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!

Germany has made the following statement:

"In view of German history and the crimes against humanity of the Holocaust, the Government is particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide.

This convention is a central instrument of international law to implement the principle of "never again". We resolutely oppose its political instrumentalization.

We know that different countries rate Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip differently. However, Germany firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide now made before the International Court of Justice against Israel. This accusation lacks any basis [and] ... Government intends to intervene as a third party."

https://twitter.com/Ostrov_A/status/1745829005201166625

I strongly believe this is the reason why SA had taken them to The Hague. In essence, they have won the case.

Yes, the whole Geopolitical landscape has changed regardless of the outcome of the case. The Global South who are numerically larger than the so called democracies, will see the hypocrisy of "rules for thee but not for me".

It sets a precedent that every country can now ignore International Law and act any way they want by arguing that it is in "their defence".

Bravo Germany. Well said.

Good for them

In essence, they have won the case.

act any way they want by arguing that it is in "their defence".

You haven't even seen what the outcome is yet.... predictable

Sorry but I don't understand your post.

It may well be but its very strong language to call them "representatives of Hamas", when they've spent time telling the court Hamas are terrorists.

This is from yesterday but pretty interesting (and prescient of the above^^)
https://www.channel4.com/news/south-africa-has-a-very-compelling-case-at-icj-says-human-rights-law-expert

@Auvergne63 your quote first. 'In essence they have won the case' (that's not really true is it?)

@BelleHathor second. 'Act in any way they want by arguing it is in 'their defence'. (Which is exactly why we are in this situation)

Your haven't seen the outcome yet and are already preparing. Why is that?

What I meant is that, even if SA does not win, they have exposed the Israeli government rhetoric and actions to the world. For me, that is a moral win.

How odd that Germany, the country that committed a genocide against 6 million Jews and other minorities, is applauded as some kind of moral authority on this issue whilst South Africa, the country that overcame apartheid and is seeking to prevent an ongoing genocide is positioned as the bad guy.

honestly MN is like the twilight zone these days.

Discrediting your opponent based on motive is not necessarily an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is one it involves an irrelevant fact about a person or entity that is made to personally attack someone.

South Africa's relationship with Hamas and other terrorist groups over time is not actually irrelevant to the case.

It's perfectly valid to raise it in order to at least give others reason to pause before deciding whether their argument is entirely valid.

Now, it cannot be the entire foundation of Israel's case because that wouldn't be enough. But its perfectly valid for it to be PART of their case.

The above is also valid in regards to people who make accusations against another person, BTW.

Here's a good primer on the issue:

https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/11/could-ad-hominem-arguments-sometimes-be-ok/

It's interesting that the Federal Republic of Germany is getting involved in the case between South Africa and Israel at the ICJ.

Very interesting, indeed.

Absolutely. I was just thinking this. It's bizarre around here.

@Desertrose2023 doesn't make any sense at all.

This quote by Malcom X comes to mind

TBH I think there’s no winner here, just a loser: the SA government.

If what Shaw said of SA’s game playing with communications in advance of its claim - and he’s hardly likely to have done so without the evidence, which I assume will be on the court file - and given SA’s cosiness with Hamas as a matter of record, it’s the SA government that looks like an unprincipled stooge.

SA made its pitch yesterday. Israel opposed it today. I do not see how SA’s slant on facts exposes truths to the world.

The blatant racism is shocking

Good grief

They really do themselves no favours do they

To me there is a clear loser : Palestinians. They’ve lost their life , house , etc. they’re the real losers in this story

They really do themselves no favours do they

@ssd who is 'they'?

@Desertrose2023 I assume because Germany is determined not to make the same mistakes again where as South Africa has overcome apartheid and is now getting into bed with terrorists. Have they learnt nothing?

Bingo, I thought of that quote earlier too, in relation to a lot of the MSM broadcasting the ICJ case today after nothing yesterday. Deserves the full quote:
"The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make the criminal look like he’s a the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. It will make the criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
Malcom X

Um, I'm not preparing for any outcome.

It's simple logic. International Law regarding warfare is there to provide rules that combatants must abide by especially regarding civilians.

If those parties that don't abide by those rules are not punished, then why should anyone?

We have institutions created after WW2 that have absolutely failed to act to protect civilians whose deaths have been broadcast to millions around the World.

Did Israel explain how creating the current worlds worst hunger crisis is not genocide? How 80% of the people in the world facing Phase 5 hunger crisis live in Gaza, 25% of their population are at Phase 5 ‘catastrophic’ level, meaning a high risk of mass starvation and death. The most affected are small children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers so not who you would typically think of as Hamas. Did Israel explain how this is them actually protecting the civillians of Gaza from Hamas? I've been at work all day so missed what went on but I would like to know their explanation for creating the current worlds worst hunger crisis that is leaving small children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers starving to death.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada has said:

"Canada has long been a tremendous supporter of the international rules-based order and processes and structures that have been put in place over the past decades to be able to actually ensure that international law is respected and enforced.

And the ICJ, International Court of Justice, is a key part of that. Our wholehearted support of the ICJ and its processes does not mean we support the premise of the case brought forward by South Africa."

Canada will release a more detailed statement later setting out its position.