As you can see in the ruling that you linked to, "plausibility" was an issue related to standing to bring a claim at the IJC rather than a factual finding concerning alleged "genocide". Search the word "plausible" in the document, and you will see that each reference involves standing to bring a claim.

Unless, of course, the contention is that Ms. O’Donoghue is mistaken about the meaning of the ruling she made, and that the actual text of the ruling says something that it doesn't actually say.

The ruling states:

In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.

That being established, would you now point to the section in which " their right not to be genocided is plausibly being violated"?

the argument that the statement pertains exclusively to the rights of South Africans and makes no statement about the plausibility of prohibited acts committed by Israel does not hold up against the actual text. The passage clearly implicates concerns over prohibited acts being performed by Israel, as it connects these acts to the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza, which South Africa is seeking to protect. the passage is not exclusively about the rights of South Africans; it also addresses the plausibility of acts of genocide and related prohibited acts being committed

The plausibility attaches to the right to bring a claim on behalf of Palestinians and the right of SA to bring that claim (standing). The President of the ICJ is very clear on that point.

Link to tweet

The plausibility of violations cannot be determined by the court based on allegations alone. Plausibility of South Africa's charges themselves (rather than plausibility of its right to file the charges) is up to the court to examine AFTER all evidence is submitted by SA.

The court did not rule that "it is plausible that Palestinians have at least some rights to be protected from genocide." That would be outrageous. All distinct national, ethnical, racial or religious groups are a protected group. Further, the right to protection is absolute, not divisible or partial.

Here is the relevant paragraph:

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2024, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)

the ruling she wrote and released actually states.

From the ruling:

Link to tweet

Your interpretation of the nature of their plausible rights.

You wrote:

Link to tweet

The court deemed it plausible - "worthy of belief" - that Palestinians had the right to be protected. The plausibility issue refers to their status as an ethnic group, which the court made a prima facie determination on. Hence the use of "plausible".

Based on that plausible right, it ordered provisional measures meant to safeguard those rights. These measures were necessary as the court found that Palestinians' plausible right to be protected was at risk of irreperable harm. The court determined that risk to exist based on the evidence presented by SA, the UN etc.

The court further found that there was a link between those plausible rights and some of the measures SA requested. The court then ordered those provisional measures.

The court did NOT say that that plausible right applied only to SOME acts of genocide as you seem to be claiming. That would be akin to saying they had the right to be protected from being physically or mentally harmed but not from being killed.

So plausibility refers to the right of protection based on ethnicity, nationality etc not to the scope of the rights enshrined in the Convention which are full and indivisible and not selective.

I’m not sure exactly how a “plausible right” morphed into “full rights”, but I do know enough about to to understand that “at some” could encompass “all”.

To reiterate the main point, the Court did not decide that SA’s claim of genocide was plausible.

I tend to want to correct misinterpretations or misinformation.

But since you will not concede that point, and accuse me of arguing, I concede that this is a pointless debate.

Over and out.

Could you provide the excerpt(s) from it that confirm what you are saying?

I read the whole ting and I couldn't find any.

Separate from whether or not the defendant/respondent in a civil case did something wrong - you must first get past the standing hurdle. If you lack standing to even bring the case, it doesn’t matter whether or not the other party’s actions were objectionable.

In this case - she’s merely sayin that it isn’t immediately obvious that SA lacks standing. They might or might not… but it’s at least plausible that they can bring the case.

That’s entirely separate from whether or not the defense plausibly committed an offense - let alone a specific one.

They are at risk of irreparable harm to their right to be protected from genocide. Those were her exact words in the video.

Hence the provisional measures.

And yes, it means exactly what you said imo.

A finding of risk of harm to their right requires a determination of some violation of, or threat to, that right.

They know full well that ICJ already convicted Israel of genocide. They wouldn't charge Israel of genocide again and again out of sheer ignorance, would they? The Palestine hating Zionist shield in charge of IJC is backpeddling. Shame on her!

alleging that Israel is committing "genocide" against Axis of Resistance Terror member Hamas.

The first questions would be whether or not Hamas had a plausible right to be protected and whether Democracy Theocracy Now! had a plausible right to bring a claim at the ICJ on Hamas's behalf.