10 ms·

The actual rulings can be found at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/defa

by ajb 3y ago

The actual rulings can be found at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192... and a summary is: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-pre-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192... Dissents etc can be found in the case page: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 - in particular the opinion of Judge Aharon Barak, the Israeli ad-hoc Judge (a peculiarity of the ICJ is that each side gets to add a judge, but it doesn't have much effect since there are 17 other judges). But interestingly Judge Barak ruled against Israel in the case of two measures, enforcement against Incitement and ensuring humanitarian aid. I believe it's also available in French, for those more familiar with that language.

ComputerGuru 3y ago
An important part of Barak’s involvement is the complete recognition of ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter, which it found (and Barak didn’t disagree) it had.
shmatt 3y ago
Barak is no fan of the current Israeli government. And they often attacked him publicly and organized demonstrations around his home. They truly sent the best international law expert the country has to offer
- yosefk 3y ago
  Not exactly. They sent the guy who controls the local judiciary because not doing so would be impossible due to his immense political power. The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself and having given itself the power to cancel any law or demand any changes to laws/policy on any arbitrary basis; since this state of affairs is backed up by a sufficient number of powerful institutions, it is effectively impossible to challenge. Barak ruling to resupply the enemy (it is widely documented that "humanitarian aid" goes first and foremost to Hamas) in an international court is entirely consistent with his lifelong tendency to gradually reduce Israeli independence and voters' impact on policy and to increase Israeli compliance to the policy of outside parties, first and foremost the US. (Resupplying the enemy was required by the US from the start. It is interesting to see other examples where civilians are prevented by the international community to leave the area of hostilities and instead they are supposed to be provided with resources in this area where the monopoly on the use of force belongs to one of the sides in the conflict.) While the exact requirements placed on Israel by larger powers are somewhat unique, having highly influential people in the country effectively work in the interest of larger powers is a common condition for smaller powers. In this Barak is similar to many other high-profile people and organizations in many other countries enjoying limited sovereignty at best.
  - ajb 3y ago
    Don't quite understand that? Aharon Barak was chief justice, but retired in 2006 and is 87 years old.
    - yosefk 3y ago
      Most of the judiciary are his loyalists. An example of his ongoing influence is the ridiculous legal doctrine invented just this year where the Israeli declaration of independence was retroactively declared to be the supreme law of the land, akin to a "meta-constitution"; his opinion on the matter was published after many months of campaigns where people would declare their "allegiance to the declaration of independence."
      - YZF 3y ago
        I feel like this is an over-simplification that's not going to be well understood by people not familiar with Israel's judicial history and systems. He has some influence but I don't think "loyalists" (or the other terminology used in your earlier comment) is that accurate. The supreme court justices today have a range of opinions and are largely independent and interpret law (and some other universal principles, like human rights, is really what Barak brought to the table). The interesting bit to me here is this signals that if those cases were brought in front of Israel's supreme court the outcome would likely be similar to the ICJ (except Israel's supreme court's rulings must be followed, it's not optional or requires security council approval). I think that was partly the intent in sending Barak and really the main argument that people that oppose the government initiatives to restrict the Israeli Supreme Court have. And so there's really no need to take Israel to the ICJ since its independent supreme court would e.g. enforce the same standards anyways.
  - cachvico 3y ago
    Wasn't that struck down? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/1/israels-supreme-court-strikes-down-judicial-overhaul-law https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/1/israels-supreme-cour...
    - 3y ago
- YZF 3y ago
  This is more nuanced. Some people in the government respect Barak. I don't know that Barak is active in politics (I haven't really heard him opine on the current government, but one can imagine he's not a fan). The more extreme parties in the government resent/oppose Barak. The "government" doesn't attack Barak or protest against him but certainly some (extreme/right-wing) political factions in Israel blame him for many things. I don't think he was sent because he's necessarily the best international law expert, but he's a very sharp and widely respected. His being sent while the government is trying to undermine the practices Barak established in the supreme court is a bit weird. Politics.
  - ofirg 3y ago
    Barak very recently (under 1 year) and strongly attacked the governments legal reform plans
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      So would most secular liberal Israelis and HN’ers. Doesn’t have much to do with post Oct. 7th realities.
