South Africa’s publicity machinery went into overdrive even before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its ruling on provisional measures Israel must take to prevent genocide in Gaza.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) was quick off the mark with a press release stating: “Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people. In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has determined that Israel’s actions in Gaza are plausibly genocidal and has indicated provisional measures on that basis. For the implementation of the international rule of law, the decision is a momentous one.”
Hours later, President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation on television. “The ICJ, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has handed down a ruling that the State of Israel should immediately implement a set of provisional measures to prevent any further acts of genocide in Gaza, to desist from such acts, and to take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence relating to acts of genocide. As the South African government, we welcome the decision of the ICJ.”
Ramaphosa can be forgiven for his misstatements as the news back home has not been good lately, with violent crime soaring, the lights continuing to be turned off by blundering Eskom and the movement of goods through the ports grinding to a halt. All this with an election coming up.
The primary misstatement he made was that the court ordered provisional measures “to prevent further acts of genocide in Gaza”. This implies that the court found that genocidal acts had been committed and that “further” acts must be halted. The court made no such finding on the merits of the case, which will be the subject of subsequent hearings.
As for Dirco’s sudden conversion to “the implementation of the international rule of law” following South Africa’s flirtation with Russia, Sudanese warlords and the like, the less said the better.
While the court ruling will hopefully lead to a reduction in unnecessary civilian casualties, a closer examination of the judgment clearly shows that it was much less of a victory than Dirco and Ramaphosa have made out.
South Africa’s case before the ICJ has been welcomed in some quarters as a seminal moment in the country’s foreign policy, but Pretoria’s conversion to the pursuit of human rights over politics remains questionable, at least until it applies the same standards to its African brothers and sisters, and to Iran, Syria and even Hamas in the Middle East.
A blow for Hamas
The jewel in the crown of the South African case was the demand for an immediate end to Israel’s operation in Gaza. By not accepting the South African argument for a ceasefire, the court was, in effect, saying that the pursuit of the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered 1,200 people, mainly civilians, in Israel on 7 October was legitimate.
This is a blow for Hamas and its Iranian backers who have been assiduously courting South Africa’s assistance as thousands of Hamas fighters succumb to the Israeli military operation.
The court actually said: “The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide.”
The court went on to say that Israel must “desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.
The court also pointedly called on Hamas to release the hostages taken on 7 October, a stand which South Africa for some reason omitted to request.
Dirco’s statement ended with a crescendo. “As Nelson Mandela momentously declared, “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.
Mandela, who visited Israel and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Ben Gurion, did indeed hold strong views on Israel and Palestine, but they were nowhere near the present desire by South Africa, Iran and Hamas to destroy the Jewish state.
He said in 1993: “As a movement, we recognise the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism just as we recognise the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism. We insist on the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure borders, but with equal vigour support the Palestinian right to national self-determination.”
He might not have been as enthusiastic as the callow Ramaphosa to embrace one side without reaching out to the other to keep the prospect of a real resolution in sight. That is not seeking resolution, or even protection of human lives. It’s just cheap political theatre, global grandstanding carried out at the expense, ultimately, of the South African taxpayer. Favouring Hamas and Tehran cannot have helped to derisk South Africa as a trade partner and investment destination.
The absence of balance and perspective is revealing and informs where Africa ranks as a South African foreign policy priority. The lives of Sudanese, Congolese or, closer to home, Zimbabweans, are as important as Palestinians, though apparently Pretoria does not think so if prioritising the ICJ case is anything to go by.
The revolutionary Amilcar Cabral famously said: “Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.”
Ramaphosa would do well to heed this advice. DM
How the court really ruled on South Africa’s requests for intervention
Become an Insider
The ICJ delivered a historic judgement in granting nearly all of South Africa’s request in its case against Israel.
I think in time to come history will judge the potential genocide of Netanyahu as similar to the genocide committed by Hitler.
