text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/49

 addressed soldiers involved in hostilities in the Gaza Strip, I cannot plausibly exclude that such statements contribute to a potential failure by Israel to prevent and punish acts of public and direct incitement to genocide. Indeed, South Africa has provided evidence, not contradicted by Israel, that inflammatory parts of relevant statements have been echoed in a threatening way by members of the Israeli armed forces. This confirms that such statements may contribute to a “serious risk” that acts of genocide other than direct and public incitement may be committed, giving rise to Israel’s obligation to prevent genocide.

16. Statements by Israel and by United Nations agencies regarding the access of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to adequate food, water and other forms of humanitarian assistance differ significantly. United Nations agencies claim that there is a desperate lack of food and other goods necessary for the survival of the population. Their statements raise the question whether the Israeli authorities are unjustifiably restricting the delivery of food and other necessary goods to the entire civilian population in the Gaza Strip, or at least to substantial parts of the population. Under the circumstances and at the provisional measures stage, I think that weight must be given to the respective assessments of United Nations agencies regarding the circumstances of the existentially threatening situation of the group of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. I have therefore also voted in favour of measure (4).

17. South Africa has, in my view, shown that some, but not all, of the rights which it has alleged are plausible at the present preliminary stage of the proceedings (see paragraph 54 of the Order). I view the measures indicated by the Court today as responding to certain plausible risks for the rights of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip deriving from the Genocide Convention, and as reminding Israel of its obligations under that Convention.

(Signed) Georg.


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/50

28 SPEECHES [Feb. 27

should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion ; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong prin- ciple or practice, the fault is ours ; but this brings you to where you ought to have started — to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and de- nounced as such. Meet us, then, on the ques- tion of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge ? No ! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a mo- ment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Wash- ington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/51

 i860] at cooper union

29

had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the pro- hibition of slavery in the Northwestern Terri- tory, which act embodied the pohcy of the gov- ernment upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectional- ism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washing- ton himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.*

But you say you are conservative — eminently conservative — while we are revolutionary, de- structive, or something of the sort. What is con- servatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick

most explicitly warns against sectionalism is as follows :
 * The passage in Washington's Farewell Address which

"It is of infinite moment that you should properly esti- mate the immense value of your National Union to your collective and individual happiness, that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it ; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity ; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety ; and in'dignantly frowning upon the first dawning of any at- tempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/52

 30 SPEECHES [Feb. 27

to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the government under v/hich we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you dis- agree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave- trade ; some for a congressional slave code for the Territories ; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits ; some for maintaining slavery in the Ter- ritories through the judiciary; some for the "gur- reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastic- ally calle'l "popular sovereignty" ; but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the govern- ment under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advo- cate in the century within which our government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery ques- tion more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your inno- vation ; and thence comes the greater prominence


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/53

1860] AT COOPER UNION 31 of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it ; and what is your proof ? Harper's Ferry ! John Brown ! ! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it, or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

Some of you admit that no Republican de- signedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and dec- larations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the gov- ernment under which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elec- tions. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/54

 32 SPEECHES [Feb. 27

knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a con- tinual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with "our fathers who framed the government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism ; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to sim- ply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton in- surrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry ?* You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that South- ampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United

a negro, led an insurrection of his fellow slaves in the course of which more than sixty white people, most of them women and children, were massacred. The Abolitionists were charged with instigating the rising, but their historians deny the allegation, and no proof has come to light of their connection with the crime.
 * In August, 1831, at Southampton, Va., Nat Turner,


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/55

1860] AT COOPER UNION 33

States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. The in- dispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communica- tion ; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are every- where in parcels ; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mis- tresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an ex- ception to it, but a case occurring under pecu- liar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret ; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, be- trayed the plot to that friend, and, by conse- quence, averted the calamity. Occasional poi- sonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts ex- tending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peace- ably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/56

 34 SPEECHES [Feb. 27

will wear off insensibly ; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia ; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon,* and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eager- ness to cast blame on old England in the one

attempted the life of Napoleon III. on January 14, 1858. The plot had been hatched in London, and many French- men bitterly charged the British with complicity in the crime.
 * Felice Orsini was chief of a band of desperadoes that


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/57

1860] AT COOPER UNION 35

case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's book,* and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling — that sentiment — by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel ? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation ?

