But so far, not a single county has done anything to react on this.
Except Yemen.
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
109 points (100.0% liked)
Palestine
2014 readers
656 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
sadly true. but Yemen was not a signatory of the Genocide convention.
their resistance against Israel has been going on since the fist day of the genocide, like Hezbollah, they are paying a heavy price for their actions
I fully agree, but Yemen has ratified the convention, it's in dark green in the posted image.
Also, we should remember that states complicit with the genocide (USA, UK, Australia, Canada…) started a war against Yemen to stop them from exercising their obligation to try to protect a nation under genocide.
The current government of Yemen was never allowed to represent them at UN, the country that is in UN is the Saudi puppet regime with no control over it.
But other than that, you are absolutely right.
The same with Hezbollah, Iraqi resistance and Iran that are being targeted by hypocrites in the west and labeled terrorists
This has been the case ever since the ICJ order from 26 January 2024. Instead, just a few days after the ruling, many signatories froze payments to UNRWA or scrapped them completely, as a reaction to mere allegations of Israel, that UNWRA workers have been part of the attack on October 7th. Thereby they have clearly violated the court order and are punishable under the same Genocide convention.
The court order points that out explicitly:
The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article I of the Convention, all States parties thereto have undertaken “to prevent and to punish” the crime of genocide, that is to say any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group (Article II, para. (a)); causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (Article II, para. (b)); deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (Article II, para. (c)); imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (Article II, para. (d)); forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (Article II, para. (e)). Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (b)), direct and public incitement to commit genocide (Article III, para. (c)), attempt to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e)).
Too bad we live in an age of blatant lawlessness.
Too bad we live in an age of blatant lawlessness.
it was always blatant; it's just the many were fooled into believing that it wasn't for a time because they were taught to believe that only our enemies were doing it.
@AliSaket
Excellent point, but again, the big difference between ICJ ruling and UN report is that ICJ ruling was against individuals and not many countries are part of ICJ.
UN report put the blame on stare of Israel as a nation. And anyone who is part of the UN and ratified (not just signed) the UNGA resolution 260A has to follow UN charter.
But as you said , we live in a lawless world or TBH a highly hypocritic world.
And Israel seems to be completely outside of any international rules
@Farhad
the big difference between ICJ ruling and UN report is that ICJ ruling was against individuals and not many countries are part of ICJ
You might be mistaking it for the ICC (International Criminal Court). The ICJ (International Court of Justice) is the highest court ruling on international law and therefore the genocide convention of 1948. Only states can appeal to it. The order obliges Israel as a nation, not as individuals, to suspend military operations, etc. and not to commit the four out of five actions defining genocide in the convention. The wording is "The State of Israel shall (...)".
The biggest points out of that ruling to me are:
- The Palestinians are a group protected under the convention.
- The difficult to prove point of intention is met.
- Four out of five genocidal actions are relevant.
- They order Israel and all nations to prevent genocide.
They basically all but called it a genocide, because usually that takes time and legal mubmo-jumbo and is ruled after the fact. I'm sure that political thinking played a role too, since the ICJ has no executive power to enact its orders. They rely on compliance of the states. The big difference with the new report is that they unequivocally see all the conditions (intent and at least one action under Article 2) met to call it a genocide (even if not by a court).
well, I leave it here
\https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties
Well... yes? The Rome Statutes establish the ICC (International Criminal Court). It prosecutes criminal individuals. Their chief prosecutor Karim Khan has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Deif last November.
I was talking though about the ICJ (International Court of Justice) which was established through the UN Charter itself. Their jurisdiction therefore includes all UN member states. The aforementioned court order was a preliminary decision taken in the case brought forth by the state of South Africa against the state of Israel.
@AliSaket
I don't think countries that are not joined ICC will be covered by ICJ. This is why Poland left it to welcome Netanyahu.
But anyway, it's just BS anyway.
They will NEVER be able to bring western war criminals to justice. 22 years after Iraq invasion, not a single person was held accountable and freaking Tony Blair is now involved in ethnic cleansing of Gaza too.
I don’t think countries that are not joined ICC will be covered by ICJ.
The ICC and the ICJ are completely separate entities. While the ICJ stems from the UN charter, so every UN member has ratified it, the ICC can issue arrest warrants for any person on the planet, but only the signatories to the Rome Statutes are obliged to act upon them.
22 years after Iraq invasion, not a single person was held accountable
There is an argument to be made, that the rise of Trump was only possible, because nobody has ever been held to account. The whole Bush administration should have been brought to justice for their wars or detention and torture programs and other crimes, but Obama wanted "to look forward, not backwards" - and didn't close Gitmo, while we're at it. And he bailed out those, who made fraud their business model and crashed the economy for good measure, no accountability. The same goes for Tony Blair, who as you said, has been given yet another opportunity to get away with heinous crimes.
@AliSaket
You are right. I am getting old. I did a long post about ICJ rulings back in late 90s and compared the biased against developing countries both in their selections of cases and the rulings.
Thank you for correction, I have to defrag my brain
Except the Nietzschean moral collapse in response to the death of god has finally happened and the West is no longer constrained by ANY ethical scheme whatsoever.
Surprised the US even pretended sign it TBH. Usually when the UN has a convention with super common sense stuff in it the US is always the loudest opposition.