Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/36

 13. Soon after the 7 October attack, Israel, in exercise of what it describes as “its right to defend itself”, launched a “military operation” into the Gaza Strip whose objective was, first, to defeat Hamas and its network and, secondly, to rescue the Israeli hostages. South Africa claims that as a result of the armed conflict that ensued between Israel and Hamas over the past 11 weeks, 1.9 million Palestinians living in Gaza (85 per cent of the population) have been internally displaced; over 22,000 Palestinians, including over 7,729 children, have been killed; over 7,780 are missing and/or presumed dead under the rubble; over 55,243 are severely injured or have suffered mental harm; and vast areas of Gaza, including entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed including 355,000 homes, places of worship, cemeteries, cultural and archaeological sites, hospitals and other critical infrastructure.

14. On 28 December 2023, South Africa filed an Application with the Registry instituting proceedings against Israel concerning alleged violations of the Genocide Convention. South Africa alleges that the acts taken by Israel against the Palestinian people in the wake of the attacks in Israel of 7 October 2023 are genocidal in character because “they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, that being the part of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip” (Application, para. 1). In South Africa’s view, Israel has violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention in several respects, including by failing to prevent genocide; committing genocide; and failing to prevent or punish the direct and public incitement to genocide. The requests of South Africa are accurately rehearsed in paragraph 2 of the Application.

15. In addition to the Application, South Africa has requested that the Court indicate provisional measures. The provisional measures requested by the Applicant at the end of its oral observations are accurately rehearsed in paragraph 11 of the Application. For its part, Israel, whilst acknowledging that the events of 7 October 2023 and the ensuing war between Hamas and Israel have wracked untold suffering on innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians, including unprecedented loss of life, protests the Applicant’s description of Israel’s conduct during this war as “genocide”. Israel argues that not every conflict is genocidal, nor does the threat or use of force necessarily constitute an act of genocide within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention. Israel maintains that, in view of the ongoing threat, brutality and lawlessness of Hamas that it continues to face, it has an inherent and legitimate duty to protect the Israeli people and territory, in accordance with international humanitarian law, from attack by an armed group or groups that have openly declared their intention to annihilate the Jewish State. In Israel’s view, South Africa’s present request for the indication of provisional measures is tantamount to an attempt to deny Israel its ability to meet its legal obligation to defend its citizens, rescue its hostages still in Hamas custody and to enable the over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis to safely return to their homes. In its oral observations, Israel requests the Court to reject South Africa’s Request for the indication of provisional measures and to remove the case from the General List.

16. The Court has, through its jurisprudence, progressively developed legal standards or criteria to determine whether it should exercise its power under Article 41 of its Statute to indicate provisional measures. In the present case, the Court should determine (1) whether it has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain the alleged dispute between the Parties (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 217, para. 24; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, pp. 9-17, paras. 16-42); (2) whether the rights asserted by South Africa are plausible and have a link with the requested measures (Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations,