The Israeli government has failed to comply with at least one measure in the legally binding order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s genocide case, Human Rights Watch said today. Citing warnings about “catastrophic conditions” in Gaza, the court ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian aid,” and to report back on its compliance to the specific measures “within one month.”
One month later, however, Israel continues to obstruct the provision of basic services and the entry and distribution within Gaza of fuel and lifesaving aid, acts of collective punishment that amount to war crimes and include the use of starvation of civilians as a weapon of war. Fewer trucks have entered Gaza and fewer aid missions have been permitted to reach northern Gaza in the several weeks since the ruling than in the weeks preceding it, according to United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
“The Israeli government is starving Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians, putting them in even more peril than before the World Court’s binding order,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli government has simply ignored the court’s ruling, and in some ways even intensified its repression, including further blocking lifesaving aid.”
Human Rights Watch found in December 2023 that Israeli authorities are using starvation as a weapon of war. Pursuant a policy set out by Israeli officials and carried out by Israeli forces, the Israeli authorities are deliberately blocking the delivery of water, food, and fuel, willfully impeding humanitarian assistance, apparently razing agricultural areas, and depriving the civilian population of objects indispensable to its survival.
I mean, the existing framework would be the United Nations. Doesn’t have to be, but it’d have to be one where the permanent members don’t just reject the legitimacy and jurisdiction of international courts to enable invading countries. Those courts should be able to review and perhaps rule on such things like border issues and separatist movements for both standing and substance.
Pragmatically speaking I would much rather borders change via things like Brexit, Kosovo (after 1999 when UN intervened), and the Crimean referendum vs Donbass-Donetsk, Kosovo (before 1999), or Gaza.
The above are all complex issues with varied and unfavorable outcomes but the point being there is a very clear dividing line.
It appears that this only happens when the aggressor has nothing at all to offer.
I hope you are aware there’s been no real referendum.
Just Ukrainian military and police on the peninsula generally failed to react, and then under Russian military control there’s been something called referendum.
Right, but the point being the degree and presence of violent military action.
Suffering isn’t limited to violent military action, then murder, rape, looting, vandalism of cultural heritage may follow.
In case of Ukraine - those “pro-Russian” forces were comprised of bandits basically, who would do extrajudicial executions of those they didn’t like, seize properties etc.