One may critique the way Israel is operating this war, and especially questioning and discussing if this is proportional.

The hereby arguments of South Africa (You can find the hearings on youtube) were in any case weak. For example reprimanding closing the border to Gaza, without mentioning that they are closed since 7. October, because they were overrun by Hamas, partially destroyed and the people manning it butchered. In general, one has the impression, Hamas wouldn't exist in the eyes of South Africa.

Did this person even watch the trial or read about South Africa's arguments? If he did, he would have realised that Vaughan Lowe for South Africa addressed all this already during the presentation of South Africa's case against Israel. If they watched it, they have a severe problem with listening or reading comprehension and need to go back to primary school. South Africa's case addresses everything they said.

https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2024-01-11-in-full-vaughan-lowe-kc/

On Hamas:

First, some will ask why South Africa does not seek any Court order against Hamas. This case concerns Israel’s action in Gaza, which is territory that, three weeks ago in Resolution 2720, the Security Council stressed is “an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967” by Israel. As the Court will understand, Hamas is not a State and cannot be party to the Genocide Convention; and it is not a party to these proceedings. There are other bodies and processes that can address the questions of steps to be taken in respect of past atrocities and against other actors; and they are no doubt doing so. But as a matter of law, under the Convention South Africa cannot request an Order from this Court against Hamas.

Secondly, South Africa understands that not all violence constitutes genocide. Acts of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, the targeting of civilians, attacks on hospitals, and other war crimes are all unlawful: but they do not always violate the Genocide Convention. Genocide requires an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. But the fact that what Israel is doing in Gaza may also constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity is no defence to a charge of genocide.

On proportionality :

It is not just a question of scale and of indiscriminate killing. It is also a question of intention.

If any military operation, no matter how it is carried out, is carried out pursuant to an intention to destroy a ‘people’, in whole or in part, it violates the Genocide Convention, and it must stop. That is why all military operations capable of violating the Genocide Convention must cease...

The point is not simply that Israel is acting ‘disproportionately’: the point is that the prohibition on genocide is an absolute, peremptory rule of law. Nothing can ever justify genocide. No matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, and no matter how great the threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified