What the ICJ’s interim ruling means for Israel’s war on Gaza
What the ICJ’s interim ruling means for Israel’s war on Gaza
The ICJ’s provisional measures stop short of calling for a ceasefire, but could make the war harder for Israel to wage.
“Israeli politicians have already said that they’re going to ignore the ICJ order,” Mark Lattimer, the executive director of Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, told Al Jazeera. “It is much harder for, particularly, the US and European states including the UK, to ignore the order because they have a much stronger record of holding or supporting the International Court of Justice.”
“The ICJ ruling puts a lot more pressure on the US and other Western allies to move on a ceasefire resolution,” Zaha Hassan, a human rights lawyer and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Al Jazeera. “It makes it a lot harder for the US, along with Israel, to make the case to Western governments that are still very much concerned with international legitimacy, to maintain the idea that Israel is acting within the constraints of international law in Gaza and that it’s acting in self-defence.”
Some evidence suggests that Israel knows this, too. Soon after South Africa announced that it would bring a case before the ICJ, Israel’s tactics on the ground started to change, experts said.
There was “a rush to wipe out any possibility for a Palestinian return to the north of Gaza”, Hassan said, pointing to controlled bombings of universities and hospitals. “Once you have hospitals taken out, you make it impossible for people in war to stay. That’s a part of a strategy to force Palestinian population transfer and permanent displacement.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Please don’t post anything from AlJazeera, as they are strongly biased and not always correct.
This is not an opinion page nor is it about Qatar. Nor have there been any reported failed fact checks about Palestine, at least that I know of.
AJ has a left bias certainly, but is still a credible news source.
In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.
Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.
It's not even 'mostly factual'.
Yet the rest of the page, which I quoted, shows that
In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias
And the two articles that failed fact checks were an article about India and an article about South Africa both in 2018.
Here's another metric for bias and credibility
https://adfontesmedia.com/al-jazeera-bias-and-reliability/
Ad Fontes Media rates Al Jazeera (website) in the Skews Left category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability.
When it comes to Qatar, India, or Africa then AJ is not a good source to turn to.