ICJ “didn't decide claim of genocide was plausible” nor “that there's a plausible case of genocide”
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2024
- For the past three months, Hamas apologists like Ken Roth has incessantly been tweeting that the International Court of Justice found “a plausible case of genocide in Gaza.” Yet Joan Donoghue, former president of the court who issued the ruling, says the exact opposite: that the ICJ “didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible” nor “that there's a plausible case of genocide.”
Natasha Hausdorff has been vindicated. The problem is, people don't really care.
Absolutely. Shows you just how dangerous propaganda can be..
Natasha explained well but she doesent have the same projection like bbc and al jazerras
Unfortunately, Legal language is so complex, and LOL too complex for silly journalists.
@@Illi13il yes and..also they know but decide to ajust to their audiences, wich isnt joirnalism or it shouldnt be.
Indeed, but the ICJ knew what was being said, so could have said this on the world's national news channels weeks ago.
what a horror, that could not have been communicated more clearly by the court when the media (intentionally) formulated it differently
lmao it's on purpose, russia did the same in ukraine, make stuff ambiguous and confusing so that it could mean everything you want and change at the whim
remender a big part if not the majority are siding with palestine and either way the claim itself was brough by a russian and palestinian ally
She's totally gaslighting the public. Here's a quote from Bill Burke-White, world renown international law expert.
"It is, however, significant that the Court has found it at least plausible that Israel’s actions fall within the scope of the [Genocide] Convention. That finding allows the Court to order preliminary measures and advances to the next phase of deliberation. Only through the far longer and more in-depth consideration of evidence during the merits phase of the case in the years ahead will the Court be able to reach a final decision. It should be noted that genocide is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Genocide refers to any of a series of acts - such as the killing or the transfer of children-undertaken with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” Historically, courts have struggled to prove the relevant intent, which is not just murder but a concerted policy to destroy a people as a whole. For South Africa to win this case, it will need to find and provide evidence that the Israeli government’s intent was not merely to prevent attacks such as those of October 7 or to degrade the capability of Hamas, but rather to annihilate the Palestinian people as a whole."
To read the full interview.
www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/wburkewh
clearly there is no genocide as per icj contrary to the hamas propagandists claim,
Also there was a no apartheid, no starvation in Gaza , no mass graves …
All the lies that are circulating out there ..
Oh we had the same BS in South Africa!!
And no famine.. everyone their has got more obese in the last 6 months
No mass graves either @@lunatigannie8860
@@lunatigannie8860 350,000 tons in 6 months that's about 800g of food per person per day went into Gaza.
I wish this was presented months ago.
Me too - but better late than never.
Jewish communities need to grow a pair and stop acting like victims..we have to stop being ' nice ' with these malignant haters.
@@Jouantiese killing thousands of innocent people is not ' nice '
“ the Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide “ I should hope so !
Yes. And the Jews too
@Luca_SF24 One doesn't cancel out the other. You make it sound like it does.
@irrationalreasoning6368 Let me be clear then: no one has the right to commit a genocide.
In this case though, it's clear that Israel doesn't want to commit it, while hamas does.
@@Luca_SF24 reads like you're trying to justify it to be honest. You're either genuinely ignorant of what is being perpetrated in Gaza or, alternatively, you're being disingenuous. Either way, get fucking informed.
@@Luca_SF24 If that was true then the court would have thrown out the case, which it did when Russia sued Ukraine for alleged genocide convention violations. Instead it allowed the case to move forward, and ruled several times in the intervening months that Israel failed to comply with the ordered provisional measures and finally ordered Israel to stop its invasion of Rafah. Reread section IV of the January 26, 2024 order.
"66. In view of the fundamental values sought to be protected by the Genocide Convention, the
Court considers that the plausible rights in question in these proceedings, namely the right of
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts
identified in Article III of the Genocide Convention and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s
compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention, are of such a nature that prejudice to
them is capable of causing irreparable harm (see Application of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order
of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p 26, para. 70)."
and
"70. The Court considers that the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely
vulnerable. It recalls that the military operation conducted by Israel after 7 October 2023 has resulted,
inter alia, in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical
facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale (see paragraph 46
above). The Court notes that the operation is ongoing and that the Prime Minister of Israel announced
on 18 January 2024 that the war “will take many more long months”. At present, many Palestinians
in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential
medicines or heating.
71. The WHO has estimated that 15 per cent of the women giving birth in the Gaza Strip are
likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected
to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.
72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in
the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.
73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate
the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney
General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal
offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law
enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to
remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in
the case.
74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in
the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights
found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision."
www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
Wow I'm blown away by this. Why didn't this come out earlier ?
It did. The ICJ published it in English, clearly and carefully worded. It's hard to believe that this interviewer bothered to read it.
