4 ms·

It does meet the legal definition. If the International Criminal Court isn’t qualified to decide what is and isn’t a genocide - who is? Because they have called

It does meet the legal definition. If the International Criminal Court isn’t qualified to decide what is and isn’t a genocide - who is? Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 when the ICC first spoke on this, and since then there has been another year and a half of ongoing genocidal action - targeting of civilians, denial of aid, deliberate starvation and water depravation. These are facts. They are visible in 4K if you have the stomach to watch them.

dralley 1y ago
>Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 They did not. Go read the ruling. They declared the claim "plausible" and ordered Israel to take actions to preserve evidence and take steps to ensure one did not occur. That is not equivalent to declaring that one did occur or was occurring. It was essentially a type of injunction, not a conviction of any kind. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o >> In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” >> This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”. >> This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC. >> In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled. >> Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage. >> The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.
- kennywinker 1y ago
  So what you’re saying is that you were wrong when you said “it literally doesn't meet the legal definition”? Because you’ve just cited the ICJ saying it was plausible back in january 2024. So, will you be retracting your incorrect statement that it does not meet the legal definition? Meanwhile, a UN special committee, as well as amnesty international, have both concluded it’s a genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investigate_Israeli_Practices_Affecting_the_Human_Rights_of_the_Palestinian_People https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investi... But you got me, the ICJ hasn’t concluded it’s DEFINITELY a genocide. Just that if the actions alleged are true, it’s a genocide. In the mean time, 80% of homes in gaza have been destroyed. Uncountable war crimes have been documented. The ICJ ordered the halt of the rafah offensive and israel ignored that order. Refugee camps were bombed. People seek aid and are shot. People are killed for delivering aid. Water is withheld. If by some technicality it does not get ruled as a genocide by the ICJ, it hardly matters. It’s an atrocity of genocidal proportions and that is why people keep calling it a genocide. Oh, and because it’s also a literal genocide.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  They didn't actually declare the genocide claim plausible, but rather the Palestinian's right to be protected from genocide. At least that was the then-president's interpretation - > “It did not decide - and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media... that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge. > “It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o
dlubarov 1y ago
This isn't accurate, genocide isn't among the charges that the ICC is trying to prosecute Netanyahu for. Khan's initial list of charges included extermination, but that was rejected by the pre-trial chamber. Do you mean the ICJ? They haven't made any finding of genocide either, but it's a possible outcome of the current case.
- kennywinker 1y ago
  Yes, I conflated the icc and icj. While the ICJ hasn’t concluded it is genocide, they have clearly contradicted the post I was responding to that said this does NOT fit the legal definition of genocide. If it didn’t fit, they would not have ordered israel to act to prevent acts of genocide.
  - dralley 1y ago
    If it did fit, Ireland wouldn't be trying to change the definition of genocide to make it fit.
    - kennywinker 1y ago
      If the irish don’t think it fits, why do they keep calling it a genocide? They want to expand the definition of genocide to include blocking aid (already a war crime, and something israel is consistently doing). They want to do this not because they have any doubt that a genocide is occurring, but because the current definition makes it too easy for supporters of this genocide to sew doubt allowing the genocide to continue. P.s. still waiting on your retraction.

dralley 1y ago

>Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 They did not. Go read the ruling. They declared the claim "plausible" and ordered Israel to take actions to preserve evidence and take steps to ensure one did not occur. That is not equivalent to declaring that one did occur or was occurring. It was essentially a type of injunction, not a conviction of any kind. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o >> In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” >> This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”. >> This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC. >> In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled. >> Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage. >> The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.

kennywinker 1y ago
So what you’re saying is that you were wrong when you said “it literally doesn't meet the legal definition”? Because you’ve just cited the ICJ saying it was plausible back in january 2024. So, will you be retracting your incorrect statement that it does not meet the legal definition? Meanwhile, a UN special committee, as well as amnesty international, have both concluded it’s a genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investigate_Israeli_Practices_Affecting_the_Human_Rights_of_the_Palestinian_People https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investi... But you got me, the ICJ hasn’t concluded it’s DEFINITELY a genocide. Just that if the actions alleged are true, it’s a genocide. In the mean time, 80% of homes in gaza have been destroyed. Uncountable war crimes have been documented. The ICJ ordered the halt of the rafah offensive and israel ignored that order. Refugee camps were bombed. People seek aid and are shot. People are killed for delivering aid. Water is withheld. If by some technicality it does not get ruled as a genocide by the ICJ, it hardly matters. It’s an atrocity of genocidal proportions and that is why people keep calling it a genocide. Oh, and because it’s also a literal genocide.
dlubarov 1y ago
They didn't actually declare the genocide claim plausible, but rather the Palestinian's right to be protected from genocide. At least that was the then-president's interpretation - > “It did not decide - and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media... that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge. > “It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o

dlubarov 1y ago

This isn't accurate, genocide isn't among the charges that the ICC is trying to prosecute Netanyahu for. Khan's initial list of charges included extermination, but that was rejected by the pre-trial chamber. Do you mean the ICJ? They haven't made any finding of genocide either, but it's a possible outcome of the current case.

kennywinker 1y ago
Yes, I conflated the icc and icj. While the ICJ hasn’t concluded it is genocide, they have clearly contradicted the post I was responding to that said this does NOT fit the legal definition of genocide. If it didn’t fit, they would not have ordered israel to act to prevent acts of genocide.
- dralley 1y ago
  If it did fit, Ireland wouldn't be trying to change the definition of genocide to make it fit.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    If the irish don’t think it fits, why do they keep calling it a genocide? They want to expand the definition of genocide to include blocking aid (already a war crime, and something israel is consistently doing). They want to do this not because they have any doubt that a genocide is occurring, but because the current definition makes it too easy for supporters of this genocide to sew doubt allowing the genocide to continue. P.s. still waiting on your retraction.