Comment by runarberg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by runarberg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are fighting an uphill battle, and honestly taking a weird—and insignificant—hill to die on.

I’m hardly the only one which has this reading of the court order[1]. Here is a human rights lawyer speaking with the Times[2] which describes the ruling as:

> Having the World Court say to the state of Israel that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide will be heard by the rest of the international community, even if Netanyahu doesn’t want to hear it,

Like I said earlier we are actually arguing about the meaning of “plausible”. I’m using this word in a non-legal way while applying it to the legal definition of genocide. The ICJ on the other hand uses it in a legal way, for them plausibility has a legally defined meaning, and using it must meet some specific standard[3].

The conduct in question here is the general behavior of Israel in Gaza, which some of our ancestors say:

> Its not a genocide by any definition

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268163

or:

> I would not agree this constitutes genocide.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40273408

they are talking about Israel’s general conduct.

South Africa brought in its case many examples of general conduct and accused them of violating the Genocide Convention. Israel—in its defense—did not deny this conduct, but rather stated they weren’t Genocidal, and didn’t violate the Convention, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that these allegations “appear to be capable” of falling under the Convention. Meaning that the court thinks that the same conduct we are arguing whether constitutes a Genocide, the ICJ has said: “appears to be capable” of falling under the legal definition of Genocide.

When I, or the NPR, or the BBC[4] say the ICJ “decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention,” we are using the world plausible in laypeople terms. So I stand by what I said. If we use the legal definition of Genocide, the ICJ has ruled the conduct of Israel in Gaza can plausibly be described as Genocide.

1: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocid...

2: https://time.com/6588931/icj-ruling-israel-genocidal-acts-ga...

3: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plau...

4: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68108260

No. This is simple. You sue me, say, for trademark infringement. Before the case goes to trial, you ask for a preliminary injunction demanding that I --- at least for the duration of the trial --- stop using your trademark. As it turns out, I'm not doing much interesting with it; the cost to me to stop using the trademark is minimal. Recognizing that, the court enjoins me from using your trademark, until the trial is done.

What you're saying now is "because I got the injunction, I won the case". Obviously, no.

"Plausibility" at the ICJ is a technical term, part of a 3-part test to determine if any preliminary orders can be issued ("in preservation of rights") at all in a case:

"What is required is something more than assertion but less than proof; in other words, the party must show that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the right it claims exits as a matter of law and will be adjudged to apply to that party’s case".

Plausibility is virtually always established in these cases.

Now, look at what South Africa asked for as a preliminary measure, and look what they got.

Again, it is weird that we are still talking about this, because I quoted for you the numbered paragraph in the decision that repeats the point I am making.

Later

I'm noting that we are so far to the right margin on this very old, cursed thread that this post gets only 250px in my browser window. It's fine if we're not going to convince each other; we can just leave it here. We're probably the only two people reading this.

Go read up on ICJ preservation of rights process, though. It's fascinating. It's like a whole parallel law system, being worked out in our lifetimes.

runarberg is not interested in getting to some commonly understood truth, he's only interested in spreading his propaganda. If you examine your conversation with him through this lens, it makes perfect sense. He continues to repeat lies that you've pointed out don't make any sense. He makes sure to repeat his unfounded claim that "They are definitely committing genocide" as he does in nearly every comment he's made in the last 2 weeks, regardless of how wrong he's shown to be. If you start to back him into a corner, he's begin to deny very obvious truths like Jewish people have a historical connection to that area and continues to claim, without any basis that he's simply repeating what the ICJ has said, when the president of the council very clearly said the opposite.

We are two HN people who disagree. I think they're too attached to their ICJ procedural argument; it doesn't make much sense, and they don't need it to make the broader point they clearly want to make about Israel's moral culpability for genocide (an argument I don't agree with fully, but I disagree with less). That doesn't make them a liar or a propagandist.

If your arguments are strong, well-expressed, and calm, they'll do fine here, and there's no need to pick apart the people trying to rebut them. We know less than we think we do about people commenting here; I've spent 16 years watching people reach all sorts of weird conclusions about me. Let's not do that to someone else here. These threads are bad enough as it is.

Israel’s legal culpability in genocide is probably even more important, because if we only argue moral culpability it gives world governments an excuse to non-action. If we have legal culpability these same world governments become complicit.

The legal argument for genocide is strong. Not only by referring to the ICJ case, but also several legal experts who have conducted a thorough study in the subject.

I’m returning to this thread because of the publication today of a 100 page long report which the authors claim is “the most comprehensive legal analysis to ate of Israel’s military operation in Gaza since October 7, 2023.” This report is from legal experts exploring the legal argument of genocide, using the 1948 convention as the definition for genocide. The authors, comprise of independent human rights scholars and legal experts from University Network of Human Rights, Boston University School of Law, Cornell Law School, University of Pretoria, and Yale Law School. They conclude that: “srael has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3538249d5abb21360e8...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com