Greg Mills and Ray Hartley from the Brenthurst Foundation can spin whatever propaganda they wish on the verdict by the ICJ but the shame of Israel in having committed genocide will be similar to Germany’s shame of Hitler’s Holocaust.
I totally agree with you.
No it didn’t, it pretty much told Israel to continue what it’s doing. There’s no ceasefire. There IS and order for Hamas to immediately release all hostages… do you really think Hamas is going to comply with that?
Absolutely. No mention in the many commentaries of the instruction “instant release of hostages”. In addition the IDF are already complying with the other instructions apart from reporting. No victory for the ANC – in fact embarrassing defeat. They are basically “trying to play out of the rough” and put as much spin as possible.
Yeah, they’ve told Israel to keep going and just make sure the paperwork is in order.
Yes, the old adage “he who laughs last laughs longest” applies here.
“trying to play out of the rough” and put as much spin as possible. – with a 54 handicap
I think you are grossly mistaken much like the South African government. The loss of life on both sides is absolutely tragic no doubt. There is massive misinformation going on now.
However the ICJ ruled the following
1. Israel prevent acts of genocide and report back on your efforts in 30 days.
2. No ruling on actual genocide taking place whatsoever which the SA GOVERNMENT is claiming.
3. Hammas release all hostages.
So whilst I and many across the world all detest war and killing. South Africa’s government is a bunch of hypocrites and political opportunists.
This in many ways judging by what was scene by Ramaphala and Pandor as publicity stunt for the ANC. They have not been as
quick to condemn Russia, China, Sudan Venezuela and so on. Shameful
Deflect, deny, obfuscate, create smoke and mirrors. Anything to divert attention from the mess they are faced with in an election year.
They have no moral fibre whatsoever and only care about money. Mandela is spinning in his grave
They are very transparent in their support for Hamas. They may fool some of the voters but thankfully not all of them. They are a bunch of hipocrates.
Nearly all? Is that like nearly pregnant?
Agree, Ray Hartley and Greg Mills remind me of Jacob Zuma and Bell Pottinger with their effort to spin the narrative. The slaughter of the Palestinians by the Jews occupying Palestine is now firmly on the world stage. Shame on you!
Your anti-semitism is telling.
But at least you’re being honest in your views.
“Jews occupying Palestine”? Because there aren’t Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bahai etc etc living in Israel
No the spin is coming from the anc and the gullible pro-hamas supporters who seemingly have failed basic English comprehension
What about genocide committed by Hamas?
Shame, Mills and Hartley continue to clutch at straws to defend the undefendible. By your own biased table South Africa won 6 of the 9 demands it made. The court may still find Israel is engaged in genocide. But just like the Anglo American Corporation (which pays your salaries), did under apartheid, you continue to justify colonial oppression and even genocide.
The worrying thing is that Mills is an advisor to the Nato and UK military. Instead of taking seriously the need to control Israel’s genocidal tendencies, you encourage them to continue. This is the recipe for another war like in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan where the US and Nato inflicted massive civilian casualties, but were eventually forced to withdraw having lost the political battles.
The blood of the civilians of Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other countries will be on your hands.
Ramaphosa said that South Africa believes in freedom yet South Africa has scarcely disguised support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is blatant hypocrisy. The ANC is milking the balanced report of the ICJ for all its worth for political reasons.
So if you lose your head but keep your arms and legs you’re 80% alive? That’s the sort of logic that you’re following.
Agreed. Take Mills and Hartley’s comments with a large pinch of salt. They are both largely irrelevant in the new SA
I am totally for the liberation of Palestine, but COMPLETELY AGAINST any action taken in the name of jihad. What chills me deeply is how often I hear child victims being called ‘martyrs’ as if they willingly accepted death or horrible injury. A question which I think Minister Pandor and our president should have to answer unequivocally is: If you have influence with the Hamas upper echelon, would you ask them to surrender? If Israel were to then carry on with its decimation of Gaza, that would definitely be genocide as well as a definite indication that Hamas is putting fellow Palestinians first and not its notion of divine sanction. Please let us not ignore the role of religious delusion on both sides in this war – children of Abraham killing children of Abraham. The evolution of our species still has a long way to go.
