Read Palestine

Verbatim record CR 2024/1 — Public sitting of 11 January 2024, oral argument of South Africa (South Africa v. Israel)

Properties2
tags
aliasesCR 2024/1, South Africa v. Israel verbatim record 11 January 2024

27 min read

Summary

The verbatim record (CR 2024/1, corrected) of the public sitting of 11 January 2024 at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, at which South Africa presented its single round of oral argument on its Request for the indication of Provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) (Verbatim record CR 2024/1 — Public sitting of 11 January 2024, oral argument of South Africa (South Africa v. Israel), PDF p.1, p.12, p.16). The record covers the formal record of the bench and the parties, the President’s introduction and the reading of the nine measures requested, and the speeches of Agent Vusimuzi Madonsela, Minister Ronald Lamola, Adila Hassim on genocidal acts, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi on genocidal intent, John Dugard on jurisdiction, Max du Plessis on the rights requiring protection and their link to the measures, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh on urgency and irreparable prejudice, and Vaughan Lowe on the provisional measures sought, closing with Madonsela’s reading of the nine measures and the adjournment of the sitting at 1.20 p.m. (PDF p.82-85).

What the file is

The Court’s bilingual English/French verbatim record of the 11 January 2024 sitting, 85 PDF pages, about 34,147 words. The front matter, bench and party lists are given in English and then in French (PDF p.1-11); the speeches are recorded in the language delivered, each carrying numbered paragraphs and numbered footnotes (footnotes 1-331 across the sitting) giving the full citation and, usually, the URL of each source relied on. Ní Ghrálaigh’s opening and closing passages are in French (PDF p.56, p.73); the other speeches are in English. The text copy is clean and paginated with PDF page markers.