"The Impending Crisis of the South : How to Meet It," a book intended to show that slavery was inimical to the interests of the non-slaveholding Southern whites. Of this work, J. F. Rhodes says, in his "History of the United States from 1850":
 * Hinton R. Helper, a North Carolinian, wrote, in 1857,

_ "Although the writer's manner was highly emotional, sincerity flowed from his unpracticed pen. The facts were in the main correct ; the arguments based on them, in spite of being disfigured by abuse of the slave-holders, and weakened by threats, of violent action in a certain contingency, were unanswerable. . . . The burden of Helper's argument was that the abolition of slavery- would improve the material interests of the South by fostering manufactures and commerce, thus greatly increasing the value of land, the only property of the poor whites, and giving them a larger market for their products. The country and the cities would grow ; there would be schools, as at the North, for the education of their children, and their rise in the social scale would be marked. . . . Had the poor whites been able to read and comprehend


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/58

36 SPEECHES [Feb. 27

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound ; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be al- lowed to construe and force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

such an argument, slavery would have been doomed to destruction, for certainly seven voters out of ten in the slave States were non-slaveholding whites. It was this consideration that made Southern congressmen so furious, for to retain their power they must continue to hoodwink their poorer neighbors."

The book grew in favor in the North, and in 1859. it was published for propagandist purposes in a cheap edition, which received the written approval of a number of Republican Congressmen, including John Sherman, the candidate of his party for Speaker. Although Sherman explained that he had signed the indorsement by proxy in a moment of thoughtlessness, he could not dissipate the distrust of moderate Republicans whose votes were necessary for his election. A long contest ensued, which Sherman ended by retiring in favor of William Pennington of New Jersey, who was thought to be more conservative. Mr. Pennington was promptly elected.

In 1861 Lincoln arpointed Helper consul to Buenos Ayres.


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/59

1860] AT COOPER UNION 37

This, plainly stated, is your language. Per- haps you will say the Supreme Court has de- cided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the rea- sons for making it ; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact — the state- ment in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "dis- tinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution ; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there — "distinctly," that is, not mingled with any- thing else — "expressly," that is, in words mean- ing just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word


text:
Page:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu/60

38 SPEECHES [Feb. 27

"property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave or slavery ; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person" ; and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due" — as a debt payable in service or labor. Also it would be open to show, by contempo- raneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be prop- erty in man.

To show all this is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" — the men who made the Constitution — decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago : decided it without division among themselves when making the decision ; without division among themseves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this govern- ment unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president ! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the


text:
Wikisource:Requested texts/Archives/2024

Stories by Foreign Authors

 * This section was archived on a request by: MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Latter-Day Psalms (1914)

 * This section was archived on a request by: 16:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Latter-Day Psalms (1914) by Olaf Stapledon is the only work of his that seems to be PD. Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prosfilaes: File:Latter-Day Psalms.pdf. I can create an index as well, if you’d like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Scarface (1930 novel)

 * This section was archived on a request by: 16:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone be able to help in uploading an edition of the original Scarface novel by Armitage Trail (real name: Maurice R. Coons)?

I did some digging earlier, and discovered that the book was never renewed. I have found this edition and this other edition on Internet Archive as borrow books. Both feature covers that would need to be removed, but otherwise they appear to be the original unaltered text. And they make no further claims of copyrighted elements. I know these are not downloadable, but if anyone has these editions we can use them from other scan sources.

I'd like to see it get transcribed. And at worst it is definitively public domain in 2026. SDudley (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the author died of a heart attack only 9 months after the book was published, there was likely no one to renew the copyright. I have also checked and found no renewal in the usual databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for double checking! There was a new copyright for the book in 1960, but it was only for the new foreword added it seems. SDudley (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 * SDudley: I have ordered the book, it should hopefully come in fairly soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is greatly appreciated. I will not let the contribution go to waste. I will gladly be of help in transcribing. SDudley (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * SDudley: Here you go: File:Scarface.pdf. The image on the title page can be extracted from this file: File:Scarface-title.tif. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This is greatly appreciated. And it is nice to have something new to read. :) SDudley (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Images for The Ballad Literature and Popular Music of the Olden Time/Volume 1/Facsimiles

