> Spin this any way you like but The International Court of Justice said there is no genocide
No, it didn't, that’s simply a lie.
It said that the pleadings were sufficient plausible and that conditions present a sufficient risk of irreparable harm to warrant provisional measures against Israel. It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide.
The application for provisional measures it ruled on is analogous in the US system to a preliminary injunction, it enables the court to order measures judged necessary to prevent irreparable harm while a case is pending on the merits, and is not a ruling on the merits.
The case continues on the merits, which it would not if the court were already able to determine that no genocide took place. (And it wouldn't, in that case, order provisional measures.)
> and didn't demand a ceasefire or that Israel ends the war
This, OTOH, is true; the ICJ did not include in its provisional measures against Israel a demand for Israel to cease all military operations.
> It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide.
It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures, i.e., it does not think there is a genocide.
> It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures
False, it ruled that provisional measures against Israel were warranted and adopted four provisional measures against Israel by 15-2 vote, and two by 16-1 vote (the latter including the Israeli judge ad hoc in the majority.)
> Spin this any way you like but The International Court of Justice said there is no genocide
No, it didn't, that’s simply a lie.
It said that the pleadings were sufficient plausible and that conditions present a sufficient risk of irreparable harm to warrant provisional measures against Israel. It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide.
The application for provisional measures it ruled on is analogous in the US system to a preliminary injunction, it enables the court to order measures judged necessary to prevent irreparable harm while a case is pending on the merits, and is not a ruling on the merits.
The case continues on the merits, which it would not if the court were already able to determine that no genocide took place. (And it wouldn't, in that case, order provisional measures.)
> and didn't demand a ceasefire or that Israel ends the war
This, OTOH, is true; the ICJ did not include in its provisional measures against Israel a demand for Israel to cease all military operations.
> It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide.
It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures, i.e., it does not think there is a genocide.
Resorting to legalese isn't changing this fact.
> It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures
False, it ruled that provisional measures against Israel were warranted and adopted four provisional measures against Israel by 15-2 vote, and two by 16-1 vote (the latter including the Israeli judge ad hoc in the majority.)
2 replies →
[dead]