Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: There has never been a plausible case of Israeli genocide. [View all]OilemFirchen
(7,271 posts)30. This is pure comedy gold.
From your link:
In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: In the Courts view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.
This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was plausible.
This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.
In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.
This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was plausible.
This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.
In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.
The ellipsis in the first paragraph obfuscates that the ICJ concluded 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. That some unnamed others, including unnamed "legal commentators" declared otherwise is not exactly newsworthy, nor useful. That the "interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC" is likewise irrelevant, predictable and equally useless. In fact, all of those statements directly contradict the plain language from Joan Donoghue in the fourth paragraph, and is the thrust of this OP.
Your assertion that 'In 2024 they called the genocide claims "plausible"' is a howler and your link includes the massive punchline.
Then "In 2025, its whats called a slam dunk. The planned death camps should be a clue." Hilarious!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

UKFLI Charitable Trust? Wow, YouTube is pushing the propaganda at you.
muriel_volestrangler
Yesterday
#29
Here is the YT video for your first link. UKFLI is a front for apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.
Celerity
16 hrs ago
#48
BBC posted the clip on twitter shortly after the program aired, and it's still available on their website.
lapucelle
11 hrs ago
#50
The ICJ is only one of many legitimate authorities on the subject of genocide. I have seen a number of very plausible
Martin68
Monday
#3
I'm pressed for time and you could certainly google the topic yourself, but I'll provide a few reliable links
Martin68
Yesterday
#23
You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "authority," but this is the answer I expected. Very
Martin68
9 hrs ago
#53
You're referring back to a decision a year and a half ago, which of course ignores everything
highplainsdem
Monday
#6
Weird take that you find arguing over the deaths of a lot of people hilarious
EdmondDantes_
Yesterday
#34
Netanyahu was elected by the people of Israel to, among other things, run the military. While individual Israelis are
Martin68
Yesterday
#25
I'm old enough to remember some being chided for using "Palestine" in lieu of "Hamas".
OilemFirchen
Yesterday
#31
All the Palestinian corpses are just collateral damage and unfortunate mistakes of a "Just War".
Ping Tung
Yesterday
#28