• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Honestly, what gives? The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.

    The ICJ order did not require Israel to take a single affirmative step other than to provide a status report on or before February 23rd, as this article mentions in the second paragraph.

    As a lawyer that as read the order, it’s you that is misrepresenting it not “western media.”

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Direct quote from: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf

      1. The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.
      2. The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
      3. The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
      4. Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

      Tell me again how you’re a lawyer who read the order lol. But we’ve seen again and again how Israel operatives lie to justify their fascist regime and their genocide.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yes the language in that first paragraph about the Genocide Convention was left out of the Guardian articl and the person above, who purported to quote the order, but at least used an ellipses to indicate the omission, unlike the Guardian.

        This part of the order (P79) refers only to killings to which are barred under the Genocide Conventions, not the mere killing of any Palestinian, which is what OP, you, and the Guardian article falsely implied.

        P79 is another good example. You’ve quoted it here presumably to argue that “see, Israel does have to take affirmative steps.” Here Israel must prosecute people for war crimes and incitement to genocide. Well, you’re ignoring the part of the order that finds Israel is already doing that, and they are.

        80 and 81, same thing. Israel is already in compliance, at least that’s what they will argue and provide evidence of in their status report due to the ICJ on February 23.

        E: If only down voting me could make your feelings about what’s in the order actually match the order.

        • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You said:

          The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.

          u/LarmyofLone then quoted the order, showing that the language they used was exactly from the order.

          Take the L, mate.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Are you dense?

            Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian’s omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.

            Obviously, that’s not what the order said.

            • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The actual text:

              Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

              The paraphrasing:

              The State of Israel shall … desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group

              It looks like the only difference here is changing “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of”, to “desist from the commission of”, which is fairly reasonable and doesn’t change the meaning, since “desist” alone can be taken to mean “refrain from” or “cease”.

              So yes, I must be dense, because I still can’t see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we’re dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                You’re still missing the key difference. Right, 78.

                This is the language that was omitted:

                In accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention,

                Israel cannot kill Palestinians in violation of the Genocide Convention. No kidding?

                That’s not the same as saying Israel cannot kill any Palestinians.

                • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Then that’s what LarmyofLone said. “Within the scope of the convention.” Why can’t you back down mate? It’ll be good for you. We all make mistakes.

                  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    Nah go back further to Larmy’s initial comment and the Guardian article linked at the top of this post. Larmy’s second post too leaves out the word “Genocide Convention” and just says “convention.”

                    Both altered the text of the actual order to make it appear as though Israel was ordered not to kill any Palestinians, and they did it on purpose to make Israel look like it is violating the order.

                    It’s always illegal by the ICJ standards to kill people in violation of the Genocide Convention. It’s not always a violation of the Genocide Convention to kill people, though. That’s a significant difference.