Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The International Court of Justice

• ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice also accuses Israel of apartheid? Source: [1][2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ingush towers

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

New article, long enough, fully supported by both primary and secondary source provided, and is interesting. No problems facing the bold-linked articles. QPQ has been done. The hook is neutral and factual and does not hold any opinions. The nomination is good to go. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose that User:Makeandtoss will review this nomination he is involved in this WP:CTOP WP:ARBPIA area we need another reviewer that is not involved in the area. Suggest NPOV hook

• ALT1: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice but Israel denies it as a blood libel Source: [3],[4] --Shrike (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as you oppose my review, which is based on WP guidelines, nor is there such a thing as requiring another reviewer who is not involved in the area. The original hook is factual and does not have opinions in it, unlike the one you suggested. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The WP:DYKRR is clear "use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest." you edited this article and other articles in the WP:CTOP area. The original hook gives only prominence of South Africa POV so there is nothing neutral in it --Shrike (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've had people edit an article of mine before and edit in the topic area in question and still approve my nomination. It's not really that bit of a deal, so long as they are properly going through the requirements of approval. By the way, your proposed ALT is way more biased than the original hook and, considering you publicly state on your account that you are from Israel, you're the one that looks like they have a conflict of interest here and really should not be proposing such a hook. Silverseren^C 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 is grammatically incorrect. starship.paint (RUN) 12:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose original formulation and ALT1. The original proposal throws in the apartheid allegation, which is out of scope of the Genocide Convention and will not be adjudicated by the ICJ. ALT1 also cites an emotive and non-substantive "blood libel" rebuttal rather than the actual reasons that Israel denied the charges at the ICJ, namely that they are acting in self-defense and that the official directives of the authorities conducting the war do not show any genocidal intent. ALT3 seems to be best alternative, as it is a NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on (in the short term). --Chefallen (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the Israeli legal team argued that the International Court of Justice had no jurisdiction over the war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship.paint (RUN) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me as a good suggestion though in my opinion the article is not stable yet Shrike (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Starship.paint: no objection in principle, and the proposed hook is entirely factual. My concern is that the statement leads a reader to assume that by jurisdiction we mean something it doesn’t mean. Shaw’s argument on the topic of jurisdiction was: (1) a procedural question about whether SA had given Israel enough time to discuss ahead of the case, and (2) whether there really is enough evidence to confirm the proposed facts of the case and the intent required therein. Plus none of this technical argument is currently explained in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have to look into this once I am free. I think we have time as the article will stabilize in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 23:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right Onceinawhile, I found a source giving a description that roughly matches (1), whether there was an actual dispute between South Africa and Israel regarding their responses to each other. In that case ALT2 is potentially misleading. I've withdrawn it in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel is aimed at persuading the International Court of Justice to order a ceasefire in Israel's war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support this version. NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on, unlike original and ALT1. --Chefallen (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chefallen and Shrike: - would either of you like to approve ALT3 then and mark this nomination as ready? I mean, the opposition to original hook and ALT1 is clear, surely the DYK promoter would not choose those. starship.paint (RUN) 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As the court rejected the cease fire demand we need to reflect this in hook [5] --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT3 is factually incorrect taking a strict view. And its given source is dated Jan 11, well before the recent Order with detailed discussion, so the source is speculative. South Africa did not ask for a two sided "ceasefire". Going to the ICJ judgement, it records that South Africa asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-sided "suspension", not a "ceasefire". So a DNY claiming something that is demonstrably not in the actual Order is a pretty silly. The ICJ did in fact order a provisional measure that Israel prevent the commission of "(a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", (measure 1 on pages 24-25) where "group" is roughly the Palestinian population of Gaza, so did in fact order something approximating to what SA asked. (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. ALT3 is simply not correct - the case is aimed at stopping an actual or potential genocide, depending on your point of view. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Struck. starship.paint (RUN) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What was wrong with the original main hook again? It was completely factual per the ICJ filing by South Africa and is interesting because apartheid isn't as much discussed about the filing as compared to the genocide aspect. Silverseren^C 02:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice initially ordered Israel to "punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza? Source: ABC News starship.paint (RUN) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• ITN Note that the article has also been nominated for ITN and so won't be eligible for DYK if it is posted there. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• The ITN nomination was not approved so the nomination can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT4 is short enough, interesting, and cited, though the site is down and you will need this archived link. Anyone who wants to come at me with why I should approve a different hook may do so. I personally choose not to promote articles in the throes of a requested move to avoid risking having a redirect on the main page, but while we're waiting:

Refs 78 and 135 are malformed (78 uses a [1] for a title, 135 has a bare URL).

