The enemies of Israel, such as Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Territories, and Ken Roth, the former head of the anti-Israel NGO Human Rights Watch, and the entire staff of NPR, have been reporting that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its recent deliberations found that there was a “plausible case” made that Israel was “committing genocide in Gaza.” Joan Donoghue, the former president of the ICJ when it considered the charge of genocide in Gaza brought before the court by South Africa, recently appeared on the BBC, where she swiftly refuted that claim. More on her no-nonsense setting of the record straight can be found here: “Former ICJ President Says World Court Did Not Rule Genocide Claim Against Israel Is ‘Plausible,’” by Jack Elbaum, Algemeiner, April 26, 2024:
The former presidennt of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified on Thursday [April 25]that the court did not rule it was “plausible” that Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Joan Donoghue, who was president of the ICJ when the preliminary ruling was made, was asked on the BBC if the key point in the January ruling was that it was plausible Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians.
“It did not decide, and this is something where I’m correcting something that’s often said in the media,” she responded. “It did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.”
Rather, she explained, the court ruled on two things pertaining to the question of genocide.
First, “the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide,” and second, that “South Africa had a right to present that in the court.”
In other words, they were answering procedural questions rather than substantive ones.
Donoghue’s correction may have been necessary because, after the preliminary ruling, many observers began claiming the ICJ found Israel was “plausibly” committing genocide. An NPR article in late January, for example, was titled “A top UN court says Gaza genocide is ‘plausible’ but does not order cease-fire.”
Francesca Albanese, the UN’a special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, claimed the ICJ “just recognized that the horror in Gaza plausibly constitutes genocide.”…
No, as usual the malevolently ani-Israel Francesca Albanese, who as an international lawyer understood exactly what the ICJ had decided, and what it had chosen not to decide at this point, was determined to misstate the ICJ’s findings so as to make it seem that the ICJ had concluded .that there was a “plausible” case to be made for Israel committing genocide in Gaza.
Still, others have said her new statement did not actually debunk that interpretation. Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote on X/Twitter that Donoghue said “everyone has a right to be protected from genocide” and that “the court found it plausible that Palestinians’ right was in jeopardy.” Therefore, he argued, “that means it’s plausible that Israel is committing genocide.”
Roth’s logic falters here. The ICJ did not find that the “Palestinians’ right” to be protected from genocide was in jeopardy; it only found the obvious: that the Palestinians, like everyone else in the world, had a right to be protected from genocide. It did not find that the “Palestinians’ right was in jeopardy.” These are different things.
However, Donoghue’s statement was relatively clear. She added at the end: “The shorthand that often appears — that there’s a plausible case of genocide — isn’t what the court decided.”
Seemingly responding to that claim, Roth argued that, either way, “Donoghue isn’t on the court anymore, so her revisionist reinterpretation of the Gaza judgment doesn’t matter.”…
First, it’s not Donoghue, but Roth, who has been providing a “revisionist interpretation” of what the ICJ did. Justice Donoghue, who was president of the ICJ when it made its findings about “genocide” in Gaza, knows better than Roth — and indeed, better than anyone in the world — what the ICJ decided. Roth seems to think that because she has retired from the court, her description of the ICJ’s findings when she was its head no longer matter. Why? Did her memory of her time on the Court simply erase itself? What chutzpah Ken Roth has to condescendingly insist that “her revisionist [!] interpretation of the Gaza judgment doesn’t matter.” Does he mean by “revisionist” that Joan Donoghue is giving a new, and illegitimate interpretation of what the ICJ decided? On what authority does he make this claim? Roth is telling the world that he knows better than Joan Donoghue what the ICJ decided, while she was its president, about the charge of “genocide” in Gaza.
South Africa, which was allowed to present the Palestinians’ claim of “genocide” to the ICJ, has openly shown its indifference to the suffering of Jews. It has never called for the release of the Israeli hostages, neither in its presentation before the ICJ, or at any other time. In fact, the government of South Africa has embraced not just the Palestinians, but more specifically, Hamas, whose operatives raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered Israelis on October 7. Pretoria has invited Hamas members to a conference held in solidarity with the Palestinians. It’s important for the world to realize just how deep in the Hamas mire Pretoria has sunk.
But the main point, that needs to be disseminated far and wide, is that which Joan Donoghue, former president of the ICJ made so forcefully during her brief interview on the BBC. To wit, the ICJ never concluded that there was a “plausible case” to be made that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Those who have claimed otherwise — Francesca Albanese, Ken Roth, NPR, Tom Friedman, and so many others — were either unable to understand the Court’s clear words, or in some cases, have simply been lying. Remember that, the next time these enemies of Israel spread other lies, as they will, about the embattled and maligned Jewish state, now fighting for its survival on all fronts, including the war being waged on the battleground of public opinion.
Pikachu says
Is this a woman?