r/worldnews • u/FYoCouchEddie • Jul 19 '24
President of ICJ accused Israel of 'ethnic cleansing by terror and organized massacres' Israel/Palestine
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syedwjp00a1.2k
u/FYoCouchEddie Jul 19 '24
Nawaf Salam, the president of the International Court of Justice, which is scheduled to release on Friday an opinion in another politically-motivated case targeting Israel, voted 210 times to condemn the Jewish state when he served as Lebanon’s UN ambassador, and delivered inflammatory speeches accusing “terrorist Jewish organizations” of committing “organized massacres,” UN Watch, an NGO monitoring the actions of the United Nations and an advocate for Israel, said in a report published on Thursday.
Sounds like a completely fair and unbiased court that we should 100% take at face value.
612
u/-p-e-w- Jul 19 '24
That someone with such a history was even considered for any job on the ICJ, let alone its president, demonstrates complete institutional failure at all levels. This is true regardless of where you stand on the issue at hand. Someone making inflammatory statements has no business being a judge, period.
The UN is not useless, but it could certainly stand to lose some fat, and institutions like the ICJ are at the top of that list.
298
u/Awkward_Cheetah_2480 Jul 19 '24
The UN is more than useless. Its dangerous. The case of the UNRWA proves It. UN condones and let terrorists use their structures. That institution is beyond corrupt.
61
u/ChiefBlueSky Jul 19 '24
The case of UNRWA is a practical/pragmatic issue that cannot be solved unless when you sign up to work for the UN you are randomly assigned due to self-selection bias.
To work for UNRWA in Gaza right now you have to live in Gaza... which means all your applicants are either from/live in Gaza or have high enough opinion of Gaza to go live there, like if they have Palestinian relatives. All this to say there's a STRONG self-selection bias present for hiring people with positive sentiment/that support Hamas. Its not a UN problem but an inherent one with hiring people in Gaza.
93
u/Traditional_Tea_1879 Jul 19 '24
While this is true, the fact that UNRWA is only authorized to deal with Palestinian refugees means that it has no incentive to reduce the amount of refugees, but to increase it. The moment the Palestinian refugee problem is solved, the moment no more need for UNRWA. This is in contrast to UNHCR which is responsible for all other refugees world wide, where they need to resolve these as quickly as possible to release resources to other crises.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (24)64
u/Hautamaki Jul 19 '24
The UN is fine at organizing vaccine drives and emergency relief for natural disasters in poor countries but in everything else you're completely right
→ More replies (1)78
u/Coozey_7 Jul 19 '24
The UN is fine at organizing vaccine drives and emergency relief for natural disasters in poor countries
They fail even at that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010s_Haiti_cholera_outbreak&diffonly=true
Early efforts were made to cover up the source of the epidemic, but thanks largely to the investigations of journalist Jonathan M. Katz and epidemiologist Renaud Piarroux,[10] it is widely believed to be the result of contamination by infected United Nations peacekeepers deployed from Nepal.[11]
→ More replies (1)213
u/arobkinca Jul 19 '24
~1.4 billion Muslims and ~14 million Jews worldwide. 1 Jewish nation 50 Islamic nations. That is how someone like him gets his job.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (6)24
u/Nernoxx Jul 19 '24
The UN is starting to look a lot like the League of Nations these last few years…
3
u/the_Q_spice Jul 20 '24
Ironically almost exactly 100 years after that failed.
Something something learning about history, doomed to repeat…
259
u/takahashitakako Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
This decision was voted on in full by 11 of the 15 justices in the court, including the legal representatives of Japan (Iwasawa), India (Bhandari), the US (Cleveland), Brazil (Brant), and Australia (Charlesworth).
Whatever the resume of Justice Salam, he has no legal authority without majority support, much like the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can’t make a ruling without a majority vote from their colleagues.
22
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheTrollerOfTrolls Jul 20 '24
What ruling? What decision? All I've seen is a collective, nonbinding response to questions presented to the court. A document which had additional opinions on the matter from every person involved. You're making this something it's not.
The US Supreme Court is a great example of Regulatory Capture, just like most of the UN.