throwaway260124 3y ago
[flagged]
- nradov 3y ago
  The civilian death toll in Gaza has been tragically high but there hasn't been any independent verification. Regardless of what's on Wikipedia, we can't trust specific numbers.
  - throwaway421967 3y ago
    - Israel's own numbers say "2 civilians killed for every one militant"[1], that's 66% - 766 / 1200 = 63.8% Of course, the numbers claimed by other NGOs / UN make it worse. But Israel's numbers are sufficient to make that claim. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-military-civilian-ratio-killed-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m...
    - slibhb 3y ago
      Hamas can't go toe-to-toe with the IDF. They are hiding in tunnels and among civilians, so these ratios aren't surprising. To some extent, you can't blame Hamas for these tactics. They would quickly lose a conventional war. At the same time, if you have zero chance of winning a military victory, perhaps you shouldn't use violence to pursue your political goals...
      - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        Yes right, if israel is unable to fight conventional war, without massive disproportional amount of civil casualties, they should not probably engage in one.
        llamaLord 3y ago
        Looking at the historical data, that tends to be a pattern of urban warfare, not the IDF. Civilian/combatant fatality ratios of 3/1 are not uncommon in urban warfare.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> a peculiarity of the ICJ is that each side gets to add a judge, but it doesn't have much effect since there are 17 other judges There are 15 ICJ judges, plus the two ad hoc judges appointed by the parties.
- ajb 3y ago
  Yes, my error. 17 is the total number of judges in this case.
megous 3y ago
Notably also voted against telling Israel to follow the raw key prohibitions of Genocide convention as written in the convention, something Israel agreed to in the past. Curious. Also voted against asking Israel to preserve evidence of the crimes. Interesting perspective for a former judge.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Interesting perspective for a former judge Do you have a link to Barak’s dissent on those questions?
  - ajb 3y ago
    https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      Hmm, the relevant meat appears in paragraph 43. One one point, he votes against because it’s redundant to the Convention. Fair enough. On the other, a question of “plausibility,” comes up, which seems a term of art I wasn’t able to quickly decipher.
throwaway421967 3y ago
Since the comment that I replied to was flagged, I'm posting this here because it is simply a statement of facts. - Judge Barak's numbers on civilian deaths on 7th october are simply wrong and could've been easily checked. 766 civilians were killed, 1200 was the total number of deaths (including armed forces). - Israel's own numbers say "2 civilians killed for every one militant"[1], that's 66% in the Gaza offensive. - 766 / 1200 = 63.8% - 63.8% and 66% are indeed close numbers, don't see why would it be flagged. Of course, the numbers claimed by other NGOs / UN make it worse. But Israel's numbers are sufficient to make that claim. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m...
- xdennis 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - int_19h 3y ago
    When Brits were firebombing German cities, that had very little to do with freeing anyone from anything. Even at the time it was recognized by many as an act of revenge, and it's hard to not take the same impression from how Israel is conducting itself in Gaza, especially given some telling remarks from Israeli leadership.
    - avmich 3y ago
      It's interesting that we keep quite a critical view of modern politicians, yet when discussing on the field interactions we assume that armies of people, all like one, follow the bloodthirsty orders from commanders above.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > at the time it was recognized by many as an act of revenge In part. Air power was new at the time, and there was legitimate strategic ambiguity around the military value of removing war factories’ workforces. (This is why Germany and Britain bombed by night while America bombed by day.)
Timber-6539 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't post like this. It's against the intention of this site and especially against the intended spirit I tried to describe at the top of the thread.
  - Timber-6539 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      I've been posting similar admonishments to commenters on all sides of this argument when they cross the line into flamewar. Your comments in this thread have clearly been doing that, and not only the comment I replied to. It's common for people with strong feelings on a topic to feel like the mods must be biased against them and secretly in favor of the other side (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Meanwhile the other side(s) feel exactly the same way. These perceptions feel convincing, but you can't trust them—they're a product of some kind of hard-wiring that we all seem to share, especially when our emotions get engaged. Any fair minded person who slogs their way through my moderation posts in this thread, and any similar thread, is going to see how hard we try to be even-handed, apply HN's rules fairly, and so on. Not that we always get it right, of course. By the way, if you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. There is far too much content on HN, or even in a large thread like this one, for us to read it all. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.

