Thread by @NimerSultany

Thoughts on ICJ 24 May Order on Provisional Measures, and the separate declarations by judges, in the @CIJ_ICJ case of South Africa v. Israel:

Earlier in the month South Africa requested the following measures, including withdrawal from Rafah governorate, and a report by Israel within a week.

In the oral hearing South Africa modified the request, given changes on the ground (the intensification of attacks in the North) asking ceasing attacks in Rafah and withdrawal from all of Gaza

Today the Court reiterated that there is a risk of genocide in light of the attacks on Rafah

The provisional measures ordered by the Court differed from what South Africa requested, however. The convoluted order allows for interpretation.

Having reiterated the risk of genocide, the order (2a) focuses on Rafah's "worsening conditions" and requires "immediate halt of the offensive"

The rest of the 2a order, as we shall see, created some discussion amongst the judges. But Israel's apologists, Sebutinde and Barak, do not even recognise the risk of genocide, so their mis-intereptations are irrelevant and less interesting.

The other measures ask Israel to "maintain open Rafah crossing" (which is again consistent with immediate halt of offensive). Also, require access to fact-finding missions and journalists.

Another measure falls short of South Africa's request for a report within one week, and gives Israel one month. This timing does not reflect the urgency of the South African request.

Judge Tladi in his separate declaration affirms that a continuation of the offensive on Rafah will not be consistent with the Order he joined.

Judge Nolte, who reluctantly joined the majority, explained that the while the Order does not extend beyond Rafah, it "limits current military offensive"

Nolte's agreement to "immediate halt" is underpinned by his conclusion that humanitarian aid cannot be guaranteed without limiting the military operation.

Judge Auresco provides an interesting discussion, that seems to imply that the majority conditioned not the "immediate halt of the offensive" but only "any other action" that "may inflict" genocidal conditions.

Yet, while supporting the Court order Auresco because "the situation in Gaza, especially in the Rafah Governorate, has reached the critical level of a humanitarian catastrophe", included skeptical notes.

Interestingly, Auresco includes what he considers innovative request: that the Court Order "include... a measure by which it could have asked Israel to take all necessary and effective measures to implement with immediate effect" the UNSC ceasefire resolution.

Judge Sebutinde reverts to her January Declaration and goes full scale pro-Israeli propaganda, as can be seen from her sources, providing "a balanced approach"

Her opposition to the order to immediate halt is based, among other reasons, on her fear that this will be understood to mean "indefinite, unilateral ceasefire"

What is interesting about Sebutinde's is that she claims to provide context while erasing context: no occupation, no history prior 7 Oct, no attack on Iranian consulate...

Finally, Israels' "diplomat judge" Barak asserts that the Court's order means that Israel needs to do nothing (i.e. continue as it is doing now) but rejects it nevertheless. This does not sit well with the words "immediate halt"

Of course, Barak again cannot resist quoting himself, like did in previous declarations.

Finally, Barak repeats his "existential war" claim, over 7 months later, despite all evidence.

As I explained in my article for the @JournalGenocide, Barak’s rhetoric is "tendentious and mendacious ... that seeks to conceal the reality of mass slaughter and to subordinate the legal assessment to overriding
policy goals." END