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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Raz Segal, Holocaust scholar on ICJ ruling (Original Post) Nanjeanne Jan 2024 OP
"Do everything possible to prevent genocide"? That is a cruel joke. enough Jan 2024 #1
Deciding a verdict of genocide will take the ICJ years. It was always expected that the final verdict on genocide would Nanjeanne Jan 2024 #3
Thank you Goddessartist Jan 2024 #18
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! malaise Jan 2024 #2
I guess that's a step forward. It is no linger "Israel committing genocide" Beastly Boy Jan 2024 #4
No - it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide. This case was not going to decide in one month a complete Nanjeanne Jan 2024 #5
Why do you immediately assume sarisataka Jan 2024 #6
I guess because they said Hague Shmague and said before they wouldn't. But I'd love to be surprised. Re Hamas Nanjeanne Jan 2024 #9
I am not a fan of declaring sarisataka Jan 2024 #11
"You can spin the decision any way you want - and obviously you have." OilemFirchen Jan 2024 #7
So glad I can amuse you. If only you were actually interested in reading the actual full document and learning something Nanjeanne Jan 2024 #8
That I find it funny that you've accused someone else of "spin(ning) the decision"... OilemFirchen Jan 2024 #10
Thanks. I'm so glad you read the complete report and decisions. It's a good thing. Nanjeanne Jan 2024 #12
REC TY. Cha Jan 2024 #20
YW. OilemFirchen Jan 2024 #21
It is also plausible that Israel is not commiting genocide. Beastly Boy Jan 2024 #13
Seems everyone hears (or interprets what they read) as they want to. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2024 #15
Not really. If it was not plausible they would not have made the many rulings they did make nor Nanjeanne Jan 2024 #17
The plausibility of the charges only establish IJC's juristdiction to rule on the case at this point. Beastly Boy Jan 2024 #19
"No - it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide." Happy Hoosier Jan 2024 #14
Correct Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2024 #16

enough

(13,449 posts)
1. "Do everything possible to prevent genocide"? That is a cruel joke.
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 10:17 AM
Jan 2024

This is hardly “the end of Israeli impunity.”

Nanjeanne

(5,434 posts)
3. Deciding a verdict of genocide will take the ICJ years. It was always expected that the final verdict on genocide would
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 10:55 AM
Jan 2024

be years in the future.

These rulings are preliminary and the most the ICJ can do in the short-term. What most people hoped was that the ICJ would call for a complete ceasefire - but that was always a long-shot. What the ICJ has determined is the case for declaring Israel is committing genocide is plausible - which will allow them to continue with this case.

The interim restrictions are many. And while I wished they called for a complete ceasefire - if you read the actual list of decisions - they pretty much are as close to that as you can get.

Watch the complete list of rulings:


?s=20]

So basically Israel must prevent the slaughter of innocent Palestinians, must punish those engaged in acts of genocide, must give aid to Palestinians, must preserve evidence, must report back in a month.

By ordering Israel to prevent genocide - they have given the international community what they need to keep demanding a ceasefire.

Israel is trying desperately to spin it - while denouncing the ICJ at the same time. Anyone who thinks this is a win for Israel is not really paying attention to what was actually decided and the reasons.

Full PDF here: NYT Gift Link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-gaza-provisional-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Qk0.Ecee.P0mPS0TFW43D&smid=url-share]

Beastly Boy

(11,076 posts)
4. I guess that's a step forward. It is no linger "Israel committing genocide"
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 10:56 AM
Jan 2024

It is now "Israel is likely committing genocide", while there is no such conclusion coming from ICJ.

You can only spin the ICJ decision so far without looking like a total fool unworthy of attention.

I feel really sorry for this guy.

Nanjeanne

(5,434 posts)
5. No - it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide. This case was not going to decide in one month a complete
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:23 AM
Jan 2024

ruling on genocide. The expectation was that it would always be a couple of years for the determination. That is no surprise to anyone who understood how the court worked.

What was expected within this month was to bring immediate relief to Gaza - and that in it's most hopeful was that there would be a decision to demand a complete ceasefire. But while that was not the outcome given - the decisions and rulings are as close to that as probably would be a reasonable result. I posted a link to the whole document in another thread if you want to read it fully.

The final decisions in summary are:

(1) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Conventionon 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 ArticleI I 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 (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(2)By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above

(3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish thedirect and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip

(4)By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip

(5)By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of ArticleI I and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip

(6)By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one monthas from the date of this Order.

I'm quite happy with these decisions - but know that Israel will not adhere to them in spite of Israel signing on to the Genocide Convention.

You can spin the decision any way you want - and obviously you have. But remember this was never an expectation that one month deliberation would determine definite genocide. I'll accept that it is "plausible" and that means the case will continue.

Oh and please don't "feel sorry for this guy". Raz Segal is a world reknown Holocaust and Genocide Scholar. Not sure where your expertise lands - but I don't think Dr. Segal needs your pity.

sarisataka

(20,899 posts)
6. Why do you immediately assume
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:28 AM
Jan 2024

Israel will not comply with the decisions?

