Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: President of IJC confirms that it did not decide that SA's claim of genocide was plausible. [View all]lapucelle
(18,451 posts)15. People are free to disagree with the President of the ICJ about what she clearly says
Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2024, 06:41 AM - Edit history (1)
the ruling she wrote and released actually states.
From the ruling:
The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israels compliance with the latters obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
The Court then turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested.
The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israels compliance with the latters obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
The Court then turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested.
The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israels compliance with the latters obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
==================================
From Ms. O'Donoghue's interview:
Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide and SA has a right to present that claim in the Court.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The Court did not decide, and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible."
Link to tweet
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
20 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
President of IJC confirms that it did not decide that SA's claim of genocide was plausible. [View all]
lapucelle
Apr 27
OP
Right. The ruling was that their right not to be genocided is plausibly being violated.
David__77
Apr 27
#1
Yes, I know. Ms O'Donoghue explained what that the means for those who don't understand the finding.
lapucelle
Apr 27
#7
The President of the ICJ disagrees with your interpretation of the ruling she authored and released.
lapucelle
Apr 27
#9
And none of their decisions pertains to plausible violations of anyone's rights.
Beastly Boy
Apr 27
#11
People are free to disagree with the President of the ICJ about what she clearly says
lapucelle
Apr 29
#15
"Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected" is how Ms. O'Donoghue stated it.
lapucelle
Apr 29
#17
I'm not sure what or why you're arguing. The Court preserved rights, as it saw fit.
lapucelle
Apr 29
#19
What does SHE know ? Who is she to keep college sophomores from speaking truth to power?
Beastly Boy
Apr 27
#2