International Court of Justice judge Julia Sebutinde, who voted against all emergency measures ordered by the world court for Israel to undertake in the Gaza war, including one which compels the Jewish state to ensure provision of aid, has been elected as the court's vice-president.
Her dissenting opinion is here. It’s quite thorough, and while reasonable people could disagree on each point (myself included), I didn’t find anything overtly biased in her analysis. Paragraphs 22 - 30 are the bulk of her analysis. Chiefly she cited 3 concerns:
Yet another stereotypical pro-Israel whataboutism. There’s a hell of a lot of wiggle room between “don’t keep bombing and starving Palestinian civilians while making most of them homeless on purpose” and “unilaterally withdraw completely”.
Also, it falsely assumes that it’s a conventional war between two armies with somewhat equal conditions, which could hardly be further from the truth: Israel has one of the largest and most advanced militaries in the world and Hamas’ “fighters” are a few thousand scattered terrorists with whatever weaponry they can cobble together in spite of the embargo.
Which would make it a stern reminder, since they’re currently ignoring that obligation completely. That doesn’t invalidate the order at all.
Because so is the Israeli government. Every civilian location they bomb, they claim was a secret Hamas base, hardly ever producing a shred of proof or even reliable information that might make them mistakenly think that’s the case.
As demonstrated above and in my original comment, she’s either extremely biased or totally incompetent. Which in turn means that your assessment comes from
a) your own bias,
b) your own ignorance,
c) you being deliberately dishonest or
d) more than one of the above.
My money’s on d.