@@n8b5 Exactly. The decision if the ICJ is freely available online in pretty readable English. Of course it requires the ability to comprehend a text to understand the decision. A skill that seems to be lacking in most people.
Well, as people have said, this information was freely available but for the media it is much more thrilling to blacken the name of Israel.
Msm cover-up
Already knew it, look for Natasha Hausdorff's explanations on the rulings. The only one that actually understands this sheet apparently.
Maybe everyone should post the link to this in the chat of every Al Jazeera video about the issue.
You can’t post links…
@@Anisky123 yes, you can. I am doing it all the time like
Muslim Scholar Tarek Fatah: "Israel was always the original land of the Jews."
czcams.com/video/YbOKDxb-u7U/video.html
@@Anisky123 I have seen them posted sometimes but yes, I think it's one of the things CZcams censors for some reason... and in the past, I've had the strong impression it censors while making it look to the poster as if the message was posted successfully; very frustrating.
This. Post it everywhere
what use ICJ Orders Israel To HALT Invasion. netanyahu and rest are having arrest warents out for them. so do you guys still claim they have done nothing? and the case is still pending. there can be a lot of cases out in the next years the moment thye can get into gaza
This happens when judges pass findings in terms that are ambivalent and is then construed by biased media to suit their own agendas. Thanks for the explanation, but the unfortunate outcome in South Africa was that an incompetent government turned the ruling into a victory that never was.
It is a victory because the ICJ did not dismiss the South Africa case and will decide whether "Israel" has committed genocide. So it's a defeat for the incompetent government of "Israel" which is why "Israeli" politicians were fuming.
I'm South African. Trust me. This so-called "victory" has had f**l-all effect on their electoral chances. No one gives a f**k about the Palestinians. Not whites. Not coloureds (apart from some Muslims). Not Indians (apart from some Muslims). Not even blacks. In fact, most South Africans are pro-Israel.
Unfortunately, even though they are still finally going to lose their outright majority for the first time after 30 years, the majority of that loss is to a splinter party, which they will almost certainly go into coalition with, anyway.
Some of us understood and we tried to explain that bbc al jazeras etc were making the most of it. People make the media their bible
Some of US...
@@michaelshapiro1543 done
Exactly and thanks for clearing that up.
You won't see this making headlines news across the world though
Right. The whole world saw the tribunal sitting down to look at the accusations. Hardly nobody saw the verdict - there were nor is none genocide done by Israel, although the palestinians have of course a legal right to be protected from genocide
@@barneydenstad2148 huh and yet ICJ Orders Israel To HALT Invasion. and yet there are arrest warents out for netanyahu etc and yet the claim of genocide has not been dealt with yet it is still pending.
it was NOT genocide
Still isn't.
and will not be.
Of course it wasn’t genocide , it was islamists lies
It is genocide
that takes years to decide. To claim some kind of justification to continue killing innocent people by the thousands based on one former judge's interpretation... you must be getting desperate.
Thank you UN Watch.
So much for the interpretations by the news media. The ICJ ruled that SA had the right to present their case of genocide against Israel, but the court did not rule there was a plausible case of genocide against Israel. That remains to be tested in court.
Someone needs to enlighten naledi oandor that this is the case. She and her merry band of ANC thieves think they were victorious in getting the ICJ to declare Israel was committing genocide. They go on and on about how I portant they were in taking Israel to ICJ. What a bunch of hasbeen losers the anc is
But if the court didn't think the case was worth looking into they would have tossed it like Israel wanted but the court didn't, did it?
@@hazaraudi7488so what? They took a look because Hamas was spewing BS like they always do, and found nothing. End of.
_"The ICJ ruled that SA had the right to present their case of genocide against Israel"_
See, you weren't listening. That's not what she said. She very clearly stated what the court order said : there is a risk of irreparable harm to the right of the Palestinians to be protected from genocide. I'll let you square that with the claim that the right of the Palestinians to be protected from genocide is at risk of irreparable harm for no reason whatsoever, and certainly not because they are plausibly not being protected from genocidal acts.
You just conveniently left out the last bit where she said the court is yet to decide where the allegation of genocide against Israel is plausible. That will be the next stage of the ICJ hearing.
Glad to have this clarity from the court itself (though it's still dubious on the validity of this case and the overall judgment process). It's very interesting how the smallest misinterpretation has such vast difference in the meaning.
Ah, so maybe you can explain to me that "vast difference in the meaning" between finding that a population's right to be protected from genocide is at risk of irreparable damage, and finding that there is a risk that said population is being the victim of genocide. I'm all ears.
What a surprise, _yet_ another genius who can't be bothered to rephrase this "vast difference." It's almost like you're all full of it. At least you're pretty honest about it, it's a lot of fun seeing you all deflect like cowards.
It is also been fun witnessing someone climbing out from the terr0r tunnels trying to lecture people. Please continue to brainwash yourself, I am sure your masters are loving the work you are doing.
Joan E. Donoghue is an American lawyer, international legal scholar, former U.S. State Department official, and former president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). I wonder why the court didn't manage to get the ruling right???
Well, tomorrow I can go to the ICJ and submit a claim that I should be protected from a genocide by Hamas. Would that mean that there is a plausible case for me to be protected for the genocide and therefore there is a plausible case of genocide by Hamas against me?
No, not because Hamas isn't genocidal, it is, and proudly, but it's a non-state actor and can't be brought to the ICJ. The ICC yes, at least I think so, and I no nothing really. My attitude about the UN is that it was a good idea but in practice it's mostly useless body populated by people and nations who don't practice what they preach.
By social activist motivated lawfare, you certianly can.
If you have the status of a nation..I think ICJ is court for Countries to bring grievances..individuals is another court
no you have misread it - they found that there was a plausible case of irreparable harm to their being protected freom genocide. That is my paraphrase, and it may be incorrect. But it is a better paraphrase that what you are offering.
@@richardmullins44it’s called losing a war that you deliberately started
So the massacre can go on ?
This is exactly the case
No one cares unless it works the blood libel angle
Also there is no apartheid in Israel, there is no starvation in Gaza , no mass graves ..
All facts !…
Correctly. In Israel everyone has equal rights. Otherwise there would be no Muslims in the Knesset. Otherwise there would be no Muslim judges administering justice in Israel's highest courts.
Apparently food isn't that important, otherwise Hamas wouldn't have destroyed the newly built quays for the relief supplies.
And who says that the IDF is responsible for these mass graves, if they exist? Hamas had to bury its opponents of the regime like the PLO or homosexuals somewhere.
😂😂. There was no Oct 7th attack either.
Yes, Mr FAFO agrees!
He is my favorite pally wood actor @@freddyrock
@@lunatigannie8860 And the starving high-fiving woman coming in on a close second place.
"The Court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genoc*de and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the Court."
The right to be protected from genoc*de is contingent? What? Is this the procedure? Should we all organize in groups and apply the Court for the right to be protected from genoc*de? And at the end it is not even certain! What makes the right to be protected from genocide certain? Just asking, that I can get the correct papers for the application!
This is the bizarro world!
And there you have a perfect example someone learning double speak within a month
Thankyou for clearing this up.
one of these things is not like all the rest ,every other case of genocide involves a large decrease in the size of the said population .In this case the population only increases in size .
Nope, not even close to true. This is public information, you and other toddlers can easily find the criteria for genocide online.
@@Bndghhjii Name another genocide , or so called genocide that does not involve a decrease in population ??? like the palestinian so called genocide .
@@Bndghhjii criteria that applies to only one group , the worlds special victims who are refugees even those living in the town they were born in which they say is a camp yet it has concrete houses not tents and now genocide but the population only increases . Its all garbage to the point of being meaningless
@@Bndghhjii the worlds special victims who get an entire un agency just for them selves , who get to attack invade murder and take hostages which they rape and torture but then don't have to pay the price in blood that every other nation on Earth would have to pay .
Even if your first claim was true (the other one is obviously ludicrous), you might want to ask yourself what *other* thing differentiates an *ongoing* genocide and *past* genocides that have been declared as such after the fact. I'm sure your two neurons can manage that one.
Thank you. I've been seeing that rhetoric going around.
Wow! So splitting hairs, as lawyers do, has become the name of the game.
What? Did they not order Israel to take serious steps to prevent genocide? Why would they do that if genocide was implausible
Indeed, they did not find that genocide was implausible either. And I wish the journalist had followed up on her explanation, because finding that there is a risk of irreparable harm to the right of a population to be protected from genocide quite clearly implies that there is a risk of genocide, otherwise the right to be protected from it would be entirely safe from any harm.
"Prevent genocide". As in "IT'S NOT HAPPENING, & YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING." Which Israel has already been taking steps to do.
@@bishnooktawak They did not find that the claim was plausible; they said that israel has to MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GET PLAUSIBLE. *Stop lying*.
Can you say that again and louder please, Owen Jones had his fingers in his ears!
Let's feed it to him - and Joe Rogan: morning, noon and night..
Are you guys stupid? You think Israel is off the hook? Why didn't the court drop the case then if it didn't think it was worth looking into?
@@Jouantiese How do these two make money?
Better yet, I invite you to rephrase it so I can better explain it to him.
Thank you for this clarification. Maybe the media won't F this up?
Impossible. They never F up. Everything they report has a particular slant for a reason.
_"Thank you for this clarification"_
Which I am sure you will happily explain for poor dumb me.
@@bishnooktawak Do I need to? Was there anything unclear to you? Your response sounds sarcastic but apologies if not.
