Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

Code pink press release

I don’t think we should include support from NGO's etc unless that support is noted in independent and reliable sources - if we only have a press release I don't think it is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added additional sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse this, we need secondary sources, not primary ones. starship.paint (RUN) 12:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Azmi Bishara

Currently, the article presents him as being a neutral analyst, but there is deeper context given his history and allegations of connection to Hezbollah. I think we need to provide additional details. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a wikilink for that. Nor does his opinion seem particularly controversial. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

His opinion is that Israel is committing genocide; that’s almost the definition of a controversial opinion.

It’s in the wiki link, but most readers won’t follow it; I think we can spare a single sentence here? BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a huge number of people who share his view on this matter, so I don't think well poisoning is appropriate. If you feel strongly it would be better to remove his view and replace it with someone else. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is still a very controversial view.

I don’t think we should hide information from our readers; if providing a few basic and pertinent biographical facts will "poison the well" then that suggests there exists an issue with the source.

I’m happy to replace it with a more reliable source, but I’ve read a number of articles on this and haven’t seen a position sufficiently similar to the one expressed here; have you? BilledMammal (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I get the reasoning here, people and countries who support SA position are controversial while those who oppose it are not? Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say that? BilledMammal (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Bishara opinion is no more controversial than that of South Africa, who are backing up their opinion with a legal case. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure how we got on this topic or its relevance.

My point is that we are presenting Bishara as a neutral analyst when there are basic and pertinent biographical details about him that we need provide for context; something along the lines of "Azmi Bishara, a former member of the Knesset who fled Israel ahead of a trial for treason".

Ideally, of course, we would find a source where we wouldn’t need these basic biographical details. BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a neutral analyst, that's why we attribute. I could write a book about why the US position is "controversial" (because they back Israel regardless). And I can just as well write "a Palestinian-Israeli public intellectual, political philosopher and author. He is presently the General Director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies" as adopt some other context. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There are, however, degrees of neutrality. He is about as far as we can get; we present him as equivalent to Wintour, when that is far from the truth.

And you probably could, but I don’t see the relevance. Regardless, I’m hoping we can skip all this, because Onceinawhile seems to believe they can get a better source for this position? BilledMammal (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wintour is a journalist and in no way equivalent as will be obvious to anyone reading the wikilinks. The relevance is simple, if there is a valid objection to Bishara, which I dispute, then I object to the US view on the same grounds. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I still don’t understand the relevance; feel free to take issue with other parts of the text, but issues in other parts have no bearing on this part.

The issue here is that we omit basic and pertinent context, and we can’t handwave that issue away by saying we provide that context if readers follow the wiki links. I would ask that we focus on that issue and the text I propose to add to remedy it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no valid objection to Bishara, no handwaving there at all. By all means, bring more sources that express the Wintour view and for each one, I will bring a counterpoint.

After all there are only two views, yay or nay, neither is "controversial", they just are. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It feels like you are deliberately ignoring my point; that there is basic and relevant context that we omit. I have no issue with including the position, but if we want to include it with Bishara as the source we need this context. BilledMammal (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That is your opinion but not mine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you consider this context irrelevant? BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We have a wikilink and attribution, that's all that is required. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We’re also required to avoid inappropriately implying parity between sources when attributing.

I’m not sure why you see the wiki link are relevant; the article needs to be able to stand on its own. Unless there is a policy or guideline I have missed? BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Then feel free to explain how the article complies with WP:CS. BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree analysis section is POV since it gives undue weight to a journalist giving an opinion on matters for which they are not expert, although I realize that the tag was added for a different and inappropriate reason. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Analysis section

@BilledMammal and Selfstudier: I would like to get this section to a state where we can remove the npov tag. What do you both thing an NPOV “Analysis” section would look and feel like, given how early stage this is? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we would replace Bishara with a better source, but if we cannot I think we need to provide context as to who he is, such as by introducing him with the line Azmi Bishara, a former member of the Knesset who fled Israel ahead of a trial for treason as I suggested above.

My reasoning for this is that simply saying his name doesn’t explain to the reader who he is and what his biases might be; in cases like this where there is highly pertinent context, we need to provide this context - not doing so would be like saying “Herzi Halevi describes the IDF as the most moral army in the world” without clarifying that Herzi Halevi is an IDF general.

This also aligns with WP:CS, which instructs us to avoid inappropriately implying parity between sources when attributing; at the moment we do so, by suggesting that Bishara and Wintour are equally disinterested. BilledMammal (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

According to Patrick Wintour, although South Africa could argue that Israeli precautionary measures to minimise civilian casualties were "performative at best, and knowingly ineffective at worst", it may be difficult for the court to find against Israel because the submission had only limited reference to what Wintour described as Hamas "embedding itself" among civilians or to Israel's right to self defence. Azmi Bishara commented that genocide "...is linked to intent to exterminate; then to actions taken in the context of implementing the genocide, that is, eliminating an ethnic or religious group or a portion of it, and [in this case] proving that in legal terms will not be difficult" while a claim of self-defense should fail as the court has previously ruled that "an occupation force doesn't have the right to self-defense".

References

OK, I have moved it here for now, and removed the tag.

My concerns are:

• The Wintour summary is not a fair summary of his full article, which also contained numerous reasons why the case may succeed
• The 15-word explanation proposed for Bishara’s background crosses the line of MOS:EDITORIAL in my view. We can achieve something similar with less words and without making him appear to be a criminal.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the Wintour article again, I see it does say things about how South Africa has addressed potential pitfalls and reduced the burden on itself, but I'm not seeing it make an assessment of South Africa's chances for success beyond the segment we already reference. However, it's possible we interpret things differently; can you quote the aspects you are referring to?

Can you suggest an alternative? We need to make his association with Israel clear, which includes the accusations of treason and flight before trial, and I'm not seeing a shorter way to do that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree on both counts. Although I'm inclined to think that poisoning the well against him is unnecessary in any case given the wikilink, and to agree with Selfstudier's point that it's a bit unbalanced to equate the views of an academic with the views of a journalist who lacks specific subject matter expertise. I think if we could correct the cherrypicking of Wintour's article it may be appropriate to include, since as it stands, the "Analysis" section would really only be edifying for legal procedure nerds like myself. WillowCity^(talk) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

He's a veteran journalist who has worked as the Guardian's Political Editor and is now their Diplomatic Editor; I would suggest that he has subject matter expertise in this matter. In comparison, I'm not actually seeing anything in Bishara's background that would establish him as that; could you clarify which aspect you see? BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishara has a PhD in political philosophy; he has lectured on international law in the current Gaza war at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (of which he is director general) and he is among the most prominent scholars in the Arab world (particularly in the field of Palestine studies).

I don't see how being a journalist makes someone a subject matter expert in international law, or the interpretation of the Genocide Convention, its legal effect, or litigation regarding it. Why would that be the case? I'm not even sure what he studied as an undergraduate. WillowCity^(talk) 01:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No disrespect to Wintour, I am sure he is a skilled journalist and his career is venerable by any standard. But it's apples and oranges. WillowCity^(talk) 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There are references predating the court case citing the split between scholars on whether or not the situation is a genocide, see Time article for example. The upcoming proceedings this week will not decide anything except whether interim relief should be granted and then it is likely to be quite some time after that for the case to be fully heard. So I am not unduly concerned whether or not this or that opinion on the outcome is included, merely that such opinions be considered with due weight. Flimflam about an imagined need to balance just one opinion with one other is of no interest, it is not as if we are representing a minority view as mainstream (as per the WP:CS example). As usual, politically motivated statements from such as Kirby are worth very little. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This week's hearing will also require the court to assess prima facie jurisdiction and whether South Africa has standing (which it almost certainly does, according to the analysts cited in the article). But yes I agree that this entirely contrived dispute about these two individuals is really unnecessary, particularly since the Wintour piece says a lot more than the above section suggests. WillowCity^(talk) 14:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

Please add Bolovia to the supporting countries Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20240108114420/https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-781214 Rachidem (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the update. WillowCity^(talk) 13:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - Arab League

The Arab League has announced that it is in support of South Africa in this legal case:

https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/58/1262/515462/War-on-Gaza/War-on-Gaza/Arab-League-backs-South-Africa-legal-case-against-.aspx

Similar to the above topic of adding Bolivia, I think the Arab League should be added as well.

Thanks. JasonMacker (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Remember to use the edit request template. Thanks! WillowCity^(talk) 02:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Add Brazil 🇧🇷 to list of countries who support South Africa’s petition to the OCJ 181.222.109.2 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done; thank you! Staraction (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone could add Brazil to the list of supporters of S. Africa?

Brazil states support to S. Africa's petition, someone could add this information? (I'm not allowed to do it yet)

Sources https://www.brasil247.com/english/brazil-backs-south-africa-in-taking-israel-to-international-court-over-palestinian-genocide

https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2024/01/10/lula-apoia-oficialmente-peticao-sul-africana-contra-israel-na-corte-internacional-por-genocidio.ghtml Rodrigo Choinski (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Already done; thank you! Staraction (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

An additional country is now supporting the lawsuit of south Africa and it's Lebanon if it's possible to make the changes to it please thank you! Here's a source: https://www.nna-leb.gov.lb/en/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A9/668769/lebanon-s-mofa-voices-unequivocal-support-for-sout (Note i did receive the news through WhatsApp too cause there's a news channel on Whatsapp for international news and that was published! 75.102.86.91 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 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. Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding a map of stances

I have made a map of the countries that support Israel or South Africa, could we add it to the article?

