• 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.