Comment by dlubarov

3 days ago

It's not nitpicking - what the court is entirely different from what you stated (though it's understandable as a lot of sources misrepresent it).

The court can issue orders without finding any sort of violation, which is what happened in this case when they ordered Israel to "prevent genocide". It can be interpreted as a reminder to Israel of its obligations.

3 comments

dlubarov

cess11 3 days ago

Yes, it is.

States have a clear obligation to stop the genocide in Palestine. Only the mentally infirm distrust that one is ongoing. Due to rules of process and the perpetrators waging war against the court it will likely never make a sound judgement in this case.

It has, however, found reason to order Israel to take certain actions, with the express purpose of preventing genocide, which the state of Israel has refused to follow and its politicians, pundits and other prominent members of israeli society have kept declaring their genocidal intent over and over again since then.

Do you worry more about the interpretation of legal minutiae than a developing mainstream in international relations that considers genocide and other forms of indiscriminate murder permissible?

UltraSane 2 days ago

Define genocide please.

cess11 1 day ago

"Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention