Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WillowCity (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 28 January 2024 (→‎The standard for plausibility is a "very low threshold"?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

(
)
The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SilverserenC 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is grammatically incorrect. starship.paint (RUN) 12:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
As the court rejected the cease fire demand we need to reflect this in hook [5] --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Struck. starship.paint (RUN) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. SilverserenC 02:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: There is a [failed verification] tag in the Ruling on provisional measures section. Please fix it and then ping me Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: this has been resolved (I removed the offending text and removed the tag). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@GlebRyabov Do you have sources for the info on the map? Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
GlebRyabov (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add the United Kingdom in blue as well? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I removed Canada for a while, and added the UK.
GlebRyabov (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Paulduffill (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've realied this OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) also relates to the other intergovernmental orgaisations' support (currently: Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement). I totally agree with @GlebRyabov and think their comments apply to all intergovernmental orgaisations' support. And yes thank you to @Freedom's Falcon for your attention on the OIC support. If the OIC "is considered the collective voice of the Islamic world", as @Freedom's Falcon states, it seems less likely that individual Islamic countries would publish their own support for the case since they have already "spoken" through the OIC statement. @Freedom's Falcon, or another Arabic speaker, can you find a reliable source in Arabic (or another language) stating how this decision of support was made by the OIC, and if not unanimous, a source that lists the yays and nays? As @GlebRyabov concurs that will then allow us to add each specific individual country as supporting or not having show support. If @Freedom's Falcon cannot find it or can't spend time looking for it, is there a way to ping a group of Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors? The only group I've been able to find is Taghreedat#Arabic Wikipedia Editors Program but I don't know how to ping them or other Arabic-speaking Wikipedia editors. And we need to do the same for the other intergovernmental orgaisations' support (currently: Arab League and Non-Aligned Movement) Paulduffill (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Done!
GlebRyabov (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
GlebRyabov (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@GlebRyabov In addition to Algeria, please add Belgium as a pro-South Africa. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See comment below explaining that WP:COMMONNAME is not the only relevant policy. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's still a POV title. Longhornsg (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, how is it POV? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. Typical naming convention for legal proceedings. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Another proposal would be: "South Africa v. Israel (ICJ)". AlexBachmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose for the purpose of maintaining neutrality FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
  • 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)[reply]
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.[reply]

Arbitrary naming doesn't matter as it is allowed per WP's common name guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support this one. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose initial proposal, but Support move to South Africa v. Israel per voorts. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support. –Freedom's Falcon (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. Parham wiki (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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". FlipandFlopped ツ 00:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this case limited to Gaza? If so, "Palestinian genocide case" wouldn't fit. DFlhb (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose I would prefer the official title but if not then leave as is. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose There’s a precedent to use Country A vs. Country B & it seems like the most neutral format. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I have added Germany, though. WillowCity(talk) 00:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good idea as it ads nuance. Jaap-073 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

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

A very comprehensive analyses from Just Security online forum: [1]

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, [2]. 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”. [3] Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.justsecurity.org/91262/south-africa-vs-israel-at-the-international-court-of-justice-a-battle-over-issue-framing-and-the-request-to-suspend-the-war/
  2. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-rejects-genocide-claims-at-the-hague-says-south-africas-allegations-baseless/
  3. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-rejects-genocide-claims-at-the-hague-says-south-africas-allegations-baseless/

Mexico as a country that supports investigating Israel

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That's a fair point; I wouldn't disagree with removing all responses. BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, it results in a lot of space being taken up. WillowCity(talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to remove them. As Naledi Pandor said two weeks ago [7], these reactions were to be expected. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them, might be some duplication to resolve. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, seems are 6 interim measures per ICJ press release Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that there are 6 here Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...partially. 109.101.157.168 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the document you provided and it looks all in order to me. Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's been fixed. Historyday01 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, the fourth provisional measure is on page 25 of that document, for your reference. Historyday01 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is a provisional ruling, not a ruling on merits of the case. It is also incorrect to say that the plausibility is related to genocide intent. For example, Judge Nolte did not find intent plausible, but found incitement plausible. Drsmoo (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a declaration, not in the Order of the Court. If other judges felt similarly they could have penned similar declarations, and if a majority was of that view, it would have been reflected in the Order. But it wasn't. In fact, the Order itself states (at para. 30) that at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention. (emphasis added). It is a finding of plausibility in respect of Israel's conduct, which a greater or lesser majority viewed as plausibly coming within the Convention's ambit. WillowCity(talk) 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no incongruence between Judge Nolte’s declaration and the order. “at least some” is not intent, and there was no mention of which acts are plausible. Drsmoo (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they're incongruent (if they were, it would be a dissent or a separate opinion, not a declaration), I'm saying that the fact that one judge takes a narrower view of the Order is not indicative of what the Court actually decided. If a majority of the Court ascribed to the narrower view it could be expected to say so clearly in its Order. It did not. WillowCity(talk) 20:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Drsmoo: regarding your writing of the following sentence in the article: The plausibility threshold has been described as "relatively low", "very low", and "exceedingly low". With two out of three suggesting it is very/exceedingly low, this looks POV and inconsistent with the preponderance of sources. Dozens of sources have written on this question; the discussion above is where the consensus interpretation currently stands. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s widely attested in reliable sources that the evidentiary standard is very low, exceedingly low, much lower, etc. One of the judges in the case said the standard is lower. This is not an opinion attributable to commentators, it’s a legal fact. Drsmoo (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's legal analysis. Which requires RS. WillowCity(talk) 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is provided. Drsmoo (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing the low bar, just that it only low in comparison to a very high bar (proving genocide). It doesn't imply/mean that the ruling is inconsequential or lacks punch. In fact many sources say the contrary, the fact that the naughty schoolboy has to report back in a month tells all. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is the view of some commentators, there was determination of naughtiness Drsmoo (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I mean, it would be nice if we could include both the flags and the links while keeping the names. Like, something along those lines:
 Algeria
GlebRyabov (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I kept the ref (a blog) at the recently added "Third states material". Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Union and other intergovernmental organisations (currently Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Non-Aligned Movement) and their member countries' support

