8 ms·

This is simply false: in their own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI The court ruled that South Af

This is simply false: in their own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI The court ruled that South Africa had plausible standing to bring a case defending Gazans, not that there was plausible genocide. Bringing wikipedia as a source about a very hot topic doesn't lend any support to your argument.

locallost 2y ago
[flagged]
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  If you actually listened to what she said you'd know that's not at all what was decided, all they decided was that SA has plausible standing to bring a case. Not that the case itself has any standing. That was left for a future decision.
  - locallost 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nolongerthere 2y ago
      She was very explicit in her words, there's no need to read into them, she meant exactly what she said. She very clearly stated, they didn't find or make any ruling on the plausibility of genocide, just that it was plausible that they might not be able to be protected in a case where a genocide were to happen. They couldn't honestly claim there was any merit to the claim of genocide, but people were screaming for blood so they did this doublespeak thing where if you squint you can claim they 100% claim genocide is happening to mollify the anti-semites while not actually saying anything. Essentially, she said, "we haven't found a genocide, but were a genocide to be attempted, it would be difficult to prevent" which is true in every single case of war, especially asymmetric warfare, where one side is much stronger than the other. If someone were to bring a case against the US back in 2004 following the invasion of Iraq a similar finding would be totally within reason... but does anyone claim NATO committed genocide? No, but it's plausible that that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Iraqi right to be protected from genocide.
      - locallost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        locallost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        locallost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        [flagged]
runarberg 2y ago
I’ve been seeing this argument pop up a lot lately, and I’ll try to address it (though frankly, I’m not that smart, so maybe somebody else can explain it better). So what you are trying to claim is that the World Court never explicitly claimed, in direct words, that some of South Africa’s allegations for genocide was plausible, therefor the court never ruled that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, and therefor, we have no authority claiming that Israel is committing genocide, and therefor, any claims of Israel committing genocide are unfounded. First of all I want to address how weak this line of argument is. The ICJ is not the only authority which has claimed plausible genocide (yes, the ICJ did claim that; I’ll come back to that), second, we have plenty of evidence which indicts Israel for the crime of genocide, including, but not limited to South Africa’s filing at the ICJ (see sources on Wikipedia). Even if we take your or Joan Donoghue’s interpretation at face value, raxxorraxor’s claim that “the accusation is ridiculous and lacking any form of sincere analysis and judgement” is it self pretty much wrong. Second, the court did rule that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, by any reasonable interpretation of the ruling. Even though most people cite Article IV paragraph 54 (See [1]; quoted above) as the smoking gun (which it absolutely is) equally relevant is Article II Paragraphs 30-32 where the court decides it has jurisdiction over the case, citing Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The court would not have done that if it did not think it was plausible that Israel were violating the terms of the Genocide Convention. In other words, the court ruled that some of South Africa’s accusations were plausible. And put yet another way, the court decided that it is plausible that Israel is committing the crime of Genocide. The problem with your interpretation, and your citing of Joan Donoghue’s answer in this context, is that she is actually answering a question relating to the provisional measures ordered by the court on January 26th 2024 (which is what Article IV is all about), and again on March 28th 2024. My personal opinion is that by answering the question this way she is actually being willfully misleading. It is beyond a doubt that the court decided that some of the accusations were plausible, her clarifying and stating that technically the court only decided on provisional measures, is obscuring the fact that it did rule to start investigating Israel for the crime of Genocide. ICJ member often rules in alignment with their nation’s foreign policy, and Joan Donoghue has shown that to be the case under her presidency, I actually find it a miracle that the court ruled in favor of South Africa under her presidency. My personal belief is that the case against Israel is very obvious, and there was no way the court could rule any other way. This interview is she rectifying US foreign policy, and offering a plausible deniability to what the court actually ruled. 1: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...

locallost 2y ago

[flagged]

nolongerthere 2y ago
If you actually listened to what she said you'd know that's not at all what was decided, all they decided was that SA has plausible standing to bring a case. Not that the case itself has any standing. That was left for a future decision.
- locallost 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nolongerthere 2y ago
    She was very explicit in her words, there's no need to read into them, she meant exactly what she said. She very clearly stated, they didn't find or make any ruling on the plausibility of genocide, just that it was plausible that they might not be able to be protected in a case where a genocide were to happen. They couldn't honestly claim there was any merit to the claim of genocide, but people were screaming for blood so they did this doublespeak thing where if you squint you can claim they 100% claim genocide is happening to mollify the anti-semites while not actually saying anything. Essentially, she said, "we haven't found a genocide, but were a genocide to be attempted, it would be difficult to prevent" which is true in every single case of war, especially asymmetric warfare, where one side is much stronger than the other. If someone were to bring a case against the US back in 2004 following the invasion of Iraq a similar finding would be totally within reason... but does anyone claim NATO committed genocide? No, but it's plausible that that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Iraqi right to be protected from genocide.
    - locallost 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        locallost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        locallost 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        [flagged]
        nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        racional 2y ago
        [flagged]

runarberg 2y ago

I’ve been seeing this argument pop up a lot lately, and I’ll try to address it (though frankly, I’m not that smart, so maybe somebody else can explain it better). So what you are trying to claim is that the World Court never explicitly claimed, in direct words, that some of South Africa’s allegations for genocide was plausible, therefor the court never ruled that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, and therefor, we have no authority claiming that Israel is committing genocide, and therefor, any claims of Israel committing genocide are unfounded. First of all I want to address how weak this line of argument is. The ICJ is not the only authority which has claimed plausible genocide (yes, the ICJ did claim that; I’ll come back to that), second, we have plenty of evidence which indicts Israel for the crime of genocide, including, but not limited to South Africa’s filing at the ICJ (see sources on Wikipedia). Even if we take your or Joan Donoghue’s interpretation at face value, raxxorraxor’s claim that “the accusation is ridiculous and lacking any form of sincere analysis and judgement” is it self pretty much wrong. Second, the court did rule that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, by any reasonable interpretation of the ruling. Even though most people cite Article IV paragraph 54 (See [1]; quoted above) as the smoking gun (which it absolutely is) equally relevant is Article II Paragraphs 30-32 where the court decides it has jurisdiction over the case, citing Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The court would not have done that if it did not think it was plausible that Israel were violating the terms of the Genocide Convention. In other words, the court ruled that some of South Africa’s accusations were plausible. And put yet another way, the court decided that it is plausible that Israel is committing the crime of Genocide. The problem with your interpretation, and your citing of Joan Donoghue’s answer in this context, is that she is actually answering a question relating to the provisional measures ordered by the court on January 26th 2024 (which is what Article IV is all about), and again on March 28th 2024. My personal opinion is that by answering the question this way she is actually being willfully misleading. It is beyond a doubt that the court decided that some of the accusations were plausible, her clarifying and stating that technically the court only decided on provisional measures, is obscuring the fact that it did rule to start investigating Israel for the crime of Genocide. ICJ member often rules in alignment with their nation’s foreign policy, and Joan Donoghue has shown that to be the case under her presidency, I actually find it a miracle that the court ruled in favor of South Africa under her presidency. My personal belief is that the case against Israel is very obvious, and there was no way the court could rule any other way. This interview is she rectifying US foreign policy, and offering a plausible deniability to what the court actually ruled. 1: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...