It could be higher if I have been mistaken. Nonetheless, my take, having listened to the Israel presentation on the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice listening to on South Africa’s genocide submitting, is the court docket is not going to approve South Africa’s “request for the indication of provisional measures”. Bear in mind, this isn’t a remaining ruling on the allegation that Israel has been partaking in genocide. That is an expedited preliminary ruling, analogous to a preliminary injunction within the US. Right here, the usual is that the plaintiffs introduced a credible-enough factual and authorized case concerning conduct that if not halted, might lead to severe hurt. Thoughts you, this not being an Anglosphere court docket, the process and particular requirements are totally different. Within the regular course of occasions, the underlying case nonetheless proceeds on its regular (leisurely) timetable, with the alleged perps nonetheless perping till a remaining ruling.
Nonetheless the distressing factor is such a ruling towards South Africa’s “request for the indication of provisional measures” can be ballyhooed by Israel and its backers because the court docket validating Israel’s model of occasions, that Hamas is a bunch of monsters and every thing Israel did was warranted as self protection. If Israel wins this spherical by efficiently punching holes within the South Africa submitting, significantly on process, don’t count on to see a number of fastidious reporting.
In case you managed to catch the beginning of Israel’s oral arguments, it was infuriating in case you have been following the debunkings of Israel’s cost of Hamas partaking in wanton savagery throughout its October 7 raid. Count on Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal having a area day shredding these recycled and largely debunked claims.
The primary Israel presenter additionally bolstered the trope of Hamas being within the enterprise of committing genocide, as in conflating an finish the state of Israel as tantamount to wiping out the Jewish individuals. Later presenters tried to depict many of the hurt completed to Gazans as Hamas’ doing, by way of misfiring rockets touchdown in Gaza, booby-trapped buildings killing civilians, and buildings collapsing as a result of tunnels beneath them. However that was secondary to the torture-porn stage allegations.
Not even half-hour in, and I missed the primary 10 minutes pic.twitter.com/NcWTsKJqDr
— Mohammed El-Kurd (@m7mdkurd) January 12, 2024
Extra from the overheated opening presentation:
🧵Right here is my stay thread of Israel’s attorneys presenting their protection on the genocide listening to on the ICJ within the Hague this morning:https://t.co/iK1V899d6k
— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) January 12, 2024
Now if I have been a decide, this type of factor would prejudice me towards Israel’s circumstances, since how horrible Hamas was or wasn’t isn’t germane to the genocide allegations. It’s a battle crime to interact in collective punishment, even earlier than attending to conduct that colorably rises to the extent of genocide. So that is Israel shamelessly pandering to its home viewers, supporters abroad, and the (pervasive) low-attention members of the media.
Nonetheless, because the presentation went on, the Israel aspect landed some actual blows. Since we can have ample commentary, and hopefully a transcript quickly, I can’t go overboard since we’ll be getting commentary quickly, hopefully from specialists, in addition to higher documentation.
Israel argued that South Africa ran afoul of what it depicted as a basic procedural requirement. The Israel staff identified that there needed to be a dispute earlier than any submitting is made with the court docket. A dispute means one social gathering has advised the opposite it has an issue with what it has been as much as, and the opposite social gathering responds (or at the least is allowed sufficient time to reply). Israel mentioned the finer factors of this concept, as to when public assertion in boards just like the UN may do, and contended nothing South Africa has stated resembled saying Israel was partaking in genocide and wanted to chop it out. Israel charged South Africa as lodging not as dispute however a “unispute”
Even worse, Israel asserted that South Africa realized it had an issue with submitting by way of not having communicated with Israel about its genocide cost and given Israel a chance to reply and tried to fairly up the doc path. With out monitoring down the exact particulars, the gist is that South Africa had some type of canine ate my homework excuse that it despatched a missive to Israel, however on a day when the Israel places of work weren’t open, and so then resent after the court docket submitting, on December 29. Israel stated it even supplied to fulfill with South Africa representatives after the Thursday January 11 listening to and was rebuffed.
Replace: Reader .Tom stuffed in what South Africa had allegedly completed. He cited Craig Murray’s write up of the South Africa oral argument yesterday, through which South Africa claimed there was a dispute in accordance with the Conference. South Africa stated it had set forth its dispute by way of Diplomatic Notes Verbale despatched to the Israel authorities they usually had not gotten a n sufficient response.
