I think you were right with the "get this off my desk" bit, and everything else honestly stems from that. She decided—probably about 3 seconds after she saw that South Africa first filed the case—that she didn't want to have anything to do with it and would take any and every excuse not to think about or consider it and to get it dismissed or for it to lose. She probably just waited for Israel to make its oral argument and took notes that would go directly into her opinion, and basically ignored everything else. Probably during the two weeks or so the other justices were trying to come up with justification for the weakest possible verdict that might still lend their institution a modicum of legitimacy, she was off checking her Facebook messages and deciding what her spring restaurant itinerary would be.

Judges pretty universally suck, but this is next-tier, "I don't care and you can't make me do my job" shit. Kinda hilarious, TBH.

The Ugandan judge is closely related to the evangelical Christian movement in Uganda and went to elite missionary boarding schools for her education. She's likely one of those people that believe all Jews need to return to Israel for the second coming of Christ to happen, or some other end times rapture nonsense to do with Israel. Her arguments are all just fluff written after she already made up her mind on the decision.

25. The first and second requested measures concern Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. They would not merely require Israel to cease all alleged acts of genocide under Article II and III of the Convention but would require the suspension of all military operations in Gaza, regardless of whether Hamas, an organization not party to these proceedings, continues to attack Israel or continues to hold Israeli hostages. In this respect, Israel would be required to unilaterally cease hostilities, a prospect I consider unrealistic. These two requested measures appear overly broad and are not clearly linked with the rights asserted by South Africa.

Basically that the requirements of these measures - that the ICJ did pass, including stopping the killing of Palestians and not preventing aid or humanitarian relief, and both of which Israel and others immeadiately broke - are too broad and would force Israel to stop conducting its 'war'. And that since South Africa aren't a party in the war, they can't demand that. And since Hamas isn't a state, they can't be held to that legal standard of ceasing hostilities.

There's a couple of problems and some real circular logic here.

Most obvious is that she doesn't think Israel would ever cease hostilities, so therefore it's pointless introducing a measure telling them too. Perhaps it's just me but this is some real Twitter-reply-brained stuff. Since when does the fact that a subject would ignore the law mean it's pointless to apply it? Remember, her arguement is that this opinion and case is purely about the legal matter relating to the Genocide Convention, not too any kind of political or diplomatic considerations, as that's one of the reasons she doesn't think it should be before the ICJ at all. So how is, we could tell them, but they'd ignore us anyway not a political consideration rather than a legal one?

Then there's the issue of South Africa not being a party in the war and Hamas / Palestine (even she doesn't seem to differentiate here) not being party to the case. But what's the solution to this issue? Does South Africa have to enter the war, officially fighting on the side of Hamas to bring the case? Because if not the only inference can be that it must be the Palestinian 'state' that brings the case.

But there's a problem there too. Even setting aside the fact that it's not a state in the traditional sense (although the UN has broadly recognised it as an 'observer state' for legal purposes in the past and the 'Vienna Formula' has been used in the past as detailed in this article to bring cases before the ICJ). If Hamas does not represent and is a totally seperate and distinct entity from Palestine, as she argues for why Israel's operation is legitimate and not genocide, and therefore can't be held to cease hostilities, then how could Palestine ever launch a case under the Genocide Convention even if the ICJ allowed it to?

The answer in her view seems to be that it can't. That even if it was a traditional nation state argueing they were facing genocide, any defense or hostilities by a non-state actor would essentially invalidate the right to measures under the Genocide Convention.

Israel says they're terrorists, so their actions are legal. Because there are terrorists in the conflict, measures can't be implemented. Once again, a long way to say 'get this off my desk' I will say that she does at least, theoretically, conceed that some of Isreal's actions could be in violation of international law. But those don't neccissarily rise to meeting the Genocide Convention, so get it off her desk.

On measure three, "Take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip":

26. Although the Applicant requests this measure to apply to both Parties, it is not clear how South Africa, which is not a party to the conflict in Gaza, would contribute to preserving the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, much less “prevent genocide”.

