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.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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?

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        In his Oakland hearing, White heard evidence from experts on genocide and said in his ruling “the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law”.

        Are you talking about genocidal intent or genocidal actions? The document details both

  • zerog_bandit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          They didn’t say plausible they said indicates. You didn’t even bother reading the comment.

          • zerog_bandit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I didn’t read their comment because it is made up mumbo jumbo. I read the article which states: “Yet, as the ICJ [the international court of justice] has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,”

            Which is just an acknowledgement that there is a proceeding in the ICJ.

  • sugarfree@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

      • friendlysoviet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m still confused what can possibly come from this. Has ‘legislating from the bench’ ever been used to determine foreign policies?

    • GenEcon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.