3 ms·

>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 ord

>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

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