South Africa submitted misleading quotes. Remko de Waal/ANP/AFP
With hope for a Gaza ceasefire rekindling, I want to focus your attention for a moment on the word “plausible”, which often means appearing to be true, but not really so. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “having an appearance or show of truth, reasonableness or worth; apparently acceptable or trustworthy (sometimes with mere appearance); fair-seeming, specious”. Successful fraudsters aim for plausibility. So do lawyers presenting their clients’ cases.
The word “plausible” does heavy lifting in the recent ruling from the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the way that ruling has been interpreted. The Court ruled that there is a plausible case that South Africa has rights under the Genocide Convention to seek a determination whether Israel had violated the Convention by committing genocide. What does this tortured legalese mean? Essentially that South Africa, who brought the case, plausibly has a right to raise the question of genocide before the Court, and present further evidence. Whether South Africa does in fact have such a right is yet to be fully determined.
The Court expressly stated that at this stage “it was not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred”. You could be forgiven for thinking, however, that the Court has found that Israel has plausibly committed genocide. That is because those who welcomed the judgment have spun it that way.
Shortly after the ruling, South Africa’s Foreign Minister said: “We think [the ICJ finding] makes it clear that it is plausible that genocide is taking place against the Palestinian people in Gaza. This necessarily imposes an obligation on all states to cease funding and facilitating Israel’s military actions.” Similarly, the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen claimed that the ICJ ruled that Israel faces “plausible” allegations that it is committing the crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The court made it expressly clear that all it is required to do at this stage is ascertain whether South Africa’s allegations, if true, fit the definition of genocide in the Convention. The issue of “plausibility” arises because the court has in recent times expanded its power to issue provisional orders preserving the respective claimed “rights” of the parties pending the outcome of the actual trial “if the rights asserted by the party requesting such measures are at least plausible”.
What that means in English is that the Court can intervene if something seems plausible to it. Since lawyers are trained to sound plausible when asserting whatever nonsense their clients would like to put forward, the standard on which this court purports to act is, to put it neutrally, rather low. It is, as this case demonstrates, an invitation to lawfare by litigious busybodies for whom a cheap propaganda victory is achieved by meeting the low bar of “plausibility”. Say “plausible” often enough and it sounds a bit like “credible”.
In its consideration of plausibility, the court in this case began by reminding itself that the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention (which was the only basis of the court’s authority) requires that the actions in question be committed with the intention “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such”. War carried out in self-defence, or even for bad reasons, no matter how destructive and lethal, is not to be characterised as genocidal unless that is the intention of the perpetrator. All war would be genocidal if it only requires that the casualties and destruction be great, and the crime of “genocide” would cease to have any meaning.
In this case, an assertion, even by a lawyer, that Israel is carrying out a genocide with the intention of eliminating all the population of Gaza, would seem somewhat implausible given common sense and the uncontested reality of the situation. Despite several wars and clashes, the population of Gaza increased from 394,000 in 1967, when Israel captured the area in the Six Day War, to well over 2 million in 2023. With regard to the current war alone, Israel has the military and technical means to flatten Gaza entirely in one day and kill all its inhabitants. If genocide were its intention, why bother spending billions of dollars on a war involving a ground invasion which has tanked its economy, and resulted in thousands of its own casualties both killed and injured?
Astonishingly, in reaching its conclusion that South Africa’s allegations were “plausibly” capable of falling with the Genocide Convention, the Court deliberately avoided considering the issue of Israel’s intention at all.
Instead, the Court first referred to the death toll in the conflict, and the resulting dreadful conditions of life for the residents, as described by various UN functionaries. On the figures, it cited reports by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which claimed that, at the time of South Africa’s application, 27,500 persons out of a population of more than 2 million had been killed in Gaza since 7 October, and many more injured. OCHA gets its figures exclusively from the Gazan Ministry of Health; OCHA notes that “It is nearly impossible at the moment to provide any UN verification on a day-to-day basis.” It is fair to consider the Gazan Health Ministry as being an emanation of Hamas, which has been the sole authority in Gaza since its seizure of power almost 20 years ago, eliminating its opponents. Perhaps the court thought it would not be a good look to cite Hamas itself as the source of the evidence, even when considering so low a bar as “plausibility”.
But even if we accept these figures as plausible, let’s also observe that this figure conflates militant and civilian deaths, as well as deaths caused by missiles and rockets fired by Hamas but falling short within Gaza itself. This is an obvious point, and really only bears repeating because one judge claimed in his judgment that “more than 25,000 civilians have reportedly lost their lives as a result of Israel’s military campaign”.
It’s not clear at all how one gets from stating casualty figures such as these, and the describing the awful conditions of war, to a finding that South Africa plausibly has rights to complain about under the Genocide Convention without some consideration of intentionality, which the court deliberately eschewed. Some reports claim that, for example, during the campaign to clear Isis from the city of Mosul in Iraq in 2017, which involved US and UK air support, 40,000 civilians were killed. All the rest fled. A plausible case of genocide?
In place of dealing with the essential issue of Israel’s intentions, the court cited, and then riffed off on, a statement by the head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) which said that the crisis in Gaza is “compounded by dehumanising language”. In this regard, the court singled out three examples of “dehumanising language” by Israeli officials: Yoav Gallant, the Defence Minister, the only one of the three who is a member of the War Cabinet, and thus responsible for the conduct and objectives of the war; President Herzog, a noted lifelong liberal, and the then Minister of Energy, Israel Katz.
South Africa had placed great emphasis in its written and oral submissions on what Mr Gallant is alleged to have said to soldiers on 9 October (two days after the massacre), of which the court duly “took note”:
South Africa’s written representations quoted short extracts from various video clips of Gallant and claimed that he had made the following statements, which were dramatically read out at the oral hearing:
- “I have released all restraints”.
