INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: LATEST

[Frankfooter]

The ICJ made no rulings saying that Israel needs to do anything differently.

If you think otherwise, then you are the delusional one.

Only if you're one of the delusional ones who think Israel is not committing genocide right now.
But if you, like most people now, think Israel is committing genocide they were told to stop it and report back in a month so that South Africa can decide whether or not to take them to trial over genocide.

 

[Frankfooter]

Lie.

The ICJ found South Africa's accusations 'plausible' and gave Israel one month to stop the genocide, arrest all those inciting genocide and to report back on their process to let South Africa decide whether to proceed with the case.

Read the I.C.J. ruling

The International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Frankfooter]

The ICJ made no rulings saying that Israel needs to do anything differently.

If you think otherwise, then you are the delusional one.

The ICJ says evidence that Israel is committing genocide is 'plausible' so demands Israel stop committing genocide and report back in a month.
Just as they say Israel must preserve all evidence of allegations of genocide for trial.

Israel is to report back on the actions they took in that month, that report will be sent to South Africa and then South Africa will decide whether to proceed to trial with Israel's genocide.

After Israel's actions on day one of that verdict its almost certain Israel will be put on trial for genocide at the ICJ.

And you think that is a win.

 

[toguy5252]

Considering you said you will put me on ignore and still haven't figured out how to after having been on the forum for the last 15 years, if I was you, I would be more worried about your cluelessness.

LOL. I am clueless about many things. I know come back with the predictable response.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

The ICJ says evidence that Israel is committing genocide is 'plausible' so demands Israel stop committing genocide and report back in a month.
Just as they say Israel must preserve all evidence of allegations of genocide for trial.

Israel is to report back on the actions they took in that month, that report will be sent to South Africa and then South Africa will decide whether to proceed to trial with Israel's genocide.

After Israel's actions on day one of that verdict its almost certain Israel will be put on trial for genocide at the ICJ.

And you think that is a win.

Frank: Claiming that something is “plausible” is not the overwhelming slam dunk that you think it is:
“Plausible: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so”

Definition of PLAUSIBLE

superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so; superficially pleasing or persuasive; appearing worthy of belief… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank: Claiming that something is “plausible” is not the overwhelming slam dunk that you think it is:
“Plausible: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so”

Definition of PLAUSIBLE

superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often deceptively so; superficially pleasing or persuasive; appearing worthy of belief… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

They were to rule on plausibility, not whether or not genocide is happening.
They found South Africa's case plausible so it can proceed and told Israel to stop all genocidal acts and report on their actions in 30 days.

Do think that was a ruling in Israel's favour?

 

[Knuckle Ball]

They were to rule on plausibility, not whether or not genocide is happening.
They found South Africa's case plausible so it can proceed and told Israel to stop all genocidal acts and report on their actions in 30 days.

Do think that was a ruling in Israel's favour?

I’d interpret it as a technically neutral statement but one that is pushing Israel to be more mindful of civilian casualties.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

To consider something as serious as genocide even "plausible" is a very serious charge and a ruling, and is pretty much a tactful admission that it is indeed genocide. The US has invaded many countries. Were they ever accused of even plausible genocide? Not to my knowledge. The only other country to my knowledge in recent times accused of genocide and genocidal intentions is Russia. And rightfully so. So basically Israel being in the same league as Russia, is in and of itself worrisome especially considering western support.

Being plausibly accused of genocide is never a good thing…but it’s not the same as being convicted.

 

[nottyboi]

have you seen the rubble? What have you accomplished?

There are still people alive. Israel can be sued for BILLONS, USA can be sued for BILLIONs. And perhaps when the Arabs finally take out Israel the world will let it happen.

 

[nottyboi]

He said the word "Holocaust" like 18 times in his hissy fit that he threw. To no effect. Stick a moustache on him and he'd be speaking German instead of Hebrew!

Yes he needs to sick that effin H card up is ass.

 

[nottyboi]

Being plausibly accused of genocide is never a good thing…but it’s not the same as being convicted.

The court said the case has merit, and the case is not over. This is an INTERIM ruling.