Section by section

  • Cover, bench and parties (PDF p.1-11). Public sitting held on Thursday 11 January 2024, at 10 a.m., President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Present: President Donoghue, Vice-President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, Judges ad hoc Barak and Moseneke, Registrar Gautier (PDF p.2). South Africa’s Agent is Vusimuzi Madonsela, Co-Agent Cornelius Scholtz, with counsel and advocates John Dugard, Vaughan Lowe, Max du Plessis, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Adila Hassim and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, and a delegation including Palestinian officials and the directors of Al-Haq, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PDF p.4-6). Israel’s Co-Agents are Gilad Noam, Tal Becker and Tamar Kaplan Tourgeman, with counsel including Malcolm Shaw and Eyal Benvenisti (PDF p.8-10).
  • The President’s introduction (PDF p.12-16). The Court meets on 11 and 12 January under Rules Article 74(3) to hear oral observations on the Request. Neither Party has a judge of its nationality on the Bench; South Africa chose Judge Dikgang Moseneke and Israel Judge Aharon Barak as judges ad hoc, whose careers the President recites before both make the solemn declaration and are declared duly installed (PDF p.12-13). The President recalls the filing of the Application on 29 December 2023 founding jurisdiction on Statute Article 36(1) and Article IX of the Genocide Convention, and the Registrar reads the nine provisional measures requested verbatim: suspension of Israel’s military operations in and against Gaza; no steps in furtherance by units and persons under Israel’s control, direction or influence; both Parties to take all reasonable measures to prevent genocide; desistance from all Article II acts; desistance from expulsion and forced displacement, deprivation of food, water, humanitarian assistance, fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, sanitation and medical supplies, and destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza; non-commission of, and steps towards punishment of, incitement, conspiracy, attempt and complicity; preservation of evidence and access for fact-finding missions; a report within one week and thereafter as ordered; and non-aggravation of the dispute (PDF p.14-16). Each Party has a three-hour single round; Practice Direction XI is quoted, that parties “should not enter into the merits of the case beyond what is strictly necessary for that purpose” (PDF p.16).
  • Vusimuzi Madonsela, Agent (PDF p.17-18). South Africa has recognized “the ongoing Nakba of the Palestinian people through Israel’s colonization since 1948”, with systematic dispossession, displacement and fragmentation and denial of Self-determination and of the right of return, and is mindful of Israel’s institutionalized régime of discriminatory laws, policies and practices subjecting Palestinians to Apartheid on both sides of the Green Line. The genocidal acts “inevitably form part of a continuum” since 1948, placed in the context of 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation and the 16-year siege of Gaza, described by the Director of UNRWA Affairs in Gaza as “a silent killer of people”. CERD warned on 21 December 2023 of hate speech and dehumanising discourse raising severe concerns about the obligation to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide, followed by warnings including by 37 UN Special Rapporteurs of “the failure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide”.
  • Ronald Lamola, Opening Remarks (PDF p.18-20). Lamola quotes Nelson Mandela — “In extending our hands across the miles to the people of Palestine, we do so in the full knowledge that we are part of a humanity that is at one” — and South Africa’s accession to the Convention in 1998. The violence did not begin on 7 October 2023; in Gaza, at least since 2005, Israel continues to exercise control over airspace, territorial waters, land crossings, water, electricity and civilian infrastructure and key government functions, and Gaza is still considered under belligerent occupation. South Africa unequivocally condemned the targeting of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups and the taking of hostages on 7 October 2023, most recently in its Note Verbale of 21 December 2023; but “no armed attack on a State’s territory no matter how serious — even an attack involving atrocity crimes — can provide any justification for, or defence to, breaches of the Convention, whether as a matter of law or morality”, and Israel’s response has crossed this line. He sets out the roadmap of the six counsel’s speeches.
  • Adila Hassim, Genocidal Acts (PDF p.21-31). Gaza is a strip of approximately 365 sq km, home to approximately 2.3 million Palestinians, almost half of them children, under Israel’s continuing control; for the past 96 days Israel has subjected it to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare, with Palestinians also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease (PDF p.21-22). At this stage, under The Gambia v. Myanmar, it is necessary to establish only whether at least some acts alleged are capable of falling within the Convention; the UN statistics relied on are up to date as of 9 January 2024 (PDF p.22-23). Article II(a): 23,210 Palestinians killed, at least 70 per cent believed women and children, some 7,000 missing presumed dead under the rubble; killing in homes, shelters, hospitals, schools, mosques and churches and along declared “safe routes”; mass graves; 6,000 bombs per week in the first three weeks and at least 200 deployments of two-thousand-pound bombs in southern areas designated “safe”; more than 1,800 families losing multiple members and hundreds of multigenerational families wiped out (PDF p.23-25). Article II(b): close to 60,000 wounded and maimed, and civilians including children arrested, blindfolded, forced to undress and taken to unknown locations (PDF p.25). Article II(c), in four ways: displacement of about 85 per cent of Gaza’s Palestinians, the 13 October evacuation order for over 1 million people within 24 hours — “The order itself was genocidal” — and an estimated 355,000 homes damaged or destroyed leaving at least half a million homeless; hunger, with 93 per cent of the population facing crisis levels of hunger and more than 80 per cent of all people in the world suffering catastrophic hunger being in Gaza, and aid impeded, including the fifth denial since 26 December of a UN mission on 8 January; denial of adequate shelter, clothes and sanitation, with diarrhoea cases in children under five increased 2,000 per cent; and the assault on the healthcare system, whose infrastructure the Special Rapporteur on the right to health noted by 7 December “has been completely obliterated” (PDF p.26-29). Article II(d): the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls warned that “the reproductive violence inflicted by Israel on Palestinian women, newborn babies, infants, and children could be qualified as … acts of genocide under Article 2 of the [Genocide Convention]”, with an estimated 180 women giving birth each day and essential medical kits for delivering babies blocked (PDF p.29). The acts form a calculated pattern indicating genocidal intent, listed in six elements (PDF p.30); the conclusion quotes Under-Secretary-General Martin Griffiths on the impossibility of getting aid into Gaza — “The fighting must stop” (PDF p.30-31).
  • Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Genocidal Intent (PDF p.31-42). The Court is not required at this stage to find genocidal intent the only inference; 15 UN Special Rapporteurs and 21 members of UN Working Groups warned of “a genocide in the making” (PDF p.31-32). Intent from conduct: systematic displacement, herding into areas where people continue to be killed, conditions that “lead to a slow death”, and, as stated, 1 per cent of Gaza’s Palestinian population killed and 1 in 40 injured since 7 October (PDF p.32-33). Intent from leaders’ speech: Benjamin Netanyahu’s 28 October 2023 address urging soldiers to “remember what Amalek has done to … you”, repeated in his 3 November letter to the forces, with the 1 Samuel 15:3 command quoted; Deputy Speaker Nissim Vaturi’s call for the erasure of the Gaza Strip; Yoav Gallant’s 9 October “complete siege” statement — “fighting human animals”, “Everything would be closed” — and his instruction to troops that he has “released all the restraints” and “We will eliminate everything”; Ghassan Alian’s “human animals are dealt with accordingly” and “You wanted hell, you will get hell”; Israel Katz on denial of water and fuel; Amichai Eliyahu’s “more painful than death”; Isaac Herzog on the entire population’s responsibility — “we will fight until we break their backbone” — and signing bombs; Itamar Ben-Gvir on destroying those who celebrate, support or hand out candy (PDF p.33-36). Intent from soldiers’ speech: soldiers singing “to wipe off the seed of Amalek” and “May their village burn; may Gaza be erased”, filming detonations, Commander Yair Ben David on making all Gaza resemble Beit Hanoun, and the 95-year-old reservist Ezra Yachin’s address to soldiers — “Erase them, their families, mothers and children” — quoted at length (PDF p.36-38). Intent from public incitement: Knesset members’ calls to wipe out, flatten, erase and crush Gaza, “[t]here are no innocents in Gaza”, calls for nuclear weapons and for a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48”, and parallel statements in civil society; Israel’s failure to condemn, prevent and punish such incitement is itself a grave violation of Article I (PDF p.38-40). Knowledge: Israel knew from the first week, from UN and NGO warnings, that it was depriving Palestinians of water, food, electricity, healthcare and essentials, and has maintained and intensified its activity, targeting water and sanitation infrastructure, solar panels, bakeries, mills, crops, hospitals, aid workers and UN infrastructure (PDF p.40-41). Conclusion: genocidal utterances by the Prime Minister, President, ministers, Knesset members, senior army officials and foot soldiers — “Genocidal utterances are therefore not out in the fringes; they are embodied in State policy”, and “The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible” (PDF p.41-42).
  • John Dugard, Jurisdiction (PDF p.42-47). Neither State has a reservation to Article IX; the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm and Convention obligations are erga omnes; Article IX, unlike CERD Article 22 or CAT Article 30, does not oblige negotiations as a prelude and does not treat ending genocide as a bilateral affair (PDF p.42-43). The dispute’s crystallization is traced: South Africa’s Security Council and public statements, its 10 November 2023 démarche, its 17 November referral of Israel’s commission of genocide to the International Criminal Court for “vigorous investigation” with President Ramaphosa’s statement that Gaza is “now turned into a concentration camp where genocide is taking place”, its BRICS and General Assembly statements, Israel’s official denial of 6 December 2023 — “The accusation of genocide in these circumstances is not just legally and factually incoherent , it is obscene” (spacing as printed) — South Africa’s Note Verbale of 21 December 2023, Israel’s reply of 27 December received on 29 December after filing, and the exchange of 4 January 2024 in which Israel proposed to reconnect after the hearings (PDF p.43-45). The Court’s tests for a dispute are stated — the claim of one party “positively opposed” by the other, objective determination at the date of the Application, and the respondent aware or unable to be unaware its views were positively opposed — and applied: a dispute existed at filing, and at this stage a prima facie basis for jurisdiction suffices (PDF p.45-47).
  • Coffee break, 11.35 a.m. to 11.55 a.m. (PDF p.48).
  • Max du Plessis, Nature of the Rights Requiring Protection and the Link Between Such Rights and the Measures Requested (PDF p.48-56). The rights claimed must be “at least plausible”, grounded in a possible interpretation of the Convention, without definitive determination (PDF p.48). The core right is the right of Palestinians in Gaza, as a very substantial and important part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, to exist, framed by the Reservations Advisory Opinion’s “denial of the right of existence of entire human groups”, and situated in the context of destructive acts by an occupying Power after more than half a century of violation of Palestinian Self-determination (PDF p.49). South Africa has chosen to avoid showing graphic videos and photos and not to turn the Court “into a theatre for spectacle” (PDF p.50). WFP chief economist Arif Husain’s 3 January warning that the situation is unprecedented in magnitude, severity and speed is quoted (PDF p.50). Support since the Application from 13 further States, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation representing 57 States is listed by date in footnote 170, with experts’ statements in footnote 171 (PDF p.51). A motive to destroy Hamas does not preclude genocidal intent, and other crimes’ concurrence does not exclude the plausible inference of it; the prohibitions are jus cogens, “absolute in nature, in times of war and peace, always, and everywhere” (PDF p.52). South Africa’s own rights under the Convention are then argued on the erga omnes partes basis: “all the States parties to the Genocide Convention have a common interest to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented and that, if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity”, and contracting States “merely have, one and all, a common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d’être of the convention” (PDF p.53). The speech concludes at PDF p.54-56: any State party, not only a specially affected State, may invoke another’s responsibility for failure to comply with its obligations erga omnes partes and bring that failure to an end, so South Africa asserts both a collective and an individual right; the Court has indicated provisional measures on that basis in The Gambia, Bosnia and Ukraine, and accepted the erga omnes character of parties’ rights under the Torture Convention; a link “manifestly exists” between the rights claimed and the measures requested; and to find otherwise would treat Palestinians as less worthy of protection than others and close the Court’s eyes to breaches “taking place in Gaza right now”.
  • Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Risk of Further Genocidal Acts, Risks of Irreparable Prejudice and Urgency (PDF p.56-73). Her opening and closing passages are in French, with an apology that none of South Africa’s submissions is in French (PDF p.56, p.73). She quotes the UN Secretary-General and chiefs describing Gaza as “a crisis of humanity”, a “living hell” and a “blood bath”, and Under-Secretary-General Griffiths’s 5 January statement at length — “Gaza has become a place of death and despair” (PDF p.57). The daily toll is presented as evidence of urgency: on average 247 Palestinians killed each day, including 48 mothers and over 117 children, 629 wounded each day, over 10 children having a leg amputated each day, and 3,900 homes damaged or destroyed each day; over 1,703 Palestinians have been killed since the proceedings began on 29 December 2023, and “The risk of famine will increase each day” (PDF p.59-62). On the Court’s case law, urgency is met when acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment”, and the Court has repeatedly found irreparable prejudice where serious risks arise to human life, in Georgia v. Russia, Armenia v. Azerbaijan, Qatar v. United Arab Emirates, Canada and Netherlands v. Syria, and in all three Genocide Convention cases — Bosnia, The Gambia and Ukraine (PDF p.61-66). Armed conflict does not preclude provisional measures, and a scaling up of humanitarian relief or unilateral undertakings would be no answer, following Iran v. United States and Armenia v. Azerbaijan: the Secretary-General has said it is “a mistake” to measure the humanitarian operation by the number of trucks, because the way Israel is conducting the offensive means the conditions for effective delivery no longer exist (PDF p.66-69). The Convention is also about the “confirm[ation] and endorse[ment of] elementary principles of morality”; despite its recognition of the need to rid the world of the “odious scourge” of genocide, the international community failed Rwanda, Bosnia and the Rohingya and is failing Palestinians in Gaza, in what the ICRC called a “moral failure” (PDF p.70-72). She closes with two photographs of a hospital whiteboard bearing an MSF doctor’s message — “We did what we could. Remember us” — the doctor, Mahmoud Abu Nujaila, having been killed with two colleagues in a strike on the hospital on 21 November, and with Pastor Munther Isaac’s Christmas Day sermon in Bethlehem (PDF p.72-73).
  • Vaughan Lowe, The Provisional Measures Sought (PDF p.73-82). The Court’s jurisprudence points to five requirements — prima facie jurisdiction, link, plausibility of the rights, risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency — each addressed by the preceding speakers and, he argues, satisfied; the Bosnia judgment’s statement of the duty to act on learning of a serious risk of genocide is quoted (PDF p.74-75). Provisional measures also protect individuals, as in LaGrand, Avena and Jadhav, and the integrity of the Court’s procedures, through non-aggravation orders (PDF p.75-76). No order is sought against Hamas because “Hamas is not a State and cannot be a party to the Genocide Convention; and cannot be a party to these proceedings”; and that Israel’s acts may also be war crimes or crimes against humanity is no defence and no bar to a charge of genocide (PDF p.76). The first two measures — suspension of military operations — are the only way to secure the humanitarian response; months of bombing and cutting off an entire population “cannot credibly be argued to be a manhunt for members of Hamas”, and intention matters as well as scale, since an operation carried out pursuant to an intention to destroy a people, in whole or in part, violates the Convention however carefully it is carried out: “That is why all military operations capable of violating the Genocide Convention must cease.” (PDF p.77-79). The sixth measure addresses Israel’s duty to prevent and punish incitement, of which, until the Attorney General’s reported intervention 36 hours earlier, its authorities had done “practically nothing” to stop the flow; “This case is important. Lives are at stake. Israel’s credibility and reputation are at stake.”; the seventh seeks preservation of evidence, and the eighth specific reports, because “General assurances are not enough” (PDF p.79). On self-defence, the Wall opinion is relied on — the threat emanated from territory under Israel’s own control, so Article 51 had no relevance — but “The main point is much simpler”: “no matter how monstrous or appalling an attack or provocation, genocide is never a permitted response”, and the prohibition is “an absolute, peremptory rule of law” (PDF p.80-81). Unilateral undertakings are not enough, for three reasons including the Court’s pivotal role under Article IX, and “it is vitally important that States respect the Court and their procedural obligations”; “This is not a moment for the Court to sit back and be silent” (PDF p.81-82).
  • Vusimuzi Madonsela, Final Submissions, and the close of the sitting (PDF p.82-85). The indication of provisional measures is without prejudice to the merits, yet the evidence indicates “grave violence and genocidal acts against the Palestinians in Gaza, in flagrant contravention of the Genocide Convention”; the consequences of not indicating “clear and particularized, specific, provisional measures” would be very grave for Palestinians in Gaza, the integrity of the Convention, South Africa’s rights and the reputation of the Court (PDF p.82-83). Madonsela then reads the nine measures requested verbatim, in the same terms as the Registrar read them at the opening (PDF p.83-84; see the President’s introduction above). The President thanks the Agent, whose statement brings to an end South Africa’s single round of oral argument and the morning’s sitting; the Court will meet again on 12 January 2024 at 10 a.m. to hear Israel’s single round; the Court rose at 1.20 p.m. (PDF p.85).

