Talk:South Africa's genocide case against Israel

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The International Court of Justice

• ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice also accuses Israel of apartheid? Source: [1][2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ingush towers

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

New article, long enough, fully supported by both primary and secondary source provided, and is interesting. No problems facing the bold-linked articles. QPQ has been done. The hook is neutral and factual and does not hold any opinions. The nomination is good to go. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose that User:Makeandtoss will review this nomination he is involved in this WP:CTOP WP:ARBPIA area we need another reviewer that is not involved in the area. Suggest NPOV hook

• ALT1: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice but Israel denies it as a blood libel Source: [3],[4] --Shrike (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as you oppose my review, which is based on WP guidelines, nor is there such a thing as requiring another reviewer who is not involved in the area. The original hook is factual and does not have opinions in it, unlike the one you suggested. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The WP:DYKRR is clear "use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest." you edited this article and other articles in the WP:CTOP area. The original hook gives only prominence of South Africa POV so there is nothing neutral in it --Shrike (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've had people edit an article of mine before and edit in the topic area in question and still approve my nomination. It's not really that bit of a deal, so long as they are properly going through the requirements of approval. By the way, your proposed ALT is way more biased than the original hook and, considering you publicly state on your account that you are from Israel, you're the one that looks like they have a conflict of interest here and really should not be proposing such a hook. Silverseren^C 16:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 is grammatically incorrect. starship.paint (RUN) 12:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose original formulation and ALT1. The original proposal throws in the apartheid allegation, which is out of scope of the Genocide Convention and will not be adjudicated by the ICJ. ALT1 also cites an emotive and non-substantive "blood libel" rebuttal rather than the actual reasons that Israel denied the charges at the ICJ, namely that they are acting in self-defense and that the official directives of the authorities conducting the war do not show any genocidal intent. ALT3 seems to be best alternative, as it is a NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on (in the short term). --Chefallen (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the Israeli legal team argued that the International Court of Justice had no jurisdiction over the war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship.paint (RUN) 12:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me as a good suggestion though in my opinion the article is not stable yet Shrike (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Starship.paint: no objection in principle, and the proposed hook is entirely factual. My concern is that the statement leads a reader to assume that by jurisdiction we mean something it doesn’t mean. Shaw’s argument on the topic of jurisdiction was: (1) a procedural question about whether SA had given Israel enough time to discuss ahead of the case, and (2) whether there really is enough evidence to confirm the proposed facts of the case and the intent required therein. Plus none of this technical argument is currently explained in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have to look into this once I am free. I think we have time as the article will stabilize in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 23:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right Onceinawhile, I found a source giving a description that roughly matches (1), whether there was an actual dispute between South Africa and Israel regarding their responses to each other. In that case ALT2 is potentially misleading. I've withdrawn it in the meantime. starship.paint (RUN) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that South Africa's genocide case against Israel is aimed at persuading the International Court of Justice to order a ceasefire in Israel's war in Gaza? Source: Haaretz starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support this version. NPOV statement of fact that gets at the heart of the issue that the ICJ has been asked to rule on, unlike original and ALT1. --Chefallen (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chefallen and Shrike: - would either of you like to approve ALT3 then and mark this nomination as ready? I mean, the opposition to original hook and ALT1 is clear, surely the DYK promoter would not choose those. starship.paint (RUN) 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As the court rejected the cease fire demand we need to reflect this in hook [5] --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT3 is factually incorrect taking a strict view. And its given source is dated Jan 11, well before the recent Order with detailed discussion, so the source is speculative. South Africa did not ask for a two sided "ceasefire". Going to the ICJ judgement, it records that South Africa asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-sided "suspension", not a "ceasefire". So a DNY claiming something that is demonstrably not in the actual Order is a pretty silly. The ICJ did in fact order a provisional measure that Israel prevent the commission of "(a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", (measure 1 on pages 24-25) where "group" is roughly the Palestinian population of Gaza, so did in fact order something approximating to what SA asked. (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. ALT3 is simply not correct - the case is aimed at stopping an actual or potential genocide, depending on your point of view. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Struck. starship.paint (RUN) 02:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What was wrong with the original main hook again? It was completely factual per the ICJ filing by South Africa and is interesting because apartheid isn't as much discussed about the filing as compared to the genocide aspect. Silverseren^C 02:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that during South Africa's genocide case against Israel, the International Court of Justice initially ordered Israel to "punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza? Source: ABC News starship.paint (RUN) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• ITN Note that the article has also been nominated for ITN and so won't be eligible for DYK if it is posted there. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• The ITN nomination was not approved so the nomination can proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT4 is short enough, interesting, and cited, though the site is down and you will need this archived link. Anyone who wants to come at me with why I should approve a different hook may do so. I personally choose not to promote articles in the throes of a requested move to avoid risking having a redirect on the main page, but while we're waiting:

Refs 78 and 135 are malformed (78 uses a [1] for a title, 135 has a bare URL).