By doing this! By using such a judgement to support escorting humanitarian aid into Gaza? By using such a judgement as the basis for an international blockade of Israel? More bizarre logic hung on a circular technicality.

In reality this measure would apply only to Israel. That said, to require Israel to “take all reasonable measures within their powers to prevent genocide” in Gaza would simply be to repeat the obligation already incumbent upon Israel and any other State party under the Genocide Convention. This measure appears to be redundant.

So because measure three would only repeat the law as it is, she won't agree to it, instead refusing to sign off on a measure that states Israel should follow the law. This one is just

Apparently ditto for the fourth measure, because she doesn't see any genocidal intent:

The fourth requested measure requires Israel to refrain from specific actions that South Africa considers to be linked with its obligation to desist from committing any of the acts referred to in Article II, paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Convention. In my view, this measure, like the first and second, in effect requires Israel to unilaterally stop hostilities with Hamas, which is the only way of guaranteeing that none of the acts stipulated take place. However, as previously stated, this measure, when removed from the requirement of a genocidal intent, merely amounts to a requirement for Israel to abide by IHL, rather than by its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

And the fifth because it's already covered by international humanitarian law:

Similarly, the Fifth measure, which requires Israel to refrain from deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction in whole or in part, outside the context of the requirement of a genocidal intent, is tantamount to requiring Israel to comply with its obligations under IHL, rather than under the Genocide Convention. Thus, while the expulsion and forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza from their homes could amount to violations of IHL, the Court has previously determined in the Bosnia Genocide case that such conduct does not, as such, constitute genocide.

And again for the sub-measures:

28. Similarly, the deprivation of necessary humanitarian supplies would only constitute genocide if taken with the requisite special intent. As discussed above, I do not consider that such special intent exists in this case. Therefore, such a measure is not warranted.

With a note about one of them being too vauge:

The third component of the fifth measure refers to “the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza”. This requested measure is extremely vague and would appear to essentially fall within the requirement for Israel to refrain from deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinian population of Gaza. It is therefore unclear what would be accomplished by separately indicating this measure.

And so it goes on...

29. The sixth measure is written in such a way that it simply repeats the prohibitions mentioned in the Fourth and Fifth measures and is therefore not linked to rights asserted by South Africa.

Until it gets to the seventh measure, regarding preserving any evidence of acts that could constitute evidence:

The seventh requested measure relates to the preservation of evidence. Although the Court found the existence of such a link with respect to a similar measure requested and indicated in Gambia v. Myanmar (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 24, para. 61), in the present case there is no evidentiary basis for concluding that Israel is engaged in the deliberate destruction of evidence relating to genocide.

So this one is specfic, is important, and does have supportive legal cases in the past, and would apply. Except that again Israel says it isn't doing genocide and dropped some leaflets so it doesn't.

Moreover, to the extent the requested measure concerns the requirement that Israel allow fact-finding missions and other bodies access to Gaza, it would appear to go beyond Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention. As part of its duties to the Court and to South Africa, Israel may only be required to preserve evidence under its control. However, a requirement to allow access to Gaza by third parties does not appear linked with South Africa’s asserted rights.

But more than that, South Africa and the court does have the right t ask Israel to not destroy evidence against itself, but doesn't actually have to allow any kind of third party to be in a position to verify that. So you know, just promise yeah?

On the remaining measures:

As previously observed, this case is complicated by the fact that in the context of an ongoing war with Hamas, which is not a party to these proceedings, it would be unrealistic to put limitations upon one of the belligerent parties but not the other. Israel would justifiably assert its right to defend itself from Hamas, which would most probably “aggravate the situation in Gaza”. ... I am of the view that the provisional measures requested by South Africa do not appear to have a link with South Africa’s asserted rights"

Same as it ever was. South Africa isn't part of the war so can't ask for these. Israel's right defend itself will make things worse, but