 

[Valcazar]

Frankie, if there was evidence of genocide, the court would have found Israel guilty of genocide. That's what courts do. They make rulings.

My understanding is that they weren't asked to make a judgment on evidence of genocide here.
That would be for a follow up trial/hearing on the merits, which would only go forward if there was a push for it among other states. (all the ins and outs are unclear).

It was just a "is it plausible rights are being infringed and there is risk of potential genocide" kind of thing.

So you can't really say they would have found Israel guilty of it because I don't think they addressed the issue at all.

 

[danmand]

The court said the case has merit, and the case is not over. This is an INTERIM ruling.

That is what the genocide lovers fail to understand.

It is an interim ruling, where the ICJ has not (yet) come to a conclusion that there is a genocide, but have seen enough evidence of actions that may result in a finding of genocide, that it is telling Israel to immediately cease and desist actions that will result in a finding of genocide.

Is that so hard to understand. Obviously, as it is only an interim finding of the court, both parties will claim victory; that is what lawyers are paid to do.

 

[Frankfooter]

I’d interpret it as a technically neutral statement but one that is pushing Israel to be more mindful of civilian casualties.

That's how the Israel supporters are trying to interpret it, yes.

Most people see it as Israel will be charged with genocide based on the evidence submitted and their actions since.

 

[Frankfooter]

Being plausibly accused of genocide is never a good thing…but it’s not the same as being convicted.

No, but its like rump supporters saying that the E Jean Carroll case doesn't mean that rump is a rapist.
Rump hasn't been convicted of rape but the court said he did commit sexual assault and had to pay $83 million.
The ICJ wasn't ruling on guilt or innocence, only whether their was evidence, jurisdiction and plausible grounds for a case.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

No, but its like rump supporters saying that the E Jean Carroll case doesn't mean that rump is a rapist.
Rump hasn't been convicted of rape but the court said he did commit sexual assault and had to pay $83 million.
The ICJ wasn't ruling on guilt or innocence, only whether their was evidence, jurisdiction and plausible grounds for a case.

Maybe we don’t disagree. I thought you were overstating what this ruling meant… but I agree with your above post.

 

[mandrill]

That is what the genocide lovers fail to understand.

It is an interim ruling, where the ICJ has not (yet) come to a conclusion that there is a genocide, but have seen enough evidence of actions that may result in a finding of genocide, that it is telling Israel to immediately cease and desist actions that will result in a finding of genocide.

Is that so hard to understand. Obviously, as it is only an interim finding of the court, both parties will claim victory; that is what lawyers are paid to do.

Yes, it's clearly an interim order. Without any finding of genocide.

 

[mandrill]

The guy who supports raping Gaza wants them to stop resisting so the rape can be more enjoyable.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751286787589247039

Better phone the ICJ and tell them to do something - FAST!

 

[Valcazar]

Let me explain this to you like I would to a 5 year old.

If someone tells you - "Don't do XYZ". It means they think you currently do XYZ.

Using that theorem, because the ICJ told Israel - "Don't do genocide and don't incite genocide" - it consequently means, that they acknowledge that Israel is currently engaged in genocide and incitement of genocide.

Why would you want to trick a 5 year old with such a badly-phrased theorem?

Even from a court "Don't do XYZ" is not a finding that you are doing XYZ.
"Stop doing XYZ" would be a finding that you are doing XYZ.

"Don't do XYZ" is a finding that they are worried you might be doing XYZ or that you might in the future, or that if you continue the way you are going you are very likely to get there.
It's not a GOOD thing that a court feels they need to call this out.
But it isn't a finding that you are doing it.
Especially when the court specifically says they aren't deciding the question of whether you are actually doing XYZ right now, just whether or not it is plausible you might.

 

[Not getting younger]

There are still people alive. Israel can be sued for BILLONS, USA can be sued for BILLIONs. And perhaps when the Arabs finally take out Israel the world will let it happen.

“ can be” as in “may be” at some future date”.

As in
“God grant me the serenity it accept the things I cannot change, the courage for those I can. And the wisdom to know the difference.”

As in
Nothing to do but wait for the dust to settle theb Pick up the pieces.

What have you and all the whines for ceasefire or genocide accomplished?
Nada