You should read the ICJ ruling. Nowhere does it say that the accusation of genocide was plausible, which is why it did not order a ceasefire and demanded the unconditional and immediate release of hostages. What it did conclude that South Africa had a right to bring the case and that the residents of Gaza has a right to be protected from genocide.
Military expert in urban war have pointed out that Israel has taken more measures to avoid civilian casualties than any other military in history.
They also point out the the civilian to combatant death rate is far lower than achieved by any army in Urban war. The average ratio is 9:1. In Gaza it has been less than 2:1, even according to Hamas's obviously dodgy figures.
Given that Hamas massacred civilians indiscriminately, still holds over 100 hostages, and has vowed to repeat these attacks until Israel is eliminated, the IDF has shown admirable self-restraint.
In contrast, Hamas proudly boasts it use own its own civilians as human shields, boasting that they will be martyrs.
Hamas occupy a different moral Universe to Israel. yet you focus all your contempt on Israel.
“We call on Israel to adhere to the ICJ order. The burden now shifts to Israel, to show that it has effectively eliminated the risk of genocide that the Court found to be *****plausible****. By the time Israel reports to the Court in one month, Palestinians must have access to food, water, healthcare, and safety, that have long been denied to them,” they said.
purpose of my article was not to write (another) article on Israel, it's to show that there is an attempt to spin SAs stance as if it is doing the bidding of Iran, Russia, etc.
anyone who knows a bit about the ANC history is that they have been quiet consistent on this issue, whatever your stance on Israel is.
It is absolutely fine to support Palestinians. I have argued in their interests for decades, especially in the West Banks and as refugees in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Jordan, where they have need treated appallingly - with zero complaints from South Africa.
But when they advocate the elimination of Israel and then commit acts of extreme violence with that intent they should not be supported and defended.
The core of the Israel/Palestine conflict is the total refusal of Palestinians to accept that Israel should exist in any form and any size.
The only way to resolve this conflict is:
(1) For Palestinians to accept that Israel should exist. Then a flourishing Palestinian state can develop alongside Israel. Israel would love that. They have offered this at least 7 times, most recently in 2008.
(2) For Israel to be eliminated
(3) For Palestinians to be eliminated.
Israel an I passionately support (1), the only peaceful option.
Palestinians reject (1) and openly advocate (2).
South Africa and the ANC make no effort to persuade Palestinians to accept (1) and instead implicitly support Palestinians attempts to eliminate Israel.
Palestinians and their supporters are pressuring Israel to choose between (2) and (3).
Since Israel will never pursue (3), the result is perpetual conflict.
If you really care about Palestinians you would persuade them to follow option (1).
That is not the ICJ report. It is. press release which intentionally misconstrues the ICJ report. Read the report. The problem has been the misleading reporting of the ICJ report by people with an anti-Israel agenda. You are rapidly losing my respect as an impartial objective observer because you don't do the required research.
"25. In that Order, the Court also found that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa under the Genocide Convention and for which it is seeking protection were ****plausible****, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, "
it remains to be seen if this order will amount to anything though.
that is from the ICJ website and court ruling. The word plausible appears 4 times in the ruling. Cannot get closer to that.
Yes people are going to spin it, if you read the article to the end, you will see that I am not suggesting that the ANC is innocent on this matter at all.
Please read that sentence carefully. Is says that the rights claimed by South Africa are plausible. It's does not say that there is a plausible case for genocide. If it had concluded that it would have been bound to order a ceasefire. It did not do that.
Can you see the crucial difference. This is not just my interpretation, by the way. Legal experts concur. It would make no sense to rule that genocide was plausible and make no order other than to order Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the hostages.
The toxic and inexcusable mischaracterisation of the ICJ ruling is just the lates example of the extreme bias in the media when it comes to reporting the Israel Palestine conflict.
I expect better from you than to perpetuate this bias.
Your accusation that Israel is depriving Gaza residents of food is also misleading. Israel has been desperate to provide the food aid but in a way that ensure that it goes to civilians and is not instead confiscated by Hamas. Instead of reporting all the successful provision of food into Gaza, organized/facilitated by Israel, all that is reported are the tragic instances where these deliveries have gone wrong or when the IDF mistakenly targeted charity workers, resulting in an appalling tragedy. This really was a terrible mistake and Israel apologised immediately and sanctioned those responsible. Can you give me one example in the history of such targeting accidents where the response to the accident has been so swift and open? I can give you endless examples of such accidents where there has been zero if any admission.
There is precisely zero evidence for a famine btw, largely thanks to Israels determination to prevent one. You need to stop believing everything you read about this or find more reliable sources. Do you ever look at pro-Israeli sources?
1. I didn't say anything about food in this article?, It's worth pointing out though that even the BBC is asking questions about famine. I haven't looked at it into detail.
2. The ruling said the protections sought by South Africa were plausible (protections against genocide? against a violation of the Geneva convention?). *
One doesn't need to go into legalize to understand that.
Btw, even the Atlantic Council (NATO) tip toes around the issue.
Genocide accusations is always political, Edward Herman wrote a book on it titled "the politics of genocide". Even the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Genocide had their critiques, because of the way it was interpreted.
You should read the ICJ ruling. Nowhere does it say that the accusation of genocide was plausible, which is why it did not order a ceasefire and demanded the unconditional and immediate release of hostages. What it did conclude that South Africa had a right to bring the case and that the residents of Gaza has a right to be protected from genocide.
