Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Full text: Order of 26 January 2024
Individual judge opinions
- Declaration of Judge Xue
- Dissenting opinion of Judge Sebutinde
- Declaration of Judge Bhandari
- Declaration of Judge Nolte
- Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak
All the documents relating to this case are on its ICJ webpage
@aaro@hexbear.net provided an overview in the comments
The full text of the operative clause of the Order reads as follows: “For these reasons, THE COURT , Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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;
[...]
(2) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
[...]
(3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall 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;
[...]
(4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(5) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(6) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.
omissions by "[...]" are just the names of each judge and whether they approved or dissented.
Bangers from ugandan judge:
Furthermore, I am also strongly of the view that the controversy or dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political or territorial (and, I dare say, ideological) one.
No shit sherlock
During the oral proceedings in the present case, it was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas
Congratulations to @aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net
It's true, I have a phone call with Mr Hamas himself every evening. Then I call Mr Russia and Mr China. Last, but not least, I visit Mr Bones, who keeps telling me about his new movie. Haven't seen it yet though.
hue is short and sweet
Israel:
As a judge in the Israeli Supreme Court, I wrote that every Israeli soldier carries with him (or her), in their backpack, the rules of international law
that means that they follow them mate?
The Israeli Supreme Court has also held that torture may not be used during the interrogation of terrorists6, that religious sites and clergy must be protected, and that all captives must be afforded fundamental guarantees
What even is al-aqsa, who the fuck knows
However, some proof of intent is necessary. At the very least, sufficient proof to make a claim of genocide plausible.
Doesn't matter what bibi and ben gevir says, just ignore it, all good
the Court omits to mention that such figures come from the Ministry of Health of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas. They are not the United Nations’ figures. Furthermore, these figures do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between military objectives and civilian objects. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from them
Hamas-run health care ministry again :scared
For example, on 29 October 2023, Israel’s Minister of Defence, stated that “we are not fighting the Palestinian multitude and the Palestinian people in Gaza”. On 29 November 2023, the President of Israel said that “Israel is doing all it can, in cooperation with various partners, to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the citizens of Gaza”. Regretfully, the Court did not take note of these statements. Finally, regarding the statements made by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, the latter is not an official with authority over the military. The relevant factual basis allowing for an inference of intent to commit genocide must stem from the organs which are capable of having an effect on the military operations.
See, turning off energy is irrelevant
I have noted the concerning statements by some authorities, which I am confident will be dealt with by the Israeli institutions.
Yeah, mate seen for last 80 years
Genocide is a shadow over the history of the Jewish people, and it is intertwined with my own personal experience. The idea that Israel is now accused of committing genocide is very hard for me personally, as a genocide survivor deeply aware of Israel's commitment to the rule of law as a Jewish and democratic State.
Such a shithead stg
Unfortunately, the failure, reluctance or inability of States to resolve political controversies such as this one through effective diplomacy or negotiations may sometimes lead them to resort to a pretextual invocation of treaties like the Genocide Convention, in a desperate bid to force a case into the context of such a treaty, in order to foster its judicial settlement: rather like the proverbial “Cinderella’s glass slipper”.
I guess that's the pre disnified version of cinderella where there is mass slaughter, starvation, torture, etc
Then she wants to talk about the context.
Its some sort of parallel parked brainworms to "gays should have gotten rights to marriage by
, not in court"
What's the deal with her? She really went balls to the wall with her takes. Seems politically motivated.
Does anybody have any information as to what the accountability and enforcement mechanisms of this ruling are?
You know how celebrities lose civil suits all the time and pay zero dollars? Probably something like that.
as of now, nothing happens.
the order will go before the Security Council for enforcement. the US will probably veto it.
i used the word probably (rather than absolutely) because i'm wishful despite my better judgement
Just the rulings bit taken from the summary and trimmed down:
The full text of the operative clause of the Order reads as follows: “For these reasons, THE COURT , Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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;
[...]
(2) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
[...]
(3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall 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;
[...]
(4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(5) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
[...]
(6) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.
omissions by "[...]" are just the names of each judge and whether they approved or dissented.