@@AAL3087 Oh it very much *is* sarcastic. I do see that you did *not* explain anything, though. *Please* do.
@@AAL3087 Yeah, didn't think so.
Yes it was a holocaust one october 7th don't you remember 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
👍👌❤️🙏
Serious? Close to 40000 in Gaza is not a genocide, but 1100 on oct 7th is a holocaust... your head must be spinning.
An act of resistance against occupation and blocus
@@malikba8048 Only according to the terminally stewpidt & dis-onest.
@@SafetySpooon I'm proudly stupid and dishonest, so what ? I say it again and again : an act of resistance against 75 years of occupation
Thank you for the truth
Thx for posting.
Media reports that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel was “plausibly” accused of genocide are inaccurate, a former president of the main UN judicial arm in the Hague has confirmed.
The court never decided that South Africa’s claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible,” Joan Donoghue, who served as president of the ICJ from February 2021 to February 2024, said in an interview with the BBC.
Yet an avalanche of media reports and a slew of diplomats interpreted the court’s ruling that way.
the worst kind of argument - semantics
What was the outcome of the UNRWA report?
czcams.com/video/Lf-OHGcmZ4o/video.htmlfeature=shared
czcams.com/video/Lf-OHGcmZ4o/video.htmlfeature=shared
czcams.com/video/innuFti63tY/video.htmlfeature=shared
I think you'll find that the Israeli clams were found to be without merit, that is to say lies.
@@keithrobb4509 absolutely. Lies which ended up putting 5.6 million lives at risk, the number of recipients of aid from UNRWA in the region. A disgusting and unethical smear campaign.
Do you have an Amazon associates link so we can support you?
@1:14 “it did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide”
if i go take a piss it might also do some irreparable damage to something, doens't mean it will XD
I suggest you consult a urologist.
A clear case of a distinction without a difference.
Eat that Finkelstein
It's not even plausible that the dude could qualify to be a basketball player anymore, suck it Twinklestein
My god if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is sure to swim. Meaning the atrocities are on record and can be brought forward anytime. So many atrocities and still happening every day.
If Israel's actions are atrocities & genocide, why are Yemen, Syria, Sudan, etc NOT WAY AHEAD of israel in these courts?
@@SafetySpooon Not seeing is not believing. We are seeing Israel's mass murders daily... bombing defenseless, displaced people, suffering starvation and living in tents, my God! The IDF are a pitiless excuse for an army.
@@SafetySpooon Quit sidestepping the issue at hand. This case is about Israel carrying out a genocide today! now! and it needs to be stopped. This hateful woman is lying outright that the ICJ did not rule it a genocide. If that were the case the court would have dismissed it in the first place on January 26. They have now come back two additional times... in March and now in May to demand Israel cease and desist their genocidal malfeasance on the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Their intent has been clear from the first days and weeks of this war.
How can you have a "plausible right to be protected from acts of genocide" without it being "plausible that acts of genocide are in fact taking place and that you need protection from"? Would love to hear some answers to that from the followers of this channel.
"What she (Joan Donoghue) said is a flat-out, shameless and shameful lie", Norman Finkelstein reacted. Of course, one could argue with that remark, I would not.
Clear as mud. I guess that was intended.
If the icj fails at this then it will never be taken seriously ever again
lol as if warmongering middle eastern nations give 2 craps about international law XD
Thanks for letting us know that your "mind" is made up ahead of the facts being revealed.
But the High Court of Student Stupidity has decided differently.
High Court of Indoctrinated Idiocy
“the Court considers that there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights invoked by South Africa, as specified by the Court.[namely the right of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III of the Genocide Convention]” p. 6 ICJ order
The link to the interview please
Please share it for years! They did not get it!!!!! Al Jazira and othersssssss
Natasha Housedorff merit! Just get the message spreading please! This idiocy must end, and do not even mention those South Africans, at the gold of the Russians revisionists! Again they sold themselves to the one paying more... Old story!
Natasha Housedorff merit! Just get the message spreading please! This idiocy must end, and do not even mention those South Africans, at the gold of the Russians revisionists! Again they sold themselves to the one paying more... Old story!
So what did _you_ get from what she said, exactly?
Nothing that somebody with Palestinian flag can understand
@@aroncristellotti4540 What a surprise. Thanks for confirming your own idiocy.
👍🏻👍🏻👏🏼🇮🇱💙🫰🏻
How the hell is finding that "there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible right of Palestinians to be protected from genocide" *not the same* as finding it plausible that the Palestinians are being the victims of a genocide?
Because so much of the legal world has turned into tricking and loopholes to finagle and deceive. Of course in a legal system that is not corrupt all of this would be considered in violation of the spirit of law
Sorry, I can read simple English to you, but I can't understand it for you.
@@SafetySpooon 🥱
I think the only flaw with the January 26th provisional measures decision is that too many people thought it was some kind of final decision. As we all know, it was not. The case was brought before the ICJ by South Africa under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. If the plausible rights of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected against genocide were plausibly at risk, that could only be the case if Israel were plausibly committing said genocide. More simply put; you simply cannot have a plausible victim without having a plausible assailant.
_"You know, I'm glad I have a chance to address that."_
Yes, because you didn't have *any* way to address it publicly for 3 months.
Why can't I find the full interview by the bbc in youtube?
Because it's much better when UN Watch selects the bit they want to push their agenda.
@@bishnooktawak send me the whole video will you? I couldn't find on bbc website either
@@bishnooktawak I’m sorry that a court ruling doesn’t agree with your feelings :(
@@user-sn3uo8vq8u I don't have it either, sorry.
@@roomtemperaturewater8703 I think you're very confused as to what that court ruling says. Hint: it doesn't agree with _your_ feelings.
This whole charge makes no sense
And now the other side will run with it and interpret this as if the court ruled it's not a janoside, which it did not.
Well, well, well.
I would have to watch the whole interview to give a proper response but if the whole interview basically amounts to what it is said in this video then nothing changes here.
To me the two descriptions given still lead to the same point.
It's only going to get worse for you Israel. As more and more evidence mounts against you in Gaza and the West Bank.
The majority of the world is with the Palestinian cause and the people supporting it keeps growing.
Netanyahu even has his lickspittle US senators threatening the ICC Chief Proscector, the ICC itself and South African Foreign Minister with consequences if they took up a case against Netanyahu and members of his cabinet. Like thugs chasing up a debt.
The US wants rid of Tiktok now to hide what's going on in Gaza.
I don't know what it's going to take for you to say that I'm on the wrong side of history but if the last 7 months won't then nothing ever will. You are lost.
God bless those Jewish kids at the universities protesting for Palestine!
God Bless South Africa and long live Palestine! 🇿🇦 🇵🇸
Can’t wait to see how this video ages
What a liar! She's twisting it now.
I'm shocked that the BBC published that interview. I would have assumed they would have buried very quickly.
0:32
The court’s test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility. But the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant in this case, South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well. But it 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. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears which is that “there’s a plausible case of genocide” isn’t what the court decided.
She is liar.
What is her name? I'm trying to find this video on ig
I’m struggling to understand the difference between Israel being plausibly guilty of genocide and Israel plausibly causing the right of Palestinians to be protected from genocide irreparably harmed? They sound the same to me but it was an awfully good effort this lady made to dance her language around the truth.
What the hell does that even mean? Mental gymnastics much?
Yes , and also its called hypocrisy
Why aren't media companies correcting their articles???
If you mean the propaganda that ICJ had ruled that I. didn't commit a genocide which was reported everywher, yes I agree.
I am going to spam this everywhere....
First things first...How about ruling on what happened on October 7th last....?
Stop whining. If noone cares what zionazis have done to Palestinians over 75 years, wtf should anyone care about you oct. 7?
I don't see a point in her interpretation, it sounds ridiculous to say someone has 'Plausible rights', when the genocide convention itself asserts the rights of all groups against acts of genocide. The only thing that can be plausible is the risk of genocide itself, the rights of protection are always asserted for all groups under the convention.
Norman Finkelstein's reaction to Joan Donoghue's clear misinterpretation of facts: "What she said is a flat-out, shameless and shameful lie".
You must be tone deaf. Listen to the tape. It's the lady saying it, not me. Listen to the last part when she is correcting the media. She was one of the judges who made the decision. The finding of genocide against Israel is not going to be in a few court hearings. It will take months, probably years, to go thru the evidence before any reasonable court can arrive at a decision. The first part of the case was to decide whether or not to go forward with the hearing. Now that that decision has been made, the next stage is to listen to the evidence.
What a lot of nonsense. She is recanting
Someone needs to tell NPR stat
Wow, and no one knows this, why?
What would you expect from an American official except backing from their initial position. Biden did it when he defined imaginary red lines and judge Donoghue just did it again
Well, she will certainly be excluded from the list of sanctionable lawyers of the ICC and ICJ.
Bla bla bla.... Where are THE HOSTAGES ????????
Stupid interpretation of the ICJ ruling. Israel's actions in Gaza did not infringe on the Palestinian right to be protected from Genocide.
Rather, South Africa proved that Israel's actions were, inter alia, putting Palestinian civilians at risk of being destroyed in whole or in part.
She's been paid off.
Well, thanks for nothing for explaining that now, when no one really cares, and it's been presented and distorted as a complete blood libel!!!! Maybe you should have phrased your resolution with a bit more clarity and responsibility!!!!