 * This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The Ballad Literature and Popular Music of the Olden Time contains facsimiles of several musical manuscripts, but the scans of facsimiles which we see in the source file are not of great quality. Plate 1 was easy to track down, and I found a source for Plate 5 with a little work, but the rest are giving me more trouble. I would like high-quality images for the following pages: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Plate 2.—“Ah, the syghes that come fro’ my heart,” from a manuscript of the time of Henry VIII., in the British Museum (MSS. Reg., Append., 58).
 * Plate 3.—“Green Sleeves,” from “William Ballet’s Lute Book.” In the library of Trinity College, Dublin (D. I. 21).
 * Plate 4.—“Sellenger’s Round,” from a manuscript in the Fitzwilliam Museum, at Cambridge, commonly known as “Queen Elizabeth’s Virginal Book.”
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: I have sent in a request for plates 2–5 to be scanned in high quality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: Here you go: File:Popular Music of the Olden Time (vol. 1 plates).pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you! Do you have the pages in an image format, or should I extract them from the PDF? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: I only received the PDF. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, good to know! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The Paddington Mystery (1925) by John Rhode / Cecil John Charles Street
It's a series starting mystery that's not completely unknown. Unfortunately, neither Archive.org, Hathitrust, or Google Books have it, with Abebooks having the first usable version at $599, with one at $51 from 1934 that might be usable. If I knew that that last one would be usable, I'd buy it, but six hundred is a little out of my budget.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Prosfilaes: I’ve ordered a copy of the 1925 edition through ILL; I’ll keep you updated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Prosfilaes: It has only just come in; the library was very hesitant to lend it. I should be able to scan it this week. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Prosfilaes: Here you go: File:The Paddington Mystery.pdf plus images (1, 2, 3). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Prosfilaes (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ratts Rhimed to Death
The Oxford Text Archive reportedly has scans of this work here, but requires institutional access, and I haven't been able to find scans elsewhere. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: I’ve sent for this. The text is easily available, but historically EEBO has been reticent to release scans. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: The previous having come in reminded me of this request, so I checked on it. Apparently, it didn’t go through in the first place, so I’ve put it back through. Sorry about that. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: The reel has just been shipped, I’ll try to scan it around the time it arrives. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: I’ve scanned in the files. At the moment, they’re all two pages to a file. I can correct this myself and then upload it, or I can upload it now and give you that work. It’s your choice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea., I'd appreciate it if you could correct the pages. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * CalendulaAsteraceae: Here you go: File:Ratts Rhimed to Death.pdf. There’s OCR, but I wouldn’t vouch for the quality. There’s also a fair amount of bleed-through, but none so bad as to be unreadable, I don’t think. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/50

1. South Africa came to the Court seeking the immediate suspension of the military operations in the Gaza Strip. It has wrongly sought to impute the crime of Cain to Abel. The Court rejected South Africa’s main contention and, instead, adopted measures that recall Israel’s existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Court has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its citizens and emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. The provisional measures indicated by the Court are thus of a significantly narrower scope than those requested by South Africa.

2. Notably, the Court has emphasized that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law”, which certainly includes Hamas. The Court has also stated that it “is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release” (see Order, para. 85).

3. The Genocide Convention holds a very special place in the heart and history of the Jewish people, both within and beyond the State of Israel. The term “genocide” was coined in 1942 by a Jewish lawyer from Poland, Raphael Lemkin, and the impetus for the adoption of the Genocide Convention came from the carefully planned and deliberate murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust.

4. I was five years old when, as part of Operation Barbarossa, the German army occupied the city in which I was born—Kaunas—in Lithuania. Within a few days, almost 30,000 Jews in Kaunas were taken from their homes and put into a ghetto. It was as if we were sentenced to death, awaiting our execution. On 26 October 1941, every Jew in the ghetto was instructed to gather in the central square, known as “Democracy Square”. Around 9,000 Jews were taken from the square on that day and executed by machine gun fire.

There was constant hunger in the overcrowded ghetto. But despite all the difficulties, there was an organized community life. It was a community of individuals condemned to death, yet in their hearts there was a spark of hope for life and a desire to preserve basic human dignity.

