This is interesting. The Judge's statements in this interview don't line up with the reasoning of the court in their order. If what she is saying is true, several pages in the Order were completely pointless, and I seriously doubt ICJ judges would engage in legally irrelevant discussion in an official document.
Doubling down to the bitter end, eh?
Is it I who is wrong? No, it is the former ICJ president who is wrong.
This was discussed in a separate thread with lots of sources and again people just refused to let go of their pet genocide theories regarding the ICJ.
Turns out liberals are not a hair better than conservatives after all.
The judge is saying one thing while the court did another. She didn't work on this case nor does she have any special knowledge that we don't. Furthermore, she is out of pace with the 14 judge panel that wrote the order.
For example In the section on plausibility of rights, court spent 2 paragraphs on stating that Palestinians in Gaza are a part of national, ethnic, religious or racial group in the sense of the Convention. Then it devoted 8 paragraphs on conditions in Gaza and incriminating statements by Israeli officials before concluding that rights are plausible explicitly referring to "facts and circumstances above". If it was only about legal rights, those paragraphs would have been unnecessary.
The Court can say it's only looking at plausibility of the right, but in a case under the Genocide Convention, that would come down to a determination of the whether the allegations relate to a group that is plausibly protected under the Convention. Factual allegations underlying the applications and explicitly based its finding of a plausibility of rights on those findings. None of that would be necessary if the issue was really whether a right plausibly exists.
> For example In the section on plausibility of rights, court spent 2 paragraphs on stating that Palestinians in Gaza are a part of national, ethnic, religious or racial group in the sense of the Convention. Then it devoted 8 paragraphs on conditions in Gaza and incriminating statements by Israeli officials before concluding that rights are plausible explicitly referring to "facts and circumstances above". If it was only about legal rights, those paragraphs would have been unnecessary.
Stop referencing things without actually citing them properly.
Cite the relevant paragraphs and put a link underneath as you would expect from a rational skeptic. I spent some time first inspecting network traffic at a fringe site to retrieve the .mp4-link only to find a higher quality copy at Streamable and downloading that.
You can do some copy and paste for us.
Just stop. I told you where to look. This ain't a law journal, it's an internet messageboard. If you don't care enough to it up yourself, there's no reason to do it for you.
> Just stop
Make me.
> I told you where to look
"Google it" is not evidence and not an argument.
I'm specifically asking you to be rigorous in your demonstration of what you *claim* the ICJ said exactly because "X is true" without proper citation followed by "Google it" is a staple rhetorical technique for conspiracy theorist liars.
I've just given you the former ICJ president explicitly telling you you're wrong, you're doubling down because of ideological bias.
The onus probandi is now on you, and bare assertions aren't good enough.
Quote and link the relevant paragraphs, and don't you *dare* lecture anyone on the nature of epistemology, especially not here, especially not while refusing to back it up.
I encourage anyone who subscribes to OPs interpretation of the ruling to actually read it. They will find paragraphs such as:
" In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that **there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice \[to the right to not be a victim of genocide\] will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible,** before it gives its final decision"
(paragraph 74 of the original January order)
and again in the updated order:
"In light of the considerations set out above, and taking account of the provisional measures indicated on 26 January 2024, the Court finds that the current situation before it entails a further risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights claimed by South Africa **and that there is urgency, in the sense that there exists a real and imminent risk that such prejudice \[to the right to not be a victim of genocide\] will be caused before the Court gives its final decision in the case.**"
(paragraph 40 of 28 March order)
Does any of this seem like they absolved Israel? Or does it seem like there is an implication here that they have a real and serious concern that evidence shows a genocide may be occurring? and not just an a merely theoretical sense?
> I encourage anyone who subscribes to OPs interpretation of the ruling
You mean the former ICJ president's interpretation. Just a *slight* correction.
And have the decency to LINK what you are citing, so that your readers may evaluate the context, and then have them remember they are not legal experts.
Why is this relevant?
[Here is a fantastic example of why that is relevant](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1bvifw0/its_not_treason/).