European Union: With the EU's statement (joint statement by the head the EU's exective, and the EU's foreign minisiter) on January 26 2024 "We take note of today's order of the International Court of Justice on South Africa's request for the indication of provisional measures. The EU reaffirms its continuing support to the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the Parties and they must comply with them. The EU expects their full, immediate and effective implementation" [emphasis added by me] ( https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_24_465 ) this seems to show that the EU's position is now "support", whereas it is currently listed in the article as "neutral". I can see how its earlier source cited in the article (and other like this: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/01/12/where-do-eu-countries-stand-on-south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel) would have justified it being "neutral" but now it seems to be showing explicit support for the case. And as other editors have occasionally forgotten: remember the "support" section does not indicate support for South Africa's position (which the court did not completely support in its judgement) but just support for the case itself being judged by the ICJ (see for example the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch entries). Also, given that the EU make decisions only be consensus (see the Treaty on European Union here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016M/TXT) this would also seem to mean that each of the EU countries should be added as individual supporters of the case. Paulduffill (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are supporting the ICJ itself and saying its orders should be complied with, not supporting South Africa's case. You can support the ICJ itself without implicitly supporting every case any party ever brings to it, of course. Endwise (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the section of my comment above yours that says "And as other editors have occasionally forgotten:...". And if it still unclear please read the full statement. You'll see that your claim "You can support the ICJ itself without implicitly supporting every case any party ever brings to it" is not correct. Your claim could only be stretched to be correct in only these instances:
(1) the EU only supports the general vague idea of something like the ICJ (and not necessarily the actual ICJ) and decides on a case-by-case basis if each case brought to a court like the ICJ should be brought, which the EU has not said. The absence of that leaves only two possibilities for your claim:
(2) a statement is made showing a particular case is an exception to their usual support for the ICJ, which the EU has not said
(3) or their previous position ("This is not for us to comment at all." ) which although logically inconsistent with their support for the ICJ did indicate a lack of support for this particular case, which the EU has changed with their new statement
Thus the EU statement clearly shows that:
(1) They support all ICJ orders
(2) South Africa's case is not an exception to this and falls within the realm of this
(3) They support South Africa's case (but don't necessarily support South Africa's position - see the last paragraph - but that is not the topic of this article section we are discussing.
And range of media organisations are reporting the EU supports the ICJ order from this case (eg: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-world-court-ruling-focuses-attack-south-gaza-2024-01-26/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-urges-implementation-of-icj-ruling-s-africa-hamas-turkey-welcome-decision/ https://news.yahoo.com/eu-demands-israel-abides-icj-201211668.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/26/live-icj-to-issue-preliminary-ruling-in-south-africa-genocide-case-against-i https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/eu-says-it-expects-from-israel-full-immediate-effective-implementation-of-icj-ruling/3120070) Paul Duffill (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other intergovernmental organisations (currently Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and Non-Aligned Movement): (Pings for people who were following this in previous thread mentioned below: @Freedom's Falcon: @GlebRyabov:)

Within the topic Talk:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)#Adding a map of stances I started a thread on this starting with: "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)..." but I've realied that because it goes beyond the issue of the map so that thread should be in this new secton I just created. To avoid just duplicating a whole lot of exisitng text, first please see that thread below ("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)..."). Paul Duffill (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answert to the question of adding each individual Non-Aligned Movement country seems a pretty straight-forward "Yes": as this article states (source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/21/israels-war-on-gaza-live-deadly-israeli-attacks-across-gaza?update=2637040) it supports the case being brought. And we have the other ingredient of knowing how this decision was made: the Non-Aligned Movement makes decisions by consensus (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement). It doesn't have a formal constitution (and seemingly no permanent web site) so I'm using the https://www.britannica.com source. Paulduffill (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answert to the question of adding each individual Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) country hinges on us finding out how this decision has been made (was it consensus and if not what is list of countries that voted "yay" and "nay"). I can't find anything on English on this and my reading of the OIC Constitution (English version) seems to indicates that the vote could have been either by a majority or unanimously. And so I ask that an Arabic (the official language of the OIC) speaker check this. @Freedom's Falcon has begun to look at this has but not answered this question yet. Paulduffill (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what's all that? :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! That was me. Fixed now. For some reason "nowiki /nowiki" coding somehow got copied into the page code which caused the corruption. Paul Duffill (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if we remove the above two comments because they will probably confuse other editors who didn't see the temporary mistake in the formatting? Paul Duffill (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead, this one too. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arab League seems to be the exact same situation as the OIC and so I ask that an Arabic (the official language of the Arab League) speaker check this. Paulduffill (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel&oldid=1200118859"