- “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
- “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day it will take a week”
The problem is that all three quotations are incomplete: the South African legal submissions omitted the qualifying phrases or words which show what Mr Gallant was really talking about. Below I have inserted numbers in the court’s collected passage to indicate the three separate South African quotations above, and I have rendered the South African omissions in bold:
- “I have released all restraints… We are activating everything. We are taking off the gloves. We will kill anyone who fights against us.”
- “You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the Isis of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against…”
- “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”
As Yair Rosenberg pointed out in The Atlantic, where you can check all these references for yourself, by removing these references to “the Isis of Gaza”, “those who fight against us” and ‘There will be no Hamas’, South Africa turned a specific threat against Hamas into a general unspecific threat, enabling it to argue that Gallant was threatening genocide and using dehumanising language against Palestinians in Gaza generally. Moreover, Rosenberg adds, there are plenty of examples of Gallant making clear what his intentions were around that time:
“On October 8, Gallant declared, “Hamas has become the ISIS of Gaza. In this war, we are fighting against a murderous terrorist organization that harms the elderly, women, and babies.” On October 12, the defence minister told NATO, “The IDF will destroy Hamas.” On October 27, while urging Gazan civilians in the north to evacuate to the south, Gallant said, “We are not fighting the Palestinian multitude and the Palestinian people in Gaza.” The list goes on. The only way to misunderstand Gallant’s intentions is to ignore pretty much everything he has said on this subject.”
The second Israeli politician quoted was Israel Katz, then Minister of Energy and a prolific tweeter. (He would do well to remember Lord Cameron’s aphorism, that “too many tweets make a tw*t”.) He was replying on X to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the United States House of Representatives, who takes a keen interest in Israel. He tweeted: “We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in [G]aza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”
South Africa left out the sentence in bold which clearly enunciates Katz’s stance. In fact, it’s the only part of his tweet that makes any sense. The rest is baffling, not genocidal; I assume English is not his first language. How can anyone who has “left the world” receive water and batteries?
The only other Israeli politician whose utterances were referred to by the court was an astounding choice in itself: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog. Israel’s presidency is ceremonial; Herzog is not part of its War Cabinet, and he does not determine Israeli war policy. In the course of a lengthy live press conference held by the President on 12 October 2023 he said this (with the words in bold omitted from South Africa’s submissions):
“First of all we have to understand there is a state, there is a state, in a way that has built a machine of evil right at our doorstep. It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved, it is absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat, murdering their family members who were in Fatah… Israel evacuated Gaza. I was a member of the cabinet… We are working, operating militarily according to rules of international law period. Unequivocally. But we are at war…”
Nineteen minutes of the press conference can be seen in the video embedded in this article cited. In the course of it, he specifically denies that innocent civilians are legitimate targets and repeatedly states Israel’s commitment to acting in accordance with international law. His comments on civilians are an attempt to explain why innocent civilians are inevitably going to be harmed when fighting terrorists embedded amongst civilians. It is difficult to think how any of that could fairly be characterised as “dehumanising language”, let alone as evidence of an intention to commit genocide whilst simultaneously operating “according to the rules of international law”.
By now you will have got the picture: every quotation emanating from South Africa’s representatives which was relied on by the Court as “dehumanising language” omitted key words and context that rendered the meaning of the quotation different from, if not the exact opposite of, what South Africa had asserted.
There is a further strange feature of all this. Although South Africa omitted the qualifying, emboldened words in all of these quotations, somebody subsequently inserted some of the missing words which I have highlighted into the court’s own citation, thus rendering its conclusions completely absurd. Why is it evidence of genocidal intent, or of use of “dehumanising language” for Mr Gallant to say that Hamas are human animals, or that there will be no Hamas in the future of Gaza, or that Israel will kill those who fight against it in the war?
Rosenberg suggests one possibility (or should I say, plausibility), namely, that the judgment was originally based on the misleading South African quotes but that someone in the course of preparation later noticed some of the errors and inserted some of the missing words without drawing it to the attention of the judges, who did not change their opinions even though the quotes as eventually printed contradict their conclusions.
Apart from this highly unsatisfactory account of what Israeli politicians actually said, the ICJ took note of a statement by 37 Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and officials or representatives of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in which they “voiced alarm over ‘discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials’”. It is not at all clear from the list of “experts” what expertise they possess in relation to issues of genocide, or why their opinions should be taken into account rather than those of experts less biased in relation to Israel’s plight.
It certainly would have rendered its decision to rely on these “experts” less convincing if the court had drawn attention to another passage in the same press release from these 37 “experts” where they assert that Israel has no right to wage war in self-defence after the attacks of 7 October because “Israel remains the occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory, which also includes the Gaza Strip, and therefore cannot wage a war against the population under its belligerent occupation”. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza almost 20 years ago.
Perhaps conscious of this flawed basis of its finding of “plausibility”, the court did not issue the main order which South Africa had requested, namely: “The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.” One can only presume that by this formulation South Africa intended to leave Hamas free to continue its operations inside Israel unopposed.
In fact, of the six orders the ICJ in fact issued, the first three were rightly described by the dissenting judge (Judge Sebutinde of Uganda) as effectively just mirroring the obligations on Israel imposed by the Genocide Convention itself, and thus unnecessary, namely:
- Israel was ordered, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, to take all measures within its powers to prevent all acts within the scope of the Convention,
- to ensure that its military does not commit such acts, and
- to take measures to prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide of the Palestinian people.