GlebRyabov (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov Do you have sources for the info on the map? Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't clarify enough. I took the data from right here, so that part's sources are mine, too. Dark blue is Israel, blue is supportive of Israel (the US and Guatemala both backed it), dark green is South Africa, green is pro-South Africa countries, light green is every country that didn't back up South Africa on its own, but is a part of the Arab League and Othe IC that supported it. I'm actually adding the legend right now, sorry for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention)#States_and_international_organizations

GlebRyabov (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

GlebRyabov (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you add the United Kingdom in blue as well? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Done! I removed Canada for a while, and added the UK.

GlebRyabov (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov 🦘🐪 We do NOT support team Nakbah, which Aussie allegedly said that? Our foreign minister is usually pretty good, but I'm a bit pessimistic about Albo. 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would be good if we could get it into the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added the map since there does not seem to be opposition to including it here. It's a very nice effort, thanks for making this. WillowCity^(talk) 23:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The map was removed by @Semsûrî:, saying This map is unsourced and includes countries not mention in this article (like Albania). Sources in the article can be copied to the file page, but I don't understand the comment about Albania. The legend clearly states Member countries of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, both of which have supported South Africa, and Albania is a member of the OIC. Betseg (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we left organizations like the OIC and the Arab League off the map; my understanding is that while this is the position of the organization it is not necessarily the position of the member states of the organization. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not that bothered about having a map, everyone knows that it is essentially Arab/Global South versus the West, with Russia/China playing geopolitics. We can say it in prose and that's good enough. Not that I object to a map but if there objections... Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I added the map but it was on the assumption that it wasn't opposed. I don't feel strongly about inclusion, but I think the map (through its legend and the different shading) is clear enough that countries like Albania and Mozambique haven't taken a stance themselves (yet), but are affiliated with IGOs that have taken a stance. I think it makes the article "prettier", but we're here to inform, not to beautify. WillowCity^(talk) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It does more than beautify in my opinion - Visual learning.

@Selfstudier, I don't think it's so obvious that "everyone knows that it is essentially Arab/Global South versus the West".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What I meant is we can source that, for example, Genocide case against Israel: Where does the rest of the world stand on allegations? Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue with Albania was the lack of explicit mention. Now we also have Tunisia whose stance diverges from the stance of the Arab League.[6] Removing the OIC and the Arab League would probably be a good move. On another note, can you use a map that does not detach territories and regions from the "main country" - for example many of the small dots in the map are UK territories and should be colored the same as it. When I work with maps, I usually use this one template making the more accurate and simplier. Semsûrî (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's also missing a lot of US islands, including Guam and Puerto Rico. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Semsûrî and BilledMammal: about territories, I assume the map was created using File:BlankMap-World.svg, which is the de facto default base map for all Wikimedia projects, but which doesn't include most of the territories of the USA and the UK in the group. Can't color all the territories with the bucket tool, they would have to be colored in one by one. Betseg (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I've added a bunch of pro-Israeli countries and removed the League and the OIC ones, so it should be all good.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

what do you mean by "pro-Israeli"? If you mean that they have not explicitly opposed the case but merely generally support Israel, that wouldn't be sufficient to add them to the map as opposing the case. Paulduffill (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic for this section but this seems the most on-topic place for this comment: But assuming the sources are valid I appreciated whoever it was who added, and added to, the section of opposing countries in the text (as well as the map), and agree we should have an equivalent for "Movements, parties, and unions" when they can be found. Paulduffill (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've kept the light blue countries on the map to the list provided in the article, so the article's sources are my own, too. So far, I'm confident that the US, the UK, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Guatemala and Paraguay should be definitely included, since the article lists them, backs it up with a source and there is a consensus on those countries backing Israel. Those ones are on the current revision of the map, and I will add three countries added since I last edited the map (so Canada, Italy and Ireland) once there's a consensus, too. So, for example, Croatia has been really supportive of Israel in general, but it has not spoken up on the South Africa's case, so I'm not adding it yet (and maybe ever, who knows).

GlebRyabov (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Paulduffill (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If the map is well sourced and was only removed because "This map is unsourced", then it should be restored. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I kinda agree, adding the Arab League and the OIC members was a bit of a reach. I changed it to bring it into the line with the listed countries.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question of, whether OIC members should be added or not (not just to the map but also the list of supporters) would depend on how the OIC came to its decision to support the South African case: assuming it was a voted decision then that would be either (see Article 33 of their Charter: https://www.oic-oci.org/upload/documents/charter/en/oic_charter_2018_en.pdf which is linked in the "Documents" menu at the top of: https://www.oic-oci.org/home/?lan=en ) by consensus (in which case I think all OIC members should be added as they have all actually publicly shown their support for it: I think it's too unlikely countries were absent from this kind of high-profile vote unless there is a reliable source that says they were absent) or two-third majority (in which case we'd need a list or report of how each country voted in order to add them). Unfortunately I can't find any official sources (in English) about which method was used to make the decision (the only documents that mention support that I could find are: https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=40161&t_ref=26840&lan=en and https://www.oic-oci.org/topic/?t_id=40224&t_ref=26858&lan=en) and I can't find any news reports with that info either. Perhaps someone with Arabic language skills could see if they can find the info? Paulduffill (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a group of Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors that we could ping in order to ask them if one of them could look into this? Paulduffill (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors. I can confirm the addition of the OIC as it is considered the collective voice of the Islamic world as mentioned in this reference. Therefore, I suggest re-adding OIC/ Arab League countries to the map. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for finding that! I'm still uncertain how the OIC reached that decision. For example, when the EU makes a collective statement on foreign politics, all the member states have to support it. If this principle is the same for the OIC, I would like to see a source stating that: for example, I'm not really sure that Albania would have joined the unanimity. Or, alternatively, if the decision was made with a majority voting, a list of yays and nays would have been enough.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov The Canadian government's stance is closer to neutral than pro-Israel (unlike the United States, for example). Also, relying on a tweet by the Czech Republic PM is not enough to include Austria on the map. Therefore, please change the status of Canada and Austria on the map, as they remain neutral. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done!

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov Thanks! The map still needs to be updated. Algeria and Zimbabwe are pro-South Africa. Also, Are you sure that the Australian stance is pro-Israel? It is very similar to the Canadian one. Please check this reference. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added Zimbabwe, but I don't have a source for Algeria just yet. It seems quite reasonable that a Muslim African country would back South Africa, but I have not seen anything to confirm it. If you could find it, that would be nice.

As for Aussie stance, I have two sources, both paywalled, stating that their Foreign Minister opposes the claims of a genocide. It would be good if someone with a subscription could read the full articles, though.

• https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/albanese-ducks-taking-a-stand-on-israeli-genocide-court-case-20240116-p5exlk
• https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/penny-wong-unveils-21m-in-gaza-aid/news-story/04a09d19e2f37cd893a7307cef546358

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reference stating that Algeria's stance is against Israel. I suggest not adding Australia until you are sure of its stance. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@GlebRyabov In addition to Algeria, please add Belgium as a pro-South Africa. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That source is quite literally RT, Russia Today, the key part of Putin's genocidal propaganda. It is also a deprecated source (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources), so I will *not* add anything backed by RT. If you want Algeria to be added onto the map, please find a different source, I will wait for the consensus and add it myself. Regarding Belgium, its stance has been listed separately on the article, and I'm not supportive of its addition just yet. I'm going to revert your change to the map, and I'm going to add Algeria separately once it is listed on the main article.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is this your personal opinion or a Wikipedia policy not to cite Russian sources? Please listen to the speech of the Algerian Foreign Minister, which was referred to in the source, as he spoke about his country’s official position on the lawsuit. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I am Russian myself, and I do not have anything against Russian sources. However, RT is officially prohibited on Wikipedia. I'm convinced on Algeria, though, thank you for a reliable source. I'm not sure about Belgium, though. The Deputy PM and the Development Minister did speak out against Israel and German support of Israel, but the PM and the Foreign Minister didn't agree with the Development Minister. Belgium has been routinely ruled by wide governments made up of many parties (the four government members cited are all from different parties, for one example), so it's reasonable that the stance can diverge. Thank you for adding Algeria, I'll use your source to ask for Algeria to be added.

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, Please have a look at this official source of Algeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating the minster's entire speech in points (namely #8). Freedom's Falcon (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GlebRyabov, Please take into consideration that many countries changed their stances from neutrality to pro-South Africa after the ICJ decision against Israel on Friday 26/1/2024. The countries are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Spain, Oman, and the EU. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Title

Is there a reason for the seemingly unneeded disambiguator (Genocide_Convention) in the title? -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

e.g.:

• 1954 International Friendly : South Africa defeats Israel 2-1.
• Israel defeat South Africa in vital Davis Cup tennis tie

I am sure there are other examples of entertainment events where the two countries have come up against each other. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article on that? In that case, I don't think "Genocide Convention" is strictly necessary -- although I'm fine with it either way, I don't think it makes much of a difference. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at List of International Court of Justice cases, there doesn't seem to be a consistent method. It could be done the other way around, I guess, type/parties, as Genocide convention (South Africa v Israel). Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Entertainment events are not really comparable with this case imo. The ICJ itself names the judicial case "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)" https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192

Requested move 12 January 2024

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) → South Africa's genocide case against Israel – Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above [Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Concision; Consistency]". A quick google search reveals this name has been used 1,46 million times. A closer look reveals overwhelming and undeniable widespread usage by the highest quality reliable sources available:

• How strong is South Africa's genocide case against Israel? An expert weighs in - CNN
• Nelson Mandela’s support for Palestinians endures with South Africa’s genocide case against Israel - Associated Press
• What is South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ? - BBC news
• UN international court hears South Africa's genocide case against Israel - The Guardian
• What is South Africa's genocide case against Israel about? Deutsche Welle
• South Africa’s genocide case against Israel lays bare Europe’s feeble power - Politico
• What to Know About South Africa’s Genocide Case Against Israel - Time magazine
• South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, explained - Vox
• Why is the EU mostly silent on South Africa's genocide case against Israel? - Euronews
• ICJ hears South Africa’s genocide case against Israel over Gaza war - Al Jazeera
• What to know about South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the ICJ - Axios
• OIC applauds delivery of South Africa genocide case against Israel at ICJ - Middle East Monitor
• What you need to know about South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ - Middle East Eye

Other ICJ cases in which the common name was used instead of official includes the Oil Platforms case. This name fulfills WP:COMMONNAME and matches the five criteria outlined in WP:CRITERIA. The supporting evidence is overwhelming and undeniable, therefore this should not be a controversial move. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for now. I suspect the common name will change again as the case develops, eventually resolves and becomes recorded historically, and when that happens the name very well might end up reverting back to South Africa v. Israel. But for now, this obviously is the present common name and will make searching for it easier for the average user. Soweli Rin (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment If we look at List of International Court of Justice cases, there does not seem to be a consistent way of naming eg Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic gives no clue that it is the United Nations Convention Against Torture at issue (the official name is Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic)). Neither does Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022) which is the Genocide convention (the official name is Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)).

