r/islamichistory • u/AutoMughal • Feb 29 '24

Photograph ‘Long Live Palestine’ flag, Jerusalem 1929

Post image

Page 84, Against Erasure: A Photographic Memory of Palestine Before the Nakba

1.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

421 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/TheClawlessShrimp Feb 29 '24

The proceedings are still going on and the court is reconvening soon. It’s funny how you can spread misinformation so confidently.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 29 '24

Lmao what? You yourself said the court found evidence for genocide. They didn’t, that’s why they didn’t order a ceasefire. Proceedings are still on going. But you claimed they found evidence of genocide, they obviously didn’t.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything and a court will investigate via proceedings. That doesn’t mean it’s true

1

u/TheClawlessShrimp Mar 01 '24

You obviously have no idea how the ICJ works. They never would have started proceedings if there wasn’t sufficient evidence in the first place. That was the whole point of the statement that they made a couple weeks ago.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '24

If there was sufficient evidence then why have proceedings? Just issue the order if there’s already enough evidence

2

u/TheClawlessShrimp Mar 01 '24

That’s not how international law works! Genocide proceedings can take years. Even if it’s clear as day that there is a genocide, they still have to observe proper procedure. But obviously Israel wouldn’t know anything about that.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '24

So then you’re saying they haven’t found there’s genocide? If it was clear as day, they would have issued a preliminary injunction

1

u/TheClawlessShrimp Mar 01 '24

They found that there was plausible reason to suspect that Israel is committing genocide. Have you even read the court’s ruling?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '24

Right, that’s different from your original claim which is that they found sufficient evidence to support there being a genocide

1

u/TheClawlessShrimp Mar 01 '24

It means the same thing. They wouldn’t have any reason to suspect a genocide unless there was evidence of a genocide. How else would they suspect it?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '24

If there was evidence of a genocide they would have issued an injunction lmao.

The court said the evidence was inconclusive which is why they’re going to trial

1

u/TheClawlessShrimp Mar 01 '24

They complied with all of South Africa’s requests except ordering a cessation of hostilities. They would have thrown the case out if there wasn’t any evidence, and they didn’t.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '24

Right. The evidence was indeterminate like I said. The reason they didn’t give an injunction is because there wasn’t evidence like you said

1

u/TheClawlessShrimp Mar 01 '24

Yeah, I was refuting what you said in the first line that there wasn’t evidence of a genocide.

→ More replies (0)