The flaws in the genocide case against Israel
by Brian Doctor KC, UnHerd:
With hope for a Gaza ceasefire rekindling, I want to focus your attention for a moment on the word “plausible”, which often means appearing to be true, but not really so. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “having an appearance or show of truth, reasonableness or worth; apparently acceptable or trustworthy (sometimes with mere appearance); fair-seeming, specious”. Successful fraudsters aim for plausibility. So do lawyers presenting their clients’ cases.
The word “plausible” does heavy lifting in the recent ruling from the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the way that ruling has been interpreted. The Court ruled that there is a plausible case that South Africa has rights under the Genocide Convention to seek a determination whether Israel had violated the Convention by committing genocide. What does this tortured legalese mean? Essentially that South Africa, who brought the case, plausibly has a right to raise the question of genocide before the Court, and present further evidence. Whether South Africa does in fact have such a right is yet to be fully determined.
The Court expressly stated that at this stage “it was not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred”. You could be forgiven for thinking, however, that the Court has found that Israel has plausibly committed genocide. That is because those who welcomed the judgment have spun it that way.
Shortly after the ruling, South Africa’s Foreign Minister said: “We think [the ICJ finding] makes it clear that it is plausible that genocide is taking place against the Palestinian people in Gaza. This necessarily imposes an obligation on all states to cease funding and facilitating Israel’s military actions.” Similarly, the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen claimed that the ICJ ruled that Israel faces “plausible” allegations that it is committing the crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The court made it expressly clear that all it is required to do at this stage is ascertain whether South Africa’s allegations, if true, fit the definition of genocide in the Convention. The issue of “plausibility” arises because the court has in recent times expanded its power to issue provisional orders preserving the respective claimed “rights” of the parties pending the outcome of the actual trial “if the rights asserted by the party requesting such measures are at least plausible”.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
