South Africa has invoked the Genocide Convention against Israel over Gaza

[HeidiInTheBigCity]

The entire filing is 84 pages long and, frankly, took me several hours to read - it's well worth the effort, though, in that it is rather (painfully at times) clinical and devastating in equal measure: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf

Go, South Africa!

It might not male that much of a difference in the short term - but: to see the former victims of Apartheid take the lead on the world stage, and offer support (the way they - after multiple decades of campaigning and pressure ... it's not as though world leaders hated Apartheid South Africa "by default") is just ... a little spark of light within the darkness!

twitter.com/itamann/status/1714756459609629167

I think this makes a good point. I don't want to sound glib by saying rhetoric is one thing. The proof is in the pudding (sorry I didn't know how else to say it)
And I think both sides are guilty of dehumanisation and crimes against humanity but I think this implies there is a hierarchy. You just can't jump to the top without investigating anything else?

If I have got it wrong happy to have it explained to me.

What consequences does Hizbollah and Hamas face for firing at Israeli towns from Lebanon and Gaza for 20 years? We were told they are just like fireworks, we have the iron dome and we deserve it anyway.

The ICJ is not a proper court, has no power and this is an exercise in futility. Quite laughable really.

There is an interesting link in the reply stoma which lays out clearly definitions for all the different war crimes. For genocide:
Article 6 (a)
Genocide by killing
Elements

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (b) Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm Elements

1. The perpetrator caused serious bodily or mental harm to one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (c) Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction Elements

1. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.
5. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (d) Genocide by imposing measures intended to prevent births Elements

1. The perpetrator imposed certain measures upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The measures imposed were intended to prevent births within that group.
5. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (e) Genocide by forcibly transferring children Elements

1. The perpetrator forcibly transferred one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as

such.

1. The transfer was from that group to another group.
2. The person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
3. The perpetrator knew, or should have known, that the person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group

or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

@Efacsen I am going to take the bait.
The Un has been saying they are running out of fuel since two weeks into the conflict. I mean how is the fuel getting in to fire the rockets going into Israel? It's getting in somewhere...

Why would they do that?

Why is that Israel's problem? And not one oil rich or cash rich Arab nation wants to fuel a truck? That sounds a bit odd too. Jordan etc supply aid?

Trucks can haul 80,00lbs so that's 17.5lbs a day. A quick google search says people
Need 5lbs of food and water a day to survive so that leaves a margin of 7.5lb of things that aren't food and water.
If 500 trucks are coming in daily that's 3,750lbs of medical supplies, water and food coming in daily. (I know this is pre Oct 7 levels)
I agree distribution is likely the biggest issue. Not helped by Hamas stealing trucks.

@floodlightonwhatisright shows the impotence of the UN as Hezbollah are breaking UN resolutions anyway.
And that hasn't been dealt with.
As have neither the genocide of the Kurds, Yazidies or in Darfur (excuse spelling)
So it just seems political to me.
And the burden of proof is on South Africa to prove that
Acts of genocide against Palestinians have occurred
That Israel committed them or did not take sufficient measures to prevent them.

Which is ironic really.

This perfectly describes the Hamas terrorist attack and pronouncements by Hamas to obliterate Israel.

Thanks Ryan for pointing this out.

If I have got it wrong happy to have it explained to me.

Myself and plenty of other people have explained lots of things to you - but either you don't read the explanations or they're not the explanations you want to hear and then shortly afterwards you're back again just wanting an explanation

Can you not see how time-wasting that is for PP?

So no explanation from me on why humanitarian aid still needs to be delivered even when one or other party is attempting to steal it as, I've done that at least twice before

There is no difficulty obtaining/transporting fuel to the border - so not sure what 'rich arab nations' snark is about

As for your maths wrt how much aid weighs - how does the weight of tents, fridges, solar panels, generators etc factor into your calculations?

And yes distribution is a huge problem particularly outside of the Rafah district

Yes I agree
It also perfectly describes what Israel are doing to Gazans
Two wrongs don't make a right

Maybe Israel should take Hamas to the ICJ also

That's the obvious thing to do

Gazans are not an ethnic group. Palestinians are, unless you want to call them Arabs which are definitely an ethnic group.

