32. In conclusion, I am not convinced that the rights asserted by South Africa are plausible under the Genocide Convention, in so far as the acts complained of by the Applicant do not appear to fall within the scope of that Convention. While those acts may amount to grave violations of IHL, they are prima facie, not accompanied by the necessary genocidal intent. I also am of the view that the provisional measures requested by South Africa and not linked to the asserted rights.

Because Israel didn't come her today with a signed letter stating that they do in fact unequivocally intend to commit genocide I cannot rule on whether they might be likely to commit genocide.

She then goes on to recap in short the previously presented rationales for why the measures aren't warrented, which I'll only post the title because...

V. THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES INDICATED BY THE COURT ARE NOT WARRANTED

...buried in this section is the personal, not legal, opinion that of course needs to be on the record so that, oh say... pro-Israel media could use it to spin the results of a case they and she knew they'd lose perhaps?

34. Lastly, a word about the Israeli hostages that remain in the custody of their captors and their families. I join the majority in expressing the Court’s grave concern about the fate of the hostages (including children, babies, women, the elderly and sometimes entire families) still held in custody by Hamas and other armed groups following the attack on Israel of 7 October 2023, and in calling for their “immediate and unconditional release” (See Order, paragraph 85).

Is Israel one of those unnamed "armed groups" or do innocent Palestinians, in the high thousands and far more credibly reported to have been subject to the kind of mistreatment, torture, and rape she seems to just take as a given that Israeli hostages were, not count in as part of that grave concern? Because "custody" sure is an interesting (and weasely) use of a phrase their when previously Hamas only 'kidnapped' even adult military personnel. Sounds like someone is trying to cover their ass just a little, without tipping off the Israeli audience they're playing to.

In its Request for provisional measures, South Africa emphasised that both Parties to these proceedings have a duty to act in accordance with their obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the situation in Gaza, leaving one wondering what positive contribution the Applicant could make towards defusing the ongoing conflict there. During the oral proceedings in the present case, it was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas. If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture

So South Africa can't meaningfully affect the situation and aren't really party to it, which is why she could disregard so many of the proposed measures. But she also just has to make the point that maybe South Africa is actually best mates with Hamas. (I wonder who brough that supposed relationship to the attention of the court in 'oral proceedings', meaning without supportive evidence? Who knows, it's just one of those things I guess). And therefore South Africa should get involved in politics and diplomacy (which is not her place our the court's to speak on remember) and tell their mates Hamas to just release the hostages and for nothing in return.

So if South Africa can't bring the case because it doesn't have any influence to the parties. But actually, maybe it does, and could just use it to achieve Israel's goals, because if it doesn't then it's responsible for the terrible crimes happening to the hostages too. Not in a legal sense or based on any evidence of course, just in her (not) political and (not ) diplomatic opinion.

I have no doubt that such a gesture of good will would go a very long way in defusing the current conflict in Gaza.

Then I'm sorry, but you're either full of shit or totally fucking brainded, and I'm going with the former.

VI. CONCLUSION 35. For all the above reasons, I do not believe that the provisional measures indicated by the Court in this Order are warranted and have accordingly voted against them. I reiterate that in my respectful opinion the dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political one, calling for a diplomatic or negotiated settlement, and for the implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions by all parties concerned, with a view to finding a permanent solution whereby the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can peacefully coexist.

It's so complicated! I can't say what should happen (except where I just did). I just wish everyone could live in peace, but for now Israel... you crack on and don't forget to use my useful personal notes as spin to cover your asses while you do so.

So there we have it. Based upon her primary issuing all the way through being that her standards for genocidal intent are apparently thowing themselves on the courtroom floor and screaming "we're doing genocide, we're guilty, look at all these signed confessions" I don't see how she could ever rule for enforcing measures under the Genocide Convention realistically, even in other cases.

So the only real question I have left now is, why is she sitting on the court at all?