A Legal Victory for the Palestinian People
The International Court of Justices has made a decision on temporary precautionary measures, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine believes that this is a legal victory for the Palestinian people.
A Legal Defeat for Israel
Israel, on the other hand, sees this decision as a legal defeat. They wanted the court to be abolished, but the majority of judges disagreed.
Binding Decision
This decision is binding on states, according to Article 94 of the United Nations Charter. It is not just an advisory opinion like the separation wall issue in 2004.
Call for Action
The legal department of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is calling on the international community to pressure Israel to stop the war and follow the court's decision immediately and unconditionally.
They are also urging the International Criminal Court to start an investigation into the perpetrator of genocide in the Gaza Strip, as this falls under their jurisdiction.
Preliminary Reading of the Decision
- The decision starts by summarizing the conflict, but it only considers the events from October seventh onwards and doesn't take into account the occupation as a basis.
- This decision challenges the legitimacy of Israel as a "national homeland" for a group that has faced genocide.
- While the resolution implies a ceasefire, it doesn't explicitly use political terms as requested by South Africa.
- The court rejected Israel's request to reject and cancel the case from the public record.
- The resolution was passed with a majority vote, indicating that there is international consensus on Israel's intention to annihilate in its war on Gaza.
- Interestingly, the American, French, and German judges voted in favor of the resolution, even though it goes against their declared positions.
- The Israeli judge appointed for this case, Aharon Barak, went against his government's position and rejected the court's jurisdiction.
- Lastly, the Ugandan judge, Julia Sabotendi, voted against all the provisions of the resolution, reminding us of Herzl's argument at the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903.
