←back to thread

517 points xbar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.346s | source
Show context
Mandain62 ◴[] No.39144837[source]
I really hoped that a submission on ICJ ruling will pass the aggressive flagging. At least hoped that dang will keep his promise about allowing a submission about the case. This one could be it. I understand that once allowed there will be trove of hard liners will make it hell to moderate. But being difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss a potential genocide in a making in front of our eyes.
replies(2): >>39144993 #>>39146534 #
cassepipe ◴[] No.39144993[source]
EDIT: The title has been changed since and the discussion has been unflagged

The problem is that this is such a partisan issue than partisanship can be perceived in the smallest of details.

As someone who was staunchly pro-palestinian but as of recently came to have a more informed and I hope a more nuanced view of the whole situation, I can't help to see the title as potentially misleading :

Is the ICJ saying to prevent the Genocide (i.e recognizes that a genocide is happening) or to prevent a potential genocide (that is it believes the situation could escalate towards a genocide) ?

From what I have read this is the second option, so I believe the title could be misleading. The more a topic has a loaded emotional and symbolic value, the more careful the wording must be.

Also I remember how annoying it was that people did not share my indignation and how I perceived such carefulness as a form of voluntary blindness.

replies(2): >>39145215 #>>39146521 #
1. throwaway260124 ◴[] No.39146521[source]
To answer your question though. It’s neither. The court found that allegations of genocide are plausible.

That is, especially some of the statements by senior officials could be understood as genocidal.

What I gleaned from reading blogs: It is likely that the actus reus for genocide is there but intent will be very hard to prove if it exists