The Lawyering at ICJ

Lawyering is lawyering.

However, my hope is this (and I'm no expert nor a lawyer):

For indication of provisional measures, the bar is far lower than judging on the merits. It's only needed to establish that there's a plausible risk of genocide if the current pattern of actions continues, even if they are not intended to achieve this particular end.

To effectively reduce the likelihood of genocidal irreparable damage, a cessation of hostilities must immediately be put into effect to allow essentials of life:

* Food and water "distribution" and not just delivery

* Electricity

* Shelter in the winter

* Access to medications and medical supplies and equipment

* Healthcare services

* First respondent services

* Relief efforts and access to support from international organizations

* Fact-finding missions for the purpose of how to prevent or reduce the risks of high rate of fatalities - and I'm not even mentioning evidence for the case.

So, in my humble judgment, it is practically extremely unlikely for the court to find that provisional measures are not indicated while maintaining ANY SHRED of credibility.

Since I'm not an expert nor a lawyer, the court probably realizes that many members of the public, watching in disbelief for the last 100 days how the events have horrifically unfolded, will probably reach the same conclusions and hence, it becomes extremely difficult for the court to disavow logic.

..

Moreover, the preemptive judgment from the US, Britain and Germany Administrations, may in fact work against their intent, if their intent was indeed malicious. The court should be offended, that pre-judgment comes with such certainty while the court hasn't even heard, let alone deliberated on, the case.

Saying that this prejudgment came after reading the 84-page submission of South Africa is ludicrous, because South Africa introduced new evidence in its statements and Israel also introduced defense which was not known beforehand.

So, in summary, the arrogant manner in which "politicians", some are already in disrepute, dismissed the case as meritless, sounded like dismissing the court itself, rather than the case; and judging for it, not even on its behalf, because the court didn't seek assistance or consultation, as far as the public knows anyway.

If I were one of those 15 or 17 judges, I will take extreme offence in this alone. But hey, I'm not.

In response to:

https://x.com/gcramer30/status/1746269643767951676?s=20