Key passages

  • “I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as judge honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously.” (Judges ad hoc Moseneke and Barak, PDF p.13)
  • “no armed attack on a State’s territory no matter how serious — even an attack involving atrocity crimes — can provide any justification for, or defence to, breaches of the Convention, whether as a matter of law or morality” (Lamola, PDF p.19-20)
  • “nowhere is safe in Gaza” (the UN Secretary-General, as quoted by Hassim, PDF p.23)
  • “The order itself was genocidal.” (Hassim, on the 13 October 2023 evacuation order, PDF p.26)
  • “Genocides are never declared in advance.” (Hassim, PDF p.30)
  • “remember what Amalek has done to … you” (Netanyahu, as quoted by Ngcukaitobi, PDF p.33-34)
  • “The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible.” (Ngcukaitobi, PDF p.42)
  • “In such a convention the contracting States do not have any interests of their own; they merely have, one and all, a common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d’être of the convention.” (the Court’s Reservations Advisory Opinion, as quoted by Du Plessis, PDF p.53)
  • “Gaza has become a place of death and despair … Gaza has simply become uninhabitable.” (Under-Secretary-General Martin Griffiths, as quoted by Ní Ghrálaigh, PDF p.57)
  • “We did what we could. Remember us.” (hand-written message by an MSF doctor on a hospital whiteboard, as described by Ní Ghrálaigh, PDF p.72)
  • “Gaza as we know it no longer exists. This is an annihilation. This is a genocide.” (Pastor Munther Isaac, as quoted by Ní Ghrálaigh, PDF p.72)
  • “Hamas is not a State and cannot be a party to the Genocide Convention; and cannot be a party to these proceedings.” (Lowe, PDF p.76)
  • “no matter how monstrous or appalling an attack or provocation, genocide is never a permitted response” (Lowe, PDF p.80-81)

