Cloudflare capcha page
www.timesofisrael.com

A US-based aid group admitted Friday that a group of individuals — who the Israeli military says were armed — took control of an aid convoy in the southern Gaza Strip the day before, without the organization having vetted them or coordinated the matter with the Israel Defense Forces.

The military said Thursday that it struck the gunmen, killing them while not harming aid workers.

According to the IDF, Hamas operatives frequently try to hijack aid deliveries.

The IDF had said on Thursday that a convoy of aid trucks from the American Near East Refugee Aid (Anera) organization entered the southern Rafah area with Israeli coordination. It said that during the drive, it identified a group of gunmen taking over a vehicle at the front of the convoy and beginning to lead it. The IDF described the act as a hijacking attempt.

Shortly afterward, the IDF said it was able to determine that it could strike just the car with the gunmen, without harming the rest of the convoy, and so it carried out a strike, killing at least four.

  • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.orgOPEnglish
    36·
    2 months ago

    That is just one of the reasons the ICC, the organization literally with the legal authority to determine of some thing is genocide or not determined that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.

    That is a misrepresentation of what the ICJ ruled. You can’t even tell apart the ICJ and the ICC, it seems. You can’t even get the organization right.

    Here you can hear the President of the ICJ explain what is meant by plausible.

    “At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist,” said the ICJ. “It need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible. “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.”

    Plausible only refers to the right of South Africa to bring this case to the ICJ.

    the ICJ had only ruled that Gaza Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide - in other words, that it had been dealing with a complex and somewhat abstract legal argument.

    A day later, Joan Donoghue - now retired from the ICJ - appeared on the BBC’s HARDtalk programme and explicitly tried to end the debate by setting out what the court had done. “It did not decide - and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media… that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge. “It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”

    • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      You’re right about the ICJ vs ICC which is a mistake I don’t ordinarily make. My only execute for that is I woke up in the middle of the night from a migraine.

      Your quotes however are extremely cherry picked, and your description of what they mean is absolutely wrong.

      Part of the case was about establishing South Africa’s right to bring the case, but part of it was to determine the plausibility of the charge.

      https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa

      The International Court of Justice has found it is “plausible” that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention. In a provisional order delivered by the court’s president, Joan Donoghue, the court said Israel must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces not commit any of the acts prohibited by the convention.

      Donoghue said the court cannot make a final determination right now on whether Israel is guilty of genocide. But she said that given the deteriorating situation in Gaza, the court has jurisdiction to order measures to protect Gaza’s population from further risk of genocide.

      But, I’m sure NPR is Hamas, right?

      • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.orgOPEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        Since when does the West Bank have restrictions on Journalists entering?

        You don’t believe the president of the court you cite, okay then.

        • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          I literally posted a link, so others don’t have to determine of over cherry picked my quote that shows my assertion.

          You don’t believe anything that goes counter to your love for an apartheid government.