A related ICJ case is Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem which uses the official name.

Although it is a bit of a mouthful, the official name might be best ie Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree the title should be more descriptive to highlight the Gaza/Palestinian aspect which is lacking in my suggestion, however, per WP guidelines a common name should be used, and what we have here is fits the outlined criteria, but this common name could later change and become more descriptive and inclusive of Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Gaza / the Gaza Strip may not need to be included in the title since it is not a separate country but an occupied territory of the state of Israel. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

See comment below explaining that WP:COMMONNAME is not the only relevant policy. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - It seems to me like the title should begin with South Africa v. Israel. Some ideas: "South Africa v. Israel genocide case", "South Africa v. Israel (International Court of Justice 2024)", "South Africa v. Israel (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip)" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Point of information: While WP:COMMONNAME is a general guideline, one must also consult Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles for more specific and relevant guidance that states: "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." So while the news headlines stated are descriptive renditions of a proceeding the public is just starting to get exposure to, it may not be a good indicator of the long-term title for this article. If you look at precedent, we almost always go "according to the legal citation convention" as stated in the WP:MOS for the reasons stated at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, such as recognizability, precision, and consistency. This would support keeping the title as some form of "South Africa v. Israel" for now, but without prejudice. Over time, we may see a more colloquial name for the case, but that time does not seem to be now. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think the legal citation is how this article would be mostly liked searched for in the future. Jmbranum (talk) Jmbranum (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The case neither sets a legal precedent (there have been many ICJ cases relating to genocide), nor is it primarily discussed within legal scholarship, so this does not apply for that guideline. Your quote missed the following sentence from the guideline: "For subjects that have wide coverage outside of legal scholarship the common name may not be the same as recorded in academic and court stylings. For example, R v Aubrey, Berry and Campbell is better known as the ABC trial."

So factually speaking, we are still bound exclusively by WP:COMMONNAME. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't miss that. It's that this case has not reached the point where it is known in a short or common form like "ABC trial" or "Fisheries case" or "Asylum case" which you see in List of International Court of Justice cases. The guideline says, "the common name may not be the same" (emphasis mine) and is only to suggest that this is a possible option, and not to give it priority. So your comment that we are "bound exclusively" is not supported by this. Given that we have not had the passage of time to adequately determine this, it makes sense to stick with the guidance we have regarding the case name. What struck me is that you didn't mention the MOS:LEGAL guidance on article titles at all, so I felt it was important to point it out. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, my point remains that this is neither a legal precedent nor primarily discussed in legal scholarship. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Although the current title and the proposed are in reality both descriptive because the case is as well described in multiple other ways in sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, there are multiple ways it has been described in. But from what I have searched, it appears to me that this one is the most commonly used. Also, I don't really like the current title, the official one, which gives off a football match vibe. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Besides reading as more POV, we shouldn't use WP:HEADLINES as our guiding content here, which is more editorial shorthand than WP:COMMONNAME. We should stick to the (albeit inconsistent) naming convention for the other Category:International_Court_of_Justice_cases on Wikipedia, which use the "Country X" vs. "Country Y" format. Longhornsg (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Every cited article above has the common name mentioned in the body as well, so your argument does not stand. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's still a POV title. Longhornsg (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment the argument that we have some naming convention already is valid. On the other hand, arguments that it is too soon to represent it as a precedent are also valid. I would change from neutral to support if a more concise and reasonable alternative was proposed. It doesn't make sense to me to move to a title that is so long. Ben Azura (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Typical naming convention for legal proceedings. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I think it should just be South Africa v. Israel. Genocide part is not needed, neither is a long colloquial name. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is a legal proceeding at the ICJ, not simply a formal accusation or UN resolution. I would support moving it to South Africa v. Israel, but the proposed title lacks formality. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Country X v. Country Y (common name of Convention) is a better format and can be considered for other cases in List of International Court of Justice cases for consistency. Notably, most of the article on current case also discusses previous similar ICJ case as Gambia v. Myanmar. 2861969nyc (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll oppose the request. X v. Y just sounds more formal and, as it has been noted by the users above, it also is consistent with other articles. AlexBachmann (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Another proposal would be: "South Africa v. Israel (ICJ)". AlexBachmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Acknowledging that there is no consistent way of naming these cases, I think it is more appropriate to use the formal name of the case and, in any event, clarify the case with a parenthetical as others have suggested. For instance, Raffles v Wichelhaus, also known as the Peerless Case, is not named as such in the title. Unless the case comes to be colloquially known as "South Africa's Genocide Case Against Israel" in the future, I think South Africa v. Israel is appropriate. I think, further, that the incidence of "South Africa's Genocide Case Against Israel" is likely a product of people not knowing about this case, and it will likely not remain that way moving forward. Rtgarcia (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. X vs Y is a more formal approach and is in-line with other ICJ cases such as Peru v. Chile, Iran v. United States, and Croatia v. Serbia. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think this should be followed the commonname policy, because it is a legal case between two countries especially in ICJ. We should follow other titles of ICJ cases, not based on news or articles. Wendylove (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for the purpose of maintaining neutrality FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because the article isn't primarily about South Africa's case (or Israel's defence), it's about both and most importantly about the ICJ's decisions in the matter. When the case was first brought, South Africa's case was very newsworthy, so it made the headlines. Now it's about the ruling. Later we get South Africa and Israel's arguments to the merits. Then finally we get another ruling. Leave the title, otherwise it will keep changing. Babakathy (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The formal format tells us everything we need to know and keeps consistency with similar cases. Killuminator (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

• If this were being commonly referred to by its legal case name, in the manner of Roe v. Wade - Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization or Brown_v._Board_of_Education or Loving v. Virginia, it would be logical to name it as South Africa v. Israel.
• Not every judicial event is referred to by its legal case name, for example The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson as the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes as the Scopes trial, State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin as the Trial of Derek Chauvin.
  • This also applies to ICJ cases.
  • For example, The United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case is not named United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran.
  • The Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute case does not use its legal case name Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad)
  • The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 case does not use its full legal case name of Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
  • The Avena case does not use its legal case name of Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)
  • The Oil Platforms case does not use its legal case name of Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America).
  • The Ambatielos case does not use its legal case name of Ambatielos Case (Greece v. United Kingdom).
  • The Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 case does not use the legal case name of Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States).
• ICJ ruled in favor of provisional measures – this is sets a major historical precedence. While I understand the opposition in wanting to keep the legal case name in place, the media seems to understand the historical implications as reflected in their WP:COMMONNAME usage of South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Naming it as a legal case ignores these historical aspects. Detsom (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support for the inadequacy of the current title and need to improve it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think given the contentious and evolving (the case isn't decided yet, and won't be for years) nature of the topic, and the five criteria listed above [Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Concision; Consistency]", it is particularly important to follow the naming precedent of List of International Court of Justice cases where the parties are clearly named and the topic and objective location (Gaza) is clearly stated, combined with the official name of the case, ie:

• While at List of International Court of Justice cases there is no consistent naming format, at least in the first 100 cases the most common seems to be: [topic of the case which does not name the Respondent or Applicant] ([Applicant] v. [Respondent]), for example "Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada)". The format of the current title ("South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)"), and the suggested improvement ("South Africa's genocide case against Israel") are both very unusual, therefore arbitrary, and so without justification in the five criteria listed above and therefore also don't meet the NPOV requirement.
• The official name of the case is very similar to the common Wikipedia case name noted above. The official case name is: "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)" (https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192).
• The inclusion of "Prevention" in the article title is very important because the Genocide Convention is almost unique in the sense that it requires (in Article 1: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide#article-i) signatories to act proactively to prevent genocide when there is a credible risk of it occuring (signatiories don't have to just act after the fact to punish it) which is the reason that the 153 signatory countries all have a legal obligation to act even when there is just the risk of genocide, which is one of the reasons that this case is getting so much attention from the news media and governments and why South Africa is seeking a preliminary injunction to get the court to order a cease of the hostilities in Gaza.

:So I think the name of the article should be: "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)" Paul Duffill (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) EDIT. After feedback from others I withdraw this suggestion. Please see my later comments below.