The fourth order — to take measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip — was unnecessary as Israel had already informed the court of the arrangements being made in this connection, and the fifth order — to prevent the destruction of evidence — was plainly unjustified. As Judge Sebutinde pointed out, there was no evidence to suggest that Israel was engaged in destroying evidence. She also derided the absurdity of requiring one party to a conflict (Israel) unilaterally to ensure evidence was not destroyed whilst leaving the other (Hamas) “free to carry on unabated”. The court also ordered Israel to report back on its compliance with these orders within a month, with South Africa given an opportunity to respond. The lawfare continues.
Judge Sebutinde also made this interesting observation: “It was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas. If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a goodwill gesture. I have no doubt that such a gesture of goodwill would go a very long way in defusing the current conflict in Gaza.” That the court chose not to order South Africa to do so, is telling, particularly since the court had specifically recorded that it had the power to issue orders other than those requested by the parties. If there is one thing which would bring hostilities to an end it is the release of the hostages.
As the novelist Howard Jacobson has said regarding Israel and its opponents, the words “genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, settler-colonialism… simply flutter like so many pennants at a medieval joust. Denoting, in the fading light, which side you’re on, no more”. By issuing even its very limited order based on a foundation as flimsy as this one, the ICJ has achieved nothing more than showing which side it’s chosen. That is at least plausible, isn’t it?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAn excellent evisceration of the flimsy claims of SA regarding the alleged Israeli genocide and the pathetic response by the Court. Yet another International Organ that has lost all credibility and respect. Interesting that the sanest judgement emanates from a Ugandan judge.
The definition of genocide is ‘ “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.’
Some of those acts are clearly occurring. Whether they count as genocide or not depends on Israel’s intentions, which none of us here can know. We can only look at what Israel has said, what is happening and, crucially, what the outcome is when this has come to an end. For now all that can be said is that genocide is ‘plausible’, just as it is in Ukraine. It can be neither proved nor disproved at this stage.
According to this logic, any war could be “plausibly” considered genocide. This voids the term of its meaning, to the detriment of victims of actual genocide.
Not really, a war where there are minimal civilian deaths, and the other acts are also absent, could not be genocide.
Whether that definition of genocide is too wide is a different debate. For example, there is clearly a difference between what is happening in Gaza and what happened in WW2 Germany. Should genocide only be reserved for the latter, and you could bomb a population to oblivion (and I’m not saying that that is what Israel is doing) without it being genocide?
In my opinion there’s more of a case for Russia having genocidal intent, using the definition above.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is (or was) intended as a land grab, to increase its own power and wealth; it expected no or little resistance and to be in power in Kyiv within days. The intent was not genocidal but acquisative/imperial. Ukrainians were intended to live so that they could work to prop up Russia’s economy.
Israel’s intention was also not genocidal for the reason Doctor observes – it could have used nuclear weapons against Gazan civilians rather than carrying out a ground invasion. The claim that Israel is not carrying out ethnic cleansing is harder to argue – in the sense of displacing a population from one area into another, usually another state – as Gazans are pushed closer to the Egyptian border (which Egypt for its own understandable reasons is unwilling to open, although there are now suggestions of activity on the Egyptian side: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68375460.amp). Proponents of such an action would regard it as humane since it could, in theory, spare civilian lives, but, if this was the intent, it has not worked for predictable reasons, including that Egypt, even if it had no political objections, doesn’t have the resources to suddenly accept 2 million refugees.
Note: I’m accepting Doctor’s assertion that the legal definition of genocide requires intent on the basis that he is the expert and is writing in good faith. Clearly intention is hard to establish not only because governments are made up of many individuals, but also because intentions may change over time as wars develop.
Had Putin successfully taken Kyiv as intended we have no idea what would have followed. However, he has made numerous speeches regarding the non-existence of a Ukrainian ethnicity so it is likely have been a complete annexation followed by ‘suppression’ (and we should all know what that means in the context of Putin) of Ukrainian identity.
The nuclear bomb argument is absurd. Use of nuclear weapons would have resulted in a whole load of other consequences which preclude their use.
Is ethic cleansing, if carried out using one or more of the acts listed above (which Doctor neglected to mention, even though he was criticising SA for editing quotes) genocidal? I don’t know.
And just to reiterate, I don’t say Israel is commiting genocide, but I don’t say it isn’t either. I think it can’t be known without knowing Israel’s intent.
“Is ethic cleansing, if carried out using one or more of the acts listed above (which Doctor neglected to mention, even though he was criticising SA for editing quotes) genocidal? I don’t know.”
Genocide is about killing people – that is what the suffix -cide means. Ethinic cleansing quite often combines the forced displacement of people with mass killings and the mass killing element may fall under the definition of genocide.
In the case of Gaza the deaths over 5 months of maybe 1% of a population, which is being deliberately used as a human shield (it’s not a problem as they all go straight to paradise) by terrorists, Is not even a mass killing let alone a deliberate genocide.
Post WWII there have been many organised relocations of peoples. Indeed the formation of Israel in the first place could easily be put in this category. Nobody was particularly happy about any of the relocations at the time, but it has enabled a relatively peaceful coexistence in many instances. The Palestinians, rather than accepting or peacefully contesting what the UN had decided, rejected it outright and attacked the nascent Israel with the Arab neighbours joining in a bit later. Every time there has been some repeat attempt to wipe Israel off the map, ie achieve ethnic cleansing of the Jews, with a large dollop of genocide, the Israelis have fought back and won, until forced into a ceasefire by the International Community. The obvious answer to the Palestinian problem is to find them somewhere else to go, but absolutely nobody else wants them – is that really a surprise?
It is worth noting that most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of those who were ethnically cleansed, mostly from Arab countries in 1948.
Thanks Dennis, I gave you the thumbs up by the way. I understand your point that use of tactical nuclear weapons may be precluded by other factors, and considered it before posting, but it is not impossible, hence “could have”.
