A federal court in California has ruled that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza “plausibly” amounts to genocide, but dismissed a case aimed at stopping US military support for Israel as being outside the court’s jurisdiction.
“There are rare cases in which the preferred outcome is inaccessible to the court. This is one of those cases,” the US district court in the northern district of California ruled. “The court is bound by precedent and the division of our coordinate branches of government to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter.
“Yet, as the ICJ [the international court of justice] has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,” the judge in the case, Jeffrey White, said in his ruling, in a case brought by Palestinian human rights groups and individual Palestinians against President Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, and Lloyd Austin, the defence secretary.
Interesting line from the ruling (page 4 of 9):
Both the uncontroverted testimony of the Plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.
Bold that first part too. That’s based on uncontroverted testimony, expert opinions, and statements by the Israeli government. Kind of hard to argue against that.
“We didn’t say we were committing genocide, we said we were just killing everyone. Is that hard to understand?” 🤷
Hey, let’s be fair, they are amenable to just destroying all the civilian infrastructure… which is also genocide, in order to expel the Palestinians… which is also genocide. They are literally going from a) to d) of the acts that constitute genocide according to the article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and confirming intention live on TV.
Golly gee, I wonder why Israel didn’t even bother showing up for this case that is completely out of jurisdiction and has no bearing on reality…
1 day old account spreading misinformation and propaganda. Nothing to see here, folks; just down vote and move on.
Yup just make a character argument because defending terrorists is a bad look.
You’re right. You defending a state committing genocide on a people is a bad look. Not sure I’d call Israel terrorists yet, but I’ll let it slide.
Calling Biden an israeli politician wouldn’t be far off the truth. But rumors have it he’s residing somewhere in the US.
Me
Vs.
Palestine
For making me read ridiculous comments like this.
Are these cases required to go to a state court before they’re presented federally?
While it’s good to know, It feels like it’s not relevant whether an individual state’s courts argue it, since foreign policy has to be handled on a federal level.
edit: I’m actually confused. It’s a federal court in California? what sway does it have typically?
It’s a federal court so specifically about matters of federal law. Where it’s geographically located isn’t relevant to the ruling, and state courts aren’t involved.
Thanks for the clarification
Great. Wondering how this author is feeling now. (I’m the OP.)
I imagine they’re making excuses.
You have the quote right there “some government officials” =/= official government policy. Hell we have plenty of government officials in the US claiming women have no rights to their bodies. That’s not a federal government policy.
Lol. One comment in a judgement that dismissed the case, simply acknowledging that South Africa brought the matter to the ICJ. But people will gobble up the pro Hamas propaganda.
You dismiss the court explicitly stating that israel is committing Genocide as “one line in a ruling”?
I guess they didn’t say it was Genocide… if you just ignore the fact that they said it is Genocide!
The Californian ruling added multiple comments which were not stated by the ICJ and explicitly said they had to dismiss it because it was outside of their jurisdiction. You’re welcome to read the case it’s linked down below.
You do not understand what the word “plausible” means.
It really is both breathtakingly stupid and alarmingly revealing all at the same time.
Nobody cares about what a random court in California has to say on the Israel/Palestine conflict. But of course they have to have their say, because they think they are important.
First three words…
A federal court
I’m still confused what can possibly come from this. Has ‘legislating from the bench’ ever been used to determine foreign policies?
Also ‘plausibly’ is is a term used if something isn’t complety against the rules of law or nature. For example its plausible that someone robbed me yesterday. That says nothing about it happening.
