Even if it’s only plausible, many countries have laws on the books preventing the sale of weapons to countries under suspicion of committing genocide. I know that the UK has such a law. UK arms export licensing Rule 2c states: licences must “not grant (licenses) if there is risk …of a violation of international humanitarian law”.
So already with the ICJ’s plausible ruling, many parties and countries open themselves up to lawsuits if they continue business with the Israeli military. Japan has stopped working with Israeli Elbit systems because of this, and it also led to the US pushing through their major arms deal with Israel, including 25 F-35 and 25 F-15 fighter jets, to be singed the day before the ICJ delivered their preliminary verdict.
Well, they need to make sure the ruling is final and not act on allegations without due investigation before they cut funds. You know, like they did with the UNRWA.
Are you really trying to both sides this? Firstly the law in question uses the word “risk”, not “certainty” so I’m sure the ICJ ruling that there’s a plausible case of genocide against Israel fits that description.
Secondly, the Western nations that cut funding from the UNRWA did so as a form of protest after Israel lost in court and as a way to de-legitimise the case against Israel, as a lot of findings in the preliminary ruling of the ICJ use UN figures as a source. They are not cutting funding from the UNRWA because they believe in Israel’s “dossier of evidence” with regards to UNRWA participation in October 7, no one believes that, they are cutting funding from the UNRWA to tarnish the reputation of the ICJ, the UN and to attempt to tarnish the evidence used in the case of genocide against Israel. Because if Israel is found guilty of genocide, these nations will be complicit in that genocide. So they are simultaneously trying to cover their arses and reduce the chances of that happening through cutting funding from the UNRWA, for the reasons mentioned above.
What I meant was to show the discrepancy in how said countries dealt with the 2 cases to show how clearly they are impartial, and are not bothered to hide it.
Even if it’s only plausible, many countries have laws on the books preventing the sale of weapons to countries under suspicion of committing genocide. I know that the UK has such a law. UK arms export licensing Rule 2c states: licences must “not grant (licenses) if there is risk …of a violation of international humanitarian law”.
So already with the ICJ’s plausible ruling, many parties and countries open themselves up to lawsuits if they continue business with the Israeli military. Japan has stopped working with Israeli Elbit systems because of this, and it also led to the US pushing through their major arms deal with Israel, including 25 F-35 and 25 F-15 fighter jets, to be singed the day before the ICJ delivered their preliminary verdict.
I very much agree.
Well, they need to make sure the ruling is final and not act on allegations without due investigation before they cut funds. You know, like they did with the UNRWA.
Are you really trying to both sides this? Firstly the law in question uses the word “risk”, not “certainty” so I’m sure the ICJ ruling that there’s a plausible case of genocide against Israel fits that description.
Secondly, the Western nations that cut funding from the UNRWA did so as a form of protest after Israel lost in court and as a way to de-legitimise the case against Israel, as a lot of findings in the preliminary ruling of the ICJ use UN figures as a source. They are not cutting funding from the UNRWA because they believe in Israel’s “dossier of evidence” with regards to UNRWA participation in October 7, no one believes that, they are cutting funding from the UNRWA to tarnish the reputation of the ICJ, the UN and to attempt to tarnish the evidence used in the case of genocide against Israel. Because if Israel is found guilty of genocide, these nations will be complicit in that genocide. So they are simultaneously trying to cover their arses and reduce the chances of that happening through cutting funding from the UNRWA, for the reasons mentioned above.
Maybe I should have added “/s”.
What I meant was to show the discrepancy in how said countries dealt with the 2 cases to show how clearly they are impartial, and are not bothered to hide it.