Does Israel want to kill Palestinians? Or Arabs? Do the Palestinians of the West Bank think that they are next when Israel has finished with Gaza, or do they think we'd better not commit a pogrom because look what happened to those Hamas people we love so much?

It's good Adam and Efacsen that you agree that the Hamas attack was a genocide.
However Israel does not have the time and resources to get this obvious fact debated in a forum.
They need to eradicate weaponry and infrastructure that Hamas uses to attack Israel to keep them safe.

I can understand why some posters are keen to dismiss the ICJ- as a “clown court” that is biased against Israel.
But the fact is that the proceedings are likely to take years with extremely careful consideration of the evidence.
Of course, it may not result in any enforcement as that will require political will. However it would be the reputational damage that it inflicts that might be more important. I don’t think Hezbollah or Hamas have much reputation to lose?

I don’t know whether it’s biased against Israel. For all I know it’s biased in Israel’s favour.

What I do know is that the ICJ’s judges are place-men and -women. It carries no judicial or moral authority. Its rulings are routinely ignored.

If Israel were to win any case (and it’s doubtful there’d be a ‘winner’ or a ‘loser’ anyway: this is not a liability judgment where a party just has to ‘get over the line’) it wouldn’t vindicate Israel, any more than losing would condemn it.

The issue is the SA complaint having been got up and frankly being bogus as a dispute. If the ICJ refuses to entertain the case that would be the most sensible outcome.

So Hamas and Hezbollah should continue their hijinks as they have a lower reputation?

But better to inflict reputational damage on a friend of the West and the only Jewish state and increase global anti semitism? Very revealing post

I agree that elements of the Hamas attack are congruent with the legal definition of a genocide. I'm not a judge or lawyer so wouldn't feel confident saying "it is a genocide".

My question is do you agree the Israeli government action in Gaza is also congruent with that definition? If not, why not?

What an odd comment. Of course Palestinians are an ethnic group. The law refers to "all or part of" an ethnic group. Gazans are part of the Palestinian group.

Maybe you should read a bit more about what's happening in the West Bank too, and what the settlers have been doing there.

Israel has no intent so it's not a genocide on their part.

@Efacsen you Don't have to engage with me it's not obligatory. I often move on if someone is posting that's wasting my time.

Also none of those things you have taken your time to explain to me so you are clearly mixing me up with someone else.

Sorry if you feel me asking a question is wasting your time. I forgot we all have to think the same way.

Where in my post did I say Hezbollah and Amara’s should continue their “hijinks”? Such terrorist organisations are unlikely to be influenced by the outcomes of the ICJ and therefore any ruling by the ICJ is less likely to offend them.

There's about 9 pages of recorded genocidal intent by Israeli officials including Netanyahu.
For reference if you want to read it then it starts on page 59 and ends on page 67

Not sure how anyone can say a claim is bogus without actually reviewing the evidence?
Will be interesting to see how the ICJ proceeds. As far as I have read - there’s a preliminary hearing due which Israel is engaging with.
The best case outcome for Israel will surely be a finding that they haven’t committed war crimes and genocide? The ICJ could conclude this…

This is what I find hard to understand.
Smotrich said that if there were only 200,000 Arabs (aka Palestinians) in Gaza that would be acceptable. That's a 90% decrease in population. The Israeli government have destroyed half the housing, displacing a million people. The Israeli government control the borders, currently the Palestinians can't leave and the necessary food/water/medical supplies to support the population can't get in.
How much more "intent" do you need?

A civil cause of action needs a person/country to be a genuinely affected party. I can’t sue a driver for damages who knocked over a friend just because I’m upset for the friend. It’s got nothing to do with evidence.

What is SA’s cause of action? How is it affected?

Moral and political judgement, and potentially intervention, is for the Security Council, not the ICJ.

The ICJ doesn’t decide cases in the abstract, or if it does it’s even more pointless than I’d understood.

This is interesting about the ICJ and SAs approach:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2024-01-05-south-africas-case-against-israel-at-the-international-court-of-justice-a-brief-explainer/

The UN Charter provides that all member states of the UN are deemed to be parties to the Statute of the ICJ, meaning that all UN member states can bring a dispute before the ICJ for alleged violations of international law. Both South Africa and Israel are members of the United Nations and therefore parties to the Statute of the ICJ.