There has never been a plausible case of Israeli genocide.

[OilemFirchen]

I've avoided this conversation for more than the past year. It's likely that this was discussed contemporaneously with the BBC interview, but that I didn't see it. At this point though, as people begin to finally realize that they've been duped by an extraordinary Iranian propaganda campaign, it would be immensely helpful if people would, at the very least, stop making the claim of adjudicated genocide... right?

The video is 1:28 long. From its description:

Interviewed by Stephen Sackur on the BBC's Hardtalk programme on 25 April 2024, Judge Joan Donoghue confirms that the Order made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, when she was its President, did not decide that there was a plausible case of genocide - contrary to some media reports.



Judge Donoghue: “You know, I’m glad I have a chance to address that because the Court’s test for deciding whether to impose [provisional] measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well, but it did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible."

[sheshe2]

1. The Order was made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024,

I am not sure why anyone would have an issue with this post. You/The interview stated facts of the court's ruling. Nothing kooky about that.

Thank you, Oilem.

[OilemFirchen]

8. As I said, I've been staying away from the subject.

This video popped up on my YouTube home page. UKLFI Charitable Trust had just posted it. I'd never seen it, so I thought I'd bring it here and, ya know, poke the bear a bit.

How are you She? Doing well, I hope?

[sheshe2]

12. I do understand your staying away from the subject, I do.

Ah, the bear woke for a moment only to be told to take a seat by their peers.

*sigh*

I am doing okay, the best I can do in these times. It's hard for all of us. It really is good to see you again, Oilem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. UKFLI Charitable Trust? Wow, YouTube is pushing the propaganda at you.

Led by Donkeys on UKFLI and its "charity": https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMNs0rEI26M/

Jonathan Turner is scum: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/10/uk-lawyers-for-israel-condemned-over-claim-war-may-reduce-obesity-in-gaza

[Celerity]

48. Here is the YT video for your first link. UKFLI is a front for apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.

[lapucelle]

50. BBC posted the clip on twitter shortly after the program aired, and it's still available on their website.

Here's an embedded clip straight from the BBC.

Former head of ICJ explains ruling on genocide case against Israel brought by S Africa

Joan Donoghue, who has just retired as president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), spoke to BBC Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur about the case brought by South Africa to the ICJ over alleged violations of the Genocide Convention by Israel.

Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.

She said that, contrary to some reporting, the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.
26 April 2024

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

---------------------------------------

What's really interesting is that both Ireland and Amnesty International want the legal definition of genocide to be changed (relaxed) so that the war against Hamas (or, indeed, any war) will fit the new definition.

Ireland will intervene in South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in an effort to broaden the definition of genocide.

Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin said he had secured the cabinet's approval to intervene in the case against Israel, and said that the intervention would be filed later this month.

In a press release, Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs said that "By legally intervening in South Africa's case, Ireland will be asking the ICJ to broaden its interpretation of what constitutes the commission of genocide."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-12-11/ty-article/ireland-to-intervene-in-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-at-world-court/00000193-b6d1-dd53-a3f3-f7fb1d410000

[EdmondDantes_]

2. That seems like a bit of a technical cop out

The court didn't rule Israel was committing genocide, but also didn't rule they weren't and didn't dismiss the charges as Israel wanted. The court granted most of the requests for Israel to stop doing things that do fit the definition of genocide.

How often does the ICJ feel the need to say a group has the right to be safe from genocide without there being a significant threat of it?

And really if you're arguing that "it's technically not ruled genocide yet", you're not really making a compelling affirmative case for being a good actor. Sure Hamas sucks but this isn't a good defense.

[writerJT]

4. From "Never Again" to

“What we’re doing has not technically been ruled genocide as of right now!”

Not a catchy bumper sticker, but oh well.

[Martin68]

3. The ICJ is only one of many legitimate authorities on the subject of genocide. I have seen a number of very plausible

arguments from other authorities that Israel is indeed committing genocide in Gaza.

[sheshe2]

5. Please link to them all so I can read those as well.

TY in advance.