On your question as to whether ethnic cleansing is genocide, I think genocide as it is widely understood and as its etymology suggests, involves mass killing. Ethnic cleansing can be carried out by mass killing so genocide falls into this category, but ethnic cleansing can also involve mass displacement or deportations without mass killing, often using the threat of violence and/or violence against a number of the targeted group to encourage the majority to flee: the expulsion of South Asians from Uganda under Idi Amin* for example.
*One reason why it is not at all surprising that the Ugandan judge gave a particularly thoughtful and considered response in this case.
Thanks, and thumbs up returned. I think one of the issues may be that most people don’t actually know the official definition of genocide, that it is actually a bit broader than they think it is (despite the etymology the listed genocidal acts are not just killing). Personally, I think its use could well be too wide and the term should be reserved for the more extreme forms.
We are totally clear on Israel’s intent. It days it, it does it.. are you stupid or what?
No one from Israel has said the equivalent of ‘we’re committing genocide’, for obvious reasons. If you believe it has then you must be reading manipulated quotes such as those described in the article, or are unable to interpret the full quote correctly.
You are ridiculous. For decades Hamas has been shooting rockets and fire bombs into bordering Jewish communities with the intent to kill civilians. After October 7th Hamas stated they would do that again and again. Israel is fighting a war of self defense. Rather than fight snipers room to room Israel takes down the building. Israel would no more target innocent civilians than the man in the moon, Look at pictures of Homs, Syria and Grozny, Chechechnya not to mention Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo and Hiroshima. This is war and war is Hell.
Hamas’ Charter, the rockets, the suicide bombings, use of Palestinian childreen as human shields and other child abuse by by Hamas, its murders of Jews by car, have somehow escaped the attention of Mr Mahoney.
You are of course correct that war is hell. But not, apparently for the bloated Hamas leaders, living in luxury in Qatar while their people lack basics, and aren’t even allowed into the miles of tunnels their “brave” warriors scuttle away to hide in, because as one leader said, they “want to be martyrs”. Did anyone ask them?
No you’re not. You plainly don’t have a clue.
Are you willfully blind or stupid? 14,000 Donbas civilians died as result of merciless bombardment over an 8 year period BEFORE Russa invaded to stop the massacre by hhe Naz¡ Aziv brigade, ie after 8 years of begging the West to respect the Minsk2 agreement.
No real difference between Gaza and WWII. Should the russians, having encircled Berlin with its 1,5 millon civilians, have held back, called Hitler in the führerbunker and offered him a two-state solution?
New war. Same enemy.
That wasn’t the genocide I was thinking of in WW2
“Bombing a population into oblivion”. By that definition the Allied attacks in WWII on Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo and Hiroshima were also genocide.
Many people would say that was the case. And then you get a debate on whether genocide can ever be justified.
To give a hypothetical, if a nuclear weapon state suffers a limited nuclear attack and responds with the full power of its nuclear arsenal, wiping out the attacking country, is that genocidal? If so, is it still justifiable?
The allies would have been guilty of genocide if their aim was to destroy every last German or Japanese citizen, even well after the war was won.
I think that you just don’t understand the meaning of the term.
Also, diluting the term for the sole reason of popular tribal hatred of Israel, and politically motivated attacks, is silly, counterproductive, allows politically motivated people to draw a false equivalence with the Jewish Holocaust, etc.
You’re right, the particular examples given were limited in extent and so cannot be genocide. However, all I said was that some people would consider them to be, not that I did myself. I then gave a (hypothetical) example that doesn’t have the same limit in extent.
I’ve already stated the accepted definition of genocide earlier.
And yes, South Africa’s claims are political. But that neither proves nor disproves Israel’s intent, which I’ll reiterate again, cannot be known by anyone here.
Incorrect.. on every assertion.
No.
The problem with that logic is that you end up getting nuked.
Are you just making up stuff as you are going along?
Nonsense!
What is nonsense? The definition of genocide or the fact Palestinians are being killed?
Hamas is an ethnic group?
Are only members of Hamas being killed?
Did you read the article Dennis? It might illuminate some of your confusion.
If you did read it, then read it again.
Yes I read it. I have some minor quibbles with it. However, the fact that SAs argument is flawed does not say anything about Israel’s intent.
I’ll repeat it again – I don’t think it’s possible to say one way or another what Israel’s intent is st this time.
Okay. But their intent is not genocide. They’ve explicitly stated that their intent is to defeat Hamas in all of the quotes cited above. Civilian casualties will end when that happens and hostages are returned.
Then you are blind and deaf.. this I the first time in recent history thar the intent has been spelt out in unequivocal terms by the guilty party.. so evil are they and so cocky they don’t bother to hide it.. but somehow it seems you missed it.. do you live under a rock?
Quote it then if it’s so unequivocal.
Yes. The iDF are hunting down every wretch involved or accessory to the October 7th massacre of Jews and others. Judging by their success rate, they’re very good at that too.
Idiot.
I think we’re very well aware of Israel’s intentions on account of the fact their govt leader (Amalek) and several other ministers made abundantly clear. Of you are unaware of thar yhen either you are blind, deaf or stupid.. or a wicked, evil liar.. I’m open to ant and all of those possibilites.
Take your meds.
Amalek????
How old are you exactly?
Family members of hostages are attempting to block aid trucks but Israel police are restraining the families and the trucks are getting through. You don’t send aid trucks when you’re committing a genocide. You don’t direct civilians to safe zones through corridors when you’re committing a genocide. You don’t take surrendering military when you’re committing a genocide. This isn’t like the Nazis and it isn’t like the Armenians. It’s just not.
The pathetic response was from Israel.. pitiful farce.. le much of the wicked distortions on ths thread.
I hope you read your comments when you’re in your right mind, Liam. That’s if you have one.
