Thread by @ElliotMalin

The dissent by Judge Sebutinde is incredible and eviscerates the @CIJ_ICJ as applying standards never applied to any other states party. I'm going to highlight a few parts because they're quite notable.

We're going to start with the final paragraph.

icj-cij.org/sites/default/…

That final paragraph is a HOLY SHIT moment on the objectivity and fairness of the court.

Notably, Israel was not given time to respond and WAS NOT ABLE TO ENGAGE COUNSEL. Further, it was required to respond during a religious observance.

This is not done to other states.

She then eviscerates the Court on the micromangement of the war, outside of the scope of the authority of the Court. Also, she states that the order will be misconstrued on what the order means regarding hostilies in Rafah. So far, she's right!

She then states that the allegation that there has been a substantial deteriation of the humanitarian condition in Gaza is without evidence because all evidence suggests that more aid has been entering and Israel has been working to INCREASE AID.

Judge Sebutinde then states that it is uncontradicted that there are efforts to reopen Rafah, that more crossings are opening, and that Kerem Shalom is operating at an increased capacity. So South Africa effectively misleads the Court.

Furthermore, there has been an increase of aid by thousands of trucks entering Gaza. This has resulted in the opening of bakeries, field hospitals, and increased hygiene.

Then she states that this fact is supported by the UN's own coordinator, quoting them as saying that there "is very constructive cooperation with her mission" and Israel.

Next, she goes into the fact that evidence shows that Israel has taken concrete steps to improve the access to medical facilities and healthcare. Israel has opened EIGHT field hospitals, with another about to open.

Judge Sebutinde also notes that Israel has taken action to warn civilians to leave areas of combat operations, even requiring them to evacuate. Israel has further acted to provide shelter to civilians and permitted the entrance of shelter equipment.

"Such actions are inconsistent with the intent to destroy the group in question."

Israel's efforts have not entirely alleviated the humanitarian crisis, but that is a consequence of war. Which does not render Israel's war illegitimate or unlawful.

More important: "Israel does not currently govern or exercise full control over the Gaza Strip."

What does that last sentence mean? It means under the Hague Convention that Israel is *not* occupying the Gaza Strip because it has not supplanted authority over the civilian population instead of Hamas.

This is a *huge* deal in the actual perspective and application of the law.

She also notes: "Hamas' conduct has also impeded the effective dielivery of aid. hamas has launched rocket attacks at aid crossings and at the construction site of Gaza's floating pier. There is also evidence that Hamas has seized aid for its own use."

Then noting that Egypt has impeded the access of aid into Gaza by preventing the movement of aid trucks from Egypt to Kerem Shalom to enter Gaza instead of via Rafah.

Which she had previously noted Israel was trying to fix. But it takes more than one party to tango.

Judge Sebutinde then notes that the Court is making a pressumption that cannot be made at this stage of the proceedings. But must wait until the merits stage of the proceedings.

Another indicator of a double-standard by the @CIJ_ICJ, which is quite alarming.

@CIJ_ICJ Again, she reiterates that this order is going to be misunderstood and misconstrued. She's right. Many nefarious parties are already doing this. Also stating this is effectively micromanaging a conflict outside their bounds.

It also leaves Hamas the ability to attack Israel.

@CIJ_ICJ Also, important, she notes that the preservation of evidence requirement on Israel is nefarious in itself as evidence suggests that Hamas itself is destroying documentary evidence.

There's also plenty of people that have entered Gaza who can report back.

@CIJ_ICJ In making its application, she notes: "South Africa has also not put forward any specific evidence that Israel is engaging in the destruction of evidence that may require the indication of new measures relating to this issue."

The ICJ is giving measures without evidence, yikes.

@CIJ_ICJ Another indication of the double-standard that Judge Sebutinde notes: this has never been ordered by the ICJ against any other state for any reason. This approach differs substantially from other cases where there was less attention or international scrutiny.

Another: yikes!

@CIJ_ICJ Judge Sebutinde is also openly hostile to South Africa's requests and the orders for reports at this point using language such as "yet again" as a measure of showcasing the hypocrisy and nefarious nature of these proceedings.

@CIJ_ICJ And to end this thread with where we started, we should highlight the conclusion paragraph.

"The Court's decisions in this respect bear upon the procedural equiality between the Parties and the good administration of justice by the Court."

The fact that the ICJ is acting in such a way that is openly hostile to Israel, its rights under the law and custom, as well as the fact that the ICJ is changing its own standards or imposing what it never has, is why the proceedings are viewed as antisemitic.

Double-standards against Israel that is not applied to any other state is antisemitism.

@CIJ_ICJ OH, one more note: Judge Sebutinde also effectively eviscerates @KarimKhanQC's application for warrants without stating so explicitly.

Showcasing the evidence that exists contrary to what the application states to @IntlCrimCourt.

Fascinating.

And as a reminder, this is a dissenting opinion. However, it is quite notable for what it states on the face of the complaint and actions taken by South Africa.