The Kabul times, Afghanistan Trustable News Agency.
Opinion

What impact does Hague court ruling have on Zionists Regime?

In nearly seven months since the start of the conflict with Hamas, the Zionist regime has killed over 35,000 Palestinians in ground and air attacks and injured more than 77,000 others. This attack has displaced much of the 2.3 million population of Gaza and created a humanitarian crisis. For these reasons, the Netanyahu regime is accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Gaza. Simultaneously with the announcement of the International Criminal Court’s warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest, some political analysts have been surprised and hopeful. Interpretation of the Hague court ruling in several points: The International Court of Justice has issued an initial ruling on South Africa’s complaint against the occupying regime of the Jewish state regarding the commission of genocide in Gaza. This ruling can be evaluated from several perspectives After the continuation of the crimes of the occupying Israeli regime against Gaza and the occurrence of genocide in this strip, South Africa filed a complaint against this regime with the International Court of Justice. Several points are noteworthy in the initial ruling issued recently. First, before the ruling was issued, the Zionist regime suffered its first defeat in court, as the court rejected the regime’s request to dismiss South Africa’s complaint. In the session issuing the initial ruling, the court president also declared the court’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint and stated that South Africa has the right to file a complaint against Israel in this court. The court also announced that South Africa’s reports were reasonable and logical and should be examined. Second, according to the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, the deliberate attempt to destroy all or part of a group based on its nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion is considered genocide. Of the 17 judges of the International Court of Justice, 16 believe that the Jewish State must stop acts of genocide and physical destruction in Gaza. Third; the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main judicial body of the United Nations. The UN General Assembly can be considered a legal body because all members have equal votes and there is no veto power. The UN Security Council is a political body because the veto power prevents the implementation of justice. The ICJ is a judicial body that issues judicial rulings without considering “politics.” The court’s decisions are binding and have the weight of a trial. Accordingly, the German government announced that Berlin would respect the ICJ’s ruling on the Zionist regime regardless of its content. “We are deeply committed to respecting international law and emphasize our support for the ICJ,” the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. Fourth; the issuance of this ruling is a kind of defeat for the UN Security Council, which has so far not issued any resolution to stop the Zionist regime’s crimes against Gaza. The occupying regime has been condemned multiple times in the UN General Assembly for crimes against Gaza, but the General Assembly’s resolutions are not binding. In contrast, the ICJ’s rulings are binding and represent a critique of the major powers’ handling of the situation in Gaza. Fifth; with the issued ruling, the ball is in the Zionist regime’s court because the regime has been given a onemonth deadline to “immediately take necessary actions to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza” and also “take necessary measures to prevent acts of massacre against a human group.” The continuation of the Zionist regime’s crimes against Gaza could have legal consequences for this regime. Sixth; the ruling of the International Court of Justice imposes international legal obligations on this occupying regime, but there is no enforcement mechanism. Therefore, the Jewish state may refuse to implement the ruling with the support of America and several European countries, just as it previously refused to implement Security Council Resolution 2,334 regarding the cessation of settlement activities with the support of the former U.S. administration. In this regard, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the occupying regime, called the Hague court’s decision to handle this case “outrageous” and said that “Israel will continue the war until achieving ‘complete victory’.” Naledi Pandor, the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation who was present at the court session, responded to a journalist’s question about whether she thought Israel would comply with the court’s orders by saying she “has never really been hopeful about Israel, but hopes that Israel’s powerful friends will advise the country to comply with the court’s orders.” If the occupying regime refuses to implement the court’s ruling, the credibility of the international system, especially its legal institutions, will be questioned. Seventh; the court’s ruling and action were also a validation for South Africa, as South Africa, which was once a victim of an apartheid regime, has taken steps to end one of the greatest human sufferings of the 21st century by filing a lawsuit against the Zionist regime. To conclude, from both the initial indications and the Jewish State and its allies’ historical behavior, it can be inferred that there is no intention to heed this ruling, and the Zionist’s operations in Rafah will not be halted to comply with these legal obligations. Immediately after the ruling was issued, Benjamin Netanyahu said he held a special meeting with his ministers to decide how to respond to the court’s decision. Zionist regime officials, including Benny Gantz, a member of Netanyahu’s war cabinet, emphasized that the attacks in Rafah would not be stopped. Had the International Court of Justice ruled for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza along with the interim measures, it would have been the best possible verdict. However, in a global system where the Zionist lobby holds significant influence and America, as the most important supporter of the occupying regime, exerts considerable sway, the initial ruling of the International Court of Justice can still be seen as a “major victory” for Palestine, a “strategic defeat” for the occupying regime, and an important milestone for “justice.” Abu Ragheb Amani

Related posts

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

The Kabul times, Afghanistan Trustable News Agency.