Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/20

 homes. We are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we’ll break their backbone.”

On 13 October 2023, Mr Israel Katz, then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure of Israel, stated on X (formerly Twitter):

"“We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in [G]aza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”"

53. The Court also takes note of a press release of 16 November 2023, issued by 37 Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and members of Working Groups part of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which they voiced alarm over “discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials”. In addition, on 27 October 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination observed that it was “[h]ighly concerned about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians since 7 October”.

54. In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.

55. The Court now turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested.

56. South Africa considers that a link exists between the rights whose protection is sought and the provisional measures it requests. It contends, in particular, that the first six provisional measures were requested to ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, while the last three are aimed at protecting the integrity of the proceedings before the Court and South Africa’s right to have its claim fairly adjudicated.

57. Israel considers that the measures requested go beyond what is necessary to protect rights on an interim basis and therefore have no link with the rights sought to be protected. The Respondent contends, inter alia, that granting the first and second measures sought by South Africa (see