5. At the beginning of 1944, the Nazis rounded up all children under the age of 12, loaded them onto trucks and shot them during the infamous “Kinder Aktion”. It was clear that I had to leave in order to survive. I was smuggled out of the ghetto in a sack and taken to a Lithuanian farmer. A couple of weeks later my mother and I were transferred to another farmer. We had to be very discreet, so the farmer built a double wall in one of the rooms. We hid in that narrow space until we were finally liberated by the Red Army on 1 August 1944. Only five per cent of the Jews of Lithuania had survived.

6. Genocide is more than just a word for me; it represents calculated destruction and human behaviour at its very worst. It is the gravest possible accusation and is deeply intertwined with my personal life experience.

7. I have thought a lot about how this experience has affected me as a judge. In my opinion, the effect has been twofold. First, I am deeply aware of the importance of the existence of the State


text: Template:Library of Congress Classification/sandbox


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/51

 of Israel. If Israel had existed in 1939, the fate of the Jewish people might have been different. Second, I am a strong believer in human dignity. The Nazis and their collaborators sought to reduce us to dust and ashes. They aimed to strip us of our human dignity. However, in this, they failed. During the most challenging moments in the ghetto, we preserved our humanity and the spirit of humankind. The Nazis succeeded in murdering many of our people, but they could not take away our humanity.

8. The rebirth following the Holocaust is the rebirth of the human being, of the centrality of humanity and of human rights for every person. Many international instruments focusing on the rights of the individual were adopted after 1945, and the protection of human rights is also deeply rooted in the Israeli legal system.

9. Israel is a democracy with a strong legal system and an independent judicial system. Whenever there is tension between national security interests and human rights, the former must be attained without compromising the protection of the latter. As I have written: “Security and human rights go hand in hand. There is no democracy without security; there is no democracy without human rights. Democracy is based upon a delicate balance between collective security and individual liberty”.

10. The need for such balancing has served as a silver lining in the rulings of the Supreme Court of Israel. Once, in the midst of a military operation in Gaza, the Supreme Court ordered the army to repair the water pipes that had been damaged by army tanks, and to do so while the operation was still ongoing. On the same occasion, it ordered the army to provide humanitarian aid to civilians and to halt hostilities to allow for the burial of the dead. In its judgment on “targeted killings”, the Supreme Court ruled that Israel must always act in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that Israel must refrain from targeting terrorists when excessive harm to civilians is anticipated.

11. As a judge in the Israeli Supreme Court, I wrote that every Israeli soldier carries with him (or her), in their backpack, the rules of international law. This means that international law guides the actions of all Israeli soldiers wherever they are. I also wrote that when a democratic State fights terrorism, it does so with one hand tied behind its back. Even when fighting a terrorist group like Hamas that does not abide by international law, Israel must abide by the law and uphold democratic values.

12. The Israeli Supreme Court has also held that torture may not be used during the interrogation of terrorists, that religious sites and clergy must be protected, and that all captives must be afforded fundamental guarantees. Naturally, as in any democratic society, some of these rulings


text: Template:Library of Congress Classification/testcases


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/374

 BY MAHATMA GANDHI

THE STORY OF MY EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH

1

(AUTOBIOGRAPHY) Translated from the Gujarati by Mahadev Desai

This translation was revised by Gandhiji. “My purpose,” writes Gandhiji in the introduc- | tion, “being to give an account of various practical ( applications of the principles of Truth and Non-violence, I have given the chapters the title of The Story of My Experiments with Truth. My purpose is to describe experiments in the science of Satyagraha, not to say how good I am. In judging myself I shall try to be as harsh as truth, as I want others also to be.” Second Edition, Sixth Impression Pages xvi, 392 Popular Edition Rs.2.00 Postage etc. Rs 1.25 Standard „ Rs.4.00 „ „ Rs 1.40 Library „ Rs.7.00 » n Rs 1-40

GANDHIJI’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY [ABRIDGED]

The subject-matter of the Autobiography and Satyagraha in South Africa abridged for young people and others who would like to have full information about Gandhiji in a handy form. Pages xi, 294 Price Rs 2.00 Postage etc. 81 nP.

THE STORY OF MY LIFE [Specially prepared for use in schools with exercises in grammar]

In this abridgment matters which are not likely to be of much interest to school children have been omitted, and the language has been simplified where possible. I Pages viii, 208 Price Rs 1.50 Postage etc. 37 nP.

