It’s amazing that the narrative has shifted to “you can’t just call deliberately inflicting on a group of people conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ‘genocide’… shame on you!”.

This article is a joke. The Economist is a joke. The OP’s entire history is a joke.

Someone find the article of the Economist glorifying Britain’s genocide in India from a back in the day. It seems like little has changed.

The ICJ will make a mockery of itself by the time this is all over, because even if it finds Isn’treal guilty years from now when the trail finally concludes, the US will veto any action at the Security Council.

Stupid publication that hates the ICJ as they know their own could be charged next.

With its case, South Africa is making a mockery of the court. Genocide requires that Israel is killing people in Gaza simply for being Palestinian. In fact it is targeting Hamas fighters in response to a deadly attack on its territory. Some far-right Israeli politicians have used hateful language, but they are not articulating government policy.

The court is filled to the brim with professionals who are more than able to determine if someone brings them nonsense. The fact that the case was not dismissed and a preliminary judgement was made indicates there could be legal merit to the case. They do not need some silly publication to “protect them”. The ICJ was founded for these kinds of cases.

I personally think that it important to shine a light on what’s going on and answer the most important question:

• Does the violence by Israel provably rise to the level of genocide as legally defined?

Because if it does, it will make it a hell of a lot harder for politicians to go on TV and defend Israel.