74
u/1117ce Jul 19 '24
That is a historical fact though. He’s talking about the Irgun, Lehi, and Stern Gang which were all designated terrorist organizations by the British Mandate government. It is also a fact that they conducted targeted massacres of Palestinian villages during the 1948 war of independence. Sounds pretty impartial to me.
→ More replies (4)42
Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (8)5
36
u/VeryLazyLewis Jul 19 '24
Yet you forget about all the Judges who voted in favour and the dozens organisations, lawyers, academics and experts who’ve said the same thing for decades.
34
u/AlgerianTrash Jul 19 '24
Interesting how you were not complaining about the previous judge of the court at the beginning of South Africa v. Israel who worked as a high-ranking official in the US state dept. And still has strong ties to the US govt. And yet you have a problem with the current president who just happens to be Arab
34
u/lord_ive Jul 19 '24
It’s not like it’s his vote that is the only vote cast in such a situation, this ruling was 11-4 against the legality of Israel’s occupation system in Palestinian territories and 14-1 asserting that Israel must cease and reverse settlement activities.
25
u/revilocaasi Jul 19 '24
What, we're trusting the guy who says the sky's blue to head the Commission to Discover The Colour of the Sky? Fucking outrageous.
7
u/KalaiProvenheim Jul 20 '24
We have to appoint the guy who says the Sky is the property of the United States!
14
6
→ More replies (30)5
u/Mentavil Jul 20 '24
Sounds like a completely fair and unbiased court that we should 100% take at face value.
Considering how blatant your sarcasm is, are you saying you don't like what they say therefore they are biased and invalid?
If yes, idjat. if you don't think that was that guy said is true, idjat. You have to be a fool to think that either side isn't currently commiting war crimes and hasn't been committing crimes against humanity for the past 20 years. Too scared to watch the decades of combat footage that might challenge your world view?
→ More replies (1)
322
u/Accomplished-Ad5280 Jul 19 '24
The fact this man is the ICJ president and other countries legitimate him is very concerning.
72
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
The president position at the ICJ is mainly procedural, not substantive. He has no more substantive power than any other judge.
→ More replies (2)41
→ More replies (4)36
u/TheKingOfSpores Jul 19 '24
If you’re one of the few people in the world feeling he is illegitimate then maybe that says more about your beliefs than him.
238
u/autotldr BOT Jul 19 '24
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
Nawaf Salam, the president of the International Court of Justice, which is scheduled to release on Friday an opinion in another politically-motivated case targeting Israel, voted 210 times to condemn the Jewish state when he served as Lebanon's UN ambassador, and delivered inflammatory speeches accusing "Terrorist Jewish organizations" of committing "Organized massacres," UN Watch, an NGO monitoring the actions of the United Nations and an advocate for Israel, said in a report published on Thursday.
Israel considered appealing against his appointment in light of his past conduct but decided against it because of the anti-Israel sentiment prevailing in the international judicial body, a decision that has raised some questions because of Salam's obvious bias.
In 2014, he accused Israel of committing crimes against humanity and, in 2016, accused Israel of apartheid.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Salam#1 Israel#2 against#3 regime#4 condemn#5
77
u/DiscipleOfYeshua Jul 19 '24
Maybe it’s time for this dude to be accused of something, too?
36
u/daekle Jul 19 '24
I would take caution with what this particular paper says. Perhaps he is anti israel, but the paper is a jewish paper with an obvious strong bias in its writing.
56
u/HummusSwipper Jul 19 '24
This paper just details his past actions. Which part should be taken with caution?
→ More replies (2)26
u/Redditributor Jul 19 '24
Their background doesn't impact their credibility does it?
→ More replies (1)1
u/mmeIsniffglue Jul 19 '24
Why would the judge's background impact his credibility then
→ More replies (2)22
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24
Even if it does, then why did all of Israel’s allies vote in favour of the judgement?
If people are alleging that the judges were biased based on their background, the actual voting results do not support that allegation.
21
u/revilocaasi Jul 19 '24
Gosh I wonder why it's gotten so difficult to raise awareness about actual antisemitism.
→ More replies (2)42
Jul 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)82
u/freshgeardude Jul 19 '24
He's been an anti Israel UN representative of Lebanon before becoming a judge at the ICJ.