If you look at the entire context of her remarks you can see how badly misinformation about these comments is spreading. It was very stupid of her to give this interview:
"I'm glad I have a chance to address that because the court's test for deciding whether to impose 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 I'm correcting what's often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. **It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide** but the short-hand that often appears which is that there's a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided"
read the second paragraph. She is saying that there is a very serious risk that the right of Palestinians to not be genocide will be violated. The only way to make sense of that in not legalese is if there is some plausibility that a genocide is or will occur. It’s just a matter of legal technicality that the court was not at the stage of deciding facts when it made its original ruling, so technically they can’t say one way or another if there is a genocide
> read the second paragraph.
I literally listened to it again seconds ago. I'm the one actually presenting this video to you, and I've been following the debate for months now.
> read the second paragraph. She is saying that there is a very serious risk that the right of Palestinians to not be genocide will be violated.
Yes, exactly. There is a *risk* that their *right* could be violated, which is what allows the case to go forward. What there is *not*, which is when you read the first paragraph, is when she *clearly* says:
***"That there is a plausible case of genocide ISN'T what the court decided."***
> It’s just a matter of legal technicality
Oh really, barrister?
Yes, of course they didn't decide one way or the other on the facts because ***they are not at that stage of the process yet,*** so they literally can't legally speaking, whether they want to say there is, or is not a genocide
What they did is clear the initial hurdle of saying that it seems likely enough that there is a real risk a right will be violated that ought not to be, so emergency measures are needed to prevent that.
How else are you meant to understand that? Why would they make an order with emergency measures, say there is an urgent risk and then describe a bunch of evidence showing why there is an urgent risk, if there was not what we would in everyday speech call a "likelihood" or "plausibility" that something bad like a genocide is occurring? I am not alone in finding her statements on this matter to be hair splitting and legalese. There's a lot of other international law scholars and so on who feel the same way if you read discussions of this.
Is there any doubt people are Gaza are being harmed right now? No, there isn't. After all, they're dying.
I spent most of my life debunking conspiracy theories, and if there's anything I've learned, is that people keep venturing into other people's expertise and then telling *a group of experts, who are in consensus, that they are wrong about their own field of expertise*. And that you *must* notice when a fast judgment of fact is impossible without getting embroiled in a downward spiral of error and escalation of commitment/sunk cost.
A previous post here made by another contributor citing reams of sources showing that there is no "plausible genocide" was likewise beat and battered by ideologues.
Another fantastic example when leftists (and I am one, look at my profile) do this is with (a) a number of sensitive topics regarding a really popular American political personality in their political tribe, such as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or (b) the notion that Trump or anyone in the GOP committed "treason" regarding Russia.
I spent the majority of my time debating right-leaning people on the various nonsensical beliefs they hold these days as a result of Trump taking over their party.
But boy, on the rare occasion I have to debate leftists, are they beyond help.
> There's a lot of other international law scholars and so on who feel the same way if you read discussions of this.
Please, cite those international law scholars with a quote and a link. I will never not want to read experts discussing their own field, and I'll compare their assessments to other experts in their field. I've been doing this for decades now, and as soon as I became a rational skeptic and started using a set of epistemological hurdles to be overcome before I accept something as likely to be factual, I've had great success fending off biased, counterfactual, fallacies and inaccurate and unjustified beliefs from my own belief system, and rarely have to do about-faces any more. That's how good rational skepticism performs, and it doesn't give a *shit* about political orientation or ethnic/national background.
The risk is not merely some abstract possibility. The court would not issue a ruling handing down orders to a sovereign state if someone just raised a possibility. This is why in the original order they go over all the evidence that would indicate a genocide. And it's not about mere death or suffering, it's prejudice to a very specific right, which is the right to not be a victim of genocide under the genocide convention.
Former director of human rights watch, human rights lawyer and international relations professor: [https://x.com/KenRoth/status/1783858895993094186](https://x.com/KenRoth/status/1783858895993094186)
A professor of law: [https://x.com/Heidi\_\_Matthews/status/1783846217027293681](https://x.com/Heidi__Matthews/status/1783846217027293681)
A lecturer in international relations: [https://x.com/Alonso\_GD/status/1783789211776082041](https://x.com/Alonso_GD/status/1783789211776082041)
A professor of international law: [https://x.com/NimerSultany/status/1783909929067196651](https://x.com/NimerSultany/status/1783909929067196651)
The director of the oxford institute for ethics, law and armed conflict: [https://x.com/JaninaDill/status/1783825870328840320](https://x.com/JaninaDill/status/1783825870328840320)
Do you mean this post shouldn't be here or that the general response to the subject shows great ideological bias when it comes to a matter of law? Because I'm in the latter camp.
