites of American policy. As for France, it proclaims the impartiality of its judge, while being represented by a French Jew who may or may not support stopping the war! India will most likely oblige its judge to reflect the opinion of the right-wing regime against the case, and Jamaica may submit to American pressure and comply with them.

What about the remaining eight? The Russian judge, who is the deputy president of the court, may not support a decision to convict of genocide to prevent a precedent that could be applied to Moscow’s policy against Ukraine. The situation in China may be similar to Russia, especially if it is planning to invade Taiwan soon, but they may support decisions to stop the war quickly and with immediate effect. Brazil, Uganda, Somalia, Morocco, and Lebanon will support the decisions, while Slovakia announced that it will stand with the call, unlike the other European Union member represented in the court, Germany, which announced earlier that it would stand against the call

    This means that Arab and Palestinian diplomacy must work intensively to influence China, Russia, Japan and Jamaica, and I hope that the French judge will at least support the decision to stop the war… Do we see any prospect of convincing these friendly countries, including Japan, which suffered from the scourge of war and have good relations with the Arab world

Abdel-Gabbar Adwan

Citizen of Gaza

Day 103 of the war

اترك تعليقاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *

error: Content is protected !!
Scroll to Top