In an interim judgment delivered on Friday, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention.
The court stopped short of granting South Africa’s request to order an immediate ceasefire to the war, which has destroyed much of the Gaza Strip and killed more than 25,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities.
The ruling is not the final word from the court on whether Israel’s actions amount to genocide, but it provides a strong indication that the judges believe there is a credible risk to Palestinians under the genocide convention. Granting South Africa’s application for special measures, the court did not have to find whether Israel had committed genocide, which will be determined at a later date, but only that its acts were capable of falling within the genocideconvention and that urgent preventive action was necessary.
Removed by mod
Whether or not the Gaza genocide is a genocide depends on the definition of genocide as per the Genocide Convention , not similarity to other genocides. The definition of genocide is
In conclusion: it is so ridiculously clear that it’s a genocide that you literally have to be completely ignorant of what a genocide is or lying on purpose to claim otherwise.
Genocide requires intent to destroy a group, otherwise it’s just war crimes. Which is btw why SA didn’t bring the case in earlier: Israeli members of government hadn’t run their mouth about the seed of Amalek and stuff yet.
There’s intent, alright. Tons of examples of clear intent.
Let me play devil’s advocate for a second:
Can be said about buildings, not just humans or a people. It is militarily necessary to destroy those buildings, Hamas is using them as bases.
may have genocidal intent, but he’s finance minister, his utterances do not match government policy or statements by relevant ministers. He has been reprimanded (if he hasn’t, make sure that he has before using this argument)
Is a mayor. Of a town. See Smotrich, times a hundred.
Hamas used those zones strategically. It’s a pity it had to be done but it was militarily necessary, Hamas is to blame for the deaths by using civilians as shields.
I would recommend to take another approach: Read South Africa’s case against Israel. It’s much, much much more water-tight than what you came up with. If you had been the one filing the case you would not have gotten a preliminary order, Israel’s lawyers would have torn your case apart in mid-air and the ICJ would have had no choice but to throw it out.
Well, duh! I’m not a lawyer. I’m just a guy on the internet wasting my time pointing out the obvious to the wilfully obtuse.
Removed by mod
No it’s not.
That clearly ain’t it. Just stop already.
Take your own advice. You can’t possibly be this obtuse.