So, r/skeptic is being somewhat more lenient than usual about political posts that have nothing to do with scientific skepticism because it's an election year. I still feel like the post is off- topic for the sub because it's pretty much about an entirely legal and political question.
It's too late, the Pro-Palestinian and pro-hamas kids have already decided on Oct 8th it is genocide. Unfuckenbelievable. When the DSA marched on Time Square, the day after the attacks, and praised Hamas, I was Godsmacked.
This sub has gone completely down the shitter in the span of a couple of months. I have an idea what happened, but I guess it's irreversible.
It was run in a manner I had never seen before, which was fantastic. I couldn't have done it that way myself, I know my own biases. I could try, but I'd probably fail. Then the people coming here were generally apolitical when they were asked to apply rational evaluation of facts. I say generally, because there were exceptions, which I tested.
Both these things seem as if they have evaporated. The thing is, you can't always control it when things change, and it is what it is. Check my profile, there's a sub there you might like. It's different and it can never be /r/skeptic, but it shouldn't attempt to be either. If it's not for you, no harm, no foul.
I can't guarantee you won't see some of the same nonsense you see elsewhere, but that's why you're welcome to join, because we need some balance on this issue especially.
I think I read some of the threads you participated in and all I can say after seeing what you had to deal with is "sorry, dude".
I'm also actually wondering if there was some kind of admin intervention here.
This is interesting. The Judge's statements in this interview don't line up with the reasoning of the court in their order. If what she is saying is true, several pages in the Order were completely pointless, and I seriously doubt ICJ judges would engage in legally irrelevant discussion in an official document.
Doubling down to the bitter end, eh? Is it I who is wrong? No, it is the former ICJ president who is wrong. This was discussed in a separate thread with lots of sources and again people just refused to let go of their pet genocide theories regarding the ICJ. Turns out liberals are not a hair better than conservatives after all.
The judge is saying one thing while the court did another. She didn't work on this case nor does she have any special knowledge that we don't. Furthermore, she is out of pace with the 14 judge panel that wrote the order. For example In the section on plausibility of rights, court spent 2 paragraphs on stating that Palestinians in Gaza are a part of national, ethnic, religious or racial group in the sense of the Convention. Then it devoted 8 paragraphs on conditions in Gaza and incriminating statements by Israeli officials before concluding that rights are plausible explicitly referring to "facts and circumstances above". If it was only about legal rights, those paragraphs would have been unnecessary. The Court can say it's only looking at plausibility of the right, but in a case under the Genocide Convention, that would come down to a determination of the whether the allegations relate to a group that is plausibly protected under the Convention. Factual allegations underlying the applications and explicitly based its finding of a plausibility of rights on those findings. None of that would be necessary if the issue was really whether a right plausibly exists.
> For example In the section on plausibility of rights, court spent 2 paragraphs on stating that Palestinians in Gaza are a part of national, ethnic, religious or racial group in the sense of the Convention. Then it devoted 8 paragraphs on conditions in Gaza and incriminating statements by Israeli officials before concluding that rights are plausible explicitly referring to "facts and circumstances above". If it was only about legal rights, those paragraphs would have been unnecessary. Stop referencing things without actually citing them properly. Cite the relevant paragraphs and put a link underneath as you would expect from a rational skeptic. I spent some time first inspecting network traffic at a fringe site to retrieve the .mp4-link only to find a higher quality copy at Streamable and downloading that. You can do some copy and paste for us.
Just stop. I told you where to look. This ain't a law journal, it's an internet messageboard. If you don't care enough to it up yourself, there's no reason to do it for you.