An inconvenient truth
@DM – this is all starting to sound and feel political. Opinion piece A says SA did well to start slowly clawing back moral standing. Opinion piece B says Iran paid for everything. And everyone feels justified, because it’s an election year.
I expect cogence in your response should you disagree.
One can however argue that DM is (for once) putting out different opinions on the matter which it should do
Yet another piece characterised by extreme cynicism and whataboutism from Greg Mills and Ray Hartley on the ongoing Israeli occupation and destruction of Palestine.
This was a huge victory for both South Africa and the Palestinians and a shameful moment for the Western powers that have supported Israel despite clear evidence of genocidal intent.
The court rule that it is credible that Israel could be engaging in genocidal acts. That is monumental.
It could not order a ceasefire as it does not have jurisdiction over Hamas which is not a state actor. Why is that? Because Israel has denied statehood to Palestinians and its Prime Minister has openly stated he has no interest in allowing a Palestinian state to exist, even after the current wave of civilian murders and violence is over.
Also what on earth is the statement?: “Mandela, who visited Israel and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Ben Gurion, did indeed hold strong views on Israel and Palestine, but they were nowhere near the present desire by South Africa, Iran and Hamas to destroy the Jewish state.”
Since when did South Africa desire the destruction of Israel? This is libelous and you should be held accountable for making such frankly absurd and defamatory statements. Do better.
None so blind as those who will not see.
And you do not see the irony in that statement?
John John John, tell me in all honestly you don’t see that the court ruling rubber stamps Israel’s actions? Nothing in that ruling tells them to stop doing anything, it does however order Hamas to release all hostages immediately.
This was not a “huge victory for South Africa”. The decision of the ICJ was for justice in this world.
An extremely biased and cynical article from Mills and Hartley full of misdirection and whataboutism. The majority of requests for intervention were in fact granted. A ceasefire order is not possible as this would require both sides to be nations recognized by the court. Hamas is an organisation not a nation and there is no Palestine nation thanks to (amongst others) Netanyahu and his biased, right wing nationalist government.
It’s very funny how you look at 6/9 (The majority) as a win when actually all that Israel has to do is document her innovative methods of minimizing civilian deaths.
Israel first needs to have those innovative methods in place. To date it is patently obvious that that has not been the case.
How so? Care to elaborate?
No, their piece, as usual, is quite balanced and fact based unlike the one-sided biased pro Hamas pieces that dominate DM
Thanks for the facts.
O please. Israel got a little tap on the wrist. Nothing has changed. Not one thing.
Exactly, that’s the point! The ICJ has rubber stamped Israel’s actions and pretty much told them to continue doing what you’re doing, just keep better records
For once the SA Government has achieved something. However, one has to question the motives of the Brenthurst foundation and the authors in publishing this article.
Furthermore one must question the following
“the court was, in effect, saying that the pursuit of the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered 1,200 people, mainly civilians, in Israel on 7 October was legitimate”. At what stage has South Africa or anyone attempted to justify this heinous act. It is widely recognised that the pursuit of the terrorists is the right of a state that has been attacked. It’s the killing of non-combatants as a reprisal that is repulsive to anyone with an ounce of compassion. Shades of the SS in occupied Europe in WWll.
“as thousands of Hamas fighters succumb to the Israeli military operation” Perhaps the authors can justify this statement by differentiating between the corpses of children and Hamas fighters.
“the court ruling will hopefully lead to a reduction in unnecessary civilian casualties” At what stage are there ever necessary civilian casualties. This comment is straight out of the “War on Terror” playbook where “unnecessary civilian casualties” were called collateral damage.
Israel could retrieve the remaining hostages tomorrow, if it wished, by accepting that Palestinians have legitimate claims to sovereignty and by agreeing to leave the occupied West Bank and restoring what remains of Palestine to the people whose land they occupy and who citizens they oppress.
