alt Hacker NewsFrom the ICJ doc you linked: > In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.
The doc establishes that “capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention” means “acts or measures which would be capable of killing or continuing to kill Palestinians, or causing or continuing to cause serious bodily or mental harm to Palestinians or deliberately inflicting on their group, or continuing to inflict on their group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. This is the definition of genocide.
So the court statement again but with a helpful substitution by me:
> In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be [genocide].
So the LLM is correct the ICJ has not yet issued its final ruling and also the author is correct to say the ICJ has called it genocide. And in my view you are incorrect to imply the author can’t be trusted.
Joan Donoghue, who has just retired as president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), spoke to BBC Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur about the case brought by South Africa to the ICJ over alleged violations of the Genocide Convention by Israel.
Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided 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.
She said that, contrary to some reporting, the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919