[krawhitham]

10. Try google, it worked for me

[Martin68]

23. I'm pressed for time and you could certainly google the topic yourself, but I'll provide a few reliable links

for you. I checked the organizations listed with https://mediabiasfactcheck.com which conducts a thorough and transparent analysis of bias and reliability.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza

https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-accuses-israel-of-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/israel-gaza-genocide-netanyahu-rcna183485

https://internationalpolicy.org/publications/growing-consensus-on-israels-atrocities-in-gaza/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

[SunSeeker]

46. None of those are authorities, let alone legal authorities like the ICJ.

You are citing activists.

[Martin68]

53. You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "authority," but this is the answer I expected. Very

predictably you pretended to be interested in facts and other interpretations of those facts, but had already decided on your one version of reality and were not ever going to consider an alternative view. You, sir, are the narrow-minded activist. I believe there is room for debate on the issue of genocide in Gaza. I happen to have come to the conclusion it is indeed clearly genocide based on numerous arguments presented by experts and scholars in the field. I notice you imply that only a "legal" authority can present valid interpretations of genocide - that is an extremely narrow and unsupportable view.

[SunSeeker]

56. The issue is what consititutes genocide, which is a legal question, as it is a war crime.

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2025, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

BTW, I am neither a "sir" nor a "narrow-minded activist." And I certainly know the meaning of the word authority in this context. We just disagree as to the applicable authority. That's no reason to resort to personal insults.

[Martin68]

58. No, genocide as a concept is not only a legal question. You have chosen to limit your consideration of the term to

that narrow point of view, but scholars and others who have studied the history of genocide have as much authority to identify genocide as the legal authorities that are empowered to take legal action against the perpetrators of genocidal crimes. If you wish to abrogate your own ability to reason and leave it up to the World Court or the UN to identify genocide, that is your choice. It is not mine.

[SunSeeker]

59. Legal definitions control this issue. Making definitions up renders words meaningless.

I am not the one "abrogating the ability to reason."

[highplainsdem]

6. You're referring back to a decision a year and a half ago, which of course ignores everything

Israel has done since then.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. This

What the hell is wrong with people? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been slaughtered since this ruling 2 months into the war.

BiBi literally went on TV with Trump and said their plan explicitly. They are going to kill or expel 100% of the people living in Gaza, so they can sell their land to their real estate friends. It is the definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They’re killing dozens of civilians a day who are lining up for food. It is an absolute evil being perpetrated by a far Right government in Israel.

Everyone should be appalled people are still defending it, especially with nonsense like this from 18 months ago. Shame on you.

[SunSeeker]

47. Ethnic cleansing is not the same as genocide.

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2025, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Serbs were ethnically cleansed out of their ancestral homeland of Kosovo by the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, killing over 1,000 Serbs in the process, and nobody gave a shit. In fact, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proudly announced the US recognized Kosovo's independence from Serbia in 2008, thus rewarding the ethnic cleansing.

[Martin68]

55. There is no legal definition of ethnic cleansing. It is not recognized as an international crime. The only difference

between the two is that ethnic cleansing can refer to the relocation of an ethnic group without killing them, while both genocide and ethnic cleansing can refer to killing all the members of an ethnic group to remove them from a particular location or population.

[OilemFirchen]

9. Do tell.

What has the ICJ said since then?

[iemanja]

14. In 2024 they called the genocide claims "plausible"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o.amp

In 2025, it’s what’s called a slam dunk. The planned death camps should be a clue.

[OilemFirchen]

30. This is pure comedy gold.

From your link:

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”.

This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.

In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.

The ellipsis in the first paragraph obfuscates that the ICJ concluded that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. That some unnamed others, including unnamed "legal commentators" declared otherwise is not exactly newsworthy, nor useful. That the "interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC" is likewise irrelevant, predictable and equally useless. In fact, all of those statements directly contradict the plain language from Joan Donoghue in the fourth paragraph, and is the thrust of this OP.

Your assertion that 'In 2024 they called the genocide claims "plausible"' is a howler and your link includes the massive punchline.

Then "In 2025, it’s what’s called a slam dunk. The planned death camps should be a clue." Hilarious!

[EdmondDantes_]

34. Weird take that you find arguing over the deaths of a lot of people hilarious

Can you explain what's funny about if that's genocide or just indiscriminate mass killing including repeatedly firing on people gathering to get food rations? Because best case scenario there's still a whole lot of dead and severely injured people.

