this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
326 points (94.1% liked)

World News

39004 readers
3026 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 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.