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/374


text:
Template:Portal review/styles.css

.wst-portal-review { background:#F9F9F9; color: #202122; border:#36A solid 1px; margin:10px 10px 10px 0px; } .wst-portal-review tr { vertical-align:top; } .wst-portal-review th, .wst-portal-review td { padding:0.25em; } .wst-portal-review th[colspan="2"] { background:#DDE; color: #202122; } .wst-portal-review .nodisplay { display:none; }

title: Template:Portal review/styles.css


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/52

 have been criticized in Israel. Still, the public stands behind them and the military upholds them on a regular basis. Rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court—many of them based on international law—are the standards by which Israel conducts itself.

13. International law is also an integral part of the military code and the conduct of the Israeli army. The Code of Ethics of the Israeli Defense Forces states that

"“[a]n IDF soldier will only exercise their power or use their weapon in order to fulfill their mission and only when necessary. They will maintain their humanity during combat and routine times. The soldier will not use their weapon or power to harm uninvolved civilians and prisoners and will do everything in their power to prevent harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.”"

When those norms are violated, the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the Military Advocate General take the necessary measures to bring those responsible to justice, and their decisions are subject to judicial review. In appropriate cases, the Israeli Supreme Court may instruct them how to act. This is Israel’s DNA. Governments have been replaced, new justices have come to the Supreme Court, but the DNA of Israel’s democracy does not change.

14. Israel’s multiple layers of institutional safeguards also include legal advice provided in real time, during hostilities. Strikes that do not meet the definition of a military objective or that do not comply with the rule of proportionality cannot go forward. The holdings of the Israeli Supreme Court and Israel’s institutional framework demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and human life—a commitment that runs through its collective memory, institutions, and traditions.

15. The Court has affirmed its prima facie jurisdiction for the purpose of indicating provisional measures (see Order, para. 31). However, it is doubtful whether South Africa brought this dispute in good faith. After South Africa sent a Note Verbale to Israel on 21 December 2023, concerning the situation in Gaza, Israel replied with an offer to engage in consultations at the earliest possible opportunity. South Africa, instead of accepting this offer, which could have led to fruitful diplomatic talks, decided to institute proceedings against Israel before this Court. It is regrettable that Israel’s attempt to open a dialogue was met with the filing of an application.

If anything, history has taught us that the best attempts at peace in the Middle East have generally been a result of political negotiations and not judicial recourse. The 1978 peace talks between Egypt and Israel at Camp David are a good example of this. These talks succeeded when a third party—the United States—entered the process and assisted the parties in reaching an agreement. In my opinion, a similar scenario could have unfolded here. While the jurisdictional clause of the Genocide Convention does not require formal negotiations, the principle of good faith dictates that at least some efforts should be made to resolve disputes amicably before resorting to the Court. South Africa made no such effort and denied Israel a reasonable opportunity to engage meaningfully in a discussion on how to address the difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza.

16. The present case involves an additional difficulty. The other belligerent in the armed conflict in Gaza, Hamas, is not a party to the present proceedings. Thus, it is not possible to indicate measures directed at Hamas in the Order’s operative clause. While this does not prevent the Court


text:
Module:Portal class

require('strict')

local p = {}

local getArgs = require('Module:Arguments').getArgs local classification = require('Module:Library of Congress Classification')._classification

function p._portal_class(args) local stylesheet = mw.getCurrentFrame:preprocess('') local box_div = mw.html.create('div'):addClass('wst-portal-class') local in_portal_ns = (mw.title.getCurrentTitle.nsText == 'Portal') -- title local class_title = tostring(mw.html.create('div'):addClass('wst-portal-class-title'):wikitext('Class')) -- class local class_text = mw.html.create('div'):addClass('wst-portal-class-text') local main_class = '' if args.class == 'none' then main_class = 'n/a' elseif args.class then main_class =  .. string.upper(args.class) ..  elseif in_portal_ns then main_class = '?' else main_class = 'n/a' end local subclass1 = '' if args.subclass1 then subclass1 =  .. string.upper(args.subclass1) ..  end local subclass2 = '' if args.subclass2 then subclass2 =  .. string.upper(args.subclass2) ..  end class_text:wikitext(main_class .. subclass1 .. subclass2) class_text = tostring(class_text) -- base local base_text = tostring(mw.html.create('div'):addClass('wst-portal-class-base'):wikitext('Main/Index')) -- categorization local cat = '' if args.class ~= 'none' and in_portal_ns then args.class = string.lower(args.class or 'default') local portal_categories = { a = 'General', b = 'Ideology', c = 'Historiography', d = 'World history', e = 'United States', f = 'American history', g = 'Geo-anthropology', h = 'Social science', i = 'National', j = 'Political science', k = 'Law', l = 'Education', m = 'Music', n = 'Art', p = 'Language', q = 'Science', r = 'Medicine', s = 'Agriculture', t = 'Technology', u = 'Military', v = 'Naval', x = 'Miscellaneous', z = 'Library', default = 'Unclassified' }		cat = '' end box_div:wikitext(class_title .. class_text .. base_text .. cat) return stylesheet .. tostring(box_div) end

function p.portal_class(frame) return p._portal_class(getArgs(frame)) end

return p

title: Module:Portal class


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3162

128 STAT. 3138

§ 101911. Definitions

In this subchapter:
 * (1) —The term “Advisory Board” means the National Park Service Concessions Management Advisory Board established under.

(2) —The term “preferential right of renewal” means the right of a concessioner, subject to a determination by the Secretary that the facilities or services authorized by a prior contract continue to be necessary and appropriate within the meaning of section 101912 of this title, to match the terms and conditions of any competing proposal that the Secretary determines to be the best proposal for a proposed new concession contract that authorizes the continuation of the facilities and services provided by the concessioner under its prior contract.

§ 101912. Findings and declaration of policy

(a) —In furtherance of (a), Congress finds that the preservation and conservation of System unit resources and values requires that public accommodations, facilities, and services that have to be provided within those System units should be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that—
 * (1) visitation will not unduly impair those resources and values; and
 * (2) development of public accommodations, facilities, and services within System units can best be limited to locations that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the System units.

(b) —It is the policy of Congress that the development of public accommodations, facilities, and services in System units shall be limited to accommodations, facilities, and services that—
 * (1) are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the System unit in which they are located; and
 * (2) are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the System unit.

§ 101913. Award of concession contracts

In furtherance of the findings and policy stated in section 101912 of this title, and except as provided by this subchapter or otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary shall utilize concession contracts to authorize a person, corporation, or other entity to provide accommodations, facilities, and services to visitors to System units. Concession contracts shall be awarded as follows:
 * (1) —Except as otherwise provided in this section, all proposed concession contracts shall be awarded by the Secretary to the person, corporation, or other entity submitting the best proposal, as determined by the Secretary through a competitive selection process. The competitive process shall include simplified procedures for


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3163

Rh : small, individually-owned entities seeking award of a concession contract.
 * (2) —Except as otherwise provided in this section, prior to awarding a new concession contract (including renewals or extensions of existing concession contracts) the Secretary—
 * (A) shall publicly solicit proposals for the concession contract; and
 * (B) in connection with the solicitation, shall—
 * (i) prepare a prospectus and publish notice of its availability at least once in local or national newspapers or trade publications, by electronic means, or both, as appropriate; and
 * (ii) make the prospectus available on request to all interested persons.
 * (3) —The prospectus shall include the following information:
 * (A) The minimum requirements for the contract as set forth in paragraph (4).
 * (B) The terms and conditions of any existing concession contract relating to the services and facilities to be provided, including all fees and other forms of compensation provided to the United States by the concessioner.
 * (C) Other authorized facilities or services that may be provided in a proposal.
 * (D) Facilities and services to be provided by the Secretary to the concessioner, including public access, utilities, and buildings.
 * (E) An estimate of the amount of compensation due an existing concessioner from a new concessioner under the terms of a prior concession contract.
 * (F) A statement as to the weight to be given to each selection factor identified in the prospectus and the relative importance of those factors in the selection process.
 * (G) Other information related to the proposed concession operation that is provided to the Secretary pursuant to a concession contract or is otherwise available to the Secretary, as the Secretary determines is necessary to allow for the submission of competitive proposals.
 * (H) Where applicable, a description of a preferential right to the renewal of the proposed concession contract held by an existing concessioner as set forth in paragraph (7).
 * (4) —
 * (A) —No proposal shall be considered that fails to meet the minimum requirements as determined by the Secretary. The minimum requirements shall include the following:
 * (i) The minimum acceptable franchise fee or other forms of consideration to the Federal Government.
 * (ii) Any facilities, services, or capital investment required to be provided by the concessioner.
 * (iii) Measures necessary to ensure the protection, conservation, and preservation of resources of the System unit.
 * (B) —The Secretary shall reject any proposal, regardless of the franchise fee offered, if the Secretary determines that—