Which comments in particular stand out for you? Or would you rather just throw out vague condemnations? I’m very happy to correct or modify my comments if you can show cause.
Try this then..
https://youtu.be/6LACse017-A
The ICJ already has form for its interim climate change ruling in favour of Vanuatu in 2023, based on junk science. Now, in the present case, the ICJ is only too willing to cook evidence by allowing multiple tendentious misquotations.
So it seems the ICJ is in the business not of finding objective truth, but “moral truth” in the sense social justice activists mean: once a political group is successfully framed with coveted underdog status by activists and propagandists, the noblesse oblige elites go on to regard it as entirely ethical, even morally obligatory, to justify the claims of the underdog with fake, but “morally justified” evidence. Then objective truth doesn’t matter: all that matters is that there’s a plausible moral narrative in which a stereotypical villain (ungentrified? white? Jewish?) can well be imagined to have done such bad things to the poor victim; which is the moral truth being claimed.
By indulging in this, presumably because of its own members’ Guardianista political bias, the ICJ is behaving exactly like a star chamber.
Its just a big bureaucracy attempting to terraform planet earth to its chosen “weather conditions”.
Much like the Borg.
What utter garbage you speak!
You really shouldn’t talk to yourself
Just don’t set fire to yourself, Liam.
Maybe just go back under you bridge and think about the disrespect you show for an incredibly courageous, heroic individual.. if you have any decency left in you, which, judging by your comments seems unlikely.
Shhhhh
Just start making a case for the hostages and we might start believing you are a real person.
Well said. sir. I could not have said it better myself, and therefore, I subscribe to Unherd, so from more skilled people than I in the English language can I be benefited from. (Apologies for that last tortuous sentence).
‘What did you do when thousands of women and children were dying in Gaza, Daddy?’
‘I wrote this great article questioning the judgment of the ICJ on it’.
‘When was it published?’
‘The day after the Flour Massacre’.
“Flour stampede” would be more accurate. But as Brian Doctor has demonstrated, accuracy isn’t the purpose here.
Wait and see.. EVERY statement by Israel has proved to be a lie or at a minimum, a gross distortion.. check the facts..
Twaddle!
‘What did you do when over 1,400 Jewish men, women ,children and babies were barbarically slaughtered with multiple rapes and their bodies paraded as trophies and a further 240 taken as hostage against all known international conventions Daddy”
“I bought a rather smart looking keffiyeh and immediately proclaimed that they brought it upon themselves and should be wiped off the face of the earth.”
“When did you do that”
“The day after it happened but before Israel had even agreed upon a response”.
It is a bit startling how fast October 7 has been memory-holed.
Oct 7th. Legitimate resistance.. 400 IDF soldiers successfully killed by the Resistance. 400 Jewish civilians blown to plies by IDF tanks or strafed to deathly IDF Aoache helicopters according to Ha’aretz the ISRAELI newspaper! Another 400 taken hostages asthe ONLY way to get illegally incarcerated Palestinians freed..
Numerous fake videos and reports oàf babies beheaded, rapes etc all proved false.
Is that what you are referring to?
…but yes, for sure, some of the Hamas actions were “over the top” to coin a phrase.
Indeed. How quickly they forget.
There was no flour massacre. It was a food riot. Most were trampled. Some got too close to tanks in the war zone and got shot. Hamas could have used the riot as cover to attack tanks so the shooting was justified.
“What did you do when Hamas was destroying the lives of its people and trying to egg Iran into wiping Israel and all Jews out of existence?’ –
‘I sniped from the sidelines with virtue-signalling false equivalencies and basically flew a kite for the new sotto voce Nazis that have taken over the Western left’
“Was it stupidity or self-delusion Dad?”
“A bit of both son. A bit of both!”
“What did you do when the terrorist organization called Hamas stole millions of dollars meant to help the people of Gaza get out of poverty, but instead used the money to build a network of underground tunnels in which to hide, then attack and kill Jews, while their leaders lived, safely, in luxury in Qatar, Daddy?” (Not to mention that the three top leaders of Hamas are worth $11 billion.)
South Africa today has become such a shining pillar of the International Community that due to massive corruption and mismanagement it can’t even keep the lights on!
https://loadshedding.eskom.co.za/
Yes-they ‘ve just parachuted in the 13th CEO over a 15 year period in a vain attempt to deal with across the board blackouts of up to 10 hours a day.SA has also taken billions of “green loans” from the international community which severely restrict their ability to use fossil fuels-SA currently operates on 80% coal fired electricity.
Such a shining example of snatching defeat from the jaws of success-they are so f…..d they don’t even realise it-and yet here they are grandstanding at the ICJ on a matter which has no bearing on them.
This is the governance that they like.
It’s a bit difficult for any country to function efficiently when it has been subjected to hundreds of years of brutal colonialism, neocolonislism, exploitation, ruthless sanctions and hateful remarks from lowlife trolls. I’m Irish, I know about these things.. it took us 100 years to shake off the legacy of our brutal oppression, starvation, looting, exploitation and all the neocolonial abuses we suffered for 700 years of our brutal occupation.
Ancient history. Put it behind you.
I really am curious – how old are you? I guess I’m wanting to ask whether your mum knows you’re at the computer again….
Try this for an alternative legal opinion. Prof Ralph Wilde addressing the ICJ yesterday:
https://youtu.be/6LACse017-A
As a matter of principle, I am not a great fan of historical justifications for contemporary politics, but since history is here (not for the first or last time) being weaponised, it helps to have an antidote argumentative instrumentarium.
It’s a bit tricky to keep the racism and snide remarks going when the guy is white, English and a professor of law, isn’t it. Maybe if they attack England’s dismal economic performance in recent years that’ll help?