Like I said up thread, if you're reduced to arguing that Israel is only committing mass killings and starvation and not technical genocide you've already lost any claim that the country is acting morally.

[OilemFirchen]

39. And there it is.

I'm not making fun of anything other than the use of a cite which wholly disproves the assertion. That's been funny since I was in grade school and it remains so.

That you've suggested I find genocide funny is part of the dangerous semantics game used by those who continue to catapult Iranian propaganda. To be frank, it's, at best, you who are trivializing these allegations by suggesting that anyone other than a clinical sadist would find them anything but reprehensible.

BTW, I'm not arguing anything other than that the ICJ has taken the position that there has never been a plausible case of Israeli genocide. Look up. It's right there in the title!

[EdmondDantes_]

52. So no you can't explain what's funny about this

But keep telling yourself that you aren't diminishing the needless suffering by focusing on a technical definition of one group only saying that Israel needs to stop doing things that would be considered genocide (which they are not stopping like blocking aid). And so you have nothing but effectively saying "I'm rubber and you're glue" and accusing me of spreading Iranian propaganda.

Partisans of either side, Israel or Palestinian, seems capable of arguing in good faith or acknowledging anything negative about their side. It's disingenuous and only perpetuates the tragedies.

You can dissemble and pretend that your title inculcates against this being in a larger context, but that's simply not a believable claim. Not much thought is in complete isolation. You clearly are posting this because it bothers you that people are accusing Israel of genocide and instead of talking about what is happening on the ground, you make a fairly irrelevant but technically true point to distract from events on the ground.

[vanlassie]

69. Capable? Or, Incapable?

“ Partisans of either side, Israel or Palestinian, seems capable of arguing in good faith or acknowledging anything negative about their side. ”

[iemanja]

37. That you consider any of this comedy

is sick. We are facing death camps former PM Olmert himself says are designed for ethnic cleaning, that Defense Minister Katz says will eventually hold all 2 million Gazans. It’s as comedic as the Final Solution, which is exactly what this is. There is nothing funny about any of it.

For passersby, this is some context on the camp in Rafah: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20503002

[sheshe2]

16. And Israel is not Netanyahu...

Any more than tsf is The United States of America. He does not speak for me/ a majority of us any more than 'Yahu' speaks for all of Israel.

[Martin68]

25. Netanyahu was elected by the people of Israel to, among other things, run the military. While individual Israelis are

not responsible for the conduct to the war, the same was true of Germans who did not support Hitler's genocide. So, don't blame "Germany, blame Hitler?" It doesn't work that way. I don't feel responsible for Trump's fascist conduct of a war agains immigrants but I'm afraid the United States, as a country, does indeed bear the responsibility for his actions. The same is true of Israel. I know the many Israelis and Jews are opposed to Netanyahu's handling of the war. I don't blame them - I love them. But Israel must take the blame for the decisions of the head of state, just as the US must take the blame for Trump's actions. Until the military mutinies or the people of Israel forcibly remove Netanyahu from office, that will remain true.

[OilemFirchen]

31. I'm old enough to remember some being chided for using "Palestine" in lieu of "Hamas".

Ah... those were heady days, right?

[sheshe2]

35. Heady days, yes indeed.

[iemanja]

13. Then let Israel stand trial at the ICC

If the charges are bogus, they should have no problem defending against them.

[sheshe2]

17. By your own words:

Then let Israel stand trial at the ICC

You are condemning all of Israel! Will you condemn all of the US for atrocities that tsf is doing!

Words matter and these blanket statements need to STOP!

[Cha]

18. Mahalo, she, for pointing that out.

[sheshe2]

19. Thank you, Cha.

This is really upsetting me tonight.

[Cha]

21. I know how you feel..

I just posted on here something that got me more upset than usual

[OilemFirchen]

32. That was a "that was then" then. 🤣

Hi Cha! Hope all is well.

[Cha]

33. Rolling with the Punches.. mostly.

Oilem!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. Nobody is saying to put random citizens on trial.

But Israel is the country and the country, under the leadership of Bebe, is absolutely committing genocide. Of course that doesn't mean that every person who is Jewish is committing genocide. But Israel, the country, is. If Donald Trump ordered out military to do what the military of Israel is doing, we would 100% say that the United States is committing genocide even though I, a US citizen, am not.