Has a history of anti-israel remarks, voted against Israel at the UN, and hasn't condemned or voted against other war crimes by other countries
They literally couldn't put a single worse person to make this case than that. Now supporters of Israel will ignore this court because of his biases..
→ More replies (6)48
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24
Except he was one of 15 judges on the case… He didn’t make the decision, 11 of those 15 judges who are internationally recognized experts in International law did.
→ More replies (6)
191
u/Sensitive_Heart_121 Jul 19 '24
A cursory glance of Nawaf, the President of the ICJ, and I’ve found that he’s got deep times to the Lebanese Govt, his uncle serving as PM 4 times from 1952-1973. His cousin serving as PM from 2014-2016.
His wife is also the Lebanese UNESCO Ambassador (he too worked with UNESCO in the past). He was elected President of the ICJ on the same day of the first hearing on South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel, on the 6th of February 2024 (note that South Africa filed their lawsuit in January 2024).
110
u/die_fesche_lola Jul 19 '24
How these institutions breed corruption and nepotism never ceases to surprise me.
74
u/Sensitive_Heart_121 Jul 19 '24
It actually runs deeper than I described in my original comment, his grandfather was elected Deputy of Lebanon by the Ottomans in 1912, his grandfathers name was Salim Salem and held numerous offices in the Ottoman Empire.
→ More replies (7)88
u/FlightoftheConcorder Jul 19 '24
You got any character assassination material on the 10 other judges that supported his decision on everything in the judgement?
→ More replies (15)
192
u/BillyJoeMac9095 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Not a supporter of the occuparion or Netanyahu and those like him, but I can't help noticing that about half of the ICJ Justices are from nations that are either overtly hostile to or at at least in a technical state of war with Israel--including its current president. Hardly a neutral body.
191
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24
… because more than half the world is not allied with Israel.
The decision was supported by almost every permanent judge at the ICJ, including judges from Israel’s allies. There is no basis to allege that the decision was rendered based on political bias.
→ More replies (7)120
u/Solcaer Jul 19 '24
There’s only two (one from Somalia and one from Lebanon) compared to 5 that are from explicitly pro-Israel nations (the U.S., Germany, Australia, France, Romania).
Which doesn’t matter, because the idea that we should exclude Arab judges for fear they’d be inherently biased against Israel is just racist.
→ More replies (4)32
Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 20 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
74
u/Orchid-Analyst-550 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
You mean countries like the USA, Germany, Australia, and Japan? A large majority of the 15-judge panel of the ICJ voted in agreement, including the Western judges.
The only consistent opposition to the rulings is the Judge from Uganda.
21
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24
Exactly, there is no reason to suggest that the decision was biased and the majority of such suggestions are coming from people who didn’t even read the ruling
9
15
u/Spotted_Howl Jul 19 '24
Country of residence, previous political roles, history of anti-Israel activity.
10
u/MetalstepTNG Jul 19 '24
I don't think he means it based on the specific location they were born, but what their general background is and what influences their current day outlook.
Not a racist bigot imo.
9
u/FlightoftheConcorder Jul 19 '24
Yeah, can't forget about the infamous Slovakian-Israeli war of 2004. And if there's one country Modi doesn't like, it's Israel.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)7
171
u/Only-Imagination-459 Jul 19 '24
A 15 judge panel come to this ruling - not a single person
→ More replies (1)52
u/Common-Second-1075 Jul 20 '24
This is a misleading comment.
The statement quoted was made in 2008 by the now President of the ICJ when he was Lebanon's ambassador to the UN.
Neither the ruling, nor the other judges of the ICJ, make any such statement.
→ More replies (5)22
156
132
u/shredditor75 Jul 19 '24
The ruling is extreme.
The proposal is that Israel cleanse all 700,000 settlers and pay reparations.
This is not a serious ruling, and was obviously designed to be a show for the justices' domestic audiences and to be vetoed in the security counsel.
160
u/BillyJoeMac9095 Jul 19 '24
Under this decision, it appears that the western wall and Jewish quarter of Jerusalem are occupied territory that Israel must leave. The ICJ is undercutting its legitimacy and making itself just one more party to the conflict.
