3 ms·

I was trying to argue that the only way the Court would accept the case is if it would find the accusations plausible. I specifically said nobody is trying to

I was trying to argue that the only way the Court would accept the case is if it would find the accusations plausible. I specifically said nobody is trying to argue that the court has ruled one way or the other. Merely that by accepting the case, the court did view some of the actions as capable of falling inside the Convention. We are basically arguing over what the word plausible means here. I still stand by my words that the word applies to the courts believes as stated by the ruling.

tptacek 2y ago
If it was "implausible" the case would have been dismissed. I don't see anybody arguing that there is no case, only that the case has not at this point decided that Israel is culpable for acts of genocide. You claimed the opposite upthread. That was incorrect. We don't need to harp on this or keep going, but I don't think there's a way to rehabilitate your analysis of the ICJ ruling. It was wrong. Preliminary injunctions are issued in cases where the defense wins all the time. If you do some reading on the "Plausibility" standard in the ICJ --- it's a recent development --- I think you're going to find it's a pretty low bar.
- runarberg 2y ago
  If the court would have believed that South Africa’s accusations did not fall under the Genocide Convention, the case would have been dismissed. This was Israel’s entire legal defense. And this is explained in Paragraph 20 cited above. I guess I see one more scenario here, where the court did not find it plausible. That would be that the court found South Africa’s accusations to plausibly fall under the Genocide Convention, but did not look at the credibility of the accusations. However in the rulings of the preliminary measures, they do state that the risk of genocide inflicted on the Palestinian people was plausible, so frankly, I don’t think the court found the accusations implausible. In any case, I guess if that is the case, I stand corrected, however given the mountain of evidence given by South Africa, and the fact the people don’t dispute the authenticity of those evidence, the fact that the court found the accusation plausibly fall under the Genocide Conention is almost identical to the statement that the court found the accusations plausible. The nuance here is so small that it is completely irrelevant.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    That's you deciding the case, not the ICJ. Which is fine, but you cannot reasonably argue that the ICJ agrees with you, because it has not done so. This isn't nuance; respectfully, you're flatly wrong about the implications of the ICJ ruling. What I think is happening is that you're looking at legal terms of art and just substituting ordinary definitions for them. You cannot meaningfully do that.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      You are fighting an uphill battle, and honestly taking a weird—and insignificant—hill to die on. I’m hardly the only one which has this reading of the court order[1]. Here is a human rights lawyer speaking with the Times[2] which describes the ruling as: > Having the World Court say to the state of Israel that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide will be heard by the rest of the international community, even if Netanyahu doesn’t want to hear it, Like I said earlier we are actually arguing about the meaning of “plausible”. I’m using this word in a non-legal way while applying it to the legal definition of genocide. The ICJ on the other hand uses it in a legal way, for them plausibility has a legally defined meaning, and using it must meet some specific standard[3]. The conduct in question here is the general behavior of Israel in Gaza, which some of our ancestors say: > Its not a genocide by any definition https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268163 or: > I would not agree this constitutes genocide. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40273408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40273408 they are talking about Israel’s general conduct. South Africa brought in its case many examples of general conduct and accused them of violating the Genocide Convention. Israel—in its defense—did not deny this conduct, but rather stated they weren’t Genocidal, and didn’t violate the Convention, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that these allegations “appear to be capable” of falling under the Convention. Meaning that the court thinks that the same conduct we are arguing whether constitutes a Genocide, the ICJ has said: “appears to be capable” of falling under the legal definition of Genocide. When I, or the NPR, or the BBC[4] say the ICJ “decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention,” we are using the world plausible in laypeople terms. So I stand by what I said. If we use the legal definition of Genocide, the ICJ has ruled the conduct of Israel in Gaza can plausibly be described as Genocide. 1: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocid... 2: https://time.com/6588931/icj-ruling-israel-genocidal-acts-gaza-south-africa/ https://time.com/6588931/icj-ruling-israel-genocidal-acts-ga... 3: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plausible-genocide-in-gaza-and-its-implications-for-the-international-criminal-court/ https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plau... 4: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68108260 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68108260

tptacek 2y ago

If it was "implausible" the case would have been dismissed. I don't see anybody arguing that there is no case, only that the case has not at this point decided that Israel is culpable for acts of genocide. You claimed the opposite upthread. That was incorrect. We don't need to harp on this or keep going, but I don't think there's a way to rehabilitate your analysis of the ICJ ruling. It was wrong. Preliminary injunctions are issued in cases where the defense wins all the time. If you do some reading on the "Plausibility" standard in the ICJ --- it's a recent development --- I think you're going to find it's a pretty low bar.

runarberg 2y ago
If the court would have believed that South Africa’s accusations did not fall under the Genocide Convention, the case would have been dismissed. This was Israel’s entire legal defense. And this is explained in Paragraph 20 cited above. I guess I see one more scenario here, where the court did not find it plausible. That would be that the court found South Africa’s accusations to plausibly fall under the Genocide Convention, but did not look at the credibility of the accusations. However in the rulings of the preliminary measures, they do state that the risk of genocide inflicted on the Palestinian people was plausible, so frankly, I don’t think the court found the accusations implausible. In any case, I guess if that is the case, I stand corrected, however given the mountain of evidence given by South Africa, and the fact the people don’t dispute the authenticity of those evidence, the fact that the court found the accusation plausibly fall under the Genocide Conention is almost identical to the statement that the court found the accusations plausible. The nuance here is so small that it is completely irrelevant.
- tptacek 2y ago
  That's you deciding the case, not the ICJ. Which is fine, but you cannot reasonably argue that the ICJ agrees with you, because it has not done so. This isn't nuance; respectfully, you're flatly wrong about the implications of the ICJ ruling. What I think is happening is that you're looking at legal terms of art and just substituting ordinary definitions for them. You cannot meaningfully do that.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    You are fighting an uphill battle, and honestly taking a weird—and insignificant—hill to die on. I’m hardly the only one which has this reading of the court order[1]. Here is a human rights lawyer speaking with the Times[2] which describes the ruling as: > Having the World Court say to the state of Israel that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide will be heard by the rest of the international community, even if Netanyahu doesn’t want to hear it, Like I said earlier we are actually arguing about the meaning of “plausible”. I’m using this word in a non-legal way while applying it to the legal definition of genocide. The ICJ on the other hand uses it in a legal way, for them plausibility has a legally defined meaning, and using it must meet some specific standard[3]. The conduct in question here is the general behavior of Israel in Gaza, which some of our ancestors say: > Its not a genocide by any definition https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268163 or: > I would not agree this constitutes genocide. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40273408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40273408 they are talking about Israel’s general conduct. South Africa brought in its case many examples of general conduct and accused them of violating the Genocide Convention. Israel—in its defense—did not deny this conduct, but rather stated they weren’t Genocidal, and didn’t violate the Convention, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that these allegations “appear to be capable” of falling under the Convention. Meaning that the court thinks that the same conduct we are arguing whether constitutes a Genocide, the ICJ has said: “appears to be capable” of falling under the legal definition of Genocide. When I, or the NPR, or the BBC[4] say the ICJ “decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention,” we are using the world plausible in laypeople terms. So I stand by what I said. If we use the legal definition of Genocide, the ICJ has ruled the conduct of Israel in Gaza can plausibly be described as Genocide. 1: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocid... 2: https://time.com/6588931/icj-ruling-israel-genocidal-acts-gaza-south-africa/ https://time.com/6588931/icj-ruling-israel-genocidal-acts-ga... 3: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plausible-genocide-in-gaza-and-its-implications-for-the-international-criminal-court/ https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plau... 4: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68108260 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68108260