Ref 184 is cited to TASS and refs 64, 138, 185, 220 are cited to Anadolu Agency, which are both listed at WP:RSP as being unreliable, and ref 181 claims to cite Anadolu Agency when it instead cites A.com.tr, instead of Aa.com.tr. Can these be remedied?--Launchballer 03:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Launchballer: this has now been remedied. I left the AA/TASS sources in only two places, where they were supporting a direct quote from a Russian politician. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: There is a tag in the Ruling on provisional measures section. Please fix it and then ping me Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst: this has been resolved (I removed the offending text and removed the tag). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Add an "Interventions" section

There have been a number of headlines about countries "joining" the case. This actually refers to states formally intervening in the ICJ case.

I came to this article to find the list of countries who had joined. I didn't find the list, although under the "Other international responses" section, it contains a list of countries "In support" and "In opposition", which I would suggest are potentially vague or debatable terms.

I believe it would be in the public interest to more prominently list the states who have taken concrete steps to involve themselves with the case, by adding a top-level "Interventions" section.

In theory, interventions need not favour one side or the other, but in practice they always do. Parties to the genocide convention can submit "declarations of intervention" under article 63 and any state can submit "applications for permission to intervene" under article 62. Further, a number of states have declared their intention to intervene, but have not yet done so.

I would suggest an "Interventions" section could be structured something like this:

Interventions

States who are participants to the genocide convention may submit "declarations of intervention" under article 63 of the statute of the ICJ and any state can submit "applications for permission to intervene" under article 62.

A number of states have formally intervened, and others have expressed their intention to do so.

In support of South Africa

The following states have submitted interventions to the ICJ in support of South Africa's argument:

Formal submissions

Country	Date	Submission
Nicaragua	23 January 2024	Application for permission to intervene
Colombia	5 April 2024	Declaration of intervention
Libya	10 May 2024	Declaration of intervention
Mexico	24 May 2024	Declaration of intervention
State of Palestine	3 June 2024	Application for permission to intervene and declaration of intervention
Spain	28 June 2024	Declaration of intervention
Turkey	7 August 2024	Declaration of intervention
Chile	12 September 2024	Declaration of intervention
Maldives	1 October 2024	Declaration of intervention
Bolivia	8 October 2024	Declaration of intervention

In addition, a number of states have declared an intention to submit interventions, including Ireland, Egypt, The Maldives, Chile, Cuba, Belgium, Bangladesh and Jordan

In support of Israel

Germany have expressed an intention to intervene in the ICJ proceedings in support of Israel.

--Nottrobin (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe we currently have enough intervening countries that they can have a map on their own.

• Countries intervened on behalf of South Africa
• Countries expressed intent to intervene on behalf of South Africa
• Countries intervened on behalf of Israel
• Countries expressed intent to intervene on behalf of Israel

2A02:8109:9E28:900:3161:EF6F:847F:D5C9 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Initial ruling on plausibility

In the lead section, it is stated that: "The Court concluded that it is plausible that Israel's actions in Gaza Strip could amount to genocide and issued provisional measures". This is simply false. The court has concluded something else, namely that "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" can plausibly be adjudged to exist and to be applicable. This is phrased more correctly in the section Initial ruling on plausibility, and the lead section should do so as well. Rvosa (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the press release from OHCHR (a UN organ) cited, which says: "The ICJ found it plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide and issued six provisional measures, ordering Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, including preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring aid and services reach Palestinians under siege in Gaza, and preserving evidence of crimes committed in Gaza." Next time, please actually read the sources cited before going off with some comment which makes no sense. This request is not granted. Also, it is not a proper edit request. Historyday01 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"While there was a consensus among legal experts that the order requires Israel to halt its offensive immediately"

This claim is not factual nor netural and should not be stated as such in the article. The citation for this claim is the following article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/world/europe/icj-israel-rafah-offensive-explained.html In which the following is written: "There is a substantial consensus among legal experts that Israel cannot continue its current offensive in Rafah without violating the court’s order. Five leading legal scholars I contacted said the order was clear on that point" This of course is not a sufficient basis for this claim of "consensus". Five scholars that the author Amanda Taub talked to are not a "consensus" nor are they sufficient to extrapolate generalities in ratio or within any confidence interval. There are many experts/scholars who say the opposite, and even Amanda's article cited clearly says that the order is "ambiguous" and has "vague language" that can be interpreted in different ways. This is opposed to the order to the Russian Federation of 16 March 2022 which is unambiguous, and states: "The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine" So, a consensus in favor of each possible interpretation is more than plausible and possible.

