Jump to content

Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Meaning of the new provisional measure

This seems to disagree with most of the interpretations. I would add a sentence, but am not sure about how to phrase it regarding

a) certainty and b) attribution.

Ideas? FortunateSons (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the source "The relevant clause in the ruling stated that Israel must “Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
Interpretation of the order by anyone other than the court, requires attribution. Anyway (in the article body) we should keep it as factual as possible, per NYT "It stopped short of ordering a cease-fire in Gaza, with some of the court’s judges arguing that Israel could still conduct some military operations in Rafah under the terms of their decision" while others say "blah" (South Africa, any other). Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
So attributing to NYT, ToI and CNN each is probably best, to ensure a variety of view points? Did you happen to find a similar analysis from AJ or a comparable sources as well, just to ensure that we don’t get into a western bias situation?
Regarding the lead, is something along the lines of “the exact interpretation is disputed” due, or should we go further in depth? FortunateSons (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
By attribution I mean as to who is saying it, so "some judges" or a named judge, not the publisher (unless the publisher is saying it themselves). I think it is too soon to make a lead statement, develop in body first, wait and see what actually happens on the ground and then, when it is clear, in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course, we definitely should attribute to the judges (probably by country and name or only country, but that’s preference). The question whether we should attribute to news source as well is probably secondary and only affects a few claims.
Lead statement probably makes sense to wait, at least until the body is done. Would you be opposed to including the actual quote in the lead, because the current last sentence implies one interpretation without context (alternatively a footnote until the body is done?) FortunateSons (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Quotes in leads are generally a bad idea, it should be a prose summary of what's in the body. What's in the lead right now is not wrong but perhaps incomplete, if we do the body first, it should become clear what to put there. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Good plan, let’s go for that FortunateSons (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Tried to figure out something functional for the body; thoughts?
I no longer have access to the NYTs, so while I remember that the content is representative of the citation (and matches your comment), I would appreciate a second opinion. FortunateSons (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The NYT says "Some of the court’s judges said that Israel could still conduct some military operations in Rafah under the terms of their decision." and then goes on to say "[Israel] said in a written response that its military “has not and will not” take actions that would lead to the destruction of the Palestinian population in Rafah — in effect saying that the court’s decision has no bearing on Israel’s offensive." This latter rejection (in effect) I added to the lead as it is more important for now what Israel actually does than what some judges think they can do, even if that's the fig leaf.
Of course, the latest Rafah attack doesn't really square with this theory and the condemnations are flying everywhere once again. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the "fig-leaf" may be a useful addition to the lead, at least something along the lines off: "with some judges arguing that limited military operations may be permitted" and then have Israel's 'interpretation' as the next sentence. FortunateSons (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Israel is making the interpretation regardless of the judges and it has to be like that because only the judgement is binding while the opinions (obiter dicta) of some judges are not. Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
So what would the harm be in adding it? The benefit would be additional clarity. They are non-binding, but the way it was written does allow for different reasonable interpretations. FortunateSons (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The actual decision is 13 to 2, regardless of what some judges say apart. Generally, sources are interpreting "immediately halt" to mean just that and the UN/EU and others are taking a similar position. Israel can of course argue that it doesn't mean that (and point to some judges ruminations on the matter in support). Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps that is what is right for the lead then? That their denial is in line with the judges opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
If there is a source citing Israel actually doing that (pointing to those judges) I would go along with that. Is there one? Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, fair point. I will look, but I don’t believe there is. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Until there is or I do, would you be opposed to adding the word “large-scale” or another qualifier, to ensure that we don’t have any disputed content in the lead? FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I follow, add "large scale" to what, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
To the offensive (or better: replace with large-scale military operations). FortunateSons (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The judgement (decision) doesn't say that though. Any interpretation has to be filtered through RS and thus far, most RS are seeing it as an instruction to halt with Israel not only disputing that interpretation but actually breaching the order, judging by latest RS. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I know quotes in the lead aren’t great, but shouldn’t we then just go for the text? FortunateSons (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
It's in the body, for the lead we should summarize RS, for example, The FT today "European diplomats have demanded Israel comply with an order from the International Court of Justice to "immediately halt" its offensive in Rafah,....ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said "everybody agrees that the rulings of the International Court of Justice are binding, and they have to be implemented". Despite the order, Israeli forces continued to operate in Rafah at the weekend, and on Sunday more than 35 people were killed and dozens more were injured in a UN-run "safe zone"..." Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and thoughts on the usefulness of this? Its a bit less formal, but does provide the context decently well IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That's quite good. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Then I might add it to the body when I get to it (or feel free to be faster than I am, it might take a bit till I find the time) :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I added this to the body, but am not sure if I got the most important parts, because the article is so dense with good information. Did I include something unnecessary or leave out something crucial? FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