Arbitrary naming doesn't matter as it is allowed per WP's common name guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this proposed title as it appears to fail four of the five criteria you have appropriately cited: it is not concise or natural, leading to recognizability problems as it is inconsistent with how we name other articles. Its lone virtue is that it is precise, but it comes at the expense of the other four criteria. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It is consistent with how the most common format on List of International Court of Justice cases (at least for the first 100 case titles I checked. If you have checked more, how many did you check and what was the most common pattern?). It is natural (the case is being taken under the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"; the parties are named, and the core issues are "Prevention" and "Punishment") thus it also avoids recognisability problems. You've already correctly identified its precision. Agree that it is less concise than alternatives but concision mattes little if it doesn't actually accurately describe what it should be describing. It is at least as consistent, natural, recognisable, and precise as at least the first 100 case titles I checked on List of International Court of Justice cases so you are arguing not against my suggestion as the title of the article but against the policy/practice of the common format used on at least for the first 100 case titlesList of International Court of Justice cases which surely would mean that your comments belong on the talk page of that article?

Regarding "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or are primarily discussed within legal scholarship, should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case.": The large amount of media coverage and comments from governments, and that it is far far far too early to know if it is precedent-setting or not (the case hasn't even had it's interim injunction decided yet, and the full case will take months if not years which means its significance is still very unclear and therefore also its common name that reflects that significance is also unknowable at the moment), and the consistent obstacle of national sovereignty to the consistent application of international law renders legal precedent in international law far less influential than domestic common-law legal systems (rememner that at least one of the UN Security Counicil P5, the US, literally has a law that authorises or obliges its Head of State to invade the territory of the ICC to prevent the effects of its cases against its citizens and allies (American Service-Members' Protection Act ; original document: https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm ; HRW on the law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law). This means this legal titling requirement clearly doesn't apply. Paulduffill (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:International Court of Justice cases is the best place to look for the titles of other articles, as you can see them easily all at once. There is no consistent pattern. I do not like the proposed title because the reader has to read 13 words "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the" before finding out the specific topic here - that is why WP:CONCISE is important.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the Category:International Court of Justice cases tip. I see your point re: 13 words before specificity. Agree would be good to have a shorter title and agree with VR 's approach below of following Wikipedia precedent of naming of genocide cases. Paulduffill (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Seems a typical naming of a legal case, and a very good shortening of the official name "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)". I searched for some WP: guidance on naming cases, and while not a great match MOS:LEGAL#Cases loosely supports the current name (assuming the case creates legal precedent as it seems likely to do) saying "Articles on cases that are primarily notable for the legal precedent they set, or ..., should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." If/when a common name emerges, then I think a better renaming argument could be made. Rwendland (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral/Neither the new title is the common name but that is not always advisiable solution for a legal case of this magnitude and importance because it can connote inaccuracies or even mislead about the merits of the allegations (I am not making a comment on the merits of these allegations and more speaking to a legal principle more in general). The current title leaves something to be desired but the proposal is a giant step sideways and not forwards. Jorahm (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Move to South Africa v. Israel over redirect: As others have noted, we use case captions for articles on legal cases, plus we should follow the convention that we already use for other ICJ cases. Additionally, "Genocide Convention" is an unnecessary disambiguator as we don't have another article on Wikipedia called South Africa v. Israel. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would also support FlipandFlopped's suggestion of "Palestine genocide case" per the examples cited by VR, which refer to the place where the alleged genocide is occurring, rather than the parties to the case. The proposed move is an odd combination of both title styles. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  If so, then the Croatia-Serbia genocide case, a separate and more older ICJ case, should also be moved to Croatia v. Serbia over redirect. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't disagree with that move, but I think we should wait to see what the consensus is here before anyone proposes that move. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support this one. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose initial proposal, but Support move to South Africa v. Israel per voorts. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support proposed move, and also support current title (as second choice). Oppose "South Africa v. Israel" as being not WP:CONSISTENT. All the ICJ genocide cases articles we have (Bosnian genocide case, Rohingya genocide case etc) have "genocide" in the title as that is the most commonly known (and defining) characteristic of the case. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. –Freedom's Falcon (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per all above. Parham wiki (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, naming of a legal case should be "X v. Y". Like others above I would support a move to simply South Africa v. Israel, removing the "(Genocide Convention)" bit, which seems non-standard. aismallard (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose initial proposal. Recognizability (i.e. how it is most commonly referred to in the media) is just ONE of five factors. Naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency together outweigh recognizability. A simple "X v. Y" format for a legal case is more natural, precise, concise, and consistent. The name should simply be "Palestinian genocide case" or "South Africa v. Israel". Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't this case limited to Gaza? If so, "Palestinian genocide case" wouldn't fit. DFlhb (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Move to South Africa v. Israel; disambiguation isn't necessary. Would oppose as proposed; too verbose, fails WP:CONCISE. BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need to reinvent the wheel. The current title is clear enough, not excessively lengthy, and a plausible search term. If, for example, "Gaza genocide case" becomes the common name in the future, that would be a different story, but for now, it's sufficient to note the parties to the litigation and the subject matter of the litigation. WillowCity^(talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I would prefer the official title but if not then leave as is. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The name is currently recognisable, and natural, and the change would obscure readability. If anything, to be in line with other cases, it should be along the lines of Israel-Palestine genocide case. --SgtLion (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I think the current title is clear enough, and there seems to be precedent to have ICJ case titles be Country A vs Country B. i2n2z 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support - I can't understand why people oppose this name change considering we have articles like Rohingya genocide case, Bosnian genocide case, and Croatia–Serbia genocide case. The logic used by Soweli Rin seemed convincing to me, and news media coverage, presented by the OP and what I've seen elsewhere as a common editor of this page, makes clear this page should be changed as the OP, Paul Duffill, AlexBachmann, Parham wiki, VR, and Freedom's Falcon have stated in other comments. Historyday01 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd personally be fine with "Gaza Genocide Case." What I would oppose is calling it "South Africa genocide case" because that might people think South Africa is being accused of genocide, when it is not. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Small mistake in the other international responses section, please change 'Former US Supreme Court judge Rosalie Silberman Abella' to 'Former Canadian Supreme Court judge Rosalie Silberman Abella' DaliaDippolito (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done (with a slight variation). Thanks! WillowCity^(talk) 12:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024 (2)

This is the original: The lawsuit has also been supported by over 1,000 activist groups, political parties, unions, and other organizations

The correction should be "...by over 100 activist groups..." - all three references point to articles that mention 100, not 1,000. 159.250.116.5 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This was impressively fast. Thank you. However, i just saw that the third link referenced does have 1000 groups - but they are these tiny groups like "Bergen County Green Party, USA", who aren't really internationally relevant. What's best for an article to list - 100 serious groups, or 1000 whatever groups? 159.250.116.5 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I did see that, over 100 is OK I think, unless someone has some strong objection. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch support

Strange that Human Rights Watch is not added to the list of supporters: they have documented clear support for it and are one of the major international human rights organisations. So I added it because the evidence is very clear and comes from the original source (Human Rights Watch themselves): eg "Governments should speak out in support of ICJ proceedings and publicly commit to supporting compliance with the court’s decisions, Human Rights Watch said." and other indications on that page titled: "World Court to hear Genocide Case Against Israel" (https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/10/world-court-hear-genocide-case-against-israel). This reference was already used on the page (in the Bibliography) and information from it is was already used but from a secondary source but wasn't in the reference list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulduffill (talk • contribs)

Actually I am not seeing a clear statement on support given by your reference. The primary source has HRW accuses Israel of commiting war crimes, but does not accuse it of genocide. So I am removing the content. Please find a better source. starship.paint (RUN) 01:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this quote from an HRW official work, or must it be an official statement? Generousjj (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between supporting the bringing of the case and support for the claim itself. For example, Amnesty says they have not made a determination that the Gaza events are a genocide but do support the bringing of the case. I would say that Amnesty and HRW position are essentially the same. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Paulduffill: I have to agree with other commenters: HRW's 1/10 statement is not a clear-cut endorsement of South Africa in this case. Their advocacy for broader supports from other countries does not imply direct backing for South Africa. (From a human perspective, this is entirely acceptable and would not weaken their stance and efforts on the matter.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This section is not about "direct backing for South Africa". It is about support for the bringing of the lawsuit (that is why Amnesty International is included as @Selfstudier has also pointed out) which they have demonstrated as I explain in my talk entry below. Paul Duffill (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

And agree with Selfstudier.

• The "war crimes" comment from HRW in that source is only what HRW actually think Israel has committed, not what crimes it believes should be brought to trial.

That source is fine: within it HRW clearly state their support of the bringing of the case. It is unfortunate that my edit summary was unclear to starship.paint and Sameboat - 同舟. In future please actually check the source if you disagree with an edit summary. Their support for the case being brough is made of two elements:

• In the source HRW state that ICJ "hearings on January 11 and 12, 2024, [are] on genocide in Gaza" and "On December 29, South Africa filed a case with the court alleging that Israel is violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." and "South Africa contends that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention by committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and by failing to prevent it, including by not holding senior Israeli officials and others accountable for their direct and public incitement to genocide. The case is not a criminal proceeding against individuals but seeks a legal determination of state responsibility for genocide." So we know that when they are talking about the ICJ case in this article they are talking about offences of genocide and failure to prevent genocide (both of which are crimes under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).
• Then HRM cleary state in the source their support for this case: "A number of parties to the Genocide Convention have welcomed South Africa’s application including Bangladesh, Bolivia, Jordan, Malaysia, the Maldives, Pakistan, Palestine, Turkey, Namibia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation also issued a statement in support of the case. France’s UN ambassador in New York said France is a strong supporter of the ICJ and would back the court’s decisions. Governments should speak out in support of ICJ proceedings and publicly commit to supporting compliance with the court’s decisions, Human Rights Watch said." No evidence that they state believe this only with regard to war crimes. No evidence that they exclude from their support support for this case. Note that this case is arbitrating more than one "decision" (for example, South Africa is seeking these three decisions: a preliminary injunction against Israel to order it to immediately cease its military actions in Gaza, and a decision on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of failing to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and a decision on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, thus "the court’s decisions" language applies to both this case specifically and all similar ICJ's decisions in other cases. If HRW has for some reason thought that this case was an exception they would obviously have said so.

