Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian’s omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
The paraphrasing:
The State of Israel shall … desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group
It looks like the only difference here is changing “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of”, to “desist from the commission of”, which is fairly reasonable and doesn’t change the meaning, since “desist” alone can be taken to mean “refrain from” or “cease”.
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can’t see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we’re dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
Nah go back further to Larmy’s initial comment and the Guardian article linked at the top of this post. Larmy’s second post too leaves out the word “Genocide Convention” and just says “convention.”
Both altered the text of the actual order to make it appear as though Israel was ordered not to kill any Palestinians, and they did it on purpose to make Israel look like it is violating the order.
It’s always illegal by the ICJ standards to kill people in violation of the Genocide Convention. It’s not always a violation of the Genocide Convention to kill people, though. That’s a significant difference.
You said:
u/LarmyofLone then quoted the order, showing that the language they used was exactly from the order.
Take the L, mate.
Are you dense?
Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian’s omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Obviously, that’s not what the order said.
The actual text:
The paraphrasing:
It looks like the only difference here is changing “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of”, to “desist from the commission of”, which is fairly reasonable and doesn’t change the meaning, since “desist” alone can be taken to mean “refrain from” or “cease”.
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can’t see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we’re dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
You’re still missing the key difference. Right, 78.
This is the language that was omitted:
Israel cannot kill Palestinians in violation of the Genocide Convention. No kidding?
That’s not the same as saying Israel cannot kill any Palestinians.
Then that’s what LarmyofLone said. “Within the scope of the convention.” Why can’t you back down mate? It’ll be good for you. We all make mistakes.
Nah go back further to Larmy’s initial comment and the Guardian article linked at the top of this post. Larmy’s second post too leaves out the word “Genocide Convention” and just says “convention.”
Both altered the text of the actual order to make it appear as though Israel was ordered not to kill any Palestinians, and they did it on purpose to make Israel look like it is violating the order.
It’s always illegal by the ICJ standards to kill people in violation of the Genocide Convention. It’s not always a violation of the Genocide Convention to kill people, though. That’s a significant difference.