Talk:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

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


Did you know nomination[edit]

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]

Lede[edit]

@Oncenawhile: I didn't understand your last edit summary here? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the idea is that the depth of coverage of the parties’ submissions in the lede should be the similar to avoid partiality. That is a reasonable principle, but I am not sure that the balance now is right. I have revised the relevant paragraphs to the following.
South Africa alleged that Israel had committed and was committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, contravening the Genocide Convention. South Africa requested that the ICJ indicate provisional measures including the immediate suspension of its military operations in and against Gaza.
Israel's Foreign Ministry characterized South Africa's charges as "baseless" and opposed South Africa's requests. Israel claimed that it was conducting a war of self-defense in accordance with international law following the Hamas-led attack on its territory on 7 October 2023.
  1. These are pretty much the same length (42 v 40 words).
  2. I have excluded details of legal representation from consideration because those seem balanced.
  3. I think that it was right to remove Israel blamed civilian casualties on Hamas and other militant groups for using civilian infrastructure as human shields. because the lede doesn’t mention South African submissions about them. I also think it is right to remove Israel stated it is facilitating humanitarian aid into the territory. because the lede doesn’t mention South African submissions about aid.
  4. Going into the detail of the submissions of either party seems to be inappropriate in the lede. I therefore removed the detail of South Africa’s contextualisation of the case in view of the occupation, blockade, and allegations of apartheid. I also removed Israel’s contextualisation of the case in view of rocket attacks and the kidnappings.
  5. In view of the § Lede (above) I changed ‘argued’ to ‘claimed’, so we have ‘alleged’ (South Africa) ‘claimed’, and ‘characterized’ (Israel). I hope @Makeandtoss: and @David A: have no objection to this distribution of verbs.
  6. I reinserted the central Israeli response, viz that it is conducting a war of self-defence. I do not think that this amounts to reporting on its detailed arguments, but the major dispute between the parties is whether Israeli operations are genocidal or legitimate self-defence.
Docentation (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most but not all.
  • The dispute is not whether Israel's actions are or are not self-defence, but whether they violate the Genocide Convention or not. In simple words, genocides in self-defence are also illegal. I'll remove references to self-defence because South Africa's accusation did not refer to that narrative of Israel, and the term "self-defence" is only mentioned once in the whole of ICJ order.
  • I see no reason to change "argued" to "alleged".
— kashmīrī TALK 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your suggestion then something like Israel claims that its operations following the Hamas-led attack on its territory on 7 October 2023 accord with international law? Ad 2, the article previously read ‘South Africa alleges…Israel argues’ and supposedly this is unfair to South Africa. This is why I changed it to ‘South Africa alleges…Israel claims’. See the section also (unhelpfully) titled ‘Lede’ above. Docentation (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it goes against our guideline MOS:CLAIMED. We'd better use words that don't express doubt in the veracity. — kashmīrī TALK 02:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kashmiri here. David A (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored mention of apartheid, occupation and blockade to the lede, as I didn't previously notice this was part of the changes mentioned. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "Israel–South Africa relations" Edit Request[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Under "See also"

−
+
Israel–South Africa relations
  • Why it should be changed:

That article directly mentions this one already. Additionally, it provides further historical background for this case.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Slaymaker1907 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this seems like an acceptable change. David A (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no issue with linking that page as a person who has edited it previously, in fact. Historyday01 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Ireland to countries that support the ICJ against Israel[edit]

Its officially confirmed that they will be intervening https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/world/middleeast/ireland-south-africa-israel-genocide-icj.html#:~:text=Ireland%20plans%20to%20file%20an,actions%20against%20civilians%20in%20Gaza. 78.17.25.255 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is misleading[edit]

It says "Decided: 26 January 2024". Only the request for provisional measures was decided, which is the rough equivalent of a preliminary injunction in some domestic legal systems. The substantive case is still ongoing, and is probably going to take several years to be resolved. Likewise, the "Verdict" is not the final decision, just the decision on provisional measures, it is not the verdict on the underlying dispute. This is like saying a verdict is reached in a lawsuit, when the court has only ruled on a motion for a preliminary injunction. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these seem like sensible and logical arguments, and agree that an adjustment of the wording seems appropriate. David A (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I just removed those two fields from the infobox for now, since that seems like the simplest solution. My understanding is those fields are meant to be used for the ultimate outcome of a case, not preliminary rulings along the way. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2024[edit]

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) → ? – (options added while RM was underway) Move to