There was also a ruling for Hamas to release hostages. Will they comply? Should they?

Nanjeanne

(5,434 posts)
9. I guess because they said Hague Shmague and said before they wouldn't. But I'd love to be surprised. Re Hamas
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:40 AM
Jan 2024

There was no ruling for Hamas to release hostages. The ICF did ask for them to but Hamas is a terrorist organization and did not sign the Genocide Convention as Israel and South Africa did. That is why the ICF could bring the case and make a ruling. Israel, as a signer of the Convention, should adhere to it - and I'd love to find out they changed their minds and will.

If you are interested in the actual decisions the ICF did make (see my post above) or you can read it in the thread where I posted a link to the entire document of the ICJ Ruling.

The ICF can't rule on the release of hostages by Hamas. It's not in their jurisdiction. But they entered that into their full document which is a good thing.

If Israel complies with the various decisions the ICF made - then it is always possible that the hostage negotiations will continue and hopefully the hostages will be released.

sarisataka

(20,899 posts)
11. I am not a fan of declaring
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:48 AM
Jan 2024

one side must play by rules because they signed a treaty but the other side has not rules because they did not. The end of that road of logic is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Hamas stated goals of the elimination of Israel and Jews who do not submit to Islam.

I would like to see Israel comply (but make no predictions) with the ICJ.
I would also like to see people amplify the ICJ statement that the hostages should be released immediately and unconditionally. I predict I will be disappointed.

Nanjeanne

(5,434 posts)
8. So glad I can amuse you. If only you were actually interested in reading the actual full document and learning something
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:34 AM
Jan 2024

OilemFirchen

(7,153 posts)
10. That I find it funny that you've accused someone else of "spin(ning) the decision"...
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 11:46 AM
Jan 2024

doesn't mean that I've not read the document - nor that I have something to "learn".

Your insinuations are deplorable.

Beastly Boy

(11,076 posts)
13. It is also plausible that Israel is not commiting genocide.
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 12:59 PM
Jan 2024

That's what "plausible" means. Not definitely, not likely, not credibly, not even possibly, but merely not out of the question. When someone who knows this for a fact still insists that ICJ in any way proposed that genocide was "likely" to have occurred, that's pitiful.

What was, at the very least, expected by South Africa and just about every other accuser of Israel, was an order from IJC for an immediate cease fire, and an implied focus on Israel as the sole villain in the conflict.

Instead, this is how ICJ ends its ruling:

85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip
are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages
abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed
groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf

Hardly what South Africa, or the Hamas leadership that praised South Africa's move (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-780147), appreciated or expected.

Nanjeanne

(5,434 posts)
17. Not really. If it was not plausible they would not have made the many rulings they did make nor
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 01:52 PM
Jan 2024

would they be continuing on with the case. Let’s put it this way — it is plausible enough to make specific rulings on not committing certain acts, denying aid, making sure anyone committing certain acts that are outlined in the ruling is punished etc. Not plausible would have dropped the case. Now it’s possible in a couple of years when the deliberation comes about genocide they may find it was not actual genocide. But we have to wait for that determination. At this point they had enough evidence to declare plausibility.

This was never going to be about a declaration of genocide. Everyone who understands the court knows those cases take years and this will too. This was about getting help to Gazans. Did I - and South Africa - and thousands want a declaration of immediate ceasefire? Absolutely. This is second best and I welcomed reading all the individual rulings and what they would mean to the Palestinians if Israel complies.

Beastly Boy

(11,076 posts)
19. The plausibility of the charges only establish IJC's juristdiction to rule on the case at this point.
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 02:44 PM
Jan 2024

You can read this in the report:

36. At this stage of the proceedings, however, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist. It need only decide
whether the rights claimed by South Africa, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible.
Moreover, a link must exist between the rights whose protection is sought and the provisional
measures being requested (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order
of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 224, para. 51


The rulings themselves are a redundancy, since Israel, as a signatory to the ICJ convention, is obligated to abide by them anyway. They serve as an order for Israel's to make sure it meets meet its previous obligations as they relate to this particular case. The only new order is for Israel to keep full record of meeting its obligations.

Even so, "plausible enough" does not constitute definitely enough, or likely enough, or credibly enough, or even possibly enough. Just not out of the question enough. And when someone who knows this for a fact still insists that ICJ in any way proposed that genocide was "likely" (not even likely enough) to have occurred, it's still pitiful.

Happy Hoosier

(8,319 posts)
14. "No - it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide."
Fri Jan 26, 2024, 01:03 PM
Jan 2024

If this is genocide, then ANY war that results in a large number of civilian casualties is genocide. It destroys the meaning of th eword. It's a term used to trigger an emotional response by plenty of folks who want to blame (((them))) no matter what.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Raz Segal, Holocaust scho...