When someone resorts to genocide or oppression, an ignorance of thousands of years of Jewish history is on full display.
Indeed. Genocide is the hallmark of the Israelites as referenced by Netanyahu with his hayefilled Amalek vengance statement, among many other similar genocidal remarks by otjer degenerate Zionist leaders.
The West needs to abandon the UN in favor of a new institution with only nations committed to democracy.
Almost correct.. the UN needs to ditch Satanic, evil, genocidal states from its membership, ie the US, UK, Germany, France and some others.. BRICS+ is taking over and will likely ser up its own, more civilised organisations in due course. Neocolonists have no viable contributions to make to the new multipolar world order.
Hopefully you have an opportunity to enjoy their leniency.
Whose leniency?
The flaw is mainly that it’s a complete antisemitic bloody and cynical lie propagated for political reasons by western adversaries in the membership and the administrative/political commissariat that run the United Nations – and we should basically stop funding the United Nations for anything beyond immediate famine relief and direct peace keeping with blue hats…and perhaps not even that. They are taking the pi8ss. #Hamas_UN-Iran Axis of Evil
Given that he only true Semitic people involved are all Palestinians your ponts are arse about face. Israeli Zionists are Slavic Khasars, ie AskeNAZIs with not a syntilla of Middle Eastern blood.. hence DNA testing is illegal in Israel!
I don’t want to insult children of that age, but I’d say you’re about 14 years old. Does your mother know what you’re doing?
The South African government has been a sick joke for a long time.
And your evidence for that is? ..not that it isontheslightest relevant to the issue being considered.
I think its plausible that such declarations of South Africa have destabilized impressionable people into setting themselves on fire.
However, its probable that the UN actions in Gaza over the last twenty years in propping up a terrorist regime have contributed extensively in the death toll of the current conflict.
Thank you, and you as well.
Your reference to me is based on what?
That’s a major projection, Liam.
So YOU DO know what projection means!
That’s your standard response to everyone who doesn’t share you Hamasprop view of the world? It’s emotionalist, inarticulate and lame. I see why Hamas has gotten in your head.
Along with China, Russia and Iran. Our boy Liam is quite the hysterical anti-Westerner. Perhaps he should take up residence in one of the aforementioned countries, considering his eagerness to promote their agenda.
It’s a bit of an accolade to be compared to entire countries or is your English very poor? To be opposed to aspects if Western abuses is legitimate, indeed expected in a democracy. Did you know it’s the job of the opposition in a democracy to OPPOSE what it sees as wrongdoing. The values I espouse are the aligned with the majority of right thinking Christian (et sl) people. The values you espouse are Satanic, cruel, heartless and soulless. This West is MY West and I reserve the right to criticise it when it does wrong according to its ESPOSED values.
Are you a member of some bloodthirsty mob that attacks all counter views or have to been educated to consider other opinions? All indications suggest the former.
FYI I know nothing about Hamas beyond the crimes committed by SOME of their number on Oct 7th. I exclude the blatant lies (babies beheaded, rape etc all proved untrue*), the 400 legitimate targets, IDF soldiers, and the 400 murdered by IDF tank fire and Apache helicopter strafing as per the Hann8bal directive.. I got my information btw from the ISRAELI newspaper, Ha’aretz.. Maybe you should check the facts.
If you think the slaughter of 15,000 children is justified then you must be a heartless, evil, soulless empty shell where a human being once lived; are you?
I assume you mean the terrorism of the IDF? It is far more common, more brutal, more numerous, more heinous that anything engaged in by Hamas, eg child kidnapping, torture, sexual abuse, incarceration without trial, rape of women, land theft, murder, arson, home demolition etc etc etc.
I could not read this to the end – the good KC lost me when he wrote “the Court deliberately avoided considering the issue of Israel’s intention at all.”
This is a grotesque misrepresentation of the court’s ruling – in fact, one justice in his supplementary opinion expressly and specifically said that it was the incontrovertibly damning clarity of Israel’s statements of intention that moved him to vote against Israel.
Israel’s intentions – as articulated by Israel’s civic, political, and military leaders – are what condemned Israel, not Israel’s “success” in committing genocide. The genocide convention is not there to bemoan successful genocide – its purpose is to prevent genocide.
As an aside: It is a very poor argument to say that the ICJ should close its eyes to what is happening in Gaze because Israel’s actions are merely war crimes, for which the ICJ is not the proper forum.
Great comment.
Excellent point, wholly accurate.. hence its unpopularity. Most contributors here are incapable of any kind of rational thought. They are good at bloodlust, revenge, obfuscation, racism, distortion and intellectual blindness.. If you want a few uptick you could try some of those!
Judging by your own descent into child-like insult, you’re projecting….
Israel wants to obliterate the entity which, against international law, embeds itself among civilians and refuses them safe haven from inevitable retaliation, in the tunnels in which they’re hiding with the hostages they took, against international law. I hope she succeeds. The real war crimes were committed by Hamas et al in Israel, on a Jewish holiday in true Nazi fashion.
The whole ICJ farcical trial was undertaken by the ANC on behalf of Iran. Tehran has got billions invested in SA, and the corrupt pols there are eager to keep their pockets lined. So mounting a bit of theater is an easy thing to do.
The KC’s disquisition on “plausible” is masterpiece of linguistic obfuscatory prestidigitation (aka …).
What the wording of the Genocide Convention asks is: Are the accused’s leaders advocating courses of action which, if implemented as advocated, could – objectively speaking (i.e. “plausibly”) – effect genocide?
Bear in mind that “genocide” for the purpose of the Convention is not just “mass death”, but also a focus on destroying culture, places of worship, community, history, educational institutions, archives, records, everything that makes a community live.