text:
Template:Portal Class/styles.css

.wst-portal-class { background:#f9f9f9; color: #202122; border:solid #aaa 1px; font-size:0.90em; margin:0.5ex 1.00em 1.00em 0; padding:4px; min-width:6em; text-align:center; display:inline-block; } .wst-portal-class-title { font-size:0.90em; font-variant:small-caps; } .wst-portal-class-text { font-size:144%; font-weight:bold; } .wst-portal-class-base { font-size:0.90em; }

title: Template:Portal Class/styles.css


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3164

128 STAT. 3140 :::(i) the person, corporation, or entity is not qualified or is not likely to provide satisfactory service; or
 * (ii) the proposal is not responsive to the objectives of protecting and preserving resources of the System unit and of providing necessary and appropriate facilities and services to the public at reasonable rates.
 * (C) —If all proposals submitted to the Secretary fail to meet the minimum requirements or are rejected by the Secretary, the Secretary shall establish new minimum contract requirements and re-initiate the competitive selection process pursuant to this section.
 * (D) —The Secretary may not execute a concession contract that materially amends or does not incorporate the proposed terms and conditions of the concession contract as set forth in the applicable prospectus. If proposed material amendments or changes are considered appropriate by the Secretary, the Secretary shall resolicit offers for the concession contract incorporating the material amendments or changes.
 * (5) —
 * (A) —In selecting the best proposal, the Secretary shall consider the following principal factors:
 * (i) The responsiveness of the proposal to the objectives of protecting, conserving, and preserving resources of the System unit and of providing necessary and appropriate facilities and services to the public at reasonable rates.
 * (ii) The experience and related background of the person, corporation, or entity submitting the proposal, including the past performance and expertise of the person, corporation or entity in providing the same or similar facilities or services.
 * (iii) The financial capability of the person, corporation, or entity submitting the proposal.
 * (iv) The proposed franchise fee, except that consideration of revenue to the United States shall be subordinate to the objectives of protecting, conserving, and preserving resources of the System unit and of providing necessary and appropriate facilities to the public at reasonable rates.
 * (B) —The Secretary may also consider such secondary factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.
 * (C) —In developing regulations to implement this subchapter, the Secretary shall consider the extent to which plans for employment of Indians (including Native Alaskans) and involvement of businesses owned by Indians, Indian tribes, or Native Alaskans in the operation of a concession contract should be identified as a factor in the selection of a best proposal under this section.
 * (6) —
 * (A) —The Secretary shall submit any proposed concession contract with anticipated annual gross


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3165

Rh :: receipts in excess of $5,000,000 or a duration of more than 10 years to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
 * (B) —The Secretary shall not award any proposed concession contract to which subparagraph (A) applies until at least 60 days subsequent to the notification of both Committees.
 * (7) —
 * (A) —Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall not grant a concessioner a preferential right to renew a concession contract, or any other form of preference to a concession contract.
 * (B) —The Secretary shall grant a preferential right of renewal to an existing concessioner with respect to proposed renewals of the categories of concession contracts described by paragraph (8), subject to the requirements of that paragraph.
 * (C) —A concessioner that successfully exercises a preferential right of renewal in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter shall be entitled to award of the proposed new concession contract to which the preference applies.
 * (8) —
 * (A) —Paragraph (7) shall apply only to the following:
 * (i) Subject to subparagraph (B), concession contracts that solely authorize the provision of specialized backcountry outdoor recreation guide services that require the employment of specially trained and experienced guides to accompany System unit visitors in the backcountry so as to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for visitors who otherwise may not have the skills and equipment to engage in that activity.
 * (ii) Subject to subparagraph (C), concession contracts with anticipated annual gross receipts under $500,000.
 * (B) —
 * (i) —Outfitting and guide concessioners, where otherwise qualified, include concessioners that provide guided river running, hunting, fishing, horseback, camping, and mountaineering experiences.
 * (ii) —An outfitting and guide concessioner is entitled to a preferential right of renewal under this subchapter only if—
 * (I) the contract with the outfitting and guide concessioner does not grant the concessioner any interest, including any leasehold surrender interest or possessory interest, in capital improvements on land owned by the United States within a System unit, other than a capital improvement constructed by a concessioner pursuant to the terms of a concession contract prior to November 13, 1998, or constructed or owned by a concessioner or the concessioner’s predecessor before the subject land was incorporated into the System;