Paul Duffill (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to include but separate out HRW and Amnesty. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree that HRW should be added. I just added some more content to my above talk entry while you were adding your talk entry. HRW is currently a separate line item from Amnesty and it wouldn't make sense to make a separate section for it. The only kind of "separate out" that seems feasible to me is making a note about this in the footnote for the source, if it could be proven that HRW's support for the case warrants further explanation. Paul Duffill (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added two "better sources" that would be easier to understand for starship.paint, that is: further evidence from HRW showing they support the bringing of the case where they indicate their support of the case in a more succinct way:

1) whose relevant quote is already used in this article elsewhere (it's strange starship.paint didn't see that before prematuely deleting this addition).

2) "Tomorrow will be an important day for the government of Israel and the people of Palestine, as well as for the history of international justice. The world’s highest court will begin hearings on accusations of genocide in Gaza." and this section also shows support: "The ICJ’s decision on this urgent request for provisional measures could come relatively quickly – maybe in a week or a month. However, governments don’t have to wait [bolded in the original] even that long. Right now, Palestinians in Gaza are facing catastrophic living conditions as a result of war crimes carried out by Israeli authorities. Leaders around the world can, and should, act immediately." (https://www.hrw.org/the-day-in-human-rights/2024/01/10) . Paul Duffill (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue lies in HRW's press releases; there is no clear language indicating that they are 'welcoming,' 'supporting,' or 'endorsing' South Africa's filing at the ICJ, unlike, for instance, Bangladesh. The quotes you cited simply synthesize that HRW indirectly supports this filing, and this could be considered a violation of original research. I have meticulously read every statement in the HRW article, being particularly pedantic and careful to avoid misrepresentation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I realised that I misunderstood the issue. There are two issues here, as Selfstudier said, support for bringing the case, versus support for the genocide claim. Perhaps we should separate these two different types of support. Also, I did not get any notifications for this discussion, perhaps those mentions were not in new comments. starship.paint (RUN) 03:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that ideally it would be good to separate them out because the type of support is qualitatively different but I can't see how that would be feasible, because:

1) Some supporters of bringing the case would never voice a definitive opinion in support of South Africa's position regardless of the facts (or their perception of the facts) because they believe that the ICJ is the only credible entity that can determine whether Israel has actually violated the Genocide Convention in the manners alleged. Excluding them from the "have shown support for South Africa's position" would falsly indicate that they are insufficiently persuaded by South Africa's (and its supporter's) arugments whereas they might be permanently refusing to show support or opposition regardless of the facts (or their perception of the facts) because they want to only follow what the ICJ decides as the only competent body who can adjudicate this and not "interfere with the independence" of the court.

2) Another independent problem is that we'd have to divide up the "supporters" according to which of the specific South Africa's multiple allegations (including the need for provisional measures as separate from the actual definite violations of the Genocide Convention) they have shown support for which also assumes that they all perceive the different categories of allegations in the identical manner, which we don't know.

3) we'd have to divide up the opposers in the same way and have the equivalent problems for the opposers. Paulduffill (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason being that Amnesty and HRW would never make the accusation directly unless it was accompanied by one of those lengthy reports that they do. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think of that. It seems that's another reason why separating out the "we support the case being brought" and "we support South Africa's argument" is too problematic

An example of what I mean by how some other supporters of the former would never support the latter until the ICJ rules on it: "The International Court of Justice is the appropriate body to investigate and determine whether the Genocide Convention has been breached" (New Zealand Labour Party: "Release: Labour calls on Govt to intervene in case against Israel"https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_calls_on_govt_to_join_case_against_israel ) Paulduffill (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

Adding POV tag for now. The article has a number of POV issues, namely: - In the Background section, examples are provided for why there was "concern that the responding violence would be used to justify violence", but there are no examples provided for RS saying this was not genocide or that respond to these concerns. Only one POV is represented. - In the Proceedings section, South Africa's brief is directly quoted quite extensively and the South African position is robustly represented. The Israeli response is limited to Israeli denials, rather than a similar exploration and representation of Israel's arguments. Only one POV is adequately represented. - In the Other Responses section, opposition to the suit is not given the same prominence as support (and it omits the UK and Germany's oppositon, for example). - Because of these issues, the lede is POV as failing to represent all viewpoints. Longhornsg (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

can you link some RS here for the viewpoints that are under-represented? Ben Azura (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. the POV tag seems unwarranted considering that:

1. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs gets an ENTIRE paragraph in the opening

2. There are four paragraphs in the "Israeli response" section

What other viewpoints would be needed? Historyday01 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the potential reason there be less of Israel’s rebuttal is because they didn’t give much of a response for a while. Most of their rebuttals have just been denials. But after looking at the article over more thoroughly, I think they’re pretty fairly represented. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The equivalent would be we say 1) This is SA's position 2) Here is an explanation of their case, and the same for Israel. We only say the first. This is just for the Responses section. Longhornsg (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you think should be changed? What exactly is lacking? The article lays out Israel's counterargument pretty well. Professor Penguino (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Longhornsg: - please provide reliable sources discussing South Africa v. Israel, particularly examples provided for RS saying this was not genocide or that respond to these concerns., as well as a similar exploration and representation of Israel's arguments. If you added the tag, you must be aware of the existence of such relevant reliable sources, right, instead of simply assuming that they exist? Anyway, Germany's response has been added by other editors, British response was added by me, and one paragraph of Israel's response has been added by me. starship.paint (RUN) 01:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I removed this tag pending a response here, does not seem to be any basis for it afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a pretty clear-cut case of calling for WP:FALSEBALANCE. If Israel isn't making an attempt to deny what's been laid out at the ICJ—other than essentially saying "nuh-uh"—then there is no onus on Wikipedia editors to make the counter-case for them. In fact, it would be extremely un-encyclopdic. I see no reason to leave the tag in place. Hermionedidallthework (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed for reasons stated above by other editors. Paul Duffill (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as there is no consensus for it. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

POV tag part 2

The article lists numerous countries and organizations supporting South Africa's case, which can give the impression of widespread international condemnation of Israel. However, it provides less detail on the countries and entities opposing the case, which could create an unbalanced view of international opinion.Eladkarmel (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Eladkarmel: - are there countries and entities we are missing out? Please substantiate your concerns with relevant reliable sources on what we have missed out or misrepresented. If you dispute that this article is neutral, you must know of these relevant reliable sources, right? Thank you. Though, I see that the countries in opposition (United States, Guatemala, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, United Kingdom) get sentences and quotes, which the countries in support do not necessarily do (e.g. Iraq, Malaysia, many others). starship.paint (RUN) 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If many countries come out in support of South Africa’s case, it means that the case is widely approved of by a large number of countries, it does not mean that the Wikipedia page is bias. It simply shows the wide scale of approval, ( which is arguably the case, since resolutions against Israel in the past did get a lot of support by the vast majority of UN members ). If you see that the page was lacking pro Israel stances then add some, but it’s unfair to conceal the fact that many countries do support the court case against Israel . MesaedK (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not do extensive research, it was very noticeable that the way the countries are presented is biased (by the way, it may be biased to the other side and it is worth adding citations in the supporting countries as in the opposing countries).

In the paragraph of Movements, parties, and unions, only Movements, parties, and unions that support the claim are shown, isn't there any organization that supports Israel (not even Israeli movements?) Eladkarmel (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel: - well if you (the neutrality tag adder) don't know which organizations, movements, parties, and unions support Israel, how do you expect us to know? You merely suspect that the article is biased. Perhaps the current state of support-oppose is reality. Or perhaps it is not. Either way, we start with reliable sources, and you bring none. starship.paint (RUN) 09:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Starship. I had read this – I don’t have any objection or see any other objection from any editors to adding more supporters of the Israeli case if and when sources are found. If there is a dispute then the tag can be added back, but at the moment there is no editorial disagreement. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

agree Paulduffill (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Germany and Canada to pro-Israeli countries

Both are outspokenly pro-Israeli, while Germany promised to intervene to back Israel. Could we add those?
Also, I'm once again asking for my map to be considered.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-says-will-intervene-at-the-hague-on-israels-behalf-blasts-genocide-charge/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-says-will-intervene-at-the-hague-on-israels-behalf-blasts-genocide-charge/

GlebRyabov (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading the statement from Global Affairs Canada, it’s… basically a non-statement. We condemn Hamas, we respect the ICJ, we regret civilian casualties, we like good things, we hate bad things, etc. Canada is a stalwart ally of Israel but the statement is so equivocal that I’d be hesitant to say with confidence that Canada “supports” Israel’s position in the ICJ proceedings. Do you have some RS saying that it does? WillowCity^(talk) 22:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added Germany, though. WillowCity^(talk) 00:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

we can quate canada and everyone can interpret according to his understanding 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:887:7DA1:2B3A:6200 (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that the “responses” section is divided into “support” and “oppose” camps, so listing Canada under “oppose” would be implicitly putting them on one side. Alternatively I suppose we could add a subheading for “equivocal” or “undecided” or “unclear” WillowCity^(talk) 13:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Good idea as it ads nuance. Jaap-073 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Canada should not be added yet because it has not yet taken a clear support or oppose position. See Canadian PM's statement. starship.paint (RUN) 01:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Australia has not supported Israel in the case and should be removed from the list of countries supporting Israel. 120.18.58.16 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

what the claim and the South African claim actually are

Two points:

The article correctly states that South Africa is requesting a "provisional measure". But what the article is missing, is the actual claim that South Africa is making, i.e. the bar that South African legal team has presented for itself to the judges.