If you can look at the statements of Israel’s leaders as documented for the ICJ, and compare that to the reality of Israel’s actions in Gaza, and not come to the conclusion that the ICJ had no choice but to rule as it did (on a 14-1 to 13-2 vote) … then you are beyond redemption.
Correct! So nice to see at least one intelligent, reasoned comment on this sad, racist thread.
Is Hamas guilty also?
That’s a red herring, especially since the inevitable question has to be “guilty of what?”
Never mind what Hamas did, there is no free pass for genocide.
The ICJ was not undifferentiated. International law is peculiar in that it prescribes legal regimes for situations which by international law should not exist. The law of war (ius in bello, now call “international humanitarian law”) is just such a case.
Gaza, it must be remembered, is still Occupied Territory under international law, and the “Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” (aka 4th Geneva Convention – emphasis mine) applies. But there’s the rub. In Gaza, the war never ended. The ICJ couldn’t order Israel to stop all military activities because that would have meant the ICJ deciding a war. That’s not in the ICJ’s remit. Genocide and war are two different things, even if they often go hand-in-hand.
Since Gaza is Occupied Territory, the population under occupation has a right of resistance against the occupying forces (i.e. the Israeli army). Two issues here – the right of resistance only allows attacks on the occupying forces themselves, not on civilians. And the Israeli army doesn’t just have to “take” attacks on it, but its response must be consistent with Israel’s obligations under the 4th Geneva Convention as an Occupying Power, which specifically and mandatorily include the obligation to protect the civilian population of the Occupied Territory to the same degree as it protects its own population.
You’ve written a lot of words, but missed the crucial one — intent.
Intent? Are you living under a rock? ‘you haven’t heard the dozens of heinous exhortations to genocidal bloodlust by the majority of Israel’s govt ministers??
Do you also get messages through your fillings?
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, you dope. Hamas attacked Israel proper, entering into sovereign Israeli territory, so your specious claims of ‘occupation’ don’t hold water.
So, in your considered opinion, what is the international law regime applying in Gaza now?
Wrong.. Israel was the fe factor occupier because of it’s blockades.. look it up dope!
It does not blockade. It only searches for weapons on incoming ships and trucks sadly unsuccessfully.
‘Never mind what Hamas did.’ That says it all right there.
That says it and International Law says it.. there is NO justification for genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, crimes against humanity.. Is that too difficult a concept fir you to grasp? One crime does not justify another crime.. not even murder!
So you’d have been there in Gaza, would you, cheering them on when they came back with the hostages? Palestinians are among the most obese in the Middle East, their birth rate is growing so there’s no genocide, and it looks as though you’ve helped me point up something @IDF is really bad at…. Thank you!
Legal bs aside, is hamas guilty of genocidal intent and actions.
No.. stated aims quoted are years out of date and numbers murdered are far, far to few. But SOME Hanas are guilty of crimes against humanity and murder.. This isn’t really complicated.. are you retarded?
Liam is right – the Hamas Declaration that is routinely referred to to justify Hamas’ “genocidal intent” is the 1988 Declaration; the now valid 2017 Declaration says in paragraph 20:
In other words, this is the two-state solution which the US has professed to believe in, but Israel has consistently rejected.
Also, it must be pointed out, a rejection of the legitimacy of the state of Israel does not automatically imply the killing of all Jews. Jews have lived in Arab and Muslim lands for centuries without being exposed to the murderous pogroms that were a feature of the Jewish experience in Christian Europe, and which were the justification for the Western Powers gifting land that did not belong to them to the Jewish people.
Jews historically were not treated equally with Muslims under Muslim rule (nor were Muslims or Jews treated equally with Christians under Christian rule); under our modern conception of human rights, such discrimination would no longer be permitted, but we in the enlightened West need to consider the beam in our own eyes before we criticise the mote in our brothers’.
Of course, denying the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not compatible with the UN Charta. But it is not genocide.
Good to know that the documentation matches the un mandate. Should allow un potentates to sleep at night. I assume oct 7 was just a jamboree gone wrong?
Google taqiyya and why it’s mandated by sharia in war, before you say any more about Hamas intent….
Well there’s a certain amount of, you are who you talk to, so it’s likely, but conveniently I know the fix.
Neither looks sounds the remotist bit like genocide, too tiny, too impossible and way too out of date.. Conversely, Israel’s 8nyent and actual Genocide is bang up to date, loud and clear and evidenced by the huge number of civiliar murders, destruction of hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, ambulances, doctors etc. There us nothing remotely like it 9n the other side.. even if there were it STILL doesn’t justify Israel’s heinous war crimes.. NOTHING can and nothing dies, legally, morally or otherwise.
Obviously there’s not a lot of interest in facts or accuracy on this platform..
You’re a prime examplar of that, aren’t you?
No, some members of Hamas (a tiny minority) are guilty of crimes against humanity.. the usual arrangement, in a civilised country, is to apprehended the guilty, try them in a court of law and punish them if found guilty*..
Hamas includes thousands of wholly innocent people, uninvolved in the Oct 7th attack. Others who were were legitimately (yes legitimately) engaging in resistance, just like resistance to Nazi Germany in occupied France, Poland etc.
None of the15,000 dead children was (a) guilty of any crime whatsoevet nor even (b) a member if Hamas.
* Not sure if you can see the subtle difference between the civilised approach (above) and barbarous, Satanic revenge and bloodlust? Can you?
I think what is happening in gaza to the civilian population is despicable. However there is plenty of guilt to go around. Using populations centres as human shields and the un allowing the terrorist group Hamas to build a tunnel system to achieve that is unconscionable. As to Israelis being demons or saints. I think they are prosecuting a war the Palestinian government started. And that’s really all there is to say about it besides, hopefully it ends soon.
