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!

He’s saying this court has no jurisdiction to look at any other crimes (that they have blatantly committed), only genocide

@Efacsen, thanks a bunch for the live updates! I'm on a train with work colleagues and not really in a position to listen in all the time.

Much appreciated!

Shaw’s opening arguments target South Africa

Here is a quick summary of opening arguments by Shaw:

• South Africa has approached this matter as if there was an ongoing dispute with Israel
• He referred to South African lawyer Professor Duggard – who spoke yesterday – claim that the nations were in “dispute”
• It is disingenuous to suggest that this is a dispute but instead a “unispute”
• He then calls into question South Africa’s claims that it tried to contact Israel and open a dialogue
• Instead, he says, Israel tried to open bilateral talks and that South Africa instead proceeded with the ICJ case
• If South Africa had taken up Israel’s offer, the parties may have decided there was no dispute to take up in court

So that IS essentially what I heard then?!

I'm puzzled by the argument due to, see above, its implications.

The Guardian's contribution so far from their legal correspondent

Israel says South Africa 'seeks to thwart Israel’s inherent right to defend itself', at ICJ hearing

Guardian’s legal affairs correspondent Haroon Siddique is at The Hague and has sent the below update on the second day of ICJ hearings on a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of “genocidal acts” in its offensive against Hamas in Gaza:

Opening Israel’s defence to the charge of genocide at the international court of justice in The Hague, Tal Becker, legal adviser of the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs, on Friday accused South Africa of providing a “profoundly distorted and factual legal picture” in its case against Israel and said that the applicant’s arguments were “barely distinguishable” from Hamas rhetoric. Becker said calling for Israel to halt its military operations against Hamas was an “unconscionable” request’ and that South Africa “seeks to thwart Israel’s inherent right to defend itself”.

He described in graphic terms the 7 October attacks by Hamas and other militants, including details of rape and mutilation. Becker said that the purpose of relaying such details was not to absolve Israel of its responsibility to comply with international law in its response but because it was “impossible to understand the armed conflict in Gaza without appreciating the nature of the threat” faced by Israel.

Making its case on Thursday, evidence of genocidal acts by Israel cited by South Africa included, the high civilian death toll, the number of Palestinians physically and mentally harmed, suffering starvation and dehydration and statements made by Israel’s political and military leaders, including the prime minister.
U

This is like a circus.

"Someone has shuffled my papers"

Oh lookee here. Professor Malcolm Shaw KC, a widely acknowledged expert in international humanitarian law, probably the leading expert, argues by reference to the conventions and to precedent and that there is no genuine dispute and that SA’s application has been got up on behalf of its ally, Hamas.

To any reasonable observer, whatever happens from this point the case is basically illegitimate.

And that’s without the arguments of fact, especially those of the absence of genocidal intent.

Shaw refers to Israel dropping leaflets

Here was one such drop over Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, in early December, where the leaflets quoted the Quran, telling thousands of displaced Palestinians that, “The flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.”

?Not sure that this actual leaflet shown to the court and isn't AJ stirring

More from Shaw’s presentation

• There is little beyond random assertions to demonstrate that Israel has, or has had, the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people.
• An intention for Israel to act to defend itself “certainly exists”.
• The intent to deal with Hamas’s armed fighters and other such groups is undeniable.
• If Israeli forces have broken any rules of conflict then the matter will be tackled at the appropriate time by “Israel’s robust and independent legal system”.
• Israel’s actions are in accordance with international humanitarian law and are in a proportionate manner.
• Its practice is to mitigate civilian harm, such as warning civilians of impending action by the extensive use of telephone calls, leafleting and so forth.

@anotherlevel you have been to some shit circus's.

Shaw says Israel’s decision-makers sought to abide by law

In considering South Africa’s claims that Israel is perpetrating genocide, it must consider the conduct and directives of its leaders, Shaw said, adding that possible violations by individual soldiers do not necessarily reflect state policy.

Shaw pointed to several statements by Israeli army commanders and ministers calling for the army to focus on military targets and to minimise civilian casualties.

However, several Israeli leaders, including the defence minister in its war cabinet, have also issued statements seeming to urge unrestrained violence in Gaza.

A reminder of what Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said in October: “We will eliminate everything… Gaza won’t return to what it was before.”

They're on a 10 minute break now.

Struggling a bit with the AJ 'formatting' and not clearly distinguishing btwn the lawyers actual testimony and AJ-isms

Might swap over to Guardian even tho' it's less detailed than yesterday

I listened to some of it just now. I knew listening to them would be infuriating but I underestimated it. I can't listen to these disgusting lies any more but will read updates here and I'll try the Guardian. Thanks to those providing updates here.

@ConnieCounter there are SO MANY you can pick from. I hope the judges can see through them.

Unfortunately I think the judges will vote along political lines. Hopefully I'm wrong on that!

This is AJ without AJ commentary because Guardian haven't published anything for almost an hour

Israeli defence blames Hamas for Gaza death toll

Galit Raguan, acting director of the international justice division at Israel’s justice ministry, starts off by blaming Hamas for the high civilian toll in Gaza.

• “Urban warfare will always result in civilian harm,” said Raguan. They “may be the unintended, but lawful result of attacks on military targets. They do not constitute genocidal acts”.

• In Gaza, she said, the civilian toll is worsened by Hamas’s strategy of embedding itself “among the civilian population”, pointing to attacks by Hamas that she said took place from schools, hospitals and other civilian areas.

Raguan claims Israel did not bomb hospitals

Raguan continues her presentation focusing on her claims on the situation in Gaza:

• South Africa says Israel “deliberately and unlawfully” destroyed homes. However, she says harm caused to “local military objectives” and as a result of Hamas’s actions is not evidence of genocide

• Raguan claims Hamas uses hospitals for military purposes

• She claims Israel has not bombed hospitals, but that damage and harm have occurred as a “result of hostilities” in the “vicinity” of hospitals

• She says the Israeli military provides advanced warnings before they launch any attack

@anotherlevel @ConnieCounter and anyone else do you have a list of the judges and their nationalities please?

I found this on Instagram

www.instagram.com/p/C19997CxXY1/?igsh=M2w5bWJrbzB0dXl1

https://icj-cij.org/current-members

Thanks to you both

Sender claims Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid

Omri Sender, representing Israel at the hearing, claims that Israel “no doubt meets the legal test of concrete measures, aimed specifically at recognising and ensuring the rights of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza”.

He also claims Israel has ensured humanitarian aid enters Gaza and that there has been no restriction on the amount of water that may enter the Gaza Strip.

Sender says food trucks have been able to enter the strip and the sick and injured have been allowed to cross into Egypt.

Christopher Staker now takes the floor

Christopher Staker, an international lawyer who was previously on the criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has now taken over Israel’s defence.

In opening remarks, Staker says South Africa’s appeal for Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in Gaza are “astonishing”.

Hi @Efacsen
some analysis from Norman Finkelstein on how he thinks each judge will vote (also on political lines). I hope he’s wrong, but tbh I’ve lost so much faith in the integrity of international law and the institutions that are meant to enforce it that I think he could be right.