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
There has never been a plausible case of Israeli genocide. [View all]
I've avoided this conversation for more than the past year. It's likely that this was discussed contemporaneously with the BBC interview, but that I didn't see it. At this point though, as people begin to finally realize that they've been duped by an extraordinary Iranian propaganda campaign, it would be immensely helpful if people would, at the very least, stop making the claim of adjudicated genocide... right?
The video is 1:28 long. From its description:
Interviewed by Stephen Sackur on the BBC's Hardtalk programme on 25 April 2024, Judge Joan Donoghue confirms that the Order made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, when she was its President, did not decide that there was a plausible case of genocide - contrary to some media reports.
Judge Donoghue: “You know, I’m glad I have a chance to address that because the Court’s test for deciding whether to impose [provisional] 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."
Judge Donoghue: “You know, I’m glad I have a chance to address that because the Court’s test for deciding whether to impose [provisional] 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."
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read