• Flyswat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, they need to make sure the ruling is final and not act on allegations without due investigation before they cut funds. You know, like they did with the UNRWA.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Are you really trying to both sides this? Firstly the law in question uses the word “risk”, not “certainty” so I’m sure the ICJ ruling that there’s a plausible case of genocide against Israel fits that description. Secondly, the Western nations that cut funding from the UNRWA did so as a form of protest after Israel lost in court and as a way to de-legitimise the case against Israel, as a lot of findings in the preliminary ruling of the ICJ use UN figures as a source.

      • Flyswat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Maybe I should have added “/s”.

        What I meant was to show the discrepancy in how said countries dealt with the 2 cases to show how clearly they are impartial, and are not bothered to hide it.