Instead, this section of the Wikipedia article should say: While there is no clear consensus among legal experts due to the ambiguous wording used in the order (as opposed to the unambiguous language used in the Russia-Ukraine ruling of 16 March 2022), some experts have stated that the order requires Israel to halt its offensive immediately and some have stated the opposite. Israel has rejected the former position and continued with its offensive operations. advance512 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not a proper edit request (and contains OR) but treating it as if it were, UKLFI is an insufficient (and possibly unreliable) source for the statement that some have stated the opposite, although even they acknowledge,"has been misinterpreted in many media reports", that many RS agree with the NYT.

Therefore, not done. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Since UKLFI describes itself as "supporting Israel with legal skills" I would say it is undoubtedly an unreliable source for this statement. Historyday01 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable UKLFI is, but at the same time the current source seems like WP:NEWSOPED, since Amanda Taub is a columnist. I'm not sure either source is suitable for statements in wikivoice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Surely, we could get a better article than the NY Times article, but even it is MUCH better than UKFLI, which is clearly an unreliable source on this subject, as it is outwardly pro-Israel, as I noted in my above comment. Historyday01 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree, our policies are more strict about restricting the use of WP:NEWSOPED sources than WP:BIASED ones. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about a discussion (among lawyers) about the interpretation of a comma in the judgement wording as explained by Taub (who has a legal background) and also in this Guardian article the day before. The Guardian also says "a directive widely seen to have instructed Israel to completely stop its military offensive".

Israel of course would like to argue that the effect of the comma is to condition the order to halt but this appears to be a minority view. Two days after the judgement Israel carried out the widely condemned Tel al-Sultan attack, in effect ignoring the court order. Diakonia published a legal analysis of the comma/other perceived ambiguities that does not support the Israeli case.

I have added the Guardian ref as additional support for the Taub editorial, which afaics, is an accurate discussion of the facts as reported elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article seems pretty solid, although it's a non-expert author. Here's one authoritative source by Adil Ahmad Haque. He discusses three possible readings of the opinion, and concludes that the current offensive as currently planned and executed is prohibited under any reading.

So under a possible reading, which some but not all judges subscribe to, a different Rafah operation may be permissible. The Guardian reaches a similar conclusion. Taub's claim of a consensus is not really corroborated by either source, unless by continue its current offensive she means in its current form. Her wording isn't very clear.

Also, any objection to removing sources from lede (at least this bit of it) and consolidating them in the bit of the body that covers this? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, whether individual judges in their individual judgements agree or disagree about something is of more interest to lawyers, Diakonia analysis covers the comma and the "offensive" business, the reporting of the judgement is what counts here tho. And the Guardian does confirm Taub consensus claim, I quoted that above, did you not read it?

I don't mind whether the sources are in the lead or not altho if we are going to start doing that, we should be taking all of them out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Since The Guardian is often considered a partisan source, I think we should focus on its statements of fact rather than more interpretive, equivocal statements like "widely seen to have instructed Israel to completely stop". That interpretation doesn't really match the subsequent facts presented in the article, which demonstrate the controversy. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Guardian is green, sorry. The Guardian/Taub are also correct representations of the majority view. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's NBC "It was widely viewed as an unambiguous statement: The top United Nations court ordered Israel to immediately halt its military assault on Rafah — a dramatic intervention that left the nation and its chief ally, the U.S., increasingly isolated on the world stage."

That's three sources about it being widely viewed/seen as, four if we include the one you mentioned, which I haven't really looked at.