To be fair, it wouldn't matter how clearly it was worded. The media will report what they want - true or not.
@@superdavies5548 I disagree. A clear language like "we see no evidence of genocide happening" would have been very hard to distort.
@@msinbalony you obviously have a faith in the media that I don't. If the last 6 or 7 years have taught me anything, it's that the media are well capable of not just reporting untruths, but of completely fabricating content to suit the story they want to present.
@@msinbalony Except "we see no evidence of genocide happening" is absolutely not what she or the court order said. Sorry, Israel is still very much committing genocide, and the ICJ still has very much found merit in SA's case.
@@bishnooktawak
"Sorry, Israel is still very much committing genocide".....
So, you've transported yourself into the future, reviewed the ICJ case, and already know its result although the judges haven't made it yet themselves, and have hundreds if not thousands of hours in front of them of reviewing testimonies and evidence. Wow. Dear almighty God. I've been waiting all my life to meet you, God, didn't think you would appear as a human called bishnooktawak.
Maybe you should start with studying the genocide convention, and its definition of genocide. Then maybe you should study the facts of Israel's campaign in Gaza. And by that I mean, actual facts from reliable sources, not your TikTok feed courtesy of Hamas and Iran's well oiled distortion and fabrication machine.
Is she backtracking?
No. She's elaborating upon the January ruling. The January ruling says much the same thing. But hamasniks constantly ignore and lift things out of context with uninformed conclusions about the meaning of the ruling.
Here's what the court ruled: The court ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza. "At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said. The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there. Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said. So stopp muddying the waters BBC the ICJ knows what it is doing as does Israel and it's supporters who are ignoring the ICJ's ruling whilst SA presents it's case.
There's no genocide, that's obvious.
Well rewatch the video again. That’s not what the ICJ was saying. It also said that Hamas must immediately release all the hostages, but have they done this? Of course not. So they’re ignoring the ICJ as well.
@@davep4240 my response was as reported by Reuters, the ICJ said more than was covered in the video as you know because the ICJ did ask for the release of the hostages which was also not in the video. That though is unlikely to happen whilst Israel insists even if the hostages are released they will not stop the genocide.
Her words seem selective to muddy the waters more. On purpose.
@@mdj9765 I don’t call it a genocide. It’s war and war is ugly and messy.
Is UN Watch produced in Israel?
It looks like , what a shame
Joan Donoghue is flat out lying here.
And yet, UN Rapporteur Francesca Albanese indicated that there was 'reasonable grounds' genocide is being committed in Gaza..
You can grab a look at her report at the UN news website via the article, "Rights expert finds 'reasonable grounds' genocide is being committed in Gaza."...
And of course, we have the list of war crimes that have been committed by Israel..
Albanese is married to a Palestinian. Her opinions are known and she's not an impartial factor here. She's entirely one sided. Plus, what makes her an authority on whether genocide is happening? it seems like no one knows what genocide means anymore. The UN, which consists of mostly non democratic, totalitarian, oppressive countries, is hardly what I would call a beacon of neutrality and impartiality. Wake up to the bias and the hypocrisy. The UN has Iran in charge of the Human Rights committee. A country that murders women who don't cover their hair. So naive.
Sackur sh#t got his backside handed to him.
It is incredible how quick and easy propaganda can spread.
Many folks just need look words up before they use them so freely. Genocide is a very weaponized word as of late. It's what happened to a number of American Indian tribes and attempted with many other tribes. Extermination is not what is happening in Gaza. The attempt to eliminate a political group within another group is also not genocide by any stretch of the meaning.
It's born from the Left. They never have an argument. They just shout genocide, racist, bigot, Nazi, fascist, hater or make absurd accusations of a phobia. The Left use the tactic of - say something often enough until it becomes accepted truth. Every Muslim and Leftist across the world is shrieking "genocide" ceaselessly regardless of any facts.
Oopppppsss!!!!
So people have a right to not be victims of a genocide, thanks for clearing that up. How is the fact that a people have a right to protected even a argument. Is this a joke?
What a weak statement. I am so disappointed in the international community. I just don't know what else to say anymore.
_"How is the fact that a people have a right to protected even a argument."_
It's not an argument if there is no plausible actual threat to that right. The distinction she draws makes no sense to me.
Playing with words to not say the truth "israel is number 1 criminal of the world , and its killing every things moving every day "
Freedom for Palestine 🇵🇸
Define Palestine.
If you are going to use stats, then good-old Wiki can name all pertinent events from 1948 all the way to 2021. And you can see for yourself that many more than 8,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis and only by the Israelis themselves.
In July 1995, Serbs committed the largest massacre in Europe since World War II in one such area, Srebrenica. An estimated 23,000 women, children and elderly people were put on buses and driven to Muslim-controlled territory, while 8,000 “battle-age” men were detained and slaughtered.