As to what is actually happening we have NYT "Despite an international court order to stop its assault on Rafah, Israel says it will continue its operation, trying to walk a line between not angering its American allies too much while trying to achieve strategic aims that it considers too important to abandon." and there are/will be other sources complaining that Israeli is ignoring the order and so on. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
And AJ "Israel has continued its relentless attacks on Rafah despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering it to put an end to the military operation there" and "The UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories called on Saturday for sanctions against Israel for defying the court." Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
CNN has some analysis, I am sure there are others around, too. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
That looks interesting, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there's an apologist thread in circulation, with a few legal geniuses asserting "immediately halt its military offensive" does not mean "immediately halt its military offensive". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Imo (OR), Israel can continue operating in Rafah but not in terms of an "offensive" (the "limited" jargon won't cut it, either) and people will be looking hard at civilian casualties, indiscriminate bombing, disruption of aid flows (Rafah crossing is still closed and the court said it had to be opened), etcetera when deciding whether Israel is complying or not. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
[More OR] agreed. Likely they will do localised operations until a ‘safe’ place is created where people will and have evacuated, and then go in once it’s no longer a clear violation of the court order FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The Times of Israel article is a fringe opinion as most RS have interpreted it as being Israel should stop its Rafah offensive. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Unless you think they inaccurately cited the judges (which should be easy to show), an RS citing a subject-matter expert is a valid and due source. FortunateSons (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree that most sources are going with immediate halt but that does not prevent Israel from making an argument that the words mean something else and pointing to some judges agreeing (sort of). I wouldn't say that ToI is fringe , that's overegging it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that TOI is fringe but its article regarding the interpretation is fringe. Of course that doesn't mean we don't cite this fringe opinion in the article, but looking at most RS that have the mainstream interpretation, the fringe opinion should not be given undue weight in the lede and should only be mentioned in body. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
PS: reminds me of when Israel refused to withdraw from 1967 territories on the basis that UNSCR 242 did not say "the territories" but "territories". Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, if you check the article, you might find that this interpretation is rather reasonable FortunateSons (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Lol, still going, that one. Atm, there is agreement that the lead should say what most RS say and that Israel doesn't accept/rejects this. This may evolve as more sources become available. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, will revisit if there is more coverage FortunateSons (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
A bit more coverage from the german wiki (first two are german, second one is paywalled, and my usual site stopped working for that, so this is more if any readers have access)
FortunateSons (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
(BBC) What does the ICJ's ruling on Israel's Rafah offensive mean? Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The second Spiegel is at https://archive.ph/BLdkk. Selfstudier (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you; how do I get archive links without access?
Would you consider it DUE for the body, particularly the statement that he believes a) responses including to rocket attacks are permitted and b) that the offensive could legally continue if the people in Rafah would receive adequate water, fuel and medicine? FortunateSons (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
How a single comma is allowing Israel to question ICJ Rafah ruling (Guardian) Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
What the I.C.J. Ruling Actually Means for Israel’s Offensive in Rafah (NYT)
"There is a substantial consensus among legal experts that Israel cannot continue its current Rafah offensive without violating the court’s order." Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I was just about to quote the NYT article in the same way. Israel, and a few dissenting judges, seem to be alone in the hairsplitting interpretation. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I have added much of the relevant content to the body, as well as using the NYT source to cite and alter the lead. Is this change acceptable for everyone? FortunateSons (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
in it’s current form won't work, because "current" has a meaning that changes day to day. Also, it is unclear what it is supposed to mean. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
“in the way it was planned before the order” may be better, I was mostly trying to stay in line with the NYT interpretation. Do you have an alternative suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I would just leave it as it was. Because the situation now is that, per NYT and I think others as well, "all indications are that Israel is continuing the current offensive despite the court’s instructions to stop." So shortly, I think we will just be able to add that Israel disregarded the order or something like that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with leaving at as it was, as it no longer matched the body, was unsourced and also not consistent with what RS were saying. However, I’m open to any phrasing that clarifies the (probable) scope of the order while also making clear that Israel is likely exceeding it FortunateSons (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The court demanded an immediate halt. That's what the NYT's "cannot continue its current Rafah offensive without violating the court’s order." means. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
“current” as in now and in it’s planned large-scale form yes, a different or later offensive no (excluding the ‘interesting’ Israeli interpretation). That’s the picture that emerges from the judges statements as well as multiple available interpretations, even excluding the Israeli one. Exclusively representing a maximalist interpretation of the order in the lead is not consistent with RS. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It already says that Israel rejects it. You could add that it is relying on a minority view provided that we add that the majority view ("substantial consensus") is an immediate halt. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I like the current version, but there are a few others I would consider reasonable too:
