Comment by dlubarov
4 days ago
ICJ has made no such finding. They will probably making a ruling on genocide allegations in the coming years; they certain have not made one yet. The opinions they've issued so far are here https://www.icj-cij.org/decisions
ICJ found the accusation plausible, and did later in another case conclude that the israeli occupation of palestinian land and apartheid is not lawful and must stop.
Whether ICJ had found genocide perpetrated or just plausible does not matter very much since international law demands that even the risk of genocide triggers state action to put an end to that risk. The ICJ judgement regarding plausibility also made demands towards Israel, which that state has refused to comply with.
Starving a population of millions and systematically destroying their homes and infrastructure does not become jolly fine and dandy just because some court hasn't yet deemed it genocidal.
> ICJ found the accusation plausible
This is still not accurate. What ICJ found plausible was "some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection". The then-president even clarified explicitly that the plausibility finding was about the existence of these rights, not the occurrence of genocide [1].
Noone is saying things are "jolly fine and dandy", but it's important to stick to facts when making such accusations.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o
What would the implication of this nitpick be, in your opinion?
Wasn't a consequence of this conclusion that the court ordered Israel to change its behaviour because it has an obligation to prevent genocide?
4 replies →