Evidence the work relies on

  • As presented by the speakers, in order: CERD concluding observations and its 21 December 2023 warning; OHCHR statements of 16 November 2023 and the warnings of UN Special Rapporteurs and Working Group members; UNRWA statements including the “silent killer” description of the siege; OCHA Flash Updates and reported-impact reports (statistics stated to be up to date to 9 January 2024), including the casualty, displacement and housing figures in Hassim’s speech; the Secretary-General’s 6 December 2023 letter invoking Article 99; UNICEF, WHO, WFP, IPC, UNFPA and ICRC statements; press investigations and reports (New York Times and CNN on two-thousand-pound bombs, +972 Magazine, Irish Times, Guardian, Sky News); the ICTR Akayesu judgment; the Court’s orders in The Gambia v. Myanmar and its judgments and opinions in South West Africa, Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom, Reservations, Bosnia v. Serbia, Croatia v. Serbia and the Wall Advisory Opinion; ICTY judgments (Jelisić, Popović, Krstić); televised addresses, tweets and videos of Israeli officials, Knesset members, soldiers and commentators, each footnoted with its source and translation credit; DIRCO statements, the Notes Verbales of 21 December 2023, 27 December 2023 and 4 January 2024 (in the judges’ folder), and Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs FAQ of 6 December 2023; and the ILC Articles on State Responsibility.
  • In the speeches completed in PDF p.54-85, additionally: the ICTY Furundžija judgment on erga omnes obligations; the Court’s provisional-measures orders in Bosnia, Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Canada and Netherlands v. Syria, Georgia v. Russian Federation, Armenia v. Azerbaijan, Qatar v. United Arab Emirates, Iran v. United States, DRC v. Uganda, Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, Guyana v. Venezuela, LaGrand, Avena and Jadhav; UNSC resolutions 2712 and 2720 and UNGA resolutions ES-10/21 and ES-10/22 and resolution 96 (1946); UNOSAT’s damage assessment of 26 November 2023; Save the Children, MSF, CARE, UNCTAD, UNESCO and CPJ statements and figures; Press TV (27 December 2023), cited at footnote 196 for the “unmatched” horror description; the Secretary-General’s remarks of 22 December 2023 on measuring the humanitarian operation; Pastor Munther Isaac’s Christmas Day sermon; and press reports on the Attorney General’s reported intervention on incitement (YNetNews, 9 January 2024) and on two-thousand-pound and dumb bombs (CNN, Washington Post).

Analysis

This is a court record, not an argument by its publisher: the speeches are South Africa’s advocacy at the provisional-measures stage, and every factual figure and quotation in the record is South Africa’s presentation of its sources, footnoted to the UN, press or official material it cites. The speeches are structured to the Court’s provisional-measures criteria in sequence — acts capable of falling within the Convention, intent, prima facie jurisdiction, plausible rights and their link to the measures, urgency and irreparable prejudice, and the measures themselves — and close by reading the nine measures verbatim a second time. The daily averages in Ní Ghrálaigh’s speech are presented by her as computed from the OCHA totals she footnotes (“on the basis of the current figures”, PDF p.59). Israel’s answer is not in this record; it was scheduled for the sitting of 12 January 2024 (PDF p.16, p.85).

