Oct. 15 UPDATE:
Los Angeles Times Corrects
In response to communication from CAMERA, The Los Angeles Times yesterday commendably corrected the digital version of the Op-Ed and will also publish a correction in tomorrow's print edition. See below for a detailed update.
In the pages of The Los Angeles Times, Rabbi Aryeh Cohen piously uses the sacred holy day of Yom Kippur to atone for what he sees as Israel's great sins. As he puts it ("I'm a rabbi and a former IDF soldier. This Yom Kippur I'm atoning for my part in the occupation," Oct. 11 print edition page A1):
This Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, my time as an IDF soldier has me carrying a need to repent for the occupation and call urgently for a cease-fire. There is a long list of sins— the Al Chet — that traditionally is recited several times during Yom Kippur services. It is written in plural, to signal that each individual accepts responsibility for the actions of the community. As we consider what we have to atone for this year, I think these transgressions listed in the Al Chet are a good place to start:“For the sins we have sinned unknowingly. For the sins we have sinned openly. For the sins we have sinned with intention and deception. For the sins we have sinned with internal thought.”
What sins in particular? To start, some in the American Jewish community have indiscriminately supported the state of Israel, even though in January the International Court of Justice found it plausible that the Israeli government was committing genocide and ordered it to take measures to stop. Israel has been criticized for not complying by groups including the United Nations and Human Rights Watch. And yet, the website of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles proclaims: “Our Federation and the Jewish community of Los Angeles stand in unequivocal solidarity with our homeland,” despite growing evidence of alleged war crimes.
In fact, the ICJ did not find it plausible that the Israeli government was committing genocide nor did it order Israel to take measures "to stop." Rather, the court ruled that “there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.“
As the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, has clearly explained, stating on the BBC:
I’m glad I have a chance to address that because the court test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case, South Africa. So the Court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. It then looked at the facts as well but it did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn’t what the court decided. [Emphasis added.]
Urgent message for @DrJoGrady: in case you didn't see, the President of the ICJ has confirmed it did not find there was a plausible case of genocide by Israel. So please stop repeating this libel. pic.twitter.com/08b161vBcc
— UK Lawyers For Israel (@UKLFI) April 30, 2024
Indeed, the court did not order Israel "to stop" genocide because its preliminary ruling did not determine that Israel is committing genocide. Instead, its conclusions (and this can be checked in the hyperlink that the LA Times provides in Cohen's Op-Ed):
The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to 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 recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts. [Emphasis added.]
Media outlets which previously corrected the identical error falsely stating the court found it plausible that Israel is committing genocide include CNN, the Guardian (two times) and Associated Press. One of the Guardian's May 2024 corrections states, for instance:
This article was amended on 16 May 2024 to clarify the findings of the international court of justice, which ruled on the Palestinians' plausible right to be protected from genocide, rather than the plausibility of the claims of genocide.
Oct. 15 Update: Los Angeles Times Corrects
In response to communication from CAMERA Israel's office, The Los Angeles Times yesterday corrected the print edition of Cohen's Op-Ed. The revised text now more accurately reflects the ICJ's ruling, stating:
… in January the International Court of Justice found it plausible that the right of Palestinians to be protected from genocide was at risk and ordered Israel to take measures to prevent specific acts within the Genocide Convention.
In addition, a correction posted prominently at the top of the article informs readers:
A previous version of this article stated that the International Court of Justice found it plausible that Israel was committing genocide. The IJC found it plausible that Palestinians’ right to be protected from genocide was at risk and ordered Israel to take measures to prevent that risk.
Editors have informed CAMERA that a correction will appear in tomorrow's print edition.