Current:
On 24 May, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah in it’s current form, a position rejected by Israel.
Alt 1:
On 24 May, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah - with the exact scope of the order being disputed, a position rejected by Israel.
Alt 2:
On 24 May, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah, a position rejected by Israel. The scope of the order is ambiguous, with both ICJ judges and legal scholars disagreeing on what military actions in Rafah would constitute a violation of the order.
Alt 3
On 24 May, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah. This position was rejected by Israel relying on the view of some ICJ judges and legal scholars which believe that certain military actions are still permitted in Rafah.
Alt 3 is my attempt to summarise your suggestion without being technically inaccurate (because it was the minority of judges but the majority of judges that made statements), but I’m not really happy about what I created here. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I tagged the current version because the court did not say "in its current form" (or anything even remotely like that)- Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Tag is fine for the time being. Would you be happy with the ToI or Spiegel as a citation, or perhaps one of my alts? FortunateSons (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing more to add at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Alt 3 gives the fringe viewpoint much more weight than the mainstream one (mainstream according to that NYT article). Makeandtoss (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
You’re right. I have replaced it with Alt 2 (among other changes) FortunateSons (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
To what source is this referenced to "ambiguous, with both ICJ judges and legal scholars disagreeing"?
Because clearly RS completely disagree: "There is a substantial consensus among legal experts that Israel cannot continue its current Rafah offensive without violating the court’s order" - NYT. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Tagged the reinsertion of "current" with no explanation of when that is, we don't use words like now, tomorrow, etcetera because they rapidly become out of date. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s the NYT source, example quotes:
  • Sure enough, for several days some legal scholars have been arguing about whether the clause that begins “which may inflict” might put conditions on the order to “immediately halt.” Has Israel been told to halt its offensive, or to do so only if that offensive is about to partly or completely destroy Palestinians as a group?
  • So why would the court be even slightly ambiguous in this case? It may have been intentional, said Yuval Shany, an international law professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Perhaps the vague language helped convince more judges to sign the order, he said, even if they did not all agree on a single interpretation of its meaning. There is actually a term for that phenomenon in international law, Shany noted. The term “constructive ambiguity” refers to when “you’re not able to actually reach a consensus formulation, so you use language that everyone can live with,” he said.
  • Three of the judges who joined the majority in last week’s decision wrote separately to explain their interpretation of the order. Each indicated that there would be some circumstances in which certain types of military operations could continue: if the operations did not “inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” (Judge Bogdan Aurescu); if they did not prevent the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance (Judge Georg Nolte); or if they were limited to “defensive operations to repel specific attacks,” carried out in accordance with international law (Judge Dire Tladi).
  • Archive link with the rest of the relevant quotes
FortunateSons (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a minority view, there is a substantial consensus otherwise, no-one is interested in the navel gazing of a minority and in particular when Israel does not even cite those points while disregarding the court order. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s a minority (probably, we likely need to wait for proper
papers) but a significant one (4 ICJ judges, a law professor from a very good university, etc.), which were publicised in multiple newspapers of record. We should include all 3: court order, ambiguous interpretation, Israel exceeding what will likely be the upper bound of plausible interpretations. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The actual judgement was 13-2, which should be added as well. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for phrasing? FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Selfstudier. We have an RS saying there is substantial consensus for the mainstream viewpoint. The fringe viewpoint should not be given undue weight.
Should be changed to:
"On 24 May, by 13 votes to two, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah. The order was disputed by Israel, which has continued with its offensive operations."
No need to elaborate on the minority viewpoints of the two judges, nor of Israel's position beyond "disputed." Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s four out of 5 judges who wrote additional opinions, and we have extensive newspaper coverage of various interpretations (NYT, TOI, Spiegel, etc.). That’s due. FortunateSons (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with Makeandtoss here. If we go into too much detail, it would be undue weight. Keeping it short here is a better and more succinct approach. Historyday01 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Keeping it short is always good, but we should also represent the body which should represent RS coverage, where it’s short instead of long(as of know). Do you have a suggestion on how to preserve the content and yet shortening it? FortunateSons (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
You are trying to make far too much out of this irrelevant side issue that no-one is paying any attention to anyway. In the body, it can be covered, its due there and no need to condense it overly much but I really don't think this is due for the lead at all. Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
My issue is with the original phrasing being inaccurate, as many readings of the case don’t ban military operations and offensives in Rafah, just this military operation done in some specific ways. Whichever phrasing works to accurately express this statement is fine by me (current/planned, direct quotes, a note?). FortunateSons (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
These readings are by a minority of persons, at variance not only with the substantial consensus elsewhere, but whom Israel itself does not even cite in support of its actions. The judges signed on to a 13-2 vote for an immediate halt, all else is just fancy.
