And explicitly states it has not reached a decision about whether or not they did occur.
... if they occurred, and prevents them from occurring at all if they haven't.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: LATEST
- Thread starter niniveh
- Start date
The bolded text is the court declaring that they have jurisdiction if they believe there is intent to commit genocide.
The ruling says that Israel must in particular prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza.
The court is not saying Israel has to prevent killing with 'intent to destroy in whole or in part' Palestinians in Gaza.
The very next line says Israel must ensure its military immediately does not commit any of the above described acts, including killing Palestinians in Gaza.
The ICJ ruled Israel has to stop killing Palestinians in Gaza.
No, that's not what the court is saying.
The court says:
Israel must, because they signed the Genocide convention, prevent genocide from happening to Palestinians in Gaza and must in particular prevent killing members of the group (Palestinians in Gaza).
Its interesting, I was just checking to see whether this interpretation is fair and went to lawfare blog. But their post on the ruling actually misquotes the ICJ posted ruling in a way that supports your interpretation.
They posted:
(1) Take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. Prohibited conduct includes any of the following with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. (Indicated by a vote of 15-2, with Judge ad hoc Aharon Barak and Judge Julia Sebutinde voting against.)
The bolded section is not in the text and they also deleted the words 'in particular'.
That goes along with your take and I think that has been the MSM message but its incorrect if you read the actual ruling.
That ruling says Israel must prevent 'in particular' killing Palestinians in Gaza.
Last edited:
The ruling, from the ICJ page.
The Court indicates provisional measures
In its Order, which has binding effect, the Court indicates the following provisional measures:
“(1) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
The Court indicates provisional measures
In its Order, which has binding effect, the Court indicates the following provisional measures:
“(1) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
Gaslighting 101.
If they want Israel to stop, they would say stop. The enormous reason for them to use the word stop is to remove any possibility of ambiguity.
Your posts are moronic.
The fakest of the fake.
If she actually had injuries that needed attention, why didn't they wipe the blood off her face? She's bandaged up pretty well with pristine white bandages, no signs of blood seeping through. Yet her face is covered supposed blood. It's the exact same in the last 3 pics of kids you sent. All have been attended to and not once did they clean off the blood or dressed any wounds on their faces. It's just fake, it's stupidly fake. Who would be dumb enough to believe rubbish like this?
Clearly, every single pic you post is fake. Not one thing you say has any truth. You have no integrity.
It's idiotic to think that they don't know how to write the proper words to convey what the want to say. They are judges and highly trained in how to communicate unambiguously.
No.
Not in the way you want it to mean.
You aren't even reading the "in particular" line correctly since you keep assigning it only to point a.
You are misreading the actual ruling because you refuse to read it in context of the Convention.
Yes, you are correct that stopping all military action and withdrawing would automatically succeed at fulfilling the court provision.
But the court explicitly rejected that provision, despite South Africa requesting it.
Fallout from the ICJ ruling….companies begin to sever ties with Israel
www.jpost.com
Japan's Itochu to end cooperation with Israel's Elbit amid Gaza war
Itochu plans to end the collaboration after the International court of Justice ordered Israel last month to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians and do more to help civilians.
www.jpost.com
Poll from who? from pro-palestinian sources? sure....that must be conveniently reliable to you.....i'd say 95% of Israelis want Hamas...
Prevent simply saying...."avoid civilian casualties"....doesn't say stop, because that means, they already did....funny how suddenly you're not good in english too.....
If genocide in fact happen, ICJ would simply state "genocide has occured" i have not seen them state that....that would be straight to the point and clear "even a 5 year old" would understand....
Its not blood, those are scars from phosphorus burns.
From Israel's use in 2021
No, its you that keeps misquoting the ICJ ruling by quoting the wrong section.
You've repeatedly quoted the conclusion, point 78, while ignoring the 4 Provisional Measures, which are the direct orders to Israel given in point 86 of the ICJ ruling.
The 'in particular' does apply to points a) through d), of course.
I'm just quoting the most obvious one, prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza.
They are ordered to abide by the Convention but in particular prevent:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
In the orders of the Provisional Measures there is no qualification saying 'its ok to kill, maim and starve them as long as your intent isn't genocide'.
The order is clear, prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza.
That requires a trial, which given Israel's refusal to obey the Provisional Measures, will happen.
You can't add words to the ruling, rich.
You're the one adding words to it....they exquisitely said "prevent genocide" it's a precautionary warning...for something that might or might not happen but the possibility could happen because of the current situation....I wouldn't call it genocide....I would say Hamas is to blame for putting civilians in harms way....without any regard for their safety....and use them as propaganda for good measure...
No rich, I've been directly quoting the ICJ ruling and the Provisional Measures.
Your denial is based out of ignorance, you won't read the ruling or consider contrary evidence.
You're read the ruling and yet you interpret it far from what it was....you can spin it however you want...it will only mean one thing...