The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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;
Am I misreading or does state that Israel has to do everything it can to prevent the killing of Gazans? Maybe I'm not thinking in the manner of a snake like lawyer here, but logically this would mean an immediate end to bombardment right?
Yeah this is what it means when South African government officials say the ruling implies a ceasefire.
also not a lawyer but I'm betting that "take all measures within its power" carries a lot of weight, Israel is free to say "we did the best we could but if we were any more careful than the evil Hamas would get away and kill all Israelis so we actually can't kill any fewer civilians than we are now". Speculation, but also that would be far from the most evil rhetoric Israel has used.
Hope it's OK I put that in the top post so more people will see it. Who's gonna click on all those PDFs.
Any thoughts on paragraph 57?
Israel considers that the measures requested go beyond what is necessary to protect rights on an interim basis and therefore have no link with the rights sought to be protected. The Respondent contends, inter alia, that granting the first and second measures sought by South Africa (see paragraph 11 above) would reverse the Court’s case law, as those measures would be “for the protection of a right that could not form the basis of a judgment in exercise of jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention”.
possibly wrong see comment below
spoiler
I think it is concluding a train of thought which begins a little prior.
1: is the material situation on the scale that genocide can be considered? YES
There is a brief overview of the extreme violence. Including para 49 which quotes five paragraphs from UNRWA, “The Gaza Strip: 100 days of death, destruction and displacement” followed by the WHO, other orgs etc. Including:
“Gaza has become a place of death and despair."
" 93% of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger.. Starvation, destitution and death are evident"
"the largest displacement of the Palestinian people since 1948"
It is concise but compelling. Anyone should read these pages if you haven't. Zero ambiguity. In numbers and suffering, the scale is sufficient.
2: Is there a genocidal vibe? YES
Then in 51, on to the immaterial component of genocide. During the hearing, Israel casually dismissed assertions that the evidence "genocidal intent" SA provided was just some random celebrities with no authority and they didn't speak for the nation. ICJ provides "statements made by senior Israeli officials" (Gallant, Herzog and Katz). They are dehumanizing, describing collective punishment, and explaining how they plan to enact the punishment via the military:
"We are fighting human animals"
"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. ... we will fight until we’ll break their backbone"
"They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world."
Then UN statements from Oct-Nov 2023 indicating that the resemblance to genocide connected to the government has been publicized by credible orgs for a while now and surely Israel is aware:
"discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials"
"racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians"
3: why these orders in this situation
54 concludes by saying the situation is "plausible". I interpret as "fucking obvious". In 56 they summarize SA's arguments about why the punishment fits the crime. 2 reasons:
to ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations under the Genocide Convention
protecting the integrity of the proceedings before the Court and South Africa’s right to have its claim fairly adjudicated
Which is saying the genocide is going on now and we need to stop it now. And a legal argument about prejudice means that if you don't take this action now, it will be impossible to do it later. So it would be "pre judged" against the interest of one party (Palestinians). Not articulated but clear is the reason: if Israel succeeds in it's stated objective to "eliminate everything" (Gallant) then there will be no witnesses, no evidence, and no population left to obtain the judgement. There is urgency.
4: why israel is full of shit
Then to 57 which you quoted above. Most key is the Israel argument that
the measures requested go beyond what is necessary to protect rights on an interim basis and therefore have no link with the rights sought to be protected
they think it would be unfair for them to be hobbled as is requested. They say they are engaged in a legitimate war just like many other nations have done and they should not be singled out. Even though there are deaths and suffering, it is an unavoidable part of obtaining military objectives. It is not motivated by deep hatred of all Palestinians. And this hatred does not fuel them to engage in activities whose only goal is to eradicate them.
As per the logic described above, the ICJ disagrees with Israel:
Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
The court is drawing a strong connection between the heinous shit the politicians are saying and the outcome of tremendous suffering at the hands of the military. It is quite decisive considering how short the hearings were.
As per the logic described above, the ICJ disagrees with Israel:
They did not grant the first two provisional measures, though, which is what Israel asked for in paragraph 57.
well the question was "any thoughts" not "any logical/factual thoughts" lol
i put the whole thing in a spoiler pending further review.