by ajb 3y ago

ComputerGuru 3y ago

An important part of Barak’s involvement is the complete recognition of ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter, which it found (and Barak didn’t disagree) it had.

shmatt 3y ago

Barak is no fan of the current Israeli government. And they often attacked him publicly and organized demonstrations around his home. They truly sent the best international law expert the country has to offer

yosefk 3y ago
Not exactly. They sent the guy who controls the local judiciary because not doing so would be impossible due to his immense political power. The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself and having given itself the power to cancel any law or demand any changes to laws/policy on any arbitrary basis; since this state of affairs is backed up by a sufficient number of powerful institutions, it is effectively impossible to challenge. Barak ruling to resupply the enemy (it is widely documented that "humanitarian aid" goes first and foremost to Hamas) in an international court is entirely consistent with his lifelong tendency to gradually reduce Israeli independence and voters' impact on policy and to increase Israeli compliance to the policy of outside parties, first and foremost the US. (Resupplying the enemy was required by the US from the start. It is interesting to see other examples where civilians are prevented by the international community to leave the area of hostilities and instead they are supposed to be provided with resources in this area where the monopoly on the use of force belongs to one of the sides in the conflict.) While the exact requirements placed on Israel by larger powers are somewhat unique, having highly influential people in the country effectively work in the interest of larger powers is a common condition for smaller powers. In this Barak is similar to many other high-profile people and organizations in many other countries enjoying limited sovereignty at best.
- ajb 3y ago
  Don't quite understand that? Aharon Barak was chief justice, but retired in 2006 and is 87 years old.
  - yosefk 3y ago
    Most of the judiciary are his loyalists. An example of his ongoing influence is the ridiculous legal doctrine invented just this year where the Israeli declaration of independence was retroactively declared to be the supreme law of the land, akin to a "meta-constitution"; his opinion on the matter was published after many months of campaigns where people would declare their "allegiance to the declaration of independence."
    - YZF 3y ago
      I feel like this is an over-simplification that's not going to be well understood by people not familiar with Israel's judicial history and systems. He has some influence but I don't think "loyalists" (or the other terminology used in your earlier comment) is that accurate. The supreme court justices today have a range of opinions and are largely independent and interpret law (and some other universal principles, like human rights, is really what Barak brought to the table). The interesting bit to me here is this signals that if those cases were brought in front of Israel's supreme court the outcome would likely be similar to the ICJ (except Israel's supreme court's rulings must be followed, it's not optional or requires security council approval). I think that was partly the intent in sending Barak and really the main argument that people that oppose the government initiatives to restrict the Israeli Supreme Court have. And so there's really no need to take Israel to the ICJ since its independent supreme court would e.g. enforce the same standards anyways.
- cachvico 3y ago
  Wasn't that struck down? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/1/israels-supreme-court-strikes-down-judicial-overhaul-law https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/1/israels-supreme-cour...
  - 3y ago
YZF 3y ago
This is more nuanced. Some people in the government respect Barak. I don't know that Barak is active in politics (I haven't really heard him opine on the current government, but one can imagine he's not a fan). The more extreme parties in the government resent/oppose Barak. The "government" doesn't attack Barak or protest against him but certainly some (extreme/right-wing) political factions in Israel blame him for many things. I don't think he was sent because he's necessarily the best international law expert, but he's a very sharp and widely respected. His being sent while the government is trying to undermine the practices Barak established in the supreme court is a bit weird. Politics.
- ofirg 3y ago
  Barak very recently (under 1 year) and strongly attacked the governments legal reform plans
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    So would most secular liberal Israelis and HN’ers. Doesn’t have much to do with post Oct. 7th realities.

