Thread by @NimerSultany

Much ado about nothing? A thread on the ICJ president comments:

The amount of sophistry in defending Israel's crimes is just astounding.

But it's also a lesson in how the technical can obscure rather illuminate reality:

let us start with the basics: it is called the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide."

The word prevention here is key.

What needs to be prevented? Here is art. III

These crimes, that need to be prevented & punished, are manifested in acts & crimes that are listed in art. II of the Convention. Committing these acts to commit "genocide" or to "conspire to commit genocide" or to "attempt to commit genocide" are violations of the Convention.

The "groups" in art. II have rights that the convention protects. In January 2023 the ICJ, under the presidency of Donoghue, determined that the Palestinians are a protected group under the convention.

What this means is that the Palestinians have rights not to be subjected to "genocide", or "conspiracy to commit genocide", or an "incitement to genocide", or an "attempt to commit genocide", etc.

When a state that is a party to the Genocide Convention like South Africa initiates proceedings against Israel, accusing it of violating Palestinians' rights, that are protected by the Convention, it asks the court to issue provisional measures.

Provisional measures are interim measures that seek to preserve the rights that a state like South Africa claims to be at risk that cannot be repaired if the court does not intervene), till a final resolution of the case (the "merits" stage).

This means South Africa asked the court to issue an order to protect the Palestinians' right not to be subjected to "genocide", or "conspiracy to commit genocide", or "incitement to genocide", or an "attempt to commit genocide", etc.

The court found it needed to issue interim orders because there is a risk of genocide: the Palestinians' rights (not to be subjected to "genocide", or "conspiracy to commit genocide", or "incitement to genocide", or an "attempt to commit genocide", etc.) is at risk.

The Court cannot allow the Palestinians to be subject to genocide or attempted genocide, and wait till a final and definitive determination of genocide is reached. Because the question is one of prevention and not only punishment after the fact,

The technical language that the court uses is "plausibility of rights". But as @Alonso_GD explains "putting the right not to be genocided plausibly at risk" is not really different from "there is a plausible case of genocide"

https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1783782911596007442

And as @JaninaDill explains "there is only "a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide" if someone is plausibly threatening that right."

https://twitter.com/JaninaDill/status/1783825870328840320

Now, admittedly as @mabecker17 notes the "plausibility" standard is not as clear as it should be in the court's rulings. But....

https://twitter.com/mabecker17/status/1783813512080330915

In some cases such as Ukraine 2017 the court said that a finding of "plausibility of rights" indicates the existence of "evidence" that shows a "sufficient basis" that elements of the alleged crime "are present".

So a finding of plausibility of rights (according to some judges) can indicate the plausibility, in this case, of genocide. In any case, the issue is determined later, the January order meant at least that there is a risk of Israel committing genocide/ attempted genocide...

As @Alonso_GD noted the former president's interview raises questions about violating the rules of the court, as a former judge discussing an ongoing case, and revealing internal deliberations.

But shameless pro-Israeli propaganda machine is trying to capitalise on the technical language of the former president to obscure the main issue: there is a risk of genocide. This risk increased in March requiring stronger measures against Israel.