ICJ's case accusing Israel of "genocide" has no merit. But is that enough?

Salo Aizenberg has written numerous, excellent threads on X/Twitter debunking the specific legal claims that South Africa has brought against Israel, showing that not only do they have no merit but that they are knowingly lying about the facts.

Here are some of them viewable as articles:

Claims that Israel is "indiscriminately" bombing or causing disproportionate civilian deaths in Gaza can be easily proven false based on actions & statistics. Here are SEVEN items of evidence that debunk claims of war crimes, genocide, unprecedented civilian deaths, etc. 

Fabricated Israel genocide claim relies on quotes by Israeli officials to show “specific intent” necessary to prove genocide. South Africa ICJ filing lists 8 quotes by PM Netanyahu (numbered below) claiming intent to genocide. But each one is a lie. See debunking of all 8

Fabricated Israel genocide claim relies on misrepresented quotes by Israeli officials to show “intent” necessary to prove genocide. South Africa ICJ genocide filing says @Isaac_Herzog “made clear” Israel INTENDS to kill all Palestinians. Here is full debunking of this lie.

Fabricated Israel genocide claim relies on quotes by Israeli officials to show “Intent” necessary to prove genocide. 5 words from @yoavgallant “We are fighting human animals” remains core evidence Israel INTENDS genocide but he meant Hamas. Here is a full debunking of lie:

HRW piece claiming Israel intends to starve Gazans for war is propaganda masking as scholarship but covered by NY Times. Like all HRW "reports" on Israel it is filled with lies, errors, misrepresentations & omissions. Here is a detailed breakdown: 

He also points to an ABC News article debunking the "dumb bombs" claim, and a Colonel Richard Kemp article about Israel's morality in its practices in this war.

But are the facts enough? 

A landmark 2004 study examined the voting records of members of the ICJ, and found that there was a correlation between their voting record based on what state they were from and the political alignments (wealth, regional, democracy) of those states with the states under judgment. 

The current members of the ICJ come from the US, Russia, Slovakia, France, Morocco, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Jamaica, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Brazil. (Plus there will be "guest judges" from Israel and South Africa, who can be expected to cancel each other out.) We can fairly assume how the judges from Russia, China, Lebanon, Uganda  and Somalia would vote.

While the ICJ deliberations can take years, South Africa is asking for an immediate stop to fighting, which means Israel losing the war. (This article argues that it cannot do so because Israel's right to self-defense is paramount.) If the court tries to issue a compromise ruling of any sort (say, insisting that Israel not kill civilians, which is impossible in war, or that Israel allow unlimited "fact finding" missions into Gaza which would make all areas impossible to fight in) then it may end up effectively giving  victory to Hamas anyway. 

Israel is already going beyond international law in protecting civilians, and it is already arguably harming its own interests in doing so, lengthening the war as Hamas confiscates all aid for itself first. Any further restriction on its ability to wage war will make things much more difficult. 

In some ways, what we see this week will be as much of a judgment of the ICJ itself as it is on Israel. 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!