In a written response published Monday by the International Court of Justice, Israel said that claims by South Africa in its request filed earlier this month are “wholly unfounded in fact and law, morally repugnant, and represent an abuse both of the Genocide Convention and of the Court itself.”

Oh yeah this is like the 4th time a demand for further provisional measures were outright ignored (or even refused) by the way.

  • glans [it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
    4·
    3 months ago

    Skimming the document Observations of the State of Israel on South Africa’s Request for the indication of provisional measures and modification of the Court’s prior provisional measures decisions (15 March 2024) I managed to find a few sentences that would be good for Israel supporters to read:

    1. The first of the provisional measures now requested by South Africa would state that “[a]ll participants in the conflict must ensure that all fighting and hostilities come to an immediate halt, and that all hostages and detainees are released immediately”. 78

    2. It is striking, to say the least, that this requested provisional measure purports to be addressed to “all participants in the conflict”, despite the fact that the only participant in the conflict that is a party to the present proceedings is Israel. That the Court only has power to indicate provisional measures addressed to the parties to the case before it must be obvious. It is inconceivable that provisional measures could create international legal obligations for a State that is not a party to the case.79

    In the Jan 26, 2024 Order, there was included about half a sentence that “all sides” need to avoid atrocities and as it was literally the only thing that wasn’t shit talking Israel, it got a lot of focus. People talking about how the court had also made an order against Hamas. But here the Israeli legal team demonstrates that they at least understand who could even be possibly subject to an Order. Which is parties to a dispute.

    Unfortunately after that the paragraph immediately takes a turn for the disingenuous.

    It is all the more inconceivable that, in a case where the sole basis of the Court’s jurisdiction is Article IX of the Genocide Convention, provisional measures could create international legal obligations for any State over which the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction at all, such as a State that is not a party to the Genocide Convention,

    Palestine is a party to the Convention since 2014.

    or a State that has made a reservation to its Article IX.

    hmmm no Palestine on that list but we do find USA, India, Venezuela, China, Malaysia and others.

    Nor can provisional measures create international legal obligations for an entity other than a State, given that only States may be parties in contentious cases before the Court (Article 34, paragraph 1, of the Statute).

    Seems like basically everyone finds it to be a state. Of course Israel differs on this.

    • SexMachineStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      Coincidentally, the part about South Africa also levying criticisms against some of the actions taken by Hamas, is glossed over entirely by the pro-Isisraeli media, inside and out of South Africa. The content that the likes of SAJR, SAJBD or Times of Israel puts out is your usual slop of blasphemy, long-disproven atrocity propaganda, victim mentality and accusations of antisemitism, with a bit of “Iranian/Hamas/ISIS collaboration” thrown into the mix as well.

      El Al will officially also cancel all South African flights on Wednesday, 27 March. This “magically” also has solved the longstanding systemic problem of airport profiling in South Africa, particularly Johannesburg’s OR Tambo Airport.