Talk:ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge?

This article with Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine? Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: a rich article that can be expanded and built upon. Sakiv (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It was just a thought, the title is very long winded and the article is about whether Israel's occupation is legal, which is exactly what the other article is about. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I don't think that all this article's text will fit in the Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Since the draft has been adopted, this should . be reflected in the title, and in order to shorten it because it is too long. A map should also be added. Sakiv (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The decision to request this opinion was included within the text of an annually recurring resolution, Clause 18 of (the Israeli practices/OPT one). Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Can the ICJ choose to refuse cases referred to it by the GA? I forget. Anyway, if the ICJ takes the case it becomes a bigger story and we should keep the article renamed to the name of the case. If the ICJ doesn't take the case, the story becomes a dead end that can be merged with no more than an EL for the voting register. Meanwhile I think we should wait. Zero^talk 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

John Dugard first suggested an ICJ referral in 2007:

"At the same time elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the occupying Power and third States? It is suggested that this question might appropriately be put to the International Court of Justice for a further advisory opinion." (further to the wall opinion)Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't see that the case would not be taken up. I suppose they could say that they have not jurisdiction but Israel tried that argument in the wall case and it didn't fly. It's only advisory after all, it's up to the UN itself what they do with any opinion afterwards...in the case of the wall...sfa. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Now that the ICJ has taken the case, shouldn't the article be moved?

The case itself seems like it should be the main focus here, not the UN motion asking for it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Expansion

Article needs urgent expansion before 19 July.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's not really that much else to add atm, obviously the article Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine is relevant, although the court may comment on other matters that were raised during the proceedings.

Personally, I'd be inclined to wait and see what they say. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is quite a good number of information that could be added, including for example the bits that I have just inserted into the lede. More elaborations needed in body on ICJ's 2004 case; settlements expansion; apartheid analogy; and more. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, just that I think these things will be better elucidated/added in a week's time. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fronting the outcome as usual. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't access the article from log in nor from WP library, any other possible options? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

I agree with the move to the current title, but the lede is certainly problematic, much as the title itself, it should not be in italics, when the title was the same as the name of the case (and in italics) it indicated that this article was about a case with that name and not about the legal consequences themselves. Moreover, the way the lede is structured is a bit clunky: "The ICJ case [...] is a proceeding in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)". In my opinion, the lede should either use the name of the case in question as it was before the move (but keeping the current title) or rework it to not include either, something along the lines of: "An advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was requested to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022." Cheers, Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed up the itaslics in the lead but don't know how to fix them for the article.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The italics in the title was an automatic result of the template {{Infobox court case}}; I disabled it with |italic title=no. I changed the court case name itself in the lead to italics. Boud (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks (also for the explanation).Nishidani (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposed opening sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:REFERSTO

I can’t change it, but this is a horrible case of REFERSTO, as it says “The ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories refers to a case”. Obviously the case doesn’t refer to a case, instead the case just IS a case. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

I want to change existing '...is a proceeding bedore the International Court of Justice' to before the International Court of Justice.

It is just a typo. 2A00:23C5:E01D:F201:1CDB:C602:662D:D8BD (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Left guide (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

Please change "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by islamicists."" into "International Court of Justice has been "hijacked by Islamists."" — 🧀The Cheesedealer ^squeak!⚟ 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede2

Regarding this: "Israel countered the opinion by stating that a political settlement can only be attained through diplomatic negotiations"; this was actually addressed by the ICJ which explicitly said that Palestinian rights are not subject to the whim's of the occupying power; so why was this added? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps change the verb from "countered", which it didn't if the point was already addressed, to "re-stated"? Or just "said". Either way, "countered" is editorializing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jumped in there and just did it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't access the article neither through log in nor WP library for some reason but it might address this point or a point very closely related: [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The US said pretty much the same thing, the judgement is not within the "established framework". To which one possible response is -- change the framework. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Name change

The new name is used by RS: [2], [3], [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Move?

Should this be renamed Advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories? See e.g. Advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Kaihsu (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2004 AO re the wall is titled Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and says in Line 1 "(commonly known as the Israeli Wall advisory opinion)".

I prefer Legal consequences of Israel's policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory following that precedent, don't like anything that begins "Advisory opinion...". Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is specifically about the ICJ decision rather than the general issue. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems odd both for this article and the others not to have ICJ in the title. "Advisory opinion..." seems to fail Precision. "ICJ opinion on..." works better. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

ICJ opinion on Israel's occupation would seem to be the most concise and precise way of condensing the output: BBC, Reuters , The Economist. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Advisory opinion is a legal term of art. Kaihsu (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024 (3)

The first sentence in the section “Political responses in Israel” contains a link to Weaponization of antisemitism. That link should not be there per WP:NPOV Amisom (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Afaics, you are able to edit the article yourself if you wish to. For myself "The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel" (what it says at the Wikilink) appears to be an accurate description of the situation, Israeli politicians calling the court, its judges, the opinion and even just the request for an opinion, antisemitic (among other things). Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not able to edit the article myself. And your personal opinion does not override Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Amisom (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not able to edit the article myself Why not? Was your EC status reset?

