The United Nations’ top court on Friday ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza, but the panel stopped short of ordering an end to the military offensive that has laid waste to the Palestinian enclave.
Many Arabs are unhappy about the ruling.
Shaffaf submitted the ruling to an ARAB lawyer and expert on International Law, who requested not to be named for professional reasons.
His answers:
« The international court’s ruling went further, that is, better, than was expected. Basically, the International Court could have rejected the « lawsuit » submitted by the state of South Africa on the pretext that « South Africa is not an injured (= concerned) party » in the Gaza war. Usually, the court considers a claim by an injured (i.e. concerned) state against another state.
Otherwise, any country on the planet would be able to file a “lawsuit” against the United States, for example!
On the other hand, the court could not request a ceasefire because the second party was an “armed group” and not a state.
Otherwise, the decision would amount to requesting that Israel alone ceases fire.
Adding that:
Even the resolution issued by the Court, which is the furthest that could be reached, would be « worthless » if « Hamas » does not release all the Israeli « hostages » it retains, because « taking hostages » violates the « Laws of War ».
But some of those captured are soldiers and officers of the IDF, not simple “civilians” ?
«Even in that case»,he explains, « all hostages held by « Hamas » are considered « hostages» , not «prisoners of war» because they were not captured during a military action.
Even a soldier captured outside of combat is a «hostage», not a «prisoner» of war”.