I am quite content to leave the tag in place rather than waste a revert on obvious nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree about that FortunateSons overempathises the very fringe Israeli rationalisations here. Can't we just use a wording similar to what the New York Times was quoted to state above? Meaning: "There is a substantial consensus among legal experts that Israel cannot continue its current Rafah offensive without violating the court’s order" and "all indications are that Israel is continuing the current offensive despite the court’s instructions to stop." David A (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the word "current", I read those statements as saying stop while the actual judgement says "immediately", not tomorrow or next week. So "current" is just a nothing. Current when? A month from now, what will that mean? Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I am naturally perfectly fine with if you adjust the suggested text accordingly. David A (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with those changes as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Fine with me as well, I have amended it text according to the NYT quote as mentioned. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The current version no longer matches the content of the NYTs article or the body. While the NYTs article states that the planned offensive cannot currently continue, there is no consensus among legal experts regarding "offensive military operations" or a later offensive (as seen in the linked article). As of now, it's either inaccurate or misleading. Please correct that FortunateSons (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think so, as article says: "There is a substantial consensus among legal experts that Israel cannot continue its current Rafah offensive without violating the court’s order"? It does not say it cannot "currently continue". Current is used as adjective for the offensive, not as a condition for continuing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
For example, the parts cited to Nolte and Talmon do not seem to be covered by the lead as is FortunateSons (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I think your changes, plus the tweaks by Kashmiri, are fine and its not misleading or inaccurate. I'm not sure why FortunateSons keeps objecting. The present text ("On 24 May, by 13 votes to two, the court ordered an immediate halt to Israel's offensive in Rafah. While there was a consensus among legal experts that the order requires Israel to halt its offensive immediately, this position was rejected by Israel which has continued with its offensive operations") seems balanced enough and it incorporates what people have said in this thread. Anything more about the decision should be covered elsewhere in the article, not in the lead. Also, Nolte and Talmon are only TWO of the judges for this case, so citing them in the lead would be undue weight, plain and simple. Historyday01 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Minor point, but Talmon isn’t a judge, he’s a prof.
The part about Israel’s actions is also fine, it’s the legal language that’s the problem.
More specifically, the lead does not represent RS or the body, which is an issue. The consensus (or at least majority) opinion by legal scholars is specifically restricted to the current offensive (as cited in NYT, ToI, and Spiegel), the question of which actions are permitted in Rafah are disputed, with 4/5 judges that wrote statements saying that at least some offensive actions are permitted (see body). Maybe I’m reading it differently than y’all are, but the lead implies that offensive actions and any Rafah offensive (as in: in the future) is not permitted, and this interpretation does not have legal consensus.
The issue can be IMO addressed with anything that clarifies that, which is easiest by adding language that the order only refers to the planned May/June Rafah offensive (for which there is indeed scholarly consensus, unlike for the other stuff) FortunateSons (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The lead is a summary of the body with due weight. It does not have to represent RS or the body in isolation from the due weight provision. Here the question is whether the minority opinion of a couple of judges in obiter dicta separate from their votes in the actual judgement, carry weight and I don't think they do. If they wanted their opinions to carry more weight, the most straightforward way to have done that would have been to vote no in the judgement rather than engaging in after the fact posturing of interest to legal scholars and no-one else. The judgement was 13-2 immediate halt, all else is largely irrelevant (not for the article body, where coverage of such detail is appropriate).
That apart, Israel has rendered the question irrelevant since it has in effect ignored the court order, regardless of its meaning. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue isn’t the amount of judges, it’s thats of of judges who wrote separately, 4/5 who disagree with the most reasonable interpretation of what was written in the lead. That the decision is poorly written (particularly considering it was likely intentional) is unfortunate, but not an excuse to just choose just one interpretation.
I agree that it looses relevance as Israel continues with unusual interpretation of the order, but the lead as does not match what the order or the reactions say. FortunateSons (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
"by adding language that the order only refers to the planned May/June Rafah offensive" according to which RS/mainstream interpretation? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The ones in the body FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Not mainstream interpretations, only minority opinion compared with "substantial consensus". Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn’t call 4 ICJ judges, a Bonn/Oxford prof and others “not mainstream”. They are a minority, but a pretty substantial one, and therefore not consensus. FortunateSons (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Compared to the "substantial majority", they are a minority and it is of interest that the only "beneficiary" of this minority view is Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a less restrictive interpretation of an order is always going to benefit the person it’s against. And?
Not to split this discussion, but thoughts on her in the body outside of the third decision part? I’m thinking of opening up a second section in analysis, the salt emanating from what people wrote about the new decision could make farmland unusable. FortunateSons (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I am less concerned about detailed reporting in the body, although due weight provisions also apply there. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
That’s valid. What do you think about splitting this part into analysis? FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems we are going in circles here. We have a reliable source explicitly saying there is "substantial consensus" on something, and we have a WP talk page consensus that there is no conflicting sources saying otherwise. Let's move on and focus on other things now. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no opposition with someone directly adding that quote into the lead. That’s just not what is happening, because the word current is being objected to (not by me). Would May-June offensive be acceptable to all? FortunateSons (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No, that's going round the circle for the umpteenth time. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