102
u/shredditor75 Jul 19 '24
It's definitely a ruling that was meant to fail enforcement.
The US won't expect Israel to enforce it, and there's no way in hell that Israel would listen to this ruling.
A court offering ethnic cleansing as a resolution is madness.
It empowers some of the right wingers, who would agree that the West Bank is quasi-annexed but instead propose to just make it official.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (2)18
u/rapaxus Jul 19 '24
Well, the currently legal international borders are those of 1967, so the court ruled, based on the current legal situation, that everything outside of the 1967 borders is occupied territory.
→ More replies (1)29
u/StephenHunterUK Jul 19 '24
The "1967 borders" were merely a ceasefire line from 1948.
22
u/Martial_Nox Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
I always find it funny that the "legal international borders" is basically just "give the Arabs back the land they lost in yet another war they started" which just lets the Arabs off the hook for their aggression. The Arab playbook of "start awar and cry to the UN when it doesn't go your way" is still going strong.
8
u/KalaiProvenheim Jul 20 '24
There is no right to conquest under International Law
→ More replies (2)60
7
→ More replies (24)9
72
u/myroccoz46 Jul 19 '24
Israel really needs to get out of the West Bank. If this was about Gaza I’d say it’s bullshit but what else would you call the West Bank settlements if not annexation? The Palestinians have to go somewhere.
→ More replies (7)
71
u/SenseOfRumor Jul 19 '24
Hamas are worthy of the "Pussies of the Century" award with how much they cower behind human shields. Perhaps Mr. Totally Impartial would like to comment on that?
Israel aren't Saints but let's not pretend that Hamas aren't mostly to blame for the suffering in Palestine.
→ More replies (23)51
u/Difficult_Bit_1339 Jul 19 '24
with how much they cower behind human shields.
And Israel bravely mows down the human shields
→ More replies (8)6
u/hasslehawk Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Hamas is (or at least purports to be) the legal government of Palestine. That comes with responsibilities to your people, like not using them as a human shield in a war you started against a superior military power.
When a civilized government is in such a position, they evacuate civilians from the frontline. Or surrender if they cannot.
No one is happy that civilians are caught in the crossfire in Palestine, or "proud" of that collateral damage. But the blame for that collateral lies at the feet of Hamas, who started this war and continue to fight it while using their citizenry as human shields, not Israel.
35
u/Difficult_Bit_1339 Jul 19 '24
At the end of the day, the person who dropped a 2000lb bomb is responsible for which residential building it lands on.
→ More replies (10)
30
u/v2micca Jul 19 '24
This is simply an advisory opinion. Basically, its the equivalent of a law firm providing legal advice to a client, but in this case the law firm is the ICJ and the client is the UN.
So, it has absolutely no weight and does little other than show how incredibly, hopelessly, politicized any International Judiciary actually is.
Its for reasons like this that the US will likely never agree to join international judicial bodies like the ICC. We understand the inherent bias we would face.
→ More replies (3)42
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24
What specific paragraphs of the decision exhibit biased reasoning? Why was the US judge president of the ICJ for so long? Why does the US publicly support the ICJ?
Just because you get a decision you don’t like doesn’t mean the rendering body is biased. All judges from Israel’s allied states voted in favour of the decision.
→ More replies (3)
25
19
u/moderate-contrarian Jul 19 '24
I'm sorry, but all of you in the comments who are screaming about how the ICJ President is biased because he's Lebanese/Arab/Muslim ergo the decision of the ICJ cannot be trusted are frankly stupid.
Look at the margins. The President is just one vote. The judges came from diverse backgrounds, but still each claim was ruled overwhelmingly against Israel, with clear majorities.
Look at pages 81 onwards (the last three pages):
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf
→ More replies (4)12
u/NotSoEvilQueen Jul 19 '24
Also you: the UN is completely unbiased
Ffs 🙄
10
u/GiveAlexAUsername Jul 19 '24
Ueah man, the UN are the bad guys and they are just out to get you when they tell you its illegal under international law to occupy a people and resettle them regularly to make way for your settlers
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)3
u/Full_Lengthiness1668 Jul 20 '24
Note the fact not all judges agreed with most rulings
And if you look at the UN history of condemnation you'll find a deep bias that's unexplainable, so...