Military expert in urban war have pointed out that Israel has taken more measures to avoid civilian casualties than any other military in history.
They also point out the the civilian to combatant death rate is far lower than achieved by any army in Urban war. The average ratio is 9:1. In Gaza it has been less than 2:1, even according to Hamas's obviously dodgy figures.
Given that Hamas massacred civilians indiscriminately, still holds over 100 hostages, and has vowed to repeat these attacks until Israel is eliminated, the IDF has shown admirable self-restraint.
In contrast, Hamas proudly boasts it use own its own civilians as human shields, boasting that they will be martyrs.
Hamas occupy a different moral Universe to Israel. yet you focus all your contempt on Israel.
You are clearly anti-semitic.
“We call on Israel to adhere to the ICJ order. The burden now shifts to Israel, to show that it has effectively eliminated the risk of genocide that the Court found to be *****plausible****. By the time Israel reports to the Court in one month, Palestinians must have access to food, water, healthcare, and safety, that have long been denied to them,” they said.
that is the direct quote.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/gaza-icj-ruling-offers-hope-protection-civilians-enduring-apocalyptic#:~:text=The%20ICJ%20found%20it%20plausible,under%20siege%20in%20Gaza%2C%20and
purpose of my article was not to write (another) article on Israel, it's to show that there is an attempt to spin SAs stance as if it is doing the bidding of Iran, Russia, etc.
anyone who knows a bit about the ANC history is that they have been quiet consistent on this issue, whatever your stance on Israel is.
It is absolutely fine to support Palestinians. I have argued in their interests for decades, especially in the West Banks and as refugees in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Jordan, where they have need treated appallingly - with zero complaints from South Africa.
But when they advocate the elimination of Israel and then commit acts of extreme violence with that intent they should not be supported and defended.
The core of the Israel/Palestine conflict is the total refusal of Palestinians to accept that Israel should exist in any form and any size.
The only way to resolve this conflict is:
(1) For Palestinians to accept that Israel should exist. Then a flourishing Palestinian state can develop alongside Israel. Israel would love that. They have offered this at least 7 times, most recently in 2008.
(2) For Israel to be eliminated
(3) For Palestinians to be eliminated.
Israel an I passionately support (1), the only peaceful option.
Palestinians reject (1) and openly advocate (2).
South Africa and the ANC make no effort to persuade Palestinians to accept (1) and instead implicitly support Palestinians attempts to eliminate Israel.
Palestinians and their supporters are pressuring Israel to choose between (2) and (3).
Since Israel will never pursue (3), the result is perpetual conflict.
If you really care about Palestinians you would persuade them to follow option (1).
That is not the ICJ report. It is. press release which intentionally misconstrues the ICJ report. Read the report. The problem has been the misleading reporting of the ICJ report by people with an anti-Israel agenda. You are rapidly losing my respect as an impartial objective observer because you don't do the required research.
"25. In that Order, the Court also found that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa under the Genocide Convention and for which it is seeking protection were ****plausible****, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, "
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240328-ord-01-00-en.pdf
it remains to be seen if this order will amount to anything though.
that is from the ICJ website and court ruling. The word plausible appears 4 times in the ruling. Cannot get closer to that.
Yes people are going to spin it, if you read the article to the end, you will see that I am not suggesting that the ANC is innocent on this matter at all.
Please read that sentence carefully. Is says that the rights claimed by South Africa are plausible. It's does not say that there is a plausible case for genocide. If it had concluded that it would have been bound to order a ceasefire. It did not do that.
Can you see the crucial difference. This is not just my interpretation, by the way. Legal experts concur. It would make no sense to rule that genocide was plausible and make no order other than to order Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the hostages.
The toxic and inexcusable mischaracterisation of the ICJ ruling is just the lates example of the extreme bias in the media when it comes to reporting the Israel Palestine conflict.
I expect better from you than to perpetuate this bias.
Your accusation that Israel is depriving Gaza residents of food is also misleading. Israel has been desperate to provide the food aid but in a way that ensure that it goes to civilians and is not instead confiscated by Hamas. Instead of reporting all the successful provision of food into Gaza, organized/facilitated by Israel, all that is reported are the tragic instances where these deliveries have gone wrong or when the IDF mistakenly targeted charity workers, resulting in an appalling tragedy. This really was a terrible mistake and Israel apologised immediately and sanctioned those responsible. Can you give me one example in the history of such targeting accidents where the response to the accident has been so swift and open? I can give you endless examples of such accidents where there has been zero if any admission.
There is precisely zero evidence for a famine btw, largely thanks to Israels determination to prevent one. You need to stop believing everything you read about this or find more reliable sources. Do you ever look at pro-Israeli sources?
1. I didn't say anything about food in this article?, It's worth pointing out though that even the BBC is asking questions about famine. I haven't looked at it into detail.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68788140
2. The ruling said the protections sought by South Africa were plausible (protections against genocide? against a violation of the Geneva convention?). *
One doesn't need to go into legalize to understand that.
Btw, even the Atlantic Council (NATO) tip toes around the issue.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-what-the-international-court-of-justice-said-and-didnt-say-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel/
Genocide accusations is always political, Edward Herman wrote a book on it titled "the politics of genocide". Even the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Genocide had their critiques, because of the way it was interpreted.
https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/
https://www.voltairenet.org/article167972.html