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
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)There has never been a plausible case of Israeli genocide. [View all]
I've avoided this conversation for more than the past year. It's likely that this was discussed contemporaneously with the BBC interview, but that I didn't see it. At this point though, as people begin to finally realize that they've been duped by an extraordinary Iranian propaganda campaign, it would be immensely helpful if people would, at the very least, stop making the claim of adjudicated genocide... right?
The video is 1:28 long. From its description:
Interviewed by Stephen Sackur on the BBC's Hardtalk programme on 25 April 2024, Judge Joan Donoghue confirms that the Order made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, when she was its President, did not decide that there was a plausible case of genocide - contrary to some media reports.
Judge Donoghue: You know, Im glad I have a chance to address that because the Courts test for deciding whether to impose [provisional] measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well, but it did not decide and this is something where Im correcting whats often said in the media it didnt decide that the claim of genocide was plausible."
Judge Donoghue: You know, Im glad I have a chance to address that because the Courts test for deciding whether to impose [provisional] measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well, but it did not decide and this is something where Im correcting whats often said in the media it didnt decide that the claim of genocide was plausible."
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

UKFLI Charitable Trust? Wow, YouTube is pushing the propaganda at you.
muriel_volestrangler
Tuesday
#29
Here is the YT video for your first link. UKFLI is a front for apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.
Celerity
Wednesday
#48
BBC posted the clip on twitter shortly after the program aired, and it's still available on their website.
lapucelle
Wednesday
#50
The ICJ is only one of many legitimate authorities on the subject of genocide. I have seen a number of very plausible
Martin68
Monday
#3
I'm pressed for time and you could certainly google the topic yourself, but I'll provide a few reliable links
Martin68
Tuesday
#23
You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "authority," but this is the answer I expected. Very
Martin68
Wednesday
#53
The issue is what consititutes genocide, which is a legal question, as it is a war crime.
SunSeeker
Wednesday
#56
No, genocide as a concept is not only a legal question. You have chosen to limit your consideration of the term to
Martin68
Thursday
#58
Legal definitions control this issue. Making definitions up renders words meaningless.
SunSeeker
Thursday
#59
You're referring back to a decision a year and a half ago, which of course ignores everything
highplainsdem
Monday
#6
There is no legal definition of ethnic cleansing. It is not recognized as an international crime. The only difference
Martin68
Wednesday
#55
Weird take that you find arguing over the deaths of a lot of people hilarious
EdmondDantes_
Tuesday
#34
Netanyahu was elected by the people of Israel to, among other things, run the military. While individual Israelis are
Martin68
Tuesday
#25
I'm old enough to remember some being chided for using "Palestine" in lieu of "Hamas".
OilemFirchen
Tuesday
#31
All the Palestinian corpses are just collateral damage and unfortunate mistakes of a "Just War".
Ping Tung
Tuesday
#28