throwaway260124 3y ago

[flagged]

nradov 3y ago
The civilian death toll in Gaza has been tragically high but there hasn't been any independent verification. Regardless of what's on Wikipedia, we can't trust specific numbers.
- throwaway421967 3y ago
  - Israel's own numbers say "2 civilians killed for every one militant"[1], that's 66% - 766 / 1200 = 63.8% Of course, the numbers claimed by other NGOs / UN make it worse. But Israel's numbers are sufficient to make that claim. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-military-civilian-ratio-killed-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m...
  - slibhb 3y ago
    Hamas can't go toe-to-toe with the IDF. They are hiding in tunnels and among civilians, so these ratios aren't surprising. To some extent, you can't blame Hamas for these tactics. They would quickly lose a conventional war. At the same time, if you have zero chance of winning a military victory, perhaps you shouldn't use violence to pursue your political goals...
    - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
      Yes right, if israel is unable to fight conventional war, without massive disproportional amount of civil casualties, they should not probably engage in one.
      - llamaLord 3y ago
        Looking at the historical data, that tends to be a pattern of urban warfare, not the IDF. Civilian/combatant fatality ratios of 3/1 are not uncommon in urban warfare.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> a peculiarity of the ICJ is that each side gets to add a judge, but it doesn't have much effect since there are 17 other judges There are 15 ICJ judges, plus the two ad hoc judges appointed by the parties.

ajb 3y ago
Yes, my error. 17 is the total number of judges in this case.

megous 3y ago

Notably also voted against telling Israel to follow the raw key prohibitions of Genocide convention as written in the convention, something Israel agreed to in the past. Curious. Also voted against asking Israel to preserve evidence of the crimes. Interesting perspective for a former judge.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Interesting perspective for a former judge Do you have a link to Barak’s dissent on those questions?
- ajb 3y ago
  https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Hmm, the relevant meat appears in paragraph 43. One one point, he votes against because it’s redundant to the Convention. Fair enough. On the other, a question of “plausibility,” comes up, which seems a term of art I wasn’t able to quickly decipher.

throwaway421967 3y ago

Since the comment that I replied to was flagged, I'm posting this here because it is simply a statement of facts. - Judge Barak's numbers on civilian deaths on 7th october are simply wrong and could've been easily checked. 766 civilians were killed, 1200 was the total number of deaths (including armed forces). - Israel's own numbers say "2 civilians killed for every one militant"[1], that's 66% in the Gaza offensive. - 766 / 1200 = 63.8% - 63.8% and 66% are indeed close numbers, don't see why would it be flagged. Of course, the numbers claimed by other NGOs / UN make it worse. But Israel's numbers are sufficient to make that claim. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/israel-hamas-m...

xdennis 3y ago
[flagged]
- int_19h 3y ago
  When Brits were firebombing German cities, that had very little to do with freeing anyone from anything. Even at the time it was recognized by many as an act of revenge, and it's hard to not take the same impression from how Israel is conducting itself in Gaza, especially given some telling remarks from Israeli leadership.
  - avmich 3y ago
    It's interesting that we keep quite a critical view of modern politicians, yet when discussing on the field interactions we assume that armies of people, all like one, follow the bloodthirsty orders from commanders above.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > at the time it was recognized by many as an act of revenge In part. Air power was new at the time, and there was legitimate strategic ambiguity around the military value of removing war factories’ workforces. (This is why Germany and Britain bombed by night while America bombed by day.)

Timber-6539 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago
Please don't post like this. It's against the intention of this site and especially against the intended spirit I tried to describe at the top of the thread.
- Timber-6539 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    I've been posting similar admonishments to commenters on all sides of this argument when they cross the line into flamewar. Your comments in this thread have clearly been doing that, and not only the comment I replied to. It's common for people with strong feelings on a topic to feel like the mods must be biased against them and secretly in favor of the other side (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Meanwhile the other side(s) feel exactly the same way. These perceptions feel convincing, but you can't trust them—they're a product of some kind of hard-wiring that we all seem to share, especially when our emotions get engaged. Any fair minded person who slogs their way through my moderation posts in this thread, and any similar thread, is going to see how hard we try to be even-handed, apply HN's rules fairly, and so on. Not that we always get it right, of course. By the way, if you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. There is far too much content on HN, or even in a large thread like this one, for us to read it all. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.