Think we have covered this sufficiently now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's somewhat out-of-context, but more importantly, why would we give any weight to the interpretation of a journalist with no relevant credentials, when we have an analysis from an authority in the field and published by a publication with expert reviewers? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If it says the same thing, why bother? We have RS describing a consensus/widely held view and that's all we need. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't bothered with Diakonia for the same reason. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Diakonia analysis does not substantiate there was a consensus among legal experts that the order requires Israel to halt its offensive immediately either. It argues that Israel's reading is not the most intuitive, but ultimately acknowledges the ambiguity and that several judges understood the sentence as limiting rather than prohibiting a Rafah offensive. It also argues that Israel might be noncompliant even under the reading in question, but that seem unrelated to the content in question. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I know that, that's why I am ignoring it in favor of sources that do substantiate a consensus. Maybe you didn't read what I said before. Selfstudier (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

So we have

• a few non-authoritative sources with claims of a consensus around a certain interpretation
• two authoritative sources which acknowledge the plausibility of alternate interpretations
• 2-3 judges who subscribe to those alternate interpretations (with most others not explicitly opining on the matter)

In light of that, wouldn't you agree that claiming a consensus in wikivoice isn't really appropriate, since it's not based on the WP:BESTSOURCES? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards for the purposes of the lead, the authoritative sources are those that speak to a consensus, those sources you are referring to as authoritative are only so in the sense of being their opinion alone, of course they can be in the article body if desired. Of such sources, it is straightforward to gather up any number with an opinion one way or another but non of them individually determine a consensus, I suppose we might collect them all up, as many as we can locate, and simply count them. I cannot predict the outcome with certainty but I would be willing to bet we would find that same consensus as described by the three RS who say there is such a consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is your point that the more authoritative sources don't explicitly deny a consensus? Pointing out that three judges subscribe to a certain alternate interpretation seems pretty close to establishing a lack of consensus.

I don't think our own aggregation would be a good basis for a wikivoice statement about consensus (since it would technically be synthesis), though it might help inform how much weight to give different views. I think only expert sources which substantively discuss the language should be considered. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I already said I don't accept your description of "authoritative". Judges individual opinions are not relevant to the court's judgement (13 of 15). According to your argument these are authoritative because they are judges and I would agree with that in principle. Who/what did they say? Well we have seen Sebutinde quite a bit now and its nearly always the minority view, then the judge appointed by Israel so no surprise there either, while the South African appointee says it explicitly means stop, again no surprise. And these apparently POV driven opinions should be given weight? No and RS do not do so.

They are their opinions, as are other expert opinions. What we actually want to know is what is the consensus, and we do know that, three RS are telling us there is a consensus. While there may be a minority view, in this case, it is not even a particularly significant minority afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about judges' dissent, but rather judges' interpretation of the opinion. When three judges interpret an opinion in a certain way, and expert analyses acknowledge the validity of that interpretation, it seems a bit unreasonable to dismiss it as some fringe view based on news articles by unqualified journalists with their own biases. Those don't even claim to have surveyed experts, except Taub whose claims as a columnist need attribution. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There are three sources supporting a consensus in the lead and the Israeli position is there right next to it, I really don't understand the continuing discussion here, the lead reflects the sources. End of. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There are also many reliable sources - and more authoritative ones - saying that the order was ambiguous and that different judges and other experts interpreted it differently. We should at least mention the ambiguity that numerous experts have confirmed, to avoid a blatant NPOV violation. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, because the ambiguity is reflected in the Israeli position. Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

POV Change

@XDanielx: Your last edits are contrary to the NYT and the Guardian, both of which are reliable sources. The NYT explicitly says that this is the consensus of legal scholars; not the consensus of the five they had contacted; this argument is misleading. Also, this has already been thoroughly discussed months prior so it is also contrary to established consensus. [6] The burden is on you to challenge the established consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

First, the NYT is an WP:NEWSOPED, and the other sources don't claim anything about a consensus among scholars. So the old text simply fails WP:V.

But more importantly, the NYT also supports my changes. It said Israel cannot continue its current offensive, "current" being the operative word. She then quotes Haque who says as currently planned and executed, making the qualification more clear. The old text merely said halt its offensive immediately with no such qualification, which is quite an imprecise and misleading summary of both sources. It was also misleading to not mention the ambiguity that scholars largely agree exists.

None of this is a defense of the Israeli interpretation, which further posits that could bring about its physical destruction was never the case, which experts reject. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

Link the name, Balkees Jarrah, to her the existing Wikipedia page. Firecat93 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)