Why 8,000? Exactly what I have just quoted from a Google search - you can call it a mass slaughter/killing or whatever. It doesn't change numbers or history.
What are we talking about here? Easily over 50,000 Palestinians have been killed now from 1948 through 2024, specifically some 24,000 as the lower-bound figure by the Israelis prior to 10/7/2023.
And now with this onslaught, the "Hamas" figures point to possibly another 30,000+ dead with an unknown figure for those under the rubble - Hamas or not Hamas which is only some 30,000 members itself. The number of Hamas dead is nowhere near 30,000 so that means non-combatants are the bulk of the figure which of course you would say are Hamas supporters are dead.
If I go now and take 76 years as the period, it will average every year about 7,00 Palestinians killed per year for 76 consecutive years - by the Israelis only and not mentioning all other events with other Arabs (of course the Palestinians bear responsibility in those events as they do with those involving the Israelis). That gives you some perspective on the whole situation - and that is only figures.
Now, what about all the practices Israelis engage in, which every single one of them Israelis will deny? 1) Collective punishment is used, and we know this because detained Palestinians have already voiced and shown injuries as ordinary non-combatants not affiliated with Hamas (construction workers, etc.). They were beaten with metal pipes and other objects, as well as being tortured in other ways severely hurting their hands and feet, amongst other body parts - to name a few regular practices.
2) Administrative detention: unlawful imprisonment/detention of Palestinians without formal charges being brought forth and no idea of where their loved ones might be to say the least. No trial would be given in every one of these cases, all under the "assumption" of terrorism. And the evidence? Oh, they don't need to show the world that, it's Israel after all.
3) Shooting clearly unarmed Palestinians which is unlawful. How many have been shot clearly in the head by snipers, alone? Remember that lady, Shireen Abuakleh, veteran Palestinian-American journalist killed by an Israeli sniper? The Israelis flat-out denied that for days, if not weeks, and then we found out that of course they lied about it. Why on Earth would Hamas have killed her? And, what happened to the sniper? Absolutely no charges.
What about the foreign aid workers in Gaza, essentially all Westerners (7 people)? A slap on the wrist with no jail time, I'm sure. The perpetrators deserve the death penalty, there is no excuse for 3 separate attacks killing all the aid workers.
What about the Lebanese army soldier that died earlier on following 10/7? Yes, that is not the only person to die in Lebanon that has absolutely nothing to do with Hamas. I'm sure that person was Christian, that very much affiliated Hezbollah member. And the consequences? Absolutely nothing, not even an apology.
4) Israeli troops beating unarmed Palestinians in broad daylight, supported by the local Israeli police, and sometimes even the Israeli settlers. That is 100 % illegal.
So the next time you'd like to trivialize this situation in the Mideast, the next time you will look like a fool.
Terezin was an artists colony.
I don't think you read and understood what I said.
Woman is twisting words.
The fact is that the South African claims of genocide have not yet been decided upon by the ICJ, they did however decide that some of the actions by Israel can under the terms of the Genocide Convention and they did rule that Israel should undertake certain measures, which they had declined to do until recently when they complied with some of them.
Any reasonable person would, from the statements to date, by the ICJ that at the very least Israel has a case to answer and that it is therefore plausible that their actions constitute Genocide.
Who knew, everyone with the ability to think without a biased dislike of Jews.
If the ICJ had indeed said that that the claim a genocide is going on is plausible, then the judges of the ICJ should be sent to jail because they didn't impose any measures against that genocide other then saying Israel should keep following the law.
@@ef2718 They did say to Israel to follow the law. And Israel refused. People will go to jail but it won't be the judges from the ICJ.
@@Bndghhjii oh yeah showing in court is refusing to follow the law XD
@@pedronabais1456 what? English please.
There's no way to go back, we all heard the same thing !
She doesn't have the right to talk to media about an undergoing case !
Shame on this former judge and Shame on you UN !
Jane Hathaway is still alive!
When a population of a group increases from 1.98 million in 1990, to 5.04 million in 2022 (a 155% increase over 32 years) it’s not a genocide. This kind of growth rate indicates a balance between both birth and death rates, as well as migration.
Only 1 person likes that. If you are going to use stats, then good-old Wiki can name all pertinent events from 1948 all the way to 2021. And you can see for yourself that many more than 8,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis and only by the Israelis themselves.
In July 1995, Serbs committed the largest massacre in Europe since World War II in one such area, Srebrenica. An estimated 23,000 women, children and elderly people were put on buses and driven to Muslim-controlled territory, while 8,000 “battle-age” men were detained and slaughtered.
Why 8,000? Exactly what I have just quoted from a Google search - you can call it a mass slaughter/killing or whatever. It doesn't change numbers or history.