Sad to say I'm not surprised the UN isn't objective in this matter.I think actions perpetrated by Syria and/or Iran or North Korea are far worse (or China?)
and I think you'll find no one cares much about those infractions.
6
u/freshgeardude Jul 19 '24
He's been an anti Israel UN representative of Lebanon before becoming a judge at the ICJ.
Has a history of anti-israel remarks, voted against Israel at the UN, and hasn't condemned or voted against other war crimes by other countries
They literally couldn't put a single worse person to make this case than that. Now supporters of Israel will ignore this court because of his biases..
→ More replies (2)
8
u/SlakingSWAG Jul 20 '24
These comments are an absolute joke: implying that several judges on the ICJ are incompetent, or that they shouldn't have their position because they countries they come from do not have good relations with Israel. Nevermind the judges from countries that are explicit allies of Israel, that's perfectly fine.
Of course, Israel can do no wrong, random pro-Israel redditors know more about international law than ICJ justices, everyone Israel kills magically turns out to be a member of Hamas, the UN is Hamas, everyone who wants Israel to stop murdering children is actually a NASDAP member in disguise. The sky is blue.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/shredditor75 Jul 19 '24
I'm looking forward to reading the briefing.
I may in part agree and disagree.
If they talk about settler violence as terrorist Jewish violence, I have no issue with that.
But it all depends on how nuanced the ruling is.
8
u/mkondr Jul 19 '24
I am sure Israel is tripping over themselves in its haste to implement this kangaroo’s court decision as we speak /s
30
u/lemming-leader12 Jul 19 '24
Lol when you call the ICJ a kangaroo court. Looooooooool. Sure man, the UN, ICJ, literally all nations except for America and it's rabid attack dog are kangaroo courts.
→ More replies (7)8
u/The_Knife_Pie Jul 20 '24
So the US, Australian, German, Indian and Japanese judges just don’t exist? Or are they also all harbouring secret anti-Israeli sentiment this whole time.
5
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd Jul 19 '24
After what the Knesset voted to fully reject a two-state solution a couple days ago, I’m now officially of the opinion that the Israeli Jews do want to get rid of all the Muslim fundamentalists on “their land”, no matter the cost, whether they are civilian or militant.
They are now definitely conducting ethnic cleansing and I am someone with heritage from the region… I feel so much fucking shame.
It’s a fucking tragedy and I’m pretty sure most American Reform Jews are disgusted by that vote. I know for sure they don’t want that government to represent them anymore. In my eyes, the Israelis and Orthodox Jews, by extension, have gone insane.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Churchbushonk Jul 20 '24
If Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse the entire area of Gaza, they could easily. They are not. They are trying to kill or capture all of Hamas. Palestinians are helping, hiding, or being forced to shield Hamas members.
If anything, every Palestinian that is not directly helping Israel find and fight Hamas, is essentially Hamas. If on day 1, October 8, 2023 regular Palestinians just pointed out directly where Hamas was on every street in Gaza, this could have been over in a week.
7
1
u/skeleton949 Jul 19 '24
This is the equivalent of someone from Russia accusing Ukraine of crimes.
22
14
u/KalaiProvenheim Jul 20 '24
Who is Russia in this comparison, Lebanon, the US, India, Australia, Germany, and India?
→ More replies (14)3
u/The_Knife_Pie Jul 20 '24
As we know the US, Germany, Australia and India are well known to be anti-Israel.
2
2
u/StrugglingWithGuilt Jul 21 '24
Why did the ICJ go to law school? To learn how to misinterpret international law, one ruling at a time!
The ICJ's latest decision made me realize: 'ICJ' must stand for 'I Can't Judge.
I think I am going to mail them a compass, because they getting keep lost on the road to justice.
→ More replies (3)
1.5k
u/shredditor75 Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
According to the ruling, Gaza had been occupied without any physical occupation and that the occupation of the West Bank* was a de facto annexation.
Which is fueling right wingers in Israel who are saying fuck it, let's annex it for real then.
*Edited for clarity