Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Israel/Palestine

David__77

(24,189 posts)

8. It pertains to Israel's actions

Reply to lapucelle (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 01:18 PM

Apr 2024

the argument that the statement pertains exclusively to the rights of South Africans and makes no statement about the plausibility of prohibited acts committed by Israel does not hold up against the actual text. The passage clearly implicates concerns over prohibited acts being performed by Israel, as it connects these acts to the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza, which South Africa is seeking to protect. the passage is not exclusively about the rights of South Africans; it also addresses the plausibility of acts of genocide and related prohibited acts being committed

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Violet_Crumble AloeVera

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

President of IJC confirms that it did not decide that SA's claim of genocide was plausible. [View all] lapucelle Apr 2024 OP

Right. The ruling was that their right not to be genocided is plausibly being violated. David__77 Apr 2024 #1

That's exactly the takeaway that Ms O'Donaghue said was incorrect. lapucelle Apr 2024 #3

A relevant section. David__77 Apr 2024 #5

A section relevant to the right of SA to bring charges. Beastly Boy Apr 2024 #6

Yes, I know. Ms O'Donoghue explained what that the means for those who don't understand the finding. lapucelle Apr 2024 #7

It pertains to Israel's actions David__77 Apr 2024 #8

The President of the ICJ disagrees with your interpretation of the ruling she authored and released. lapucelle Apr 2024 #9

And none of their decisions pertains to plausible violations of anyone's rights. Beastly Boy Apr 2024 #11

Disagree. AloeVera Apr 2024 #13

People are free to disagree with the President of the ICJ about what she clearly says lapucelle Apr 2024 #15

I was disagreeing with you. AloeVera Apr 2024 #16

"Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected" is how Ms. O'Donoghue stated it. lapucelle Apr 2024 #17

I'll try to explain it differently. AloeVera Apr 2024 #18

I'm not sure what or why you're arguing. The Court preserved rights, as it saw fit. lapucelle Apr 2024 #19

I was debating a point I think is fair and correct. AloeVera Apr 2024 #20

I am assuming you read the summary you cited. Beastly Boy Apr 2024 #4

Not even close. It was closer to the concept of "standing" FBaggins Apr 2024 #12

Yes, another way of saying what the ICJ President said. AloeVera Apr 2024 #14

What does SHE know ? Who is she to keep college sophomores from speaking truth to power? Beastly Boy Apr 2024 #2

Here's the analog: Suppose Democracy Now! wanted to bring a case at the ICJ lapucelle Apr 2024 #10