People, organizations, places and events

Vusimuzi Madonsela, Ronald Lamola, Adila Hassim, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, John Dugard, Max du Plessis, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Vaughan Lowe, Dikgang Moseneke, Aharon Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, Isaac Herzog, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel Katz, Amichai Eliyahu, Ghassan Alian, Philippe Lazzarini, International Court of Justice, South Africa, Israel, Gaza, South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention), Genocide Convention, Hamas, UNRWA, Knesset

Concepts

Genocide, Genocidal intent, Provisional measures, Erga omnes obligations, Nakba, Apartheid, Self-determination

How it relates to other sources

Open questions

  • Footnote dates conflict inside the record as printed: OCHA Flash Update #88 is dated 9 Jan. 2023 in Hassim’s footnotes 21 and 36 (“The statistics in this speech are up to date to 9 Jan. 2023”, PDF p.23, p.25) while her text says the statistics are up to date as of 9 January 2024 (PDF p.23) and Ngcukaitobi’s footnote 72 dates the same update 9 Jan. 2024 (PDF p.32). Both datings are recorded as printed.
  • Lamola’s Mandela quotation is footnoted to an address at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Pretoria, dated “(4 Dec. 1967)” as printed, while the footnote’s URL is to a 1997 speech (PDF p.19, footnote 7). Recorded as printed.
  • Dugard states South Africa proposed a meeting “on 5 January 2023” in its 4 January 2024 Note Verbale passage (PDF p.45), in a sequence that is otherwise January 2024. Recorded as printed.
  • Hassim’s fourth Article II(c) way is headed in the text as printed “The fourth genocidal act under Article II (b)” (PDF p.29, para. 31), although its content is the assault on the healthcare system under her Article II(c) argument. Recorded as printed.
  • Ngcukaitobi’s paragraph 15 dates the COGAT address to 9 October 2023 in the main text (PDF p.34), while footnote 86 cites the video address by Ghassan Alian as 10 Oct. 2023 (PDF p.34). Both dates are recorded as printed and are not reconciled.
  • Ben-Gvir’s televised interview is dated 10 November 2023 in the main text of Ngcukaitobi’s paragraph 18 (PDF p.35), while footnote 90 cites the interview with Itamar Ben-Gvir on Channel 12 as 11 Nov. 2023 (PDF p.35). Both dates are recorded as printed and are not reconciled.
  • Slips as printed, recorded without correction: the HRW report title “Starvation Used as Weapon of Wat in Gaza” (PDF p.28, footnote 51); “United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA)” (PDF p.29, footnote 65); the handle “@UNReliefCHief” (PDF p.31, footnote 69); and the village name “Hirbet Ahza” (PDF p.37).
  • Footnote dates in Ní Ghrálaigh’s speech repeat the part 1 pattern of a year slip as printed: footnote 235 dates the OCHA reported-impact report for Day 84 “29 Dec. 2024” (PDF p.62), in a sequence that is otherwise December 2023 to January 2024; footnotes 202, 205, 207, 212, 217, 224, 228 and 255 date January 2024 items to 2023 as printed (+972 Magazine, 5 Jan. 2023, PDF p.58; the New Yorker Husain interview, 3 Jan. 2023, PDF p.59; OCHA reported impact Day 94, 9 Jan. 2023, PDF p.59-60; OCHA reported impact Day 90, 5 Jan. 2023, PDF p.61; OCHA Flash Update #86, 7 Jan. 2023, PDF p.65), while footnote 207’s own note says “The statistics are up to date until 9 January 2024 throughout” (PDF p.59). All are recorded as printed and are not reconciled.
  • Lowe spells the preceding speaker’s name “Ms Ní Grálaigh” (PDF p.74), against “Ní Ghrálaigh” everywhere else in the record. Recorded as printed.
  • Slips as printed in part 2, recorded without correction: a doubled punctuation mark after the footnote marker following the words horror movie (PDF p.63); and “3.The Court does not at this stage have to determine” (PDF p.73, spacing as printed).

Coverage

PDF p.1-85 of 85, read in full in 2 parts (part 1: PDF p.1-53; part 2: PDF p.54-85).

Graph View

Backlinks