Isn’t it astonishing that seemingly intelligent people cannot see what is so blatantly obvious (as you point out) that a small childc could see it ..if it was blown to pieces by USUK bombs.. and yes USUK big time!
Why does the article not state that the author was appointed as Director of UK Lawyers for Israel in early 2023? Brings into question issues of objectivity!
All you have to do is check his references and assess the truth of his article. His position doesn’t make him a liar.
Doesn’t stop him being a liar either does it? There ar many ways to lie.. obfuscation, distortion, omission, exaggeration etc. This guy missed his vocation.. the Jesus’s would be proud of him!
I’m wondering how you sleep at night, defending as you do the equivalent of Naz¡ SS killers of wholly innocent women and children.. just curious.. obviously people like you have your own ‘values’..
You’re referring to Hamas of course — the organization who proudly state they are wholly devoted to finishing Hitler’s work?
Your statement is (a) wildly out of date and (b) exactly what is proposed TODAY by the evil, child murdering, demonic Zionists.. Look up ‘projection’ in relation to psychology and you’ll see what you are doing.
No.. the Hamas doctrine you refer to is many years out of date and the genocidal intent and actions are 100% on the Israeli side.
He’s a lawyer, it’s his job to point out flaws in the oppositions argument.
Except there aren’t any.. his case is so twisted no court of Earth would consider it (except maybe one in North Korea?)
As a professional investigator I find it sad when a fellow professional sells his soul in this way.. don’t you know your complicity in this will live for 100s of years in infamy? Your reputation, assuming you ever had one, now in tatters..Sad.
Agreed. After reading Peter Haas on torture in Israel, my guess would be this guy justifies it to himself with some halachic crap about “saving Jews” – no getting through to his sort.
Yikes. You’re a professional? Scary, as you seem wholly unfitted to provide any kind of dispassionate advice. You seem far too simple minded and gullible for that. But that’s the new woke elite for you — 100% about moral performativity, which you do very well.
What’s your own ‘balanced’ take on the Naz¡ Holocaust? The Jews had it coming? The Jews wrecked the German economy? Many of the victims were masochistic?
Sometimes the findings of an investigation are utterly one-sided because the other side’s actions are utterly indefensible.. So please, let’s have your balanced report on the Holocaust
How ‘balanced’ were the reports by those who liberated the SS concentration camps? Sometimes the crimes are so huge, so heinous, so unjustified, so Satanic that a ‘balanced’ report is just not possible. But hey, if you are aware of any I’d love to read them. I do know thar all kinds of justifications were put forward by the Naz¡s but for similar reasons they were dismissed. Equally, as in this case, many lies were spread about Jews poisoning Wells etc but they too were dismissed as lies.. like beheading babies and rape etc.. Only the IDF behead babies
using bombs and sheets etc aswellaa white phosphorus, and there are several credible accounts of rape committed by the IDF including the torture and rape of children abducted and imprisoned. These heinous crimes make a ‘balanced’ report difficult.
Can you provide evidence of this? Otherwise I don’t believe a word you say.
The evidence is the swastika tattoo on his forehead.
Readers should be aware author works for an organisation called “UK Lawyers for Israel”
And?
The author provided the context to a set of out-of-context quotes, which demonstrates either ignorance or a deliberate attempt at deception by the South Africans.
Sometimes biases can uncover truth, as well as hide it. You would do well to understand that.
Perfectly reasonable to point out who funds him, the article should have done so itself.
Agreed, but UnHerd is part of UK Journalists for Israel – what can we expect from such a nutty right-wing outlet?
Anyway, I don’t like the capacious interpretation of genocide that seems popular. As Mr Hasbara KC points out, if the Israelis wanted to commit genocide, they could do so very easily. As it is, Israel has stuck to committing mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. with a view towards ethnically cleansing the population into Egypt.
Of course, the fact that Gaza isn’t genocide (yet) doesn’t change one bit the kind of viciously racist, sadistic country Israel is. Its leaders are all major criminals.
What is ‘UK Journalists for Israel”? I can find no reference to it.
Just a joke, friend.
And amazingly it has many ‘familiars’ who promote Zionist propaganda on this platform.. wrong is right, child murder is ‘defence’, evil is moral, slaughter is restraint..
I cannot recall seeing many articles with full declarations of funding from any publication.
Now it makes sense.. it seems most contributors work for “demonic supporters of genocidal Israel”.
The word ‘genocide’ is too loosely bandied about these days. I think that, a few unfortunate mishaps aside, Israel has shown enormous restraint.
I worry about the role of the South African government here. Could it perhaps be laying down the judicial framework to engage in acts of violence itself against certain demographics?
How do you reconcile “enormous restraint” with the highest child kill rate of all time, surpassing even Auschwich’s industrial murder machine. Are you sick? degenerate? crazy? or just another sucker for endless propaganda that tells us black is white, right is wrong, evil is moral and fake is true?
If you’re at all capable of doing so, google Palestinian Media Watch for its research on Palestinians’ abuse of their own children. And also search for the YouTube video of one Fathi Hamad, now in hiding in Qatar, in which he boasts that women, children and the elderly makes the best human shields. And then go away and don’t disturb the grownups who’re trying to have an adult discussion.
Demonization of Israel is the altar on which the English language’s most charged terms – Apartheid, Occupation, Colonization and now, as Brian Doctor so clearly demonstrated, Genocide – are sacrificed.
No need to demonise demons.. all those terms are 100% accurate.. only a propaganda soaked gullible, naive idiot (or co demon) could think otherwise.
100% accurate eh? Perhaps you should travel to Israel and see for yourself what a silly caricature this is. You might find many people there who are trying their best in a difficult situation and doing better than most. This would however require that you try to put yourself in their place. Given the ancient tradition of demonization of a certain group of people, this is not an easy thing to do for some, I’ll give you that.