Israel alleged as an alternative that South Africa tried to paper up a report when no dispute had been initiated. Israel claimed that South Africa had despatched the Notes Verbale on a day when the Israel places of work have been closed (and my recollection is the paperwork weren’t dropped off however taken again). They have been redelivered, and never earlier than the day of the submitting (I don’t recall what was stated right here about exact dates, however it could have been the day of the submitting).
Again to the unique publish.
Not having objected to Israel’s genocidal conduct and permitting Israel to answer (cringemakingly, as one Israel lawyer put it, “to assuage their issues”) sounds as if in and of itself it could be deadly to the South Africa case. Israel stored saying it was a prima facie situation. Within the US regulation context, I’ve heard that utilized solely to proof, not process Once more, if I’m deciphering this commonplace accurately, it appears it might be a threshold requirement in our lingo, equal to South Africa missing standing to file the motion because of its failure to undergo the stipulated preliminaries. To place it extra merely, South Africa allegedly can’t skip this step.
If my understanding is right, the South Africa submitting can (and truly ought to) be dismissed on this foundation alone. South Africa might presumably refile after it heard all of Israel’s, erm, assuaging of its issues. However that may create delay and severely dent South Africa’s credibility.
As well as, Israel objected to the “genocidal intent” claims. And keep in mind, South Africa has to ascertain that there’s proof not simply of genocidal acts but in addition genocidal intent.
Israel objected to the truth that South Africa had relied on the statements of two officers, neither of whom have been members of the 2 our bodies that have been prosecuting the marketing campaign in Gaza, the Conflict Cupboard and the Nationwide Safety Committee. The Israel attorneys learn a few of the insurance policies adopted by these committees, akin to pious statements about minimizing hurt to civilians, attacking solely navy targets, which have been chosen from a file submitted to the court docket. The presenter then ‘fessed as much as the “Amalek” comment by Prime Minister Netanyahu, which interprets right into a “salt the earth” stage of destruction of the opponent, down even to slaughtering their animals, and asserted it was taken out of context. He learn out an announcement and claimed it referred solely to militant forces. It didn’t appear so clear to me however I would want to see the textual content.
Israel listed different acts it depicted as inconsistent with genocidal intent, akin to repairing a water principal, organising 4 area hospitals and a couple of floating hospitals in Gaza, offering ambulances and incubators. Israel attorneys additionally stated Hamas had been utilizing ambulances, that in each hospital the IDF had taken, they’d faund proof of Hamas navy use. In addition they claimed extra bakeries have been opening, that the quantity of gasoline getting into Gaza ahd doubled since early December and the quantity of cooking fuel getting into was 90 tons a day. Hamas was depicted as stealing a number of the help in addition to utilizing the inhabitants as human shields and particularly firing rockets from colleges and condominium blocks. Nonetheless I didn’t hear any explanations of why Israel needed to kill journalists and UN staffers.
Israel additionally objected to the concept the evacuations had been inimical to human life, and as an alternative depicted them as meant to guard the inhabitants. One presenter banged on about what number of leaflets had been air dropped and calls made. Israel additionally tried to assert with a straight face that there was no must order the preservation of proof, there was loads of proof….after it killed each unbiased journalist it might and permits solely friendlies like CNN in after which on a really brief leash.
Israel additional argued that on January 8, it had introduced a plan to have Palestinians return to north Gaza, and was transitioning to a decrease depth marketing campaign with fewer floor troops.
The final lengthy presentation walked by means of the provisional measures propsed by South Africa and raised objections to every one. I doubt the South Africa listing quantities to greater than a proposal from which the court docket would hopefully work. Nonetheless, Israel objected to ones that may require it to halt navy motion, contending there was (and couldn’t be) any comparable requirement for Hamas (which isn’t a member of the ICJ), and argued that some might even lead to checks of convoy vehicles being depicted as a breach (given how Israel has abused that energy, you’ll be able to see why some may object to Israel persevering with the searches). Israel additionally objected to using the phrase “desist” since that presumed guilt and was prejudicial, however that appears not arduous to treatment.
I’ve passed over extra particulars of the listening to however the tidbits above hopefully offer you an excellent sense of the Israel case and the areas the place the South Africa case could also be susceptible. I hope attorneys with expertise on this space of regulation weigh in.
Some might argue that South Africa has already received by getting ready after which presenting its very detailed invoice of particulars on Israel’s horrific conduct. We’ll see quickly sufficient how loud the reverberations are.
