How much effect the ICJ ruling has on the status quo depends on how great of a role shame has in influencing state policy. I happen to think it has a very small role, hardly enough to alter the overwhelming force of history, of capitalist expansionism, of white supremacy, of religious messianism, all of which point toward continued atrocities in Palestine.
Some western politicians may feel a slight twinge of shame upon being exposed for the monsters that they are; they can and will be replaced by others more amenable to the task, as long as unconditional support for Israel is a profitable and politically viable position.
The Israeli state and its most important sponsors have already indicated that they will ignore the ruling. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of another "landmark" ICJ ruling: the one that demanded Israel tear down its apartheid wall in the West Bank and compensate Palestinians for the damage caused in its construction. International law has been against Israel's occupation for a long time. It doesn't matter.
Let's hope this ruling acts more as a boost to those who are already committed to ending the war and the occupation (and who understand that the courts can't do it for them), and less as a calming reassurance that international law and sacred institutions mean fuck all when the interests of empire are in question.
From the Guardian, July 2004:
'International court rules against Israel's wall'
'"This is an excellent decision," Mr Arafat said. "We thank the court in The Hague. This is a victory for the Palestinian people and for all the free peoples of the world."'