  1. South Africa v. Israel, or
  2. South Africa's genocide case against Israel

– The "(Genocide Convention)" part of the name is not necessary since there is no other notable legal case filed by South Africa against Israel. Officially, the title of the case is Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), so this South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) name doesn't appear to have any official status, it seems to be just nomenclature Wikipedia editors have invented. Per the article title policy, we don't use disambiguating parentheses unless it is necessary to disambiguate with another article (there isn't one), or there is some other strong reason to do it (which there isn't either). SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose that makes the article seem something similar to a football match rather than an ICJ case involving genocide and egregious violations of international humanitarian law.
The common name should be used as demonstrated in the last move request which is the South Africa's genocide case against Israel and is still being used by RS till now. [6], [7], [8].
A more complete list here:[9] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and for consistency with Nicaragua v. Germany. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an analogous situation considering Israel is considered as the direct perpetrator of the genocide; and considering Israel is being labelled as such when the case is referred to in RS as a WP:COMMONNAME. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose – we routinely mention the case subject in articles about ICJ cases (see Category:International Court of Justice cases), since descriptive titles are of much more benefit to the reader compared with bare enumeration of parties. — kashmīrī TALK 13:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that I'd be fine with the alternative proposal of a rename to South Africa's genocide case against Israel. — kashmīrī TALK 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to replace a descriptive title with a meaningless one that could easily be about a football match. M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The related Nicaragua v. Germany doesn't have it, otoh not having the parens makes them sound like football matches or something, I said in an earlier RM I preferred the official name but if not then something like "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" as mentioned above might be the way to go. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa's genocide case against Israel is indeed the common name. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
X v. Y is standard naming convention for court cases. Nobody thinks Roe v. Wade was a football match. And for court cases at the national level, we don't normally mention the subject matter of the case in parenthesises, unless it is needed for disambiguation – it is Roe v. Wade, not Roe v. Wade (abortion) or anything else like that. And this is not just for US court cases, the same convention applies for those in other countries: Australia has e.g. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (the "No 2" is part of its standard title, to disambiguate it from the earlier Mabo v Queensland (No 1) case with the same parties); Canada e.g. Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya; UK e.g. Wells v Devani; the Netherlands e.g. State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation; I'm sure many other countries too. And we do the same thing for other international courts than the ICJ, see e.g. the European Court of Human Rights interstate case Cyprus v Turkey, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile, the European Court of Justice case Apostolides v Orams. Another example, we don't have an article on it, but in 2001 the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case entitled United Kingdom v. United States (in which the UK government unsuccessfully challenged a US court ruling that certain documents it desired to use in a UK criminal case were legally privileged and could not be released), and subsequent court decisions have cited that case. All that said, we aren't completely consistent on this topic, you can find various examples of court cases whose naming deviates from this norm – still, it seems well-established, so I think it should be applied here too, unless there is a strong reason not to. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-American, yes Roe v. Wade sounded like a football or wrestling match to me when I first learnt about it. Not a good analogy anyway as Roe v. Wade is a common name, while the common name here as demonstrated above is "South Africa's genocide case against Israel." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American either. But obviously "X v Y" is standard terminology for legal cases in most countries. I think people are forgetting that the topic area is law, and some standard conventions for that topic area should apply. In that topic area, nobody thinks "X v Y" is a sporting match instead of a court case. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Without noting the genocide convention in the title, it could confuse readers, and create misperceptions. I agree with Makeandtoss that the common name should be used instead. Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll make the same comment I made last time: No need to reinvent the wheel. It's sufficient (and, I'll add, necessary in this case) to note the parties to the litigation and the subject matter of the litigation. The "football match" comparison is a good reason to require a disambiguating parenthetical. Alternatively, I see some support for South Africa's genocide case against Israel which, while perhaps a bit wordy, may in fact be the common name. But I view the current wording as a reasonable abbreviation of the official title. There doesn't seem to be a consistent naming format for ICJ cases, and this title aligns more or less with others such as Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute case, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States), and, notably, Croatia–Serbia genocide case. WillowCity(talk) 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I could support South Africa-Israel genocide case, which is just similar to the South Africa's genocide case against Israel proposal which seems to be garnering growing consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that name as well. Historyday01 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is not a sports match, the title has to be specific and mention what this is all about, Genocide Convention next to the state's name. Deblinis (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly oppose this, for the above-stated reasons. David A (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I also Support moving this page to "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" instead. David A (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as we use descriptive titles for most ICJ cases, and this one is especially deserving of description – not minimization. Detsom (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT with the analogous Nicaragua v. Germany and per WP:MISPLACED. The base name and move target South Africa v. Israel already (improperly) redirects here, so there is no disambiguation issue that is being solved by the parenthetical qualifier. If there are other pages that need disambiguation, then a disambiguation page and/or hatnotes are needed, but the status quo is untenable according to WP:QUALIFIER policy. If a descriptive title is desirable, which I would not oppose, it needs to be one without a parenthetical qualifier unless there is an obvious need for disambiguation with other topics covered on Wikipedia. If so, similar articles like Nicaragua v. Germany should be treated analogously, which could be addressed in a subsequent RM. For now, the proposed move improves the article title per WP:AT policy. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would also support the alternative of a move to South Africa's genocide case against Israel as a descriptive title. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: There is growing consensus that the article should be moved to South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Editors so far in support of the move: Makeandtoss, kashmīrī, Selfstudier, M.Bitton, Historyday01, WILLOWCITY, Pppery, Mdewman6. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: SomethingForDeletion given the above, would you agree to expanding the current move request to include this alternative name as well? — kashmīrī TALK 11:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how best it would be to structure that – amend the move proposal to have two options? Or open a new move discussion for the alternative proposal. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's common for RMs to close with a consensus to move to something other than that originally proposed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom Galamore (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed, support South Africa's genocide case against Israel nableezy - 19:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support the "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" name. Historyday01 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose South Africa v. Israel; support South Africa's genocide case against Israel, per seemingly emerging common name and consensus. Also per WP:NCDAB, which prefers natural disambiguation (versus all the sporting fixtures that "South Africa v. Israel" alone could represent) over parenthetical disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention)&oldid=1221077364"