The UN International Court of Justice ruled yesterday on the precautionary measures – not on the merits – related to the complaint of alleged genocide presented by South Africa against Israel for its war action in Gaza.
The judges rejected South Africa's request for a ceasefire, in recognition of Israel's right to defend itself, but agreed to rule in a legal framework of risk of genocide, demanding measures to prevent genocidal acts and requiring Israel to allow the passage of aid. humanitarian.
It will take years to hear the judgment on the merits.
But in the light of the decision, the outline of a series of moral disasters, of varying intensity, is clearly outlined.
Among them, the West is very significant.
The Hamas attack on October 7 was a horrific act of terrorism.
Hamas won the parliamentary elections in Palestine in 2006, but this in no way excludes it from being a terrorist group, because it is the perpetrator of terrorist acts.
The oppression of the Palestinian people does not justify their actions.
Nothing worthy could and can be expected from Hamas, its immorality is not a surprise.
More could be expected from Israel, a democracy that, however, tramples on the most basic democratic principles, for example with decades of occupation, illegal colonization - theft of land, put simply - and repeated disproportionate military actions that are extremely dubious in accordance with the law. international.
On this occasion, Israel has the right to respond to the infamous attack suffered, but the ways in which it has done so represent a terrible moral disaster.
The magnitude of the destruction and the outrageous restriction on the entry of basic supplies to civilians are a stain that will haunt Israel's history.
The worst thing is that, in all likelihood, he will also undermine their security, due to the seed of hatred that he himself sows with oppression, with the boot on the Palestinian neck for decades.
So much for the warring parties.
From here it is time to point out the moral disaster of the West.
In primis,
from the United States, a great supporter of Israel for decades.
Arguments can be found to justify this support after the Second World War.
The region was and is plagued by sinister actors and the Jewish people had suffered almost unimaginable persecution.
What is completely unacceptable is that this aid was unconditional, that it continued to flow in the midst of blatant colonization, various abuses, and even now, when, while Washington asks for restraint with its mouth, with its hands it arms Israel's cannons with shipments of ammunition sent without congressional approval.
The United States is the one that has the greatest capacity to influence Israel, and therefore it is the one that has the most responsibility for its actions and omissions among external actors.
I should have used it a lot more.
The EU and its member countries have it to a lesser degree, but also high.
There is no evidence of any significant action on their part to redirect the policy of colonization and oppression that Israel has chosen as a way to guarantee its security, with the resounding failure that we are witnessing today.
The Europeans have neither the military nor the strategic weight of the United States. But they are Israel's first trading partner and could have taken significant pressure measures in this sector, or on a strictly political and diplomatic level.
Before the current crisis, and during it.
On the other hand, there is little to remember in the history, at most inane issues of labeling of products from occupied territories.
Responsibilities are individual and must be graduated.
The Governments of Spain and Belgium, for example, in this circumstance have acted better than others.
But, alas, they are not very relevant on the global scene.
Likewise, the High Representative for Foreign Policy, Josep Borrell, has spoken more clearly than many others, but is obviously subject to the limits of a democratic institution with 27 members and a very complex operation.
The West therefore deserves strong disapproval for this history and this present.
Greater pressure would not only have better saved its honor and avoided unjust suffering of Palestinian civilians, but would perhaps have diverted Israel from a path that has led to enormous isolation and international disapproval, while its security is by no means guaranteed.
Disastrous balance.
It is already very late, but it is still possible to demand and hope that it will now act more forcefully to demand compliance with the precautionary measures issued by the UN court.
That said, it is advisable not to stop there and that the review be exhaustive.
Enthusiasts of disapproval of Israel and the West should try not to underestimate some things.
Of course, keep in mind that the court has not ruled on genocide, a concept that some use lightly: it would be better to leave it to the judges, among other things because the unleashed rhetoric tends to ignite rather than build solutions.
Secondly, it has recognized Israel's right to defend itself.
Thirdly, that the balance of moral failures must be even across the world map.
South Africa has done very well in bringing the case to justice.
Israel must answer to it.
Now, the extent of South Africa's hypocrisy becomes clear when one remembers that it abstained from the UN vote on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
That was not even spurred by a previous attack, like Israel's response.
But in that case South Africa didn't care, as its vote shows.
It is not worth spending a lot of time on Russia's moral disaster.
China supports the Russian invasion and on the other hand does business and props up the worst regimes on earth.
The Arab regimes, among which there are those that dismember journalists with saws - Saudi Arabia - have long ago abandoned the defense of Palestinian rights, and are now reluctantly moving in the face of the upheaval of their societies.
Lula declared that she considers Zelensky to be equally responsible for what happened in Ukraine as Putin.
And, in the West, it would be appreciated if certain very vocal sectors against Israel's actions were with comparable intensity against those of Putin in Russia, which are not only brutally disproportionate, like those, but do not even have the basis of legitimate defense, only the desire for ruthless colonialism.
There are many moral disasters.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_