Why did South Africa file the application?

SOUTH AFRICA SERIES PART 2

Genocide is a terrible  human disease. It decays and destroys humanity. It turns humans into monsters. In fact, no other species of living creature commits the monstrosity of genocide like humans do.

Genocide consists of acts that concern humanity as a whole. Humans and all living beings are harmed by acts of genocide. Humanity needs a new civilization. The fake civilization we live in consists merely of a genocidal, cruel, bloodthirsty monstrosity.

South Africa's decision to file the application was born out of the indifference of an international order where states condemn what is happening but take no concrete steps, out of the rabidness of the US, the EU, and Israel, and out of their monstrosity. It was born out of the genocidal nature of Western Civilization, which wears a mask of humanity and civilization. South Africa's decision is the fulfillment of the duty to save the  honor of humanity. 

The Genocide Convention imposes an obligation on states not to commit genocide and to prevent it. As interpreted by the Court in its 2007 judgment in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, states are under an obligation to employ all reasonable measures to prevent genocide. In other words, South Africa, like every state party to this convention, has the authority to bring these events before the Court. 

Conversely, states that do not resort to this measure when it is possible to prevent genocide by bringing these events before the Court would be in violation of their obligations under the first article of the Convention. Thus, unlike other states, South Africa chose to bring the case before the Court as a matter of obligation rather than merely condemning what is happening. 

South Africa's prioritization of this issue and its decision to bring the case before the Court is undoubtedly significantly influenced by the system of racial discrimination it experienced and its historical memory in this context. 

South Africa, having suffered a unique form of oppression regarding  racial discrimination and genocide,  did not settle for mere condemnations, acting with this sensitivity and a desire to ensure that other people do not experience this monstrosity. 

 QUESTION:

What can Turkey do after this stage?

 ANSWER:

As a UN member, Turkey is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It is one of the countries that ratified the Genocide Convention, which is the basis of the case. Therefore, in accordance with the rules regarding the Court's jurisdiction, there is no obstacle for Turkey to make the same application that South Africa has made. 

There is no situation that would prevent Turkey from making a similar application after this stage. In such a case, the Court would consider applications made by other countries, such as Turkey, together with the application made by South Africa.

Or, instead of making a separate application, Article 63 of the Statute allows for the option of joining the application filed by South Africa. According to the relevant article, if the dispute concerns a multilateral treaty to which other states are signatories, the Registry notifies the other signatory states, and every state so notified has the right to intervene. The case in question relates to the Genocide Convention, a multilateral treaty to which Turkey is also a party, and it is possible for Turkey to intervene in this case. 

QUESTION:

What would be the effect of the Court ruling in line with South Africa's requests?

ANSWER:

The Court has found the arguments put forward by South Africa to be justified. 

If the final ruling also turns out this way, similar cases experienced within the framework of international law  the events are characterized as genocide. 

A decision must be rendered that serves as a source of international law, establishing that Israel and those participating in these actions have committed the crime of genocide. This decision will serve as sufficient legal justification and evidence for Israeli officials to be tried and punished in national courts capable of prosecuting the crime of genocide under universal jurisdiction, as well as in the  International Criminal Court. 

If what Israel has carried out in Gaza is not characterized as genocide, the Court will be unable to characterize any future event as genocide.

Article 94/2 of the UN Charter regulates how to proceed in the event of non-compliance with the decisions rendered by the Court. 

Accordingly, if one of the parties to a dispute fails to fulfill the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council. The Security Council may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment. Since these decisions to be taken by the Security Council are substantive, they require the affirmative vote of nine of the 15 members, including the concurring votes of the five permanent members (USA, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China) Given the stance taken by the USA, the United Kingdom, and France since the beginning of the issue, it is doubtful that they would vote in favor of a decision to adopt coercive measures to implement the Court's ruling. Even if such a decision were to be made, it should not be forgotten that Israel has a track record of failing to comply with Security Council resolutions.

“It can take years to reach a final decision.” This reality should not be forgotten by decision-makers.  

QUESTION:

Is the case baseless and unfounded?

ANSWER:

The monstrous and savage state of the USA claims that the case is baseless and unfounded. On the contrary, the genocide has taken place and continues to take place before the eyes of all humanity. The statements, documents, and evidence that clearly reveal the events and actions  It proves the unhesitating righteousness of the Republic of South Africa.

The US is also guilty alongside Israel due to both its weapons support and advisory support. In fact, without the US, Israel could not have committed this crime of genocide.

The US administration has already announced that it strongly opposes South Africa's case. Here is a crime of genocide for you: The White House National Security Advisor declared the case "meritless" and "actually completely baseless" to be. So much for supporting genocide.

The lawyers representing South Africa are supporting their 84-page indictment with images projected in the courtroom, accusing Israel of the crime of genocide.

The indictment prepared by South Africa states that as a result of the bombings carried out by the Israeli army in Gaza, one of the most densely populated regions in the world, more than 23,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed, and at least 1.9 million Gazans have been displaced.

In the indictment, referencing the recent statements of 8 countries, including Turkey, Brazil, and Iran, which have accused Israel of genocide, it is argued that Israel is fully aware of the serious concerns expressed by the international community.

South Africa cited statements made by Israeli officials as the basis for this claim.

In the indictment Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant's "We are fighting human animals" and Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu's "a nuclear attack on Gaza is among the options" statements were included.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's, reference to the "biblical enemy of the Israelites, Amalek," is pointed out in the indictment, while far-right Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, are highlighted for calling for a "migration project" at a time when they argued it was time to convince as many Palestinians as possible to leave the Gaza Strip. It was emphasized that they made these calls.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog The indictment, which includes numerous statements by other officials denying the presence of innocent or uninvolved civilians in Gaza, argues that all of this proves Israel's determination to commit genocide.

In the lawsuit filed by South Africa on December 29, it was emphasized that Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip are “genocidal in nature.” The petition argues that Israel has

“a specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of a broader national, racial, and ethnic group.” Stating that Israel has violated the United Nations (UN) Genocide Convention, the Republic of South Africa requested the issuance of provisional measures to immediately suspend Israel's military operations in Gaza. The application highlights that these actions constitute a clear breach of international obligations.

South Africa's legal team maintains that the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant urgent intervention by the court.

The UN Genocide Convention, signed in 1948, imposes an obligation on signatory countries to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.