by Nizar Mhani @NizMhani on X
Responding to a tweep that said “”Plausible genocide” means that it was not found to be a genocide, obviously,” Niz Mhani wrote the following:
Sir, this wasn’t a trial. It was the outcome of a hearing. The conclusion of the hearing was to put Israel on trial for the crime of #genocide. It was not within the courts remit to determine whether genocide was taking place in Gaza or not. That will take over a year and will require a full trial to scrutinize the evidence and cross-examine witnesses. That’s how a trial is conducted.
The courts remit was to establish three main things:
1) Does the court have jurisdiction over the matter? It ruled it did.
2) Does the court believe South Africa’s claims (crimes of genocide/violations of the genocide convention) were plausible? It ruled they were.
3) Is the situation serious enough to require provisional measures? It ruled it was.
Had the court rules negatively on point 1 and 2, it would have thrown the case out and there would be no point 3….and no trial.
The court spent the first hour of its judgment listing all the abhorrent things Israel has said and done, including reading out statements inciting genocide. It did not spend that hour explaining how Israel’s actions/response was justified or proportionate. The content of the preamble to the judgement is as important as the judgments themselves in giving away the court’s perspective on the matter.
Trust me, to think it was a favourable ruling for Israel is the height of delusion, propaganda and spin. Watch my video on the ICJ ruling…. it might help.
Written by Nizar Mhani @NizMhani on X