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!

Apologies if already mentioned. Jordan backs SA

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1743395551767302520

Clearly you haven't read SA's application.

Under the Genocide Convention, signatories have a legal duty to prevent genocide. This is explained in paragraph 126 of their application:

*The dispute concerns Israel’s breaches of its obligations under the Genocide
Convention, including its failure to prevent and its perpetration of genocide, and South Africa’s own

obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide, including by taking actions to
influence effectively the actions of persons likely to commit genocide.539 The Court has described the
nature of that dispute as follows: “[A] state’s obligations to prevent, and corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means
likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent (dolus specialis), it is under a duty to make use of these means as the circumstances permit”.*

What has civil law got to do with international law? They are two different things.

The court is not being asked to decide cases in the abstract. The Genocide Convention is very clear about what constitutes genocide. The evidence presented will be considered within the framework of the genocide convention. There is plenty of material to support SA's case.

If Israel is certain it's not guilty of genocide then they should have no problem proving it.

No, I haven’t but I know about universal jurisdiction and erga omnes.

The principal possible precedent is Gambia v Myanmar. That one’s over four years old without, AFAIK, any resolution.

Funnily enough, I don’t recall one thread on MN about Myanmar, let alone anything like the fungal growth of anti-Israel threads we have to suffer now. But I suppose Jews aren’t in that one.

Either Israel are commuting genocide or they are not.

If they are not, then surely you have little to be concerned at with the court.

If they are, and this is the conclusion the court comes to, then surely you are not in favour of continuing genocide, and whether it is perpetrated by Jews, against Jews or has nothing to do with Jews is irrelevant.

The issue, as I think you know, is why Israel, the single Jewish state and homeland, attracts such fixated condemnation but other countries in conflict don’t.

No, I do not for a moment think that Israel is committing genocide. Neither, I suspect, does the SA government. But Russia and Iran need all the cover they can get.

Neither do I think the ICJ is a forum capable of reaching a view that would be respected, either way.

"Civil law", "cause of action", "universal jurisdiction", "erga omnes". I'm not sure you understand everything you are reading on wiki.

Here's an update on Gambia vs Myanmar.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/14/developments-gambias-case-against-myanmar-international-court-justice

Yeah, I do. And not from wiki. Your update is two years old.

The update explains the process which you seemed unaware of.

If you understand the terminology you are using then why are you using random, unconnected terms that undermine your earlier post.

You should have included prima facia, that sounds complicated and legal, we'd have all been terribly impressed.

It’s prima facie.

to those who continue to claim blood libel, antisemitism and everything else under the sun motivated this case, sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s all there in black and white - in Israel’s own words - for anyone with eyes to see for themselves. All 9 pages of it. Happy reading.

Next one

Next one

Next one

Next one

Still going!

It attracts a lot of condemnation because it's conduct is worthy of such condemnation.

It's like saying that the media is anti doctor because Harold Shipman got more condemnation/media attention than most murders. Israel's behaviour has been significant and over a long duration. Of course it will be criticised for it.

still more

Nearly there!

Phew!

Looks like Israel are worried and are trying to get their embassies and diplomat to pressure host nations to publicly reject the allegations made against them.

www.axios.com/2024/01/05/south-africa-gaza-genocide-icj-israel-plan

I'm pretty sure this is the same nutter who suggested nuking Gaza. Tbf even Netanyahu spoke out at the time he made those comments, after there was international condemnation but it doesn't seem to have deterred him from continuing

Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu urged that Israel “must find ways for Gazans that are more painful than death” to defeat them and break their morale, as the US did with Japan.

Interesting link.
Looks like Israel is worried about potential outcome.

"A ruling by the court could have significant potential implications that are not only in the legal world but have practical bilateral, multilateral, economic, security ramifications," reads the cable, a copy of which was obtained by Axios from three different Israeli officials.

This last one says it all doesn't it.

Thanks for sharing.