4 ms·

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 or

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
No. This is simple. You sue me, say, for trademark infringement. Before the case goes to trial, you ask for a preliminary injunction demanding that I --- at least for the duration of the trial --- stop using your trademark. As it turns out, I'm not doing much interesting with it; the cost to me to stop using the trademark is minimal. Recognizing that, the court enjoins me from using your trademark, until the trial is done. What you're saying now is "because I got the injunction, I won the case". Obviously, no. "Plausibility" at the ICJ is a technical term, part of a 3-part test to determine if any preliminary orders can be issued ("in preservation of rights") at all in a case: "What is required is something more than assertion but less than proof; in other words, the party must show that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the right it claims exits as a matter of law and will be adjudged to apply to that party’s case". Plausibility is virtually always established in these cases. Now, look at what South Africa asked for as a preliminary measure, and look what they got. Again, it is weird that we are still talking about this, because I quoted for you the numbered paragraph in the decision that repeats the point I am making. Later I'm noting that we are so far to the right margin on this very old, cursed thread that this post gets only 250px in my browser window. It's fine if we're not going to convince each other; we can just leave it here. We're probably the only two people reading this. Go read up on ICJ preservation of rights process, though. It's fascinating. It's like a whole parallel law system, being worked out in our lifetimes.
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  runarberg is not interested in getting to some commonly understood truth, he's only interested in spreading his propaganda. If you examine your conversation with him through this lens, it makes perfect sense. He continues to repeat lies that you've pointed out don't make any sense. He makes sure to repeat his unfounded claim that "They are definitely committing genocide" as he does in nearly every comment he's made in the last 2 weeks, regardless of how wrong he's shown to be. If you start to back him into a corner, he's begin to deny very obvious truths like Jewish people have a historical connection to that area and continues to claim, without any basis that he's simply repeating what the ICJ has said, when the president of the council very clearly said the opposite.

tptacek 2y ago

No. This is simple. You sue me, say, for trademark infringement. Before the case goes to trial, you ask for a preliminary injunction demanding that I --- at least for the duration of the trial --- stop using your trademark. As it turns out, I'm not doing much interesting with it; the cost to me to stop using the trademark is minimal. Recognizing that, the court enjoins me from using your trademark, until the trial is done. What you're saying now is "because I got the injunction, I won the case". Obviously, no. "Plausibility" at the ICJ is a technical term, part of a 3-part test to determine if any preliminary orders can be issued ("in preservation of rights") at all in a case: "What is required is something more than assertion but less than proof; in other words, the party must show that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the right it claims exits as a matter of law and will be adjudged to apply to that party’s case". Plausibility is virtually always established in these cases. Now, look at what South Africa asked for as a preliminary measure, and look what they got. Again, it is weird that we are still talking about this, because I quoted for you the numbered paragraph in the decision that repeats the point I am making. Later I'm noting that we are so far to the right margin on this very old, cursed thread that this post gets only 250px in my browser window. It's fine if we're not going to convince each other; we can just leave it here. We're probably the only two people reading this. Go read up on ICJ preservation of rights process, though. It's fascinating. It's like a whole parallel law system, being worked out in our lifetimes.

nolongerthere 2y ago
runarberg is not interested in getting to some commonly understood truth, he's only interested in spreading his propaganda. If you examine your conversation with him through this lens, it makes perfect sense. He continues to repeat lies that you've pointed out don't make any sense. He makes sure to repeat his unfounded claim that "They are definitely committing genocide" as he does in nearly every comment he's made in the last 2 weeks, regardless of how wrong he's shown to be. If you start to back him into a corner, he's begin to deny very obvious truths like Jewish people have a historical connection to that area and continues to claim, without any basis that he's simply repeating what the ICJ has said, when the president of the council very clearly said the opposite.