Brilliantly summed up Peter
Please show us where any stats are given for Hamas combatant casualties. This is never declared, especially by Hamas mouthpieces themselves
It’s the authors themselves who quote this particular stat – so are you saying that Mills and Hartley are unreliable narrators, then?
No they don’t there’s no such number anywhere in there, in fact the only specific number in the article is 1,200 – the number of Israeli’s slaughtered by Hamas
Spot on
There is 1 main issue that you ignore Peter and that is that you need 2 parties that ‘willingly’ discuss the creation of a Palestinian state, Since 1948 there has been 1 side willing to discuss the 2 state solution, and that is Israel. Palestine has refused to accept Israel as a state, although th UN did on 15 May 1948 and the main reason, they wanted Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, which Israel opposed quite legitimately (read your BIBLE to confirm this fact). Since then Palestine has refused to discuss a 2 state solution while Israel has given more & more ground away to appease the ‘invaders’ while the world sits around blaming Israel without forcing Palestine to acknowledge Israel’s right to existence.
Just some history for you and those who care about the deaths in Gaza. Do you realize that all the money ‘given’ to Hamas & Palestinians since 1948 would have made every person staying in Gaza at least a dollar millionaire if it was not used to build the tunnel networks to set up the Hamas command structures underground in Gaza. Check the facts and what they were given, so as they say: Follow the money, then ask yourself who are doing what to the people of Gaza?
At some point the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7 will have to be acknowledged by supporters of the Palestinian cause and convincingly renounced. Only then will the divide between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian supporters be possible to address. It is just not possible to deny one side the right to vicious retaliation while condoning a vicious attack. Hamas is a declared terror organisation, and the people of Palestine will have to dissociate itself from them and their tactics (and other terror groups) if they want undivided support for a secure two state solution. The South African intervention (in my view), although partially successful, was more about politicking than finding a genuine solution. The current moral high ground and back slapping by the SA team will be short lived unless they too make the distinction between extremist terror organisations (such as Hamas) and the Palestinian people.
Well said
Please. İt has f all to do with Hamas. What’s the excuse prior to Hamas, prior to 1987? Israel was pulling the same crap back then, with no Hamas. What’s the excuse in the West Bank, where there is no Hamas?
I’m tired of hearing this “But do you denounce Hamas” BS. İt is not, and never was about Hamas.
Nutty Yahoo is even on record as saying that for Israel to go on its merry way, THEY need to fund Hamas.
Off you go to Gaza and support the people you hold so dear
My takeaway from this incredibly biased and bitter article is that the authors are rather tilted at the outcome of the ICJ decision. Any learned reader knows who pays their salaries and who is behind the Brenthurst Foundation. Keep pushing the Propaganda – we see right through you. Disappointing read DM.
And any reader with half a brain can connect the dots from Iran to Hamas to Cyril and the ANC
Half a brain you say? Okay. Perhaps you should have that seen to.
Shame, afraid of the real world?
Why must Ramaphosa be forgiven for his misstatement, he should be condemned
Thank you Greg and Ray for your article which shows some balance compared to the pro Palestinian (pro Hamas) pieces recently penned by Feriel. It was indeed a hollow victory for SA. Not at all what they wanted. Despite the brave face put on by many anti Israeli contributors the most important request, an enforced ceasefire, was not granted. The rest, Israel will argue they are doing anyway. So the whole thing was a colossal waste of time and money and has put SA in a bad light with the rest of the sane world. It must be galling for those who hoped for a better outcome. And as for those silly scarves, what were they thinking?
It certainly shows the opposite view, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Dear Mr President, The ICJ did not consider whether genocide, by either side – Israel or Palestine – had been perpetrated, and it is disingenuous of you to imply, as your words below clearly do, something that the ICJ did not contemplate or address.