It's not that hard unless you are trying to obfuscate.

[lapucelle]

49. The ICC tries individuals, not countries.

It only has jurisdiction over individuals who are nationals of countries that are State Parties to a treaty known as the Rome Statute. Neither the US nor Israel are State Parties to the statute.

[Cha]

20. Aloha, Oilem... TY for this

vid.

It's heartbreaking that so many wanted to teach VP Harris and Pres Biden a "lesson" and followed those who promoted "Leave it Blank" and "uncommitted"..

We were even told to "enjoy trump" by this Stupid Mayor that "endorsed" the Traitor.

Amer Ghalib, the mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, announced his endorsement in a Facebook post Sunday, just days after meeting the Republican candidate in person. “I believe he is the right choice...

Yeah, how does it feel to be so Sucked in by a Rapist, Racist, Felon, Traitor to the USA?

I hope you're Well.. Good to see you.

[iemanja]

22. There is a death camp being constructed in Rafah

now, not in 2024. The Israeli government is constructing a camp for 600,000 Gazans in Rafah, which they then plan to expand to contain all 2 million Palestinians. Israeli Defense Minister Katz says the Gazans will not be allowed to leave alive, unless they leave Palestine altogether. Former Israeli PM Olmert calls them concentration camps designed for ethnic cleaning. That’s not a Hamas spokesman, but the former Prime Minister of Israel.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/07/14/middleeast/israel-gaza-ehud-olmert-concentration-camp-intl

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah

The plan is so evil, even the IDF resists it.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-said-to-warn-against-gaza-humanitarian-city-ex-pm-brands-it-concentration-camp/amp/

But Israel is nonetheless forging ahead

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/7/16/israel-presses-ahead-gaza-concentration-camp-plans-despite-criticism

We are talking about 2 million souls. This is a human rights atrocity of historic dimension.

As citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to inform ourselves on that which we defend.

[annalog]

27. 😪

[cliffside]

45. Thanks for the links. nt

[Pompoy]

60. Had seen a thread on Quora or Reddit of some Palestinian commander saying Rafah was used to keep Hamas away.

That those Palestinians were anti Hamas. His brother and cousin had been killed by Hamas.
Of course I took it with a grain of salt as probable propaganda.
I googled it, because it's going to be too much trouble to find the exact thread:

"A Palestinian militia leader in eastern Rafah, Yasser Abu Shabab, head of the Popular Forces, claims his anti-Hamas militia controls a Hamas-free territory and has restored basic services for families without fear of bombardment or Hamas coercion."

[iemanja]

61. That's not what the post is about

Did you read the articles? What they are building is what former PM Olmert calls a "concentration camp" for "ethnic cleansing."
Since the goal is to herd all two million Gazans into the camp, that would seem to include some Hamas militants.

[Pompoy]

63. I didn't take Olmert seriously, a very old man with a political take. In other words, lying.

[iemanja]

64. Then read what Defense Minister Katz has to say about the camp

He ordered its construction. You can read about that in the article links I provided in the post about the camp. You seem resistant to examining evidence.

Olmert values human life. That doesn't make him a liar. It makes him a decent human being. He is far from the only Israeli voice speaking out against the Israeli actions in Gaza. Two Israeli human rights governments just accused the current government with genocide. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220526450
A small demonstration that took place in Tel Aviv expressed a similar sentiment. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20526990

Granted, these are minority voices who have seen through the Israeli propaganda that dehumanizes Palestinians and communicates that all the land that is Palestinian should be taken by Israel.

There is no debate about the fact that the Rafah camp is being constructed to hold all Palestinians, and as Katz says, they won't be allowed to leave unless they vacate Palestine, their homeland. The Israeli government has been very open about its intentions, as the first links I provided make crystal clear.

[LexVegas]

26. Rec. nt

[Ping Tung]

28. All the Palestinian corpses are just collateral damage and unfortunate mistakes of a "Just War".

There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. Howard Zinn

[iemanja]

38. The civilians are the targets

Hamas is mere pretext. Also notice this video is from 2024 and is not current. The situation is now far more dire because of the planned death camp in Rafah.

