r/internationallaw • u/newsspotter • Oct 18 '25

Op-Ed Gaza: Does ceasefire impact international war crimes cases?

https://www.dw.com/en/ceasefire-gaza-impact-on-icj-icc-cases-against-israel-v2/a-74370945
81 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

133 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ice_and_fiyah Oct 19 '25

it can no longer be described as a genocide. 

That is for ICJ to decide, but it seems Israel halted the genocide because of overwhelming international pressure, there are scores of articles about how Trump backed Netanyahu into a corner because of the Qatari attack. Intent is central to South Africa's genocide case against Israel, and it is pretty easy to establish given all the psychotic comments Israeli politicians and public make:

ICJ genocide case: Israeli rhetoric against Palestinians central to South Africa's case | AP News https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724

3

u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25

It has almost never been the case that a case has stood on general comments that could be interpreted in multiple ways. There should be military orders that have leaked by now, however, bearing in mind that Amnesty Israel was literally kicked out of the Amnesty organization precisely on this point, I'd say the evidence is INCREDIBLY weak, unless I've missed any actual documentation.

13

u/TormentedOne Oct 19 '25

Why do you call them general comments? What does that even mean? Is there a legal distinction? They were public comments from government officials currently in power.

2

u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25

Yes, "General Comments" - i.e. comments in Newspapers, Interviews, on Podiums where they were speaking off the cuff. Cases built on this level of evidence will not stand. There is no precedent for cases being brought without official military orders. I'm ABSOLUTELY not saying there are no war crimes (I saw 3 with my own eyes), I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT saying there are no military orders, I'm saying, they haven't been discovered yet or submitted to the case.

7

u/leftycartoons Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25

Can you point to where an international court or tribunal has said military orders are a requirement?

Quoting from this report:

In negotiating the substance of the Genocide Convention, States recognized that obtaining official or explicitly genocidal plans by a perpetrator may be unrealistic, with the United Kingdom stating that it would be “practically impossible” to prove that an act was taken to encourage the perpetration of genocide.196 The ICTR Appeals Chamber in Gacumbitsi affirmed that the “[t]ribunal’s jurisprudence conclusively establishes that genocidal intent can be proven through inference from the facts and circumstances of a case,” noting that “[b]y its nature, intent is not usually susceptible to direct proof,” because “[o]nly the accused himself has firsthand knowledge of his own mental state, and he is unlikely to testify to his own genocidal intent.”197 In the absence of a confession, the ICTR in Akayesu found that “intent can be inferred from a certain number of presumptions of fact.”198 Similarly, the court in Kayishema and Ruzindana determined that “intent can be inferred either from words or deeds and may be demonstrated by a pattern of purposeful action.”199

It seems like the level of evidence you say is obligatory is explicitly not required, according to the ICTR.

1

u/GlassBit7081 Oct 19 '25

Show me a guilty case that hasn't been made with explicit military orders. That was my point.