I would agree that the impact on the Gazan peoples, resulting from Hamas placing their assets of war, under or very proximate to structures that, in other circumstances, might be considered “neutral” and safer spaces – hospitals, schools, mosques – has placed too many Gazans at high risk, and myself, and the broader World, look forward to South Africa, in an even-handed way, bringing this also to the attention of the ICJ. This is likely to be easier for the ICJ to actually adjudicate on as the facts, are considerably clearer, can be more precisely defined and thus holding to account the truly heinous party – Hamas.
I am sure you would agree, Mr President, of the importance of now displaying mature, more balanced judgement, and going some way to countering the allegations that Iran, gave a large donation to the ANC, prior to our country taking this case to the ICJ.
After the Phala-Phala PR disaster, and the extremely negative “ANC dirty linen” that the Zondo Commission laid bare to an incredulous World, I am sure that you would concur, that the tarnished, battered reputation of the ANC, and indeed Governance, is badly in need of now presenting more balanced judgement, and holding Hamas to international ICJ, judgement.
“…and going some way to countering the allegations that Iran, gave a large donation to the ANC, prior to our country taking this case to the ICJ.”
That that is asserted without evidence can merely be dismissed out of hand.
This disingenuous spin raises serious doubts about the Brenthurst Foundation.
Oy Vey
Well that’s a far better assessment of the outcome of this ICJ show and imminently more sensible than Ferial’s article that pugnaciously sticks to the narrative of a ‘great win for SA’.
On a global platform, there aren’t too many of SA’s key trading partners that appreciates the opportnistic grandstanding our ruling party have embarked on. In the first instance it appears that SA regularly sides with terror states & terror organisations. In the 2nd instance it seeks to dismiss the deeds of those terror organisations – Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine & its war crimes / Sudan’s Al Bashir’s genocidal war / Hamas’s barbaric massacre of 7 October.
Other than recognise these 3 crimes terror state/organisations’ crimes against humanity, SA has picked a fight with a state who is fighting an existential battle against an organisation whose charter calls for the annihilation of a democratic state.
Anecdotally I’ve heard much chatter around how the ruling party’s deep financial woes have miraculously dissipated within a timeframe that correlates with 7 October massacre & what has followed.
It all comes out in the wash and I’m afraid for our country who’s real partners support our economy & are less than comfortable with the newfound foreign policy of teaming up with despots, dictators, recognised terror movements and states who sponsor terror.
This should be compulsitory reading for all commenting here
It’s a resounding victory for the SA Legal Team! It’s a victory for humanity and justice! This article is a feeble attempt at spin! The court orders Israel to “desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. To effectively comply with this order, Israel would need to dramatically change it’s behaviour and tactics on the battlefield! Let’s see what the report says and can’t wait to read the SA Legal Team’s comments! No doubt that the report will be subjected to the most diligent scrutiny!
Actually a bit of research will show you that this war has abnormally low civilian: fighter death toll, which Israel will merely have to document and submit to the ICJ.
Really? That’s some desperate spin. 40% of those killed are under the age of 16.
I think that you should likely not use the IDF as a research partner.
please provide the source of your data
What’s the source of those numbers?
Erm, no. The ruling tells Israel it can continue doing what it’s doing
Taken on it’s own, the case presented by those representing South Africa was impressive. Items 1 & 2 were never going to be granted but 6 of the remaining seven items were granted.
However with a broader view, the South African govt are hypocrites by saying nothing about Russia invading Ukraine or other atrocities commited just above us in Africa.
An absence of balance and perspective is clearly demonstrated by this piece. The authors should be very careful not to bring their foundation into disrepute.
Hahahahaha
Ray Mills and Greg Hartley continue their descent into madness.
Two things stand out. The first is that they are willing to prevaricate in order to make their point. They say:
“The court actually said: “The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide.””
True, the Court did SAY that. But it did not ASSERT it. It was actually what South Africa asked the Court to declare; and the Court, when saying it, was quoting the South African case. So Mills and Hartley are lying by omission here.
Second, they are willing to make wild allegations with no basis in fact. They refer to “the present desire by South Africa, Iran and Hamas to destroy the Jewish state”. What justifies this assertion? Is the mere fact of arguing against Israel at the ICJ an indication of an intent to destroy it?