Furthermore, the precedence for genocide cases, stemming from Bosnia v Serbia & Montenegro case of 2007, is that, a state can be charged with "committing genocidal acts" and not be charged with "committing a genocide". It's a distinction that was made in that case.

Basically, the claim is not "Israel has committed, and is committing, genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip". The claim is that "it is plausible that Israel has committed, and is committing, genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." So, in essence, the bar is lower for South Africa than what the article portrays. Which also means that if the court does end up ruling in favor of the requested provisional measures, it still would not explicitly charge Israel with crime of committing a genocide.

I know that in "war of narrative", media propaganda arm wrestling, and in the eyes of public, these subtleties might not matter. But, it's best to keep the article up to date with actual details of the case. BasilLeaf (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• @BasilLeaf: - source? starship.paint (RUN) 08:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll provide multiple quotes, cited from the following source: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203394

  It's gonna be a bit long and technical, as that was the basis of my request to update the article. apologies for that.

  The source is the document that South Africa submitted to the ICJ, in which they request said provisional measures:

  1. "For the purposes of indicating provisional measures, the Court does not need to establish definitively that Palestinians are at risk of genocide, that they are being subjected to genocidal acts, or that Israel is otherwise breaching its obligations under the Genocide Convention."
  2. "Rather, it is sufficient that the obligation of South Africa to act to prevent genocide, or the right of South Africa to seek compliance by Israel with its obligations under the Convention not to commit genocide, and to prevent and punish genocide and related prohibited acts under the Convention, be “plausible”."
  3. For the purposes of its decision on a request for the indication of provisional measures in a case involving allegations of violations of the Genocide Convention, “[t]he Court is not called upon . . . to establish the existence of breaches of the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of rights under this instrument”,560 as “found to be plausible”"
  4. The absence of a prior determination of genocide by a court or fact-finding tribunal is similarly no bar to the adjudication by this Court of an application under the Genocide Convention, much less a request for the indication of provisional measures.
  5. "The facts and circumstances described in this Application and request for provisional measures establish that the acts complained of — which Israel has committed and is committing — are capable of being characterised at the very least as plausibly “genocidal”."

  So, in short, South Africa is saying that they are requesting "provisional measures". And that the only bar required to pass, is for the court to accept their claim that the facts and circumstances they are presenting, can be plausibly described as "genocidal acts" BasilLeaf (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• @BasilLeaf: - [7] - I added what I was able to find. starship.paint (RUN) 09:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have noticed that the transcript [1] concering South Africa's testimony mostly refers to "genocidal acts/intent/conduct/rhetoric" (by the State of Israel). However, this passage: South Africa strongly believes that what Israel is doing in Gaza amounts to genocide (p. 47) confirms that South Africa directly accuses Isreal of genocide, not just genocidal acts.

  Do we have an official claim? Because "Israel has committed, and is committing, genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip" is nowhere to be found in the document. Of course, that is what South Africa is saying, but I would prefer that we would use the exact wording by South Africa, if existing. Otherwise, the claim should stay like this. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it is better to simply say that South Africa accuses Israel of violating the Genocide Convention, the proof of which will take years, but in the interim here is our request for provisional measures, stating which parts of Article II are relevant, and for which there is a lower evidential bar. Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The map is not accurate

The map that shows countries in support of South Africa’s case does not show Qatar, despite the country being both in the Arab league, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, I really don’t know how to fix it, could somebody fix that? MesaedK (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you!

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Same thing with Brunei 🇧🇳 MesaedK (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2024

Change “Hage Geingob, President of Namibia released a statement criticizing Germany's "shocking decision" to support Israel at the genocide case, claiming Germany had failed to learn from its lessons, having perpetrated the 1904 Herero and Namaqua genocide: "Germany cannot morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia, whilst supporting the equivalent of a holocaust and genocide in Gaza."[70]” to “Hage Geingob, President of Namibia released a statement criticizing Germany's "shocking decision" to support Israel at the genocide case, claiming Germany had failed to learn from its lessons, having similarly perpetrated the 1904 Herero and Namaqua genocide during German colonialism in the name of collective punishment: "Germany cannot morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia, whilst supporting the equivalent of a holocaust and genocide in Gaza."[70]”. 142.198.179.28 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, no enthusiasm for this, the article is not about Germany. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Austria and Czech Republic

The governments of Austria and the Czech Republic are more inclined towards neutrality than being explicitly pro-Israel in this case of genocide. The following reference supports this stance. Therefore, I suggest removing these countries from the "In opposition" list. –Freedom's Falcon (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the whole tweet? Saying "#Israel is a democracy that has the right to defend itself against #Hamas’ barbaric terror attack on peaceful communities in accordance with international law. Let us not forget that anyone can be attacked by brutal terrorists hiding behind human shields" is not a neutral stance at this point. And considering the two countries have been among the biggest defenders of Israel at the UN, the onus is on you to provide sources from their politicians showing their "neutrality". Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Reuters' "Israel to face Gaza genocide charges at World Court" source underwent major changes?

What is currently citation #58, which is used to back up the claim of Colombia and Brazil's support for South Africa no longer seems to include the quoted line. The stated title is different as well. However, non-updated sources from the original Reuters release such as CNBC. The Wayback Machine isn't of any help. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Replaced the Reuters ref with the CNBC one. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Added two more references to Brazil support given possible ambiguity of Reuters-based story (published by CNBC and others) noted on talk page. I say possible because the Reuters story seems to have vanished or changed its title on https://www.reuters.com/ because a site search shows it still comes up in the body of search results but not as the title of any search result. @BasilLeaf: can you tell us the address of this article (and evidence it is the original article, if its name has changed) so we can see the changes you are saying have happened? Paulduffill (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024

Happy Birthday Wikipedia,Among the Countries that supported South Africa case,there is also Morocco,it's missing here MAL2005 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus dismiss genocide charges

https://cyprus-mail.com/2024/01/15/palestinians-shocked-by-cyprus-dismissing-genocide/

Foreign ministry spokesman Theodoros Gotsis stated that:

"I don’t think the use of the word genocide is accurate…There is a military conflict carried out in response to an attack. Unfortunately, there is collateral damage just like in any conflict. There is a humanitarian crisis and we were one of the first states that tried to resolve the humanitarian crisis. Now the use of the term genocide…We know what a genocide is." 2A02:6680:1100:78D7:41AA:20B7:7173:5ECB (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Move the fact that both SA and Israel signed/ratified the convention to the background

• What I think should be changed: Add a sentence to the background to say that Israel and SA have signed/ratified the Genocide Convention. This information is currently only mentioned in the Proceedings section.
• Why it should be changed: The purpose of the background section is to list facts pertinent to the case that happened before the case was brought to court. Israel and SA signed/ratified the convention agreement (against which Israel is now being judged) in 1950 and 1998 respectively. Therefore, this information fits both criteria to be placed in the background section (maybe as a separate sentence after the current Genocide Convention paragraph).
• References supporting the possible change: or the secondary sources already listed in the article.

eyal (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done good point. WillowCity^(talk) 02:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Other international responses

Slovenia is not participating in this particular case against Israel. It is instead participating in a separate case that was initiated in December 2022. A decision of whether to participate is still pending. [8]https://www.timesofisrael.com/slovenia-joins-icj-motion-against-israeli-practices-in-west-bank-gaza-e-jerusalem/: "Fajon added on Thursday that Slovenia will decide on whether or not to join South Africa’s application to the ICJ charging Israel with genocide against Gazans in the current war at a later date, since it is not currently possible to do so at this preliminary stage of those proceedings" ChristofferItzakah (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The source stated in the article (https://sloveniatimes.com/40138/slovenia-to-join-un-general-assembly-case-against-israel) directly says that Slovenia cannot join South Africa's case.

GlebRyabov (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This source (in Arabic, one of the most important daily newspapers in Jordan) refers to Slovenia's intention to join a lawsuit against Israel at the request of the Slovenian Foreign Minister.Freedom's Falcon (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I see you reverted me and added a separate source, but I fear you have misread the source, which says the same thing as the Slovenia Times article. Slovenia joins the proceedings initiated by the UN General Assembly in 2022, which are unrelated to the South Africa suit. It also states "we will decide on any intervention in this particular case when it becomes possible and on the basis of legal arguments." DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I will repeat the quote I gave in the ref in case you missed it "Slovenia supports the proceedings regarding the violation of the Genocide Convention, both in the case of Ukraine and Palestine." Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's unlikely "the proceedings" refer to support for South Africa's lawsuit. This is expressly declined in the preceding paragraph, as well as in other pieces such as this one from today where it says they will decide on possible intervention in the case in the future. Additionally, this hasn't been restated by reliable sources. The Al Jazeera article, for example, (published on 9 January but updated afterwards to add countries, see also Wayback Machine) does not include Slovenia. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's similar to Amnesty and HRW, they support the bringing of the case but refrain from saying it is a genocide. As I said in #Human Rights Watch support, I have no objection to separating out those who support in this way from other less circumspect supporters.

What the Slovenia government is saying (officially) is that they cannot enter into the case at this point because it is only a question of interim relief, they have filed a declaration of intervention, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/182/182-20221208-PRE-02-00-EN.pdf.

I assume that we are not in any doubt over Slovenia position re Ukraine? Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Slovenia's position with regards to Ukraine is stated clearly here, which came before any intervention was possible. It's disingenuous to say Slovenia has "supported South Africa's case" (wording reordered from #In support) because they haven't yet, and the following text which refers to an entirely separate proceeding is an even bigger offender. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Canada

Just heading this off at the pass since I know the edit will be challenged: it's not accurate to frame Canada's official stance as opposition. Saying that you "don't support the premise" of something is not the same as opposing it, and the National Post shouldn't be used as our sole source for this; it has clearly mischaracterized Melanie Joly's statement, the relevant part of which provides: "Under the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide requires the intention to destroy or partly destroy a group because of their nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Meeting this high threshold requires compelling evidence." This is a legal reality, not an opinion on whether such evidence does or does not exist in this case.

