Israeli Air Strikes Leave 32 Dead in Gaza

13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

What's your point? The plausibility statement was not a finding nor a judgement. It was a statement that the allegations were plausible and that a case could proceed.

So they have a case that Israel action was genocide. That’s a great point.

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

So they have a case that Israel action was genocide. That’s a great point.

No, you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the proceedings.The Court did make any rulings. South Africa brought a case, and offered preliminary information that met the basic requirements to file a case. It is relatively easy to support a claim of the possibility of a violation, because the burden of proof is set quite low. It is not the same as finding a party to be guilty of an illegal act. Being accused of a crime does not mean that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

10 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

No, you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the proceedings.The Court did make any rulings. South Africa brought a case, and offered preliminary information that met the basic requirements to file a case. It is relatively easy to support a claim of the possibility of a violation, because the burden of proof is set quite low. It is not the same as finding a party to be guilty of an illegal act. Being accused of a crime does not mean that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

ICJ concluded that the case was plausible that meant it is likely to be true.

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”

31 minutes ago, JimCM said:

You don't half have blinkers on, wake up. Listen to some experts

As is your fashion, you have dumped a subject item, that does not support a statement that Iran is not a supporter and principal backer of Hamas. John Mearsheimer's opinions on the subject are self serving and are not shared by actual experts on terrorism. It is fascinating how you are so adamant in your defense of the barbaric and brutal Iranian regime.

34 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

ICJ concluded that the case was plausible that meant it is likely to be true.

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”

The people making the conclusion were those who wanted to claim a genocide. If the court had found that the claim of genocide was likely to be true, it would have stated that clearly.

20 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

In early 2024, the ICJ ruled it plausible that Israe;'s actions could infringe the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Do also remember that the prime minister and his buddy have international ICC warrants out for their arrests on charges of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

And now they're back to massacring homeless women and children en masse.

No one cares about Gaza any more. Trump has brought 'peace' to the region. 😠