What are we talking about here? Easily over 50,000 Palestinians have been killed now from 1948 through 2024, specifically some 24,000 as the lower-bound figure by the Israelis prior to 10/7/2023.
And now with this onslaught, the "Hamas" figures point to possibly another 30,000+ dead with an unknown figure for those under the rubble - Hamas or not Hamas which is only some 30,000 members itself. The number of Hamas dead is nowhere near 30,000 so that means non-combatants are the bulk of the figure which of course you would say are Hamas supporters are dead.
If I go now and take 76 years as the period, it will average every year about 7,00 Palestinians killed per year for 76 consecutive years - by the Israelis only and not mentioning all other events with other Arabs (of course the Palestinians bear responsibility in those events as they do with those involving the Israelis). That gives you some perspective on the whole situation - and that is only figures.
Now, what about all the practices Israelis engage in, which every single one of them Israelis will deny? 1) Collective punishment is used, and we know this because detained Palestinians have already voiced and shown injuries as ordinary non-combatants not affiliated with Hamas (construction workers, etc.). They were beaten with metal pipes and other objects, as well as being tortured in other ways severely hurting their hands and feet, amongst other body parts - to name a few regular practices.
2) Administrative detention: unlawful imprisonment/detention of Palestinians without formal charges being brought forth and no idea of where their loved ones might be to say the least. No trial would be given in every one of these cases, all under the "assumption" of terrorism. And the evidence? Oh, they don't need to show the world that, it's Israel after all.
3) Shooting clearly unarmed Palestinians which is unlawful. How many have been shot clearly in the head by snipers, alone? Remember that lady, Shireen Abuakleh, veteran Palestinian-American journalist killed by an Israeli sniper? The Israelis flat-out denied that for days, if not weeks, and then we found out that of course they lied about it. Why on Earth would Hamas have killed her? And, what happened to the sniper? Absolutely no charges.
What about the foreign aid workers in Gaza, essentially all Westerners (7 people)? A slap on the wrist with no jail time, I'm sure. The perpetrators deserve the death penalty, there is no excuse for 3 separate attacks killing all the aid workers.
What about the Lebanese army soldier that died earlier on following 10/7? Yes, that is not the only person to die in Lebanon that has absolutely nothing to do with Hamas. I'm sure that person was Christian, that very much affiliated Hezbollah member. And the consequences? Absolutely nothing, not even an apology.
4) Israeli troops beating unarmed Palestinians in broad daylight, supported by the local Israeli police, and sometimes even the Israeli settlers. That is 100 % illegal.
So the next time you'd like to trivialize this situation in the Mideast, the next time you will look like a fool.
@@user-rn7hv7of1b I’m sorry I did not read all your propaganda. And the one like is more than I expected on an Islamist ridden comment section. Just today the BBC has come up with a video disputing the number of casualties reported by Hamas. Going by your name I’m not surprised you want to believe all the stuff you’ve written. Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. I’ll stick with the ACTUAL facts and not propaganda.
@@user-rn7hv7of1b and next time you hyperbolize your lies, you’re going to reveal the J hadi mindset you have.
@@user-rn7hv7of1b can’t handle the truth, can ya?
@@LitLotus What truth? Do not put words in my mouth. You used one statistic for a much larger blanket statement. Yes, I can't handle your stupidity.
You're basically condoning the killing of Palestinians and if you are not, you have no facts as counterexamples.
When a population of a group increases from 1.98 million in 1990, to 5.04 million in 2022 (a 155% increase over 32 years) it’s not a genocide. This kind of growth rate indicates a balance between both birth and death rates, as well as migration.
That's exactly what you just said. So, explain to me what these numbers mean. In 1990 as your reference point, the Israelis numbered 1.98 million? How so? Ok, I will take that number. Then they allowed immigration, birth/death rates at what cost over these 32 years?
Explain to me how this is any different than the Manifest Destiny idea? Explain to me how immigration allows for illegal occupation and stealing of land - killing of Palestinians. Google said that 3,300 years ago Israel existed so it's not land theft. The entire world is wrong to say settlements are illegal.
Yes, I'm so convinced. Thank you so much for your one sentence answer as you would completely fail a critical thinking course - 101.
Who puts those annoying flashing captions on these videos? I don't think too many 5-year olds watch them.
Well said ICJ,WE LOVE ISRAEL,AND PRAY FOR THE PEACE OF JERUSALEM
It was a con job
Absolute COW. 💯 % This is what amou T's to an intelligent individual. The world is DOOMED.
... poor you, can't understand a word, so you attack the messenger.
@@louisavondart9178 So she said we decided that the people in Gaza have the right to not be killed in a genocide? Are you really taking what she said seriously. It's not even what the statement from the court said, it is like she is doing everything she can, to not accuse Israel of genocide, but if this was Russia, or some other country, would she make this amount of effort to not offend them.
Her words are ridiculous.