For the fourth time since last year, we prompted the Guardian to correct an article erroneously claiming that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the genocide accusation against Israel was plausible.
The Nov. 1 article (“Ex-Tory member sues party over suspension for criticising Israel“), by Peter Mcnamara, erred in the following sentence;
[Bruce] MacInnes, who says he had been discussing the International Court of Justice’s ruling in respect to the South Africa claim, which had been found four days earlier to have a plausible case for genocide, replied to the administrator: “Is it really offensive in your view for a member of this group to highlight or support the findings of the International Court of Justice?”
As we’ve pointed out to Guardian editors in the past, during an interview on BBC’s Hardtalk in April 2024, former ICJ president Joan Donoghue clarified that the court, in its preliminary ruling, did NOT rule that genocide was “plausible”. She stressed that the court narrowly decided that Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court – but that it did NOT rule on the merits of the accusation itself.
Our complaint was again upheld and the sentence amended accordingly:
[Bruce] MacInnes, who says he had been discussing the International Court of Justice’s ruling in respect to the South Africa claim (which had four days earlier found that there was an immediate risk to Palestinians’ right to be protected from genocide), replied to the administrator: “Is it really offensive in your view for a member of this group to highlight or support the findings of the International Court of Justice?”
The following addendum was added:
