• Jaytreeman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    Part one…'killing members of the group… ’ '… Causing serious bodily harm to members of the group ’

    The order then says to stop doing everything in part one.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, 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; …

      Please note that the court does not state that Israel did not take measures to ensure that.

      • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The order was to stop genocide. The other option was to throw the case out.

        The language is purposely broad for legal reasons, but apparently, people are taking it’s broadness as a win for Israel.

        This was definitely not a win for Israel.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          No, the court did not recognize that there is genocide, thus it cannot give the order to stop. The court recognized that there might be a genocide, thus the case will proceed. The other two options were - there is no genocide (through the case away) and there is genocide. But none of these options were realized.

          The court also reminded that there shouldn’t be genocide (but without stating that there is)