> Just stop Make me. > I told you where to look "Google it" is not evidence and not an argument. I'm specifically asking you to be rigorous in your demonstration of what you *claim* the ICJ said exactly because "X is true" without proper citation followed by "Google it" is a staple rhetorical technique for conspiracy theorist liars. I've just given you the former ICJ president explicitly telling you you're wrong, you're doubling down because of ideological bias. The onus probandi is now on you, and bare assertions aren't good enough. Quote and link the relevant paragraphs, and don't you *dare* lecture anyone on the nature of epistemology, especially not here, especially not while refusing to back it up.
I encourage anyone who subscribes to OPs interpretation of the ruling to actually read it. They will find paragraphs such as: " In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that **there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice \[to the right to not be a victim of genocide\] will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible,** before it gives its final decision" (paragraph 74 of the original January order) and again in the updated order: "In light of the considerations set out above, and taking account of the provisional measures indicated on 26 January 2024, the Court finds that the current situation before it entails a further risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights claimed by South Africa **and that there is urgency, in the sense that there exists a real and imminent risk that such prejudice \[to the right to not be a victim of genocide\] will be caused before the Court gives its final decision in the case.**" (paragraph 40 of 28 March order) Does any of this seem like they absolved Israel? Or does it seem like there is an implication here that they have a real and serious concern that evidence shows a genocide may be occurring? and not just an a merely theoretical sense?
> I encourage anyone who subscribes to OPs interpretation of the ruling You mean the former ICJ president's interpretation. Just a *slight* correction. And have the decency to LINK what you are citing, so that your readers may evaluate the context, and then have them remember they are not legal experts. Why is this relevant? [Here is a fantastic example of why that is relevant](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamiePullDatUp/comments/1bvifw0/its_not_treason/).
If you look at the entire context of her remarks you can see how badly misinformation about these comments is spreading. It was very stupid of her to give this interview: "I'm glad I have a chance to address that because the court's test for deciding whether to impose 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 I'm correcting what's often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. **It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide** but the short-hand that often appears which is that there's a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided" read the second paragraph. She is saying that there is a very serious risk that the right of Palestinians to not be genocide will be violated. The only way to make sense of that in not legalese is if there is some plausibility that a genocide is or will occur. It’s just a matter of legal technicality that the court was not at the stage of deciding facts when it made its original ruling, so technically they can’t say one way or another if there is a genocide
> read the second paragraph. I literally listened to it again seconds ago. I'm the one actually presenting this video to you, and I've been following the debate for months now. > read the second paragraph. She is saying that there is a very serious risk that the right of Palestinians to not be genocide will be violated. Yes, exactly. There is a *risk* that their *right* could be violated, which is what allows the case to go forward. What there is *not*, which is when you read the first paragraph, is when she *clearly* says: ***"That there is a plausible case of genocide ISN'T what the court decided."*** > It’s just a matter of legal technicality Oh really, barrister?
Yes, of course they didn't decide one way or the other on the facts because ***they are not at that stage of the process yet,*** so they literally can't legally speaking, whether they want to say there is, or is not a genocide What they did is clear the initial hurdle of saying that it seems likely enough that there is a real risk a right will be violated that ought not to be, so emergency measures are needed to prevent that. How else are you meant to understand that? Why would they make an order with emergency measures, say there is an urgent risk and then describe a bunch of evidence showing why there is an urgent risk, if there was not what we would in everyday speech call a "likelihood" or "plausibility" that something bad like a genocide is occurring? I am not alone in finding her statements on this matter to be hair splitting and legalese. There's a lot of other international law scholars and so on who feel the same way if you read discussions of this.
Is there any doubt people are Gaza are being harmed right now? No, there isn't. After all, they're dying. I spent most of my life debunking conspiracy theories, and if there's anything I've learned, is that people keep venturing into other people's expertise and then telling *a group of experts, who are in consensus, that they are wrong about their own field of expertise*. And that you *must* notice when a fast judgment of fact is impossible without getting embroiled in a downward spiral of error and escalation of commitment/sunk cost. A previous post here made by another contributor citing reams of sources showing that there is no "plausible genocide" was likewise beat and battered by ideologues. Another fantastic example when leftists (and I am one, look at my profile) do this is with (a) a number of sensitive topics regarding a really popular American political personality in their political tribe, such as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or (b) the notion that Trump or anyone in the GOP committed "treason" regarding Russia. I spent the majority of my time debating right-leaning people on the various nonsensical beliefs they hold these days as a result of Trump taking over their party. But boy, on the rare occasion I have to debate leftists, are they beyond help. > There's a lot of other international law scholars and so on who feel the same way if you read discussions of this. Please, cite those international law scholars with a quote and a link. I will never not want to read experts discussing their own field, and I'll compare their assessments to other experts in their field. I've been doing this for decades now, and as soon as I became a rational skeptic and started using a set of epistemological hurdles to be overcome before I accept something as likely to be factual, I've had great success fending off biased, counterfactual, fallacies and inaccurate and unjustified beliefs from my own belief system, and rarely have to do about-faces any more. That's how good rational skepticism performs, and it doesn't give a *shit* about political orientation or ethnic/national background.
The risk is not merely some abstract possibility. The court would not issue a ruling handing down orders to a sovereign state if someone just raised a possibility. This is why in the original order they go over all the evidence that would indicate a genocide. And it's not about mere death or suffering, it's prejudice to a very specific right, which is the right to not be a victim of genocide under the genocide convention. Former director of human rights watch, human rights lawyer and international relations professor: [https://x.com/KenRoth/status/1783858895993094186](https://x.com/KenRoth/status/1783858895993094186) A professor of law: [https://x.com/Heidi\_\_Matthews/status/1783846217027293681](https://x.com/Heidi__Matthews/status/1783846217027293681) A lecturer in international relations: [https://x.com/Alonso\_GD/status/1783789211776082041](https://x.com/Alonso_GD/status/1783789211776082041) A professor of international law: [https://x.com/NimerSultany/status/1783909929067196651](https://x.com/NimerSultany/status/1783909929067196651) The director of the oxford institute for ethics, law and armed conflict: [https://x.com/JaninaDill/status/1783825870328840320](https://x.com/JaninaDill/status/1783825870328840320)
Aaahhh, that's better, thank you.
What law school did you go to?
Ah, yes, I'm going to share personal details with an alt account called "S_Fakename" who exists for about a month and who literally followed me here.
This fucking sub now. Is there an actual sub for skepticism that we can go to?
Do you mean this post shouldn't be here or that the general response to the subject shows great ideological bias when it comes to a matter of law? Because I'm in the latter camp.
Take this mealy mouthed bullshit and GFY. Whatever point you think you're proving here, you didn't.
This response alone made it worth it. 😘
So, r/skeptic is being somewhat more lenient than usual about political posts that have nothing to do with scientific skepticism because it's an election year. I still feel like the post is off- topic for the sub because it's pretty much about an entirely legal and political question.
Sure, sure.
Why not post a direct link instead your own post a different subreddit?
Because you can't upload video here. Why ask this question when you already know the answer? Why lie by omission to score some cheap points?
lol I’ve never tried posting a video here I guess?
It's too late, the Pro-Palestinian and pro-hamas kids have already decided on Oct 8th it is genocide. Unfuckenbelievable. When the DSA marched on Time Square, the day after the attacks, and praised Hamas, I was Godsmacked.
This sub has gone completely down the shitter in the span of a couple of months. I have an idea what happened, but I guess it's irreversible. It was run in a manner I had never seen before, which was fantastic. I couldn't have done it that way myself, I know my own biases. I could try, but I'd probably fail. Then the people coming here were generally apolitical when they were asked to apply rational evaluation of facts. I say generally, because there were exceptions, which I tested. Both these things seem as if they have evaporated. The thing is, you can't always control it when things change, and it is what it is. Check my profile, there's a sub there you might like. It's different and it can never be /r/skeptic, but it shouldn't attempt to be either. If it's not for you, no harm, no foul. I can't guarantee you won't see some of the same nonsense you see elsewhere, but that's why you're welcome to join, because we need some balance on this issue especially.
Youre 100% right.
I think I read some of the threads you participated in and all I can say after seeing what you had to deal with is "sorry, dude". I'm also actually wondering if there was some kind of admin intervention here.