Ugandan judge Sebutinde takes over as ICJ vice-president for three years

Linkerbaan , 5 months ago

ICJ speedrunning their reputation into the ground.

Western courts look as credible as Russian courts these days.

Viking_Hippie , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

So she’s the lone dissenter in the very restrained preliminary ruling about the Gaza genocide. Her own country condemns her for genocide denial. Then she gets promoted.

Someone tell me how that doesn’t stink to high heaven?

She even used THIS old bullshit:

She argued the genocidal intent allegations were invalid because Israel “warns” civilians of military operations in Gaza.

Not anymore. Now they order them to a “safe corridor” and then bomb them there.

any genocidal intent alleged by the applicant is negated by Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza

Only way to honestly believe that is to blindly believe everything the IDF says with absolutely no knowledge of their past behavior.

its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks

Again, they don’t do that shit anymore.

and its facilitation of humanitarian assistance.

They’re literally doing the opposite!

Arete , 5 months ago

Her dissenting opinion is here. It’s quite thorough, and while reasonable people could disagree on each point (myself included), I didn’t find anything overtly biased in her analysis. Paragraphs 22 - 30 are the bulk of her analysis. Chiefly she cited 3 concerns:

• without Hamas as a party, she didn’t see how any order could be complied with without Israel unilaterally withdrawing and being forced to accept subsequent attacks
• most requested orders amounted to “follow IHL”, which Israel is already bound to order or no order
• she believes SA is conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians in several key arguments

Viking_Hippie , 5 months ago

without Hamas as a party, she didn’t see how any order could be complied with without Israel unilaterally withdrawing and being forced to accept subsequent attacks

Yet another stereotypical pro-Israel whataboutism. There’s a hell of a lot of wiggle room between “don’t keep bombing and starving Palestinian civilians while making most of them homeless on purpose” and “unilaterally withdraw completely”.

Also, it falsely assumes that it’s a conventional war between two armies with somewhat equal conditions, which could hardly be further from the truth: Israel has one of the largest and most advanced militaries in the world and Hamas’ “fighters” are a few thousand scattered terrorists with whatever weaponry they can cobble together in spite of the embargo.

most requested orders amounted to “follow IHL”, which Israel is already bound to order or no order

Which would make it a stern reminder, since they’re currently ignoring that obligation completely. That doesn’t invalidate the order at all.

she believes SA is conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians in several key arguments

Because so is the Israeli government. Every civilian location they bomb, they claim was a secret Hamas base, hardly ever producing a shred of proof or even reliable information that might make them mistakenly think that’s the case.

I didn’t find anything overtly biased in her analysis

As demonstrated above and in my original comment, she’s either extremely biased or totally incompetent. Which in turn means that your assessment comes from

a) your own bias,

b) your own ignorance,

c) you being deliberately dishonest or

d) more than one of the above.

My money’s on d.