The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has clarified its stance regarding the allegations of genocide against Palestinians. Former ICJ President Joan Donoghue emphasized that the court did not find the claims of genocide plausible. The court's ruling highlighted that all groups, including Palestinians, have a right to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa has the right to bring a case on their behalf. However, it explicitly stated that Israel is not committing genocide against Palestinians. This clarification comes amid widespread misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the court's decision in various media and among some legal experts, including an incorrect representation by UKLFI.
Glad to see that the president of the ICJ has now clarified this point. There is no plausible genocide. What the ICJ decided is that there is a plausible judgment of genocide in the context of determining provisional measures https://t.co/gdiAW0RiVa
What she said, what he said, and what the judge said - short compilation of statements by Natasha Hausdorff, Lord Sumption and Judge Joan Donoghue on whether @CIJ_ICJ found a plausible case of genocide https://t.co/JG0Na3uTyq
Pretty unconvincing to accuse former President of the ICJ of siding with Israel or providing cover when she not only joined the majority with the provisional measures order, but also hinted at criticism of Israel in the impugned interview.
What a liar 1. She was ACTUAL president of the ICJ when the ruling was made. She s not a random legal exac 2. She made CRYSTAL CLEAR that “plausibility” applied to the the actual process of SA and the rights of Palestinians to be accepted as such, not that a so called “genocide”… https://t.co/r9bfDb6uxQ
The American ex International Court of Justice president splits hair. Everyone has a right to be protected from genocide. The court found it plausible that Palestinians' right was in jeopardy. That means it's plausible that Israel is committing genocide. https://t.co/CVr51hxb9e
Former head of ICJ explains ruling on genocide case against Israel brought by S Africa https://t.co/t3qbsDyf6x
Former ICJ President Donoghue engages in the ethical error of obtuseness (thx @emilykiddwhite) when she attempts hairsplitting between plausible "rights" and "claims." TL;DR the Court decided there was, at minimum, a serious risk of genocide or related acts in Gaza. 🧵 https://t.co/1f05FHqWy1
Now that the former ICJ President clarified that it DIDN'T rule there's a plausible genocide in Gaza, here's a🧵 of so-called human rights experts, media outlets, legal experts, and elected officials either lying about the decision or making complete fools of themselves https://t.co/Jp0Ol4wUKC
President of the ICJ: we NEVER said Israel committed genocide. Others twisted words and weaponized them https://t.co/xfqK7RUolG
This is a subtle but important legal distinction which is really not helped by @UKLFI misrepresenting it as "the court did not decide South Africa's claim of genocide was plausible". https://t.co/QH46WTdkOY
Incredible. The ICJ ruled that: - The Palestinians have a right to be protected from genocide (as do all groups) - South Africa has a right to bring a case for them (makes sense) - Israel *is not* committing genocide against the Palestinians So what did the media report? https://t.co/WGjaqRPFzV
Finally. We can put this “the ICJ ruled plausible genocide” bullshit to bed. I’ve been arguing this for months, but in case you don’t believe me, here’s the actual President of the ICJ who delivered the ruling: “It didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible”. https://t.co/PwgkI2iNzH