And your personal opinion does not override Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Neither does yours. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I’ll wait for someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia policy to help with this thanks. Amisom (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are not EC, so there is nothing further to discuss. Nor do I have any interest in your opinion as to my grasp of WP policies. Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made this edit myself (and before having read this part of the talk page at that), since nowhere in the source does it give any opinion from a reliable source calling it weaponization (should one be found, that should be added as a separate clause or sentence). And a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion on whether it is or isn't weaponization wouldn't make that any more neutral a stance. However, on a repeat look I wonder if either of Criticism of Israel#Criticism of Israel and antisemitism or Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism would be a more appropriate link option? I tend towards the first option, since the ruling is on Israel and not on Zionism, and it still addresses the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV violation

Linking to 'Weaponization of antisemitism' in the bottom paragraph of the lead section ("Israeli leaders and politicians further decried the ruling as antisemitic") appears like a total violation of npov. Particularly when the linked source doesn't even mention, let alone support, such an inference. If editors wish to discuss potential 'weaponization' of antisemitism in regards to this case, then it should have it's own section or should be added to the existing article. But to quote political leaders of Israel (regardless of what ill repute they may be) in an encyclopedic article and then add your own interpretation of what they said is basically tantamount to adding "here's what they REALLY mean/this is what it ACTUALLY is" which is so beneath encyclopedic standards and npov. This is particularly relevant when you consider that the relationship between Israel and the United Nations is a contentious one with bias, and the possibility that the source of that bias is antisemitism, being much discussed. Whether one believes accusations of anti-Israel bias at the UN are accurate or not is irrelevant: It's a major point of dispute and to take sides by simply waving your hand and saying "lies. slander. weaponization." is just not becoming of an encyclopedia and npov. It's pushing personal interpretation as fact. ChristofferItzakah (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are correct, the link appears to be inconsistent with policy. I've changed it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It is hard to see, by any standard, how the ICJ (and the ICC and the UN and any other international body that criticizes the Israeli government for its actions) can be called antisemitic by representatives of the accused, unless the accusation is for political gain, in other words, a weaponization of the accusation. Even Haaretz felt compelled to put every such accusation in quotes in this context rather than stating that as a fact.

Also see Netanyahu confronts his critics by exploiting antisemitism and Netanyahu frequently makes claims of antisemitism. Critics say he’s deflecting from his own problems and Sanders hits back at Netanyahu: ‘It is not antisemitic to hold you accountable’ It's not as if there is anything new here, representatives of the Israeli government do this all the time. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but it doesn't matter how I see it. Since some people throw the word antisemitic around like candy, maybe it's an example of the candification of antisemitism. Either way, it needs decent sourcing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I never added the link to begin with but I have to say I agree entirely with the proposition, at the link it says at line 1 "The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism for political purposes, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel" which is exactly what this is. Sourcing containing the actual word "weaponization" is not necessary as long as there is sourcing that clearly indicates what is going on, perhaps I will spend some time looking for some, rather than instead giving credence to nonsensical allegations. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that it is a breach of NPOV to leave the puerile allegations of antisemitism in the lead without any qualification whatsoever. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw this earlier this morning, but while thinking the link ('related information' in wikipolicy) justifiable, had some reservations as Sean has. Part of the problem is that the ICJ rulings were in three stages and we cover in the lead two. The original decision to accept SA's brief in January gave rise to suggestions the court was antisemitic in its bias; the second, regarding interim decisions, such as stopping the invasion of Rafah, elicited similar reaction in Israel (Ben-Gvir et al), but we make no allusion to that decision, which was integral to the ICJ's deliberations; the third phase was the court decision in July, which produced a rat-a-tat series of antisemitic accusations. The israeli responses to phases 1, and 2, received coverage suggesting that the charge of antisemitism was 'intimidating',* 'instrumental' etc., (even if weaponizing wasn't used, as far as I can see). The final July decision did not elicit rebuttals of the 'false' assertions it was motivated by antisemitism (no one outside of Israel seems to take that ritual chant seriously). So it is a borderline call: in phases 1,2, the antisemitic charge was responded to as an abuse of the word (weaponization), phase 3 no. If the last sentence was formulated to refer to the whole arc of the ICJ's deliberations, January, May, July, then it would be reasonable to retain the weaponization link, particularly in view of the fact that antisemitic accusations are very serious, fine when justified, but toxically defamatory when shorn of any evidence. Linking to weaponization doesn't state in wikivoice that these mechanical assertions are such - it merely directs the reader to examine the wider context of many such political statements. We leave antisemitism hanging in the lead without qualification, and that is not quite NPOV as phrased.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Phase 2. In an interview re the ICJ's stop order for the Rafah invasion, Josep Borrell did not directly address the antisemitic accusations against the ICJ, but in an aside took exception to Netanyahu's dismissal of the concurrent proceedings of the ICC. The situations are identical but only implicitly linked-

‘Borrell also took a swipe at Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his labelling of the International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan decision to seek arrest warrants against some Israeli politicians as evidence of "new antisemitism". Borrell called the comment a form of intimidation, saying accusations of antisemitism were made every time that anyone "does something that Netanyahu doesn't like." "Their position about antisemitism against the prosecutor of the ICC is completely not acceptable," he added. Borrell accuses Netanyahu of false claims of antisemitism against ICC i24NEWS 27 May 2024.

Given the nature of this discussion, maybe I should have just removed the line from the lead pending discussion. I didn't consider whether it was lead-worthy. Perhaps it isn't. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)