They’ve completely lost the plot.
This article is so self-evidently absurd that the only possible explanation is that the Brenthurst Foundation’s backers demand the stance taken. Who funds them?
There is too much talk about the Israelis killing “innocent” Palestinians and too little about what led to the attack.
How should they have reacted? Is there any reasonable way to answer to a killing spree by a terror group?
Start by not dropping cluster bombs on residential areas, hospitals, and schools..? Nor is it an excuse that Hamas is using “civilian shields”: international law prohibits military action expected to cause loss of civilian life if that loss would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
There is no hard-and-fast rule as to what counts as proportional, but we can take as an example the US military’s test, which has said that the acceptable level of casualties that are considered proportional in most attacks is zero. The most is thirty, for if they want to kill someone like Bin Laden.
So by that metric, Israel obviously falls woefully short.
Wrong, International Law revokes protection for facilities being used by the combatants, in this conflict, schools hospitals and residential areas are most certainly fair game
Citation needed? International law certainly does not “revoke” protection. You make it sound like it’s a free for all the moment Hamas decides to set up camp somewhere. The principle of proportionality still and always applies.
Read the statutes
International Humanitarian Law – Rule 28: Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy
ICRC affirms that International humanitarian law lends hospitals special protections during war. But hospitals can lose their protections if combatants use them to hide fighters or store weapons.
International Humanitarian Law, Rule 6 Volume II, Chapter 1, Section F – Pursuant to Article 13(3) of Additional Protocol II, civilians are immune from direct attack “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”
International Humanitarian Law Rule Rule 10; Volume II, Chapter 2, Section D: Loss of protection of civilian objects must be read together with the basic rule that only military objectives may be attacked. It follows that when a civilian object is used in such a way that it loses its civilian character and qualifies as a military objective, it is liable to attack. This reasoning can also be found in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which makes it a war crime to intentionally direct attacks against civilian objects, provided they “are not military objectives”
There’s more if you like
Oh and as you quite rightly pointed out, there is no hard and fast rule regarding proportionality
So whassup? Cat got your tongue?
Nothing you’ve said changes my point. The principle of proportionality still and always applies, whether it is a military objective or not.
agree – but comments on this site are limited…..
Mills & Hartley’s dogged defenses of what many commentators call “the most right wing government in Israeli history” are becoming boring. It’s simply tribalism. Israel is defined as belonging to the US-led Democratic tribe and hence is definitionally incapable of making mistakes or doing wrong. One searches in vain for nuance and critical thinking…
Wrong. The SA government has not once expressed “a desire for the destruction of the Israeli state”. It’s a falsehood expressed as a fact, without substance, substantiation, verification, or credence. It makes the entire opinion questionable and its motives suspect.
Thank you Greg and Ray for a very balanced and honest feedback on what the ICJ really ruled. The anc obviously live in an alternate universe.
Why is my comment not yet moderated? Is this a pro Palestinian site only? Please advise….?
When exactly did South Africa express the ‘desire … to destroy the Jewish state’?
Having watched the disgraceful murder of thousands of innocent Palestinians on sort-of reputable TV stations like the BBC (who do have a shameful pro-Israeli bias like the English and Americans) I am thoroughly disgusted by Mills and Hartley carrying out the same Whataboutery as many commenters on this site. While I detest the ANC as much as anyone, I fully support their ICJ motion, and wish there were other countries who had taken the same action. Maybe the Oppenheimer influence in the BF is a bit obvious here?
How so, after all your racist, homophobic and not-so-closet supremacist posts indicate this is right up your alleyway.
In their effort to spin the narrative the authors omitted to share that the judges had the option of dismissing the case. They did not, they overwhelmingly found plausible evidence of genocide. The case of genocide is far from over.
I’m actually a bit shocked to see that DM allowed a balanced article to be published
If you think Mills and Hartley are balanced, I’d hate to see you trying to ride a bike.