For example Bosnian genocide case (in the equivalent section) links to both written and oral proceedings. So I suggest we replace or supplement the "provisional measures" submissions with: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/written-proceedings and https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings . Paul Duffill (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

And Rohingya genocide case links to the official case page (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/178) which is similar to the two transcripts links I put above. Paul Duffill (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Map „Stances of states“ Not up-to-date

Map needs an update 2A01:599:100:E0EB:AD8E:56B6:7411:499C (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean the map of stances? Could you please indicate what part of it is no up to date and suggest some sources? Paul Duffill (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
From what I could tell, the only updates needed are Spain and Ireland. CheezyCheddar (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the lead section need to list the full official name of the case?

With my sincerest apologies to Gsgdd because we hashed this out a bit on their talk page with them ultimately self-reverting... actually, that discussion (and taking a walk through List of International Court of Justice cases) has gotten me thinking: obviously the lead should refer to some form of the WP:OFFICIALNAME of the case (South Africa v. Israel at minimum, I'd say), but how are people feeling about keeping the full name there? Is it too much or is it fine as is?

And FYI, if anyone would like to do the first sentence opening with the legal citation as some case articles do, that citation would currently be (in Bluebook style)

South Africa v. Israel, No. 192 (ICJ 24 May 2024) (order indicating provisional measures).

Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

its an improvement. lets do it Gsgdd (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion, personally I don't mind the addition of the legal citation, or the removal of the full name. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 Doing... @Gsgdd and Makeandtoss: Alright, since I'm seeing these opinions in favor of the legal citation, I'll rework the lead section to incorporate it. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done here. Left out the date and case status explanatory parenthetical because even though they're technically part of the legal citation, they don't feel quite right placed in the text in this manner. I doubt anyone will object to just providing the General List number. Thanks Gsgdd for getting me thinking about this with your bold edit, I must admit it does look much better this way. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kinsio: It looks weird like a typo, I think we are better off using it in a footnote. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
It does look a bit odd but I'd refer you to the articles Fisheries case, Asylum case, and Ambatielos case for comparison (or for a random example of a FA that uses this format, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke); since the 2024 volume of the ICJ reporter, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (abbreviated as "ICJ" in citations) has not yet been published, the citation is to the court docket number (for the ICJ, this is the General List number). Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
i made some small improvements. should we add `alleged` infront of the mass killing - because the case is ongoing ? Gsgdd (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The mass killings, more than 38,000 Palestinians by now, maybe even at least 48,000, is a fact and not an allegation. The ICJ is deliberating whether the level of mass killings has met the threshold of genocide and whether there is genocidal intent. So I would opposed the reintroduction of alleged. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Seconded. Overdoing it with alleged is MOS:DOUBT and my least favorite verbal tic of journalists. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. "Alleged" is (over)used my media to cover their asses should anyone tried to sue them. They do it with all wrongdoing that has not been tried in court. We are an encylopaedia, though, and our cover is reliable sources. — kashmīrī TALK 13:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't have to follow them; plenty of other ICJ cases that do not add this to the opening sentence. I think moving this into a footnote would be a satisfying middle ground. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I can absolutely do that. I think I'll check for other citations to the case at the same time when I do that to make sure I'm not duplicating anything. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

China

The article currently states that China supports South Africa's genocide case against Israel. However, the sole source provided for the claim is a news article describing a separate issue at the ICJ: "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion)"[1]. This is not South Africa's case. Has China explicitly supported South Africa's case? I can't find any news articles on Google that describe China's explicit support for South Africa's case. Until then, I argue that China should be removed from the list of countries supporting the South African case, and also removed from the image depicting them as such. JasonMacker (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Public opinion


It provides information to include the date of the poll, January 2024. Also, the wording of the question in the poll is: Do you think that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians? It does not ask if the Israel-Gaza war is a genocide. The sentence under Public opinion should be changed to:

-> A January 2024 poll by Economist/YouGov found that 35% of Americans believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians while 36% say it isn't and 29% undecided.

Also, the section could include this poll of Canadians, which had the wording: And, according to how you define what constitutes a “genocide”, do you agree or disagree that Israel is committing “genocide” in the Gaza Strip?

So a sentence that should be added under Public opinion could be:

-> A June 2024 poll by Léger and commissioned by the National Post found that 45% of Canadians believe that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, with 23% saying that it isn't, and 32% saying that they don't know.


Bitspectator (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. For some reason I thought the public opinion section was much longer, apologies. I'm reviewing the sources. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
My suggestions were completely unambiguous. I stated which sentence I wanted changed, and why. I explicitly gave the two sentances I wanted to add -- verbatim. I provided the RS for the new information. Please tell me which part of this needs further clarification. Bitspectator (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Current status

The lead sentence, without wikilinks, is "South Africa v. Israel is an ongoing case that was brought before the International Court of Justice on 29 December 2023 by South Africa regarding Israel's conduct in the Gaza Strip during the Israel–Hamas war that resulted in a humanitarian crisis and mass killings." (Emphasis mine). As the case is ongoing, the lead section should say what is the current status of the case, and this should be further described in a section perhaps titled "Status" or "Current status". —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but what more needs to be said other than it is ongoing? The lead section is long and bulky enough. ICJ cases are notoriously SLOW, so it could be YEARS before a final decision is reached. Historyday01 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I added an update today explaining that South Africa submitted its memorial. So the "current status" is that Israel has until 28 July 2025 to respond. JasonMacker (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel/Archive_4&oldid=1256422523"