The Historic International Court of Justice's Preliminary Decision on Probable Genocide in the War in Gaza.

While much of the American populous and main stream media outlets were focused on the significant E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million dollar verdict against former President Donald Trump on Friday, I was learning much and thinking long about a different court's decision from that very same day.?

I watched the entire South African and Israeli presentations before the United Nation's International Court of Justice (ICJ) live earlier this month and listened to the entire ruling as read from the bench at 4 am on Friday, January 26, 2024. (Insomnia sometimes has its perks.)?

This was a remarkable victory for International Human Rights Law and the preservation of the Genocide Convention and ICJ's legitimacy. The 15-2 and 16-1 rulings on all six counts (The Uganda Judge and the ad hoc Israeli Judge were the only dissenters) were in essence a DE FACTO call for an immediate ceasefire.?

These provisional rulings did not use language regarding Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Nor did they characterize what a political and diplomatic vs miliary solution might look like. The ICJ provisional rulings were strictly limited to the immediate conflict underway based on the Israeli government's wartime activities in response to the attack by Hamas since October 7, 2023. Israel as a nation state is under its jurisdiction as a UN member and signatory on the Genocide Convention. (Hamas is a non-state actor.) The differences between the ICJ and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is that the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) is a civil tribunal that hears disputes between countries. The ICJ is part of the UN to which both Israel and South Africa as well as the US are members. The ICC on the other hand is a criminal tribunal that will prosecute individuals.?

The ICJ made this determination after concluding, in part, that:

1. The ICJ has jurisdiction
2. South Africa has standing
3. Risk of "Irreparable prejudice and urgency" related to probable genocide

Basically, the ICJ is accepting the case and will proceed with due diligence to consider its merits and make a ruling on whether Israel is in violation of the Genocide Convention. Essentially, in order to comply with the court's provisional orders there logically needs to be:?

1. An immediate cessation of violence
2. The urgent return of substantial, sustainable humanitarian aid
3. The release of all Israeli hostages (there was no mention of the thousands of Palestinians detainees)

?"An immediate ceasefire by all parties remains essential and – although not ordered by the Court – is the most effective condition to implement the provisional measures and end unprecedented civilian suffering." - Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International

?All of this must happen in a legitimate and sincere effort to preserve the life and wellbeing, physical and mental, for the 2.3 million people in Gaza. (The West Bank was not mentioned if memory serves me correctly.)

This was an intelligent, just and moral ruling based on the overwhelming preliminary facts coming from Israeli government officials and military leaders (any individuals with command responsibility), essentially their own words and actions. Ironically, they made the case against themselves for a preliminary finding of genocidal intent and deeds.

It is now up to the UN and international community to enforce the rule of law and hold Benjamin Netanyahu's extremist, far-right government and by extension its allies accountable as the Israeli government and its supporters are now on notice for committing probable genocidal acts and war crimes.

Israel has been ordered to report back to the ICJ as to exactly how they are complying with the court's six orders within one month of the ruling, on February 26, 2024. Additionally, Israel was ordered to:

• Preserve all evidence of potential genocidal actions, conspiracy to commit genocide, etc.
• Prevent and hold accountable any persons committing genocidal actions, conspiracy to commit genocide, etc.

Based on independent and international media outlet’s reporting, it is probable many countries, corporations and organizations (NGOs) will reconsider whether there should be any continued support for Israel's War in Gaza. This would include support like military (bullets, tanks, helicopters, bombs, etc.), intelligence and financial aid to Israel since now such support comes with the full knowledge that the UN's high court has made this preliminary ruling of possible genocide.

As for the dissenting judges there were two and one was the ad hoc Israeli judge. Only one Judge, Julia Sebutinde from Uganda, voted against every provision. Her rationale for voting as she did, in opposition to the other 15 sitting judge on the UN's International Court of Justice, in my humble opinion is unjustifiable. Judge Sebutind’s statement that the conflict is a "political one" and not a legal dispute is illogical and an abdication of her responsibilities on the court.

The United Nations is a political body and the conventions that bind its members are based on political agreements. This includes the Genocide Convention. What kind of disputes does she plan to adjudicate if not ones that include Int'l Human Rights Laws like the Convention to Prevent Genocide? Is there to be no legal recourse as provided for by the UN and the convention itself? How are disputes such as these to be settled when negotiations, for whatever reason, fail?

Given that the Israeli government took South Africa's charges seriously enough to mount the best defense they possibly could proves that the ICJ hearing of the case and the decisions they make have serious legal, political and moral consequences for Palestinians, Israelis and the entire world now and well into the future. Judge Sebutinde decision strikes me as nihilistic, profoundly unwise and deeply depressing. Not even the ad hoc Israeli judge took such an extreme voting position.

In the coming years the ICJ will hear the full case, arguments and evidence as presented and defended by South Africa and Israel, and make a final determination if Israel is committing genocide once and for all. Nevertheless, they made it clear repeatedly that there is absolutely no legal, political or moral justification for genocide. There are no exceptions, not even self defense. In the interim, I believe this a profoundly consequential and historic case that I hope will bolster universal human rights. I am profoundly grateful for this decision by the ICJ, whose President is an American Joan Donoghue, and for South African for having the courage and compassion to bring the case. (Although I did take issue with some of their arguments and legal strategies.)

I hope this summation of the facts is helpful. It is by necessity an interpretation and many experts here and abroad have come to similar or far different conclusions. My fervent hope is that this ruling will have an immediate beneficial impact on the physical and mental welfare of everyone - war is not good for anyone. Regardless, we shall have to wait and see.

I encourage everyone to read the complete ICJ's ruling here - https://www.icj-cij.org/.../192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf as well as other reporting from a variety of sources here and abroad.

Mostly, listen to the children who just want the grownups to stop - to stop fighting, to stop the violence - wherever they live, be it in Gaza, the West Bank, in Israel, in Yemen, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Russia, in Mexico, in Texas, or in Port Townsend, WA USA, North America, Earth, Milky Way, Universe.

Thank you and Shalom.