Ref 184 is cited to TASS and refs 64, 138, 185, 220 are cited to Anadolu Agency, which are both listed at WP:RSP as being unreliable, and ref 181 claims to cite Anadolu Agency when it instead cites A.com.tr, instead of Aa.com.tr. Can these be remedied?--Launchballer 03:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Launchballer: this has now been remedied. I left the AA/TASS sources in only two places, where they were supporting a direct quote from a Russian politician. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: There is a tag in the Ruling on provisional measures section. Please fix it and then ping me Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst: this has been resolved (I removed the offending text and removed the tag). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Map „Stances of states“ Not up-to-date

Map needs an update 2A01:599:100:E0EB:AD8E:56B6:7411:499C (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean the map of stances? Could you please indicate what part of it is no up to date and suggest some sources? Paul Duffill (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

From what I could tell, the only updates needed are Spain and Ireland. CheezyCheddar (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Transcript" section only lists "provisional measures" documents not the links to all of the case's transcripts

For example Bosnian genocide case (in the equivalent section) links to both written and oral proceedings. So I suggest we replace or supplement the "provisional measures" submissions with: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/written-proceedings and https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings . Paul Duffill (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

And Rohingya genocide case links to the official case page (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/178) which is similar to the two transcripts links I put above. Paul Duffill (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the lead section need to list the full official name of the case?

With my sincerest apologies to Gsgdd because we hashed this out a bit on their talk page with them ultimately self-reverting... actually, that discussion (and taking a walk through List of International Court of Justice cases) has gotten me thinking: obviously the lead should refer to some form of the WP:OFFICIALNAME of the case (South Africa v. Israel at minimum, I'd say), but how are people feeling about keeping the full name there? Is it too much or is it fine as is?

And FYI, if anyone would like to do the first sentence opening with the legal citation as some case articles do, that citation would currently be (in Bluebook style)

South Africa v. Israel, No. 192 (ICJ 24 May 2024) (order indicating provisional measures).

Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

its an improvement. lets do it Gsgdd (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion, personally I don't mind the addition of the legal citation, or the removal of the full name. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... @Gsgdd and Makeandtoss: Alright, since I'm seeing these opinions in favor of the legal citation, I'll rework the lead section to incorporate it. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done here. Left out the date and case status explanatory parenthetical because even though they're technically part of the legal citation, they don't feel quite right placed in the text in this manner. I doubt anyone will object to just providing the General List number. Thanks Gsgdd for getting me thinking about this with your bold edit, I must admit it does look much better this way. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kinsio: It looks weird like a typo, I think we are better off using it in a footnote. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It does look a bit odd but I'd refer you to the articles Fisheries case, Asylum case, and Ambatielos case for comparison (or for a random example of a FA that uses this format, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke); since the 2024 volume of the ICJ reporter, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (abbreviated as "ICJ" in citations) has not yet been published, the citation is to the court docket number (for the ICJ, this is the General List number). Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

i made some small improvements. should we add `alleged` infront of the mass killing - because the case is ongoing ? Gsgdd (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The mass killings, more than 38,000 Palestinians by now, maybe even at least 48,000, is a fact and not an allegation. The ICJ is deliberating whether the level of mass killings has met the threshold of genocide and whether there is genocidal intent. So I would opposed the reintroduction of alleged. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Overdoing it with alleged is MOS:DOUBT and my least favorite verbal tic of journalists. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. "Alleged" is (over)used my media to cover their asses should anyone tried to sue them. They do it with all wrongdoing that has not been tried in court. We are an encylopaedia, though, and our cover is reliable sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to follow them; plenty of other ICJ cases that do not add this to the opening sentence. I think moving this into a footnote would be a satisfying middle ground. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I can absolutely do that. I think I'll check for other citations to the case at the same time when I do that to make sure I'm not duplicating anything. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 12:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

China

The article currently states that China supports South Africa's genocide case against Israel. However, the sole source provided for the claim is a news article describing a separate issue at the ICJ: "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion)"[6]. This is not South Africa's case. Has China explicitly supported South Africa's case? I can't find any news articles on Google that describe China's explicit support for South Africa's case. Until then, I argue that China should be removed from the list of countries supporting the South African case, and also removed from the image depicting them as such. JasonMacker (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)