The CBC, a far more reputable source than NP, has clarified: "Trudeau's and Joly's statements were widely misreported in mainstream media and on social media as dismissing the South African case and taking the side of Israel. In fact, their statements carefully avoided either rejecting or endorsing South Africa's case against Israel." The CBC further notes the government statement that Canada will abide by the ICJ ruling. Considering this, it is not appropriate to list Canada in either "support" or "oppose" for the time being. I have added Poilievre's response to the "individuals" subsection. WillowCity^(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "Support for the process and the institution does not mean, per se, that we support the premise of the issue brought forward by South Africa." [9]

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly: "Canada’s unwavering support for international law and the ICJ does not mean we accept the premise of the case brought by South Africa." [10]

Liberal MP Anthony Housefather: "Very pleased that Prime Minister Trudeau has made clear that Canada does not support the premise of South Africa's claim at the ICJ." [11]

Israel's Consul-General in Toronto Idit Shamir: "Canada is siding with Israel in its defence against allegations of genocide, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau breaking the silence over the case heard this week at the United Nations' court ICJ. Canada now joins U.S., Germany, U.K. and Austria in opposing South Africa's claim." [12] -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The first two are equivocal and the latter two are avowedly pro-Israel sources that have limited or no role in determining Canadian foreign policy. Read the CBC article and my comment above, it clearly explains that Canada’s official stance has been misconstrued and/or twisted by pro-Israel commentators (likely because the rollout of Canada’s position was a trainwreck). WillowCity^(talk) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Does not support" is not the same as "opposes" or "supports the other side". It seems that the official position Canadian position is neutral and that it will wait for the ICJ to make a ruling first before taking a firmer position, whatever that turns out to be. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Someone who "doesn't support" Donald Trump isn't necessarily a Democrat, and someone who doesn't cheer for the Vancouver Canucks when they play against the Pittsburgh Penguins isn't necessarily a Penguins fan. WillowCity^(talk) 02:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Belgian government position

Is there an official position by the Belgian government in favor of or opposition to South Africa's case? I separated out the various quotes and statements made by Belgian politicians into its own subheading since it made up the majority of the content in the Support section. I believe that the amount of information related to Belgium included there gives undue weight to the internal politics of one European country. Zbase4 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you add this source to the Belgian government position please ?

"The government has reaffirmed its confidence in the ICJ and will support its conclusions and monitor their implementation."

https://www.belganewsagency.eu/belgium-to-send-military-ship-to-red-sea-as-part-of-european-operation

Thank you Cuspysan (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Zimbabwe's stance

Fenetrejones linked an article saying that Zimbabwe has backed South Africa. The source is run by Zimbabwe's gov't, but here is another by an independent media. I think it's enough to add them to the list (and I'll update the map, yeah)

• https://www.herald.co.zw/zanu-pf-hails-sa-suit-against-israeli-genocide/amp/ (gov't source linked by Fenetrejones)
• https://www.newsday.co.zw/local-news/article/200022103/zanu-pf-wades-into-gaza-conflict (independent media)

GlebRyabov (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

A few more useful sources (hopefully)

Hello! I've run into a three-part analysis of the case published on Verfassungsblog by Itamar Mann, an Associate Professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Haifa. Since I don't have the proper knowledge needed to interpret and edit about law (and that's why I've limited myself to just a few, more generic edits on this page), I'll leave the links here down below, should you decide to integrate them as sources.

1. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-body-of-the-judge-and-the-suffering-of-the-collective/
2. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-missing-party/
3. https://verfassungsblog.de/managed-violence/

I hope it helps! Oltrepier (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I've added some of his commentary to the Analysis section. WillowCity^(talk) 23:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A very comprehensive analyses from Just Security online forum:

to my opinion, bottom line is this: The South African application and its oral presentation followed a specific narrative: "Following the attack of October 7,... Israel commenced a massive attack on the Gaza Strip. The extreme measures taken by Israel in response to the attack brought widespread destruction of an unprecedented nature, and severely impacted the entire population of Gaza. The disproportionate nature of this response implies that it is not based on military necessity, but ...genocidal motivations". Israel maintained that "the harm and suffering experienced by Palestinian civilians were a regrettable, wholly undesirable but ultimately inevitable consequence of an intensive armed conflict taking place in an urban area... with Hamas [who] systematically embeds its military assets and fighting units inside or under civilian and other specially protected facilities such as hospitals, launches rockets from areas designated as “humanitarian zones,” and steals humanitarian supplies from the local civilian population".

Another thing: I'd like to include the Israeli position on the provisional measures: Dr. Christopher Staker rejected the nine provisional measures South Africa has asked the court to take against Israel, in particular, the request for it to order that Israel cease its military operation: “If granted, it would mean that when a recognized terror group commits terrorist attacks on another state, a third party seeking provisional measures can stop a party from defending itself,” said Staker. “The inevitable fatalities and human suffering of any conflict is not of itself a pattern of conduct which shows genocidal intention.” the source is already cited in the article, . Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Finally, I believe it is important to include the Israeli response to "plausability: Dr. Galit Raguan insisted to the court that Israeli policies of warning Palestinian civilians to evacuate from war zones “demonstrated that there was not even plausibility to South Africa’s claims of that Israel is carrying out genocide”. Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

NYT The Rules of War Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) it's a podcast, right? a transcript will be useful. Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Mexico as a country that supports investigating Israel

<nowiki>It is now known that Mexico, together with Chile, is asking that Israel be investigated. Should Mexico be placed in the countries that support investigating Israel?---Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/nacional/2024/01/18/mexico-y-chile-mandan-carta-a-la-corte-penal-internacional-para-investigar-la-situacion-de-palestina/?outputType=amp

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c72y2vex8jqo.amp

Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, while i agree it is an important subject i dont think the demand presented by Mexico is in anyway indicative of their position in regards this specific case. The Mexican Foreign Ministry has yet to make public any position regarding the genocide convention trial. I think it should stay that way. Don jabs (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Several countries have expressed their position regarding the international dispute. Some european countries have expressed that while they are overall supportive of the south african case, they dont have a position regarding the formal legal proceeding. Here is a list I think should be included on the neutrality section of the case with their respective sources:

• Canada - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-gaza-genocide-international-court-justice-hague-south-africa-1.7084682
• Costa Rica - https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02X8eTcPtPis416cNPn5FvmVA2HmxmoqojbbtkSPezobZjJKh8AxKsAedkbuG73aFDl&id=100069100664516&paipv=0&eav=AfamxDX56oAYRSbPry-sZvDrZki4LKgSd6SMJG9IIIGntpJdLlx2a2U_0tZyxKTiLHY&_rdr%7C
• Denmark - https://www-ft-dk.translate.goog/forhandlinger/20231/20231M041_2024-01-10_1300.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=wapp
• Spain - https://www.epe.es/es/internacional/20240115/jose-manuel-albares-entrevista-israel-gaza-marruecos-96865565
• Finkand - https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000010110628.html
• Ireland - https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/micheal-martin-ireland-will-rigorously-examine-un-genocide-case-against-israel-before-intervening/a363669127.html
• Norway https://www.nrk.no/urix/folkemord-saken-mot-israel-1.16708086

Besides them, Algeria and the Non-Aligned Movement have both made statements in support of South Africa's case. I think they should both be included in the support section

• Algeria - https://twitter.com/Algeria_MFA/status/1748028790259728409
• Non-aligned movement - https://www.yowerikmuseveni.com/non-aligned-movement-summit-final-document-kampala-declaration

Thanks in advance :) Don jabs (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm supportive of Algeria being added. FreedomFalcon provided this official stance of Algeria's gov't, so it's pretty obvious where it stands.

https://www.mfa.gov.dz/ar/press-and-information/video-news/speech-by-minister-ahmed-attaf-at-the-ministerial-preparatory-meeting-for-the-19th-summit-of-the-nam

GlebRyabov (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Australia supporting Israel

According to the article Australia has definitely come out in support of Israel's case, but the quote provided seems fairly vague. Especially given how recently when asked directly by the media the Australian PM caught some flak for not giving an answer in either direction. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/11/albanese-government-refuses-to-reveal-stance-on-un-genocide-case-against-israel 203.214.55.183 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Alonso Gurmendi also thinks that's neutral https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1749582631837032459 So please edit: move Australia to the neutral list as it's the same position as Canada.

So far, the award for most neutral goes to Australia & Canada: "we support the ICJ but we don't have an opinion on whether SA is right to bring the case"

The award for most confused goes to Ireland: "SA is right to bring the case but not because Israel is committing genocide" Cancerward (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I edited Ireland so as to clarify their support/nonsupport position :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Amalek

I want to understand why Netanyahu's remarks about Amalek, along with IDF soldiers chanting Amalek and 'no uninvolved civilians,' are not being mentioned in this article. Reliable news agencies have reported that the South African team cited these remarks against Israel at the ICJ. I would like to know if anyone can provide a valid reason for opposition if I add this information to the background section. The current background section provides examples of Israeli officials' statements that could be interpreted as having genocidal intent. However, since Netanyahu is the one responsible for waging war against Hamas in 2023, his speech should be the first to appear before anyone below him. The cited opinion piece published by NYT in the background section also mentioned Netanyahu's Amalek remark. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sameboat Done Genabab (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Woops, I misread what you were saying. My mistake.

Anyway, I also added statements about Amalek to the south africa case section Genabab (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Supporting and opposing countries

https://x.com/alonso_gd/status/1749519049615143085

This tweet (and thread) has a more fulsome take than we currently do on the topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer secondary RS rather than twitter. Still think there is a significant difference between supporting the bringing of the case/application for interim relief and supporting the genocide claim itself. In the final outcome, assuming there is one, states might be supportive at this stage but not at a later stage. Equally, silence at this stage does not necessarily indicate a lack of support for the claim itself.

To some extent, this will become academic if shortly, the court makes a ruling on the interim measures. Suggest we might as well wait and see. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, we really need a source for that. For example, I've never seen Norway or North Korea reacting positively (that is, in favor of South Africa).

GlebRyabov (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

News Source reliability.

I think the news outlets that did not live stream or report South Africa's proceedings but live streamed or reported Isreal's defence are not reliable sources for reporting on this case. 2861969nyc (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why? Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Responses in lede

@Onceinawhile: Do we need multiple Israeli responses in the lede? I think that Netanyahu's will be sufficient; I don't think we also need Ben Gvir, particularly since while he is a member of cabinet he has no direct relation to this case. BilledMammal (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need any responses in the lead. They are only repeating stuff they said before the ruling anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point; I wouldn't disagree with removing all responses. BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I would support that, it results in a lot of space being taken up. WillowCity^(talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to remove them. As Naledi Pandor said two weeks ago [13], these reactions were to be expected. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I moved them, might be some duplication to resolve. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the Ruling on provisional measures

I'd like to suggest to use the full quote from the source:

"The court also expressed grave concern about the fate of hostages being held by Hamas and called for their immediate release." iso only the first part that is now part of the Wikipedia article. (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68097640, this links is already part of the article).

Basically add: "and called for their immediate release".

Through coverage in official Dutch media I've also learned, that the court emphasizes that all parties and thus including Hamas and other Palestinian groups are bound by international law, esp. with respect to genocide and not only Isreal. It seems that by omitting the second part of the quote, we are at risk of 'framing' the provisional reading as being 'anti-Isreal'. This subject especially needs nuance, impartiality, neutrality and quoting half of part of this ruling is too grave an omission. Jaap-073 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Through coverage in official Dutch media I've also learned, that the court emphasizes that all parties and thus including Hamas and other Palestinian groups are bound by international law, esp. with respect to genocide and not only Isreal. Can you provide those sources? BilledMammal (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2506337-tussenvonnis-internationaal-gerechtshof-israel-moet-genocide-in-gaza-voorkomen The article is in Dutch, the video in the original English and this contains the full quote. Jaap-073 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've also found the International Court of Justice's ruling on it's website, pls see page 7 where it says: "The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release."

https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf Jaap-073 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to separate the ruling (provisional measures) from anything else the court may have said (it did say other things and not only what is being pointed to here). Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and to me that is done by adding important parts of it's rulling besides the provisional measures after listing these. Judicial stands tend to incorporate 'anything else the court says', not just it's bottom line. Jaap-073 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Selfstudier. Donoghue also said "The catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgmen", which I think would be quite relevant to include as well. Endwise (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we will get some more considered RS shortly, its still mostly snapshot stuff in the RS. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I can live with that.

Now pls. back to my point that 'we' as Wikipedia are shortening a summary in the BBC news report without any good reason I can think off... Jaap-073 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes OK, we are looking at that, now if you could refrain from further commentary per WP:ARBECR that would be good, thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, seems are 6 interim measures per ICJ press release Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation that there are 6 here Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a look at the 6 things the UN is ordering Israel to do about its operation in Gaza Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case) Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe Jaap is requesting that one of the courts statements be fully represented here, instead o f partially. This statement is indeed not one of the 6 measures, but I agree with Endwise that this and others should be included (I am a little confused why you are emphasizing the 6 measures here, selfstudier).

I understand the change request to be, from:

"The court also expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip [BBC ref] and recognized the catastrophic situation ...",

to something like

"In addition, the court expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip, and called for their immediate and unconditional release. The court also recognized the catastrophic situation ...".

Aside from the direct quote in the document provided by Jaap, there is also this Reuters article. MyOrbs (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The matter of the hostages has been included in the article already? And in the lead so Idk what the problem is here. And I am talking about the 6 measures because we needed to find a way to distinguish between obiter dictum (this includes the hostage material and other things) and the judgement, which has also been done. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is my intend.

The state of Israel is the defendant in the legal case. The measures are then of course directed at them. This part of their ruling is aimed at groups (Hamas and others) that are not party in the legal case nor party to the underlying conventions and treaties.

It gives as the context for their ruling that everyone (not just nation states that are bound by the court directly) has to respect and adhere to international humanitarian law. Apparently they do not want to allow for any exceptions.

Because context is King, I would like to see this one sentence unedited in the article. I think it's important and at the core of how the ICJ now (in this case) and in future will look at crimes against humanity. Jaap-073 (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, we have secondary sources covering the hostages in the article and in the lead. Also, in the future, please confine yourself to straightforward edit requests of the form change X to Y supported by suitable sources, per WP:ARBECR.(not sure why I need to keep repeating this). Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not about mentioning the hostages, it is about faithfully representing the statement made by the ICJ (page seven here, for secondary source see here). For this purpose I reiterate and expand a little on the change request. First, in the lead, from:

"The court also expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip [BBC ref] and recognized the catastrophic situation ...",

to:

"In addition, the court expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip, and called for their immediate and unconditional release [Reuters ref]. The court also recognized the catastrophic situation ..."

Second edit, under Ruling on provisional measures, from:

"The Court also expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip, and called for their immediate release as well as recognizing a catastrophic situation in Gaza..."

To:

The Court also expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip, and called for their immediate and unconditional release [Reuters ref], as well as recognizing a catastrophic situation in Gaza..."

I switched to the Reuters ref since I did not manage to verify the BBC one. More importantly, the suggested edits reproduced the full contents of the courts statement "It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release." I feel that only stating in the lead that the court is concerned for the hostages is a misrepresentation.

If my comment here is not compatible with the format you request, selfstudier, then I apologize and would appreciate your time in bringing it up to standard. MyOrbs (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, per above response. Secondary sourced material is already included in the article both lead and body. In future you could try using WP:EDITREQ, the edit request does not require any argumentation or speeches in support, just the X to Y request and sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"We have secondary sources covering the hostages in the article and lead" seems somewhat orthogonal to the request to give a faithful representation of the ICJ's complete statement in the lead? Its not about just mentioning hostages (they are mentioned), its the ICJ's statement. MyOrbs (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Several sources have picked up on the effect on other states of the ruling, that should go in at some point.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Judges & the ruling

You need to list the judges, their voting and their countries of origin. Thanks 143.159.144.178 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't done for the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 page (the last case that the ICJ decided). Also, the names of the judges were just added. And the nationalities of the judges are available at International Court of Justice#Current composition, apart from Judge ad hoc Moseneke (Dikgang Moseneke) and Judge ad hoc Barak (Aharon Barak). Historyday01 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Barak's vote on the fourth provisional measure

Barak voted in favor of the fourth provisional measure. (https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf pg. 25) The wiki article claims he didn't. 109.101.157.168 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

...partially. 109.101.157.168 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Looked at the document you provided and it looks all in order to me. Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean the wiki now says "15 votes to 2, with Julia Sebutinde¡dissenting" 109.101.157.168 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's been fixed. Historyday01 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It still says "15 votes to 2" when "16 to 1" would be correct according to the official document I provided. Update: it's fixed now 109.101.157.168 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It would help in future if you made a proper edit request (ie change X to Y) as per WP:ARBECR. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the fourth provisional measure is on page 25 of that document, for your reference. Historyday01 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

On Ruling

The ICJ called for the immediate and "unconditional" release of Israeli hostages, the second word is missing from the ruling. They also ruled that the death toll in Gaza "can't be independently verified" is paragraph 46. https://www.icj-cij.org/decisions 2603:8001:D300:1694:3CA2:4A9F:360B:9304 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard for plausibility is a "very low threshold"?

Most sources I have read say the plausibility threshold is “low”, but not “very low”. An editor has added and readded the “very low” wording, with one source. I think this should be explictly attributed, and other balancing views added. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It is low only compared to the threshold for proving genocide is the main thing in sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. More accurately it is "comparatively" or "relatively" low. It doesn't require proof on a balance of probabilities, but there is still an evidentiary burden on the claimant—which the court concluded was satisfied in this case. WillowCity^(talk) 15:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

E.g. Opinio Juris, "... South Africa only had to prove that the rights for which it was seeking protection were plausible (the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocidal acts). This was a relatively low threshold for South Africa..." WillowCity^(talk) 15:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Links missing

Someone messed up all the links for the countries, now it's just plain text. Could someone fix them? Thanks in advance.

GlebRyabov (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Idk, in some ways I prefer it like it is, not as if most people don't know the names of the countries. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Analysis section

Now that the Court has ruled on provisional measures, I think we need to take a hard look at the "analysis" section and see what can be trimmed and how it might be reorganized. I have a couple of ideas:

1) create subsections for "initial analysis" and "analysis following provisional measures";

2) group the analysis by viewpoint (i.e. whether the analyst in question does or does not view the claim(s) as meritorious) with a separate section for procedural commentary that does not opine on the merits;

3) simply cut down earlier analysis that was essentially conjecture on how the court would rule on the threshold question/provisional measures, without changing the structure of the section.

I think it would be worth getting consensus on an agreeable plan of action rather than making big cuts or drastic reordering on an ad hoc basis. WillowCity^(talk) 15:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Also @Selfstudier wondering why you deleted Pezzano's comments from the Analysis section? Not necessarily opposed, just confirming it was deliberate. WillowCity^(talk) 23:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)