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 1 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0001mann).pdf/7

 BUDDENBROOKS

• I •


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/53

 from exercising its jurisdiction, it is an essential matter to be considered when determining the appropriate measures or remedies in this case.

17. The Court briefly recalls the immediate context in which the present case came before it, namely the attack of 7 October 2023 by Hamas and the military operation launched by Israel in response to that attack (see Order, para 13). The Court, however, fails to give a complete account of the situation which has unfolded in Gaza since that fateful day.

18. On 7 October 2023, on the day of the Sabbath and the Jewish holiday of “Simchat Torah”, over 3,000 Hamas terrorists, aided by members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, invaded Israeli territory by land, air and sea. The assault began in the early morning hours, with a barrage of rockets over the entire country and the infiltration of Hamas into Israeli territory. Alerts sounded all over Israel, civilians and soldiers took shelter, and many were later massacred inside those shelters. In other places, houses were burned down with civilians still in their safe rooms, burning alive or suffocating to death. At the Reim Nova Music Festival, young Israelis were murdered in their sleep or while running for their lives across open fields. Women’s bodies were mutilated, raped, cut up and shot in the worst possible places. Overall, more than 1,200 innocent civilians, including infants and the elderly, were murdered on that day. Two hundred and forty Israelis were kidnapped and taken to the Gaza Strip, and over 12,000 rockets have been fired at Israel since 7 October. These facts have been largely reported and are indisputable.

19. Israel, faced with an ongoing assault on its people and territory, launched a military operation. The Israeli authorities declared that the purpose of the operation is to dismantle Hamas and destroy its military and governmental capabilities, return the hostages, and secure the protection of Israel’s borders.

20. Hamas has vowed to “repeat October 7 again and again”. Hamas is thus an existential threat to the State of Israel, and one that Israel must repel. This terrorist organization rules over the Gaza Strip, exercising military and governmental functions. Hamas seeks to immunize its military apparatus by placing it within and below civilian infrastructure, which is itself a war crime, and intentionally places its own population at risk by digging tunnels under their homes and hospitals. Hamas fires missiles indiscriminately at Israel, including from schools and other civilian installations in Gaza, in the full knowledge that many of them will fall inside Gaza causing death and injuries to innocent Palestinians. This is Hamas’s well-known modus operandi.

21. A few examples illustrate this well. When humanitarian aid enters Gaza, Hamas hoards it for its own purposes. Hamas has made clear that its tunnel network is designed for its fighters, rather than for civilians seeking shelter from the hostilities. Hamas has compromised the inherently civilian nature of schools and hospitals in Gaza, using them for military purposes by storing or launching rockets from and under these sites.

22. The fate of the hostages is especially disturbing. The act of hostage taking committed by Hamas on 7 October constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/101


text: Page:Buddenbrooks vol 1 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0001mann).pdf/8


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/102


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/54

 is criminalized under the Rome Statute. Hamas has not provided the names of the hostages, or any information regarding who is dead and who is still alive. Nor have they allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit the hostages, as the law requires. The ICRC has not been able to provide medical supplies to the hostages, does not know their whereabouts, and has not succeeded in securing their release. As I write, this agony has now been ongoing for over 100 days.

23. This is not to undermine the suffering of innocent Palestinians. I have been personally and deeply affected by the death and destruction in Gaza. There is a danger of food and water shortages and the outbreak of diseases. The population lives in precarious conditions, facing the unfathomable consequences of war. In the role that has been entrusted to me as a judge ad hoc, but also as a human being, it is important for me to express my most sincere and heartfelt regret for the loss of innocent lives in this conflict.

24. The State of Israel was brought before this Court as its leadership, soldiers