[Ping Tung]

40. I find it obscene that there are those that defend the murders, starvation, injuries, on innocent people.

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

Albert Einstein

[Duncan Grant]

36. Israel has lost the PR war. Everything is forever changed.

This is as evident as the wetness of water.

Ethnic cleansing. Blood-thirsty, indiscriminate reprisal murders. The execution of untold numbers of relief workers and journalists. Thousands upon thousands forced to endure suffering and inhumanity and death. So much horror to assuage egos — it’s absolute evil.

And then there’s the matter of Palestinian children and their worthless lives. Unforgivable. Unforgettable.

[H2O Man]

42. Well said.

Thank you.

[OilemFirchen]

43. Man, I'd hate to be an Israeli.

Bad enough to be a generic Jew, right?

[Duncan Grant]

44. No one is falling for this manipulative and ineffective rhetoric.

You may be comforted by such statements, but it doesn’t mean the truth is found there.

[ILikePie92]

51. I disagree

Tens of thousands of dead innocent Palestinian children would disagree.

[Samael13]

54. I'm not sure if its genocide or not.

But it is reprehensible for a country to target civilians. I wholeheartedly support the elimination of hamas i also know that Israel has the ability to get surgically precise when they want to be. I will always support their right to exist but the current netanyahu government is leading Israel down a path that will hurt the country in the long run

[Mossfern]

62. Wait a minute, wait a minute

I know I'll be trashed for this "But it is reprehensible for a country to target civilians."
WTF happened on October 7, 2023?

If Jews=Israelis=Netanyahu then it's only fair that
Palestinians=Hamas=Sinwar
This bickering about what to call what is happening in Gaza is Swiftian at best (Little-Endians vs Big-Endians).

Remember this?

In one message to Hamas leaders in Doha, he cites civilian losses in national-liberation conflicts in places such as Algeria, where hundreds of thousands of people died fighting for independence from France, saying, “these are necessary sacrifices”.

In a separate letter, sent on April 11 to Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas political leader, whose three sons were killed in an Israeli air strike, Sinwar claimed their deaths and those of other Palestinians would “infuse life into the veins of this nation, prompting it to rise to its glory and honour”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/11/hamas-leader-leaked-civilian-deaths-necessary-israel-sinwar/

We all know that starving civilians is reprehensible.
We also know that refusing to negotiate in good faith to save your people is equally reprehensible.

Sheesh!

[markpkessinger]

65. Some key points you are failing to consider . . .

1. No one here is defending what Hamas did on Oct. 7, 2023. It was a heinous act, and Israel had every right to respond.

2. But Hamas is a terrorist organization, whereas Israel is a state (and a signatory to the Geneva conventions besides). We hold states to higher standards than those we hold for terrorist organizations.

3. Our tax dollars don't go towards the support of Hamas; they do go towards the support of Israel.

4,. While Israel was certainly entitled to respond, there are limits to how far a country can go within the bounds of international law and fundamental morality. Approximately 1,200 Israelis were killed on October 7. As of 30 July 2025, at least 60,785 Palestinians have been killed. So the question becomes: how many Palestinians must die to avenge 1200 Israeli lives? How many Palestinian children must starve to death? The use of deliberate starvation of civilian populations is a war crime, full stop. Even if the perpetrator was not the initial aggressor.

[Mossfern]

66. Point #4 - according to Sinwar

the more babies and civilians that die, the better for Hamas' cause.

You missed my point entirely.
I need to learn how to communicate more efficiently I guess.

[Samael13]

67. And i whole-heartedly supported them responding

Hamas should be absolutely wiped out but they aren't a responsible or caring party so its up to israel to limit the civilian impact. Sadly for everyone netanyahu now has decided this is no longer about getting justice for what happened and has turned into a personal quest to drive the Palestinians out completely.

[Mossfern]

68. I didn't think Israel's response

was for getting justice. I thought it was to wipe out Hamas to insure there would not be an attack similar to 10/7 ever again.
I do not agree that revenge is ever a reasonable solution in the long term.

Revenge leads to revenge leads to revenge - it never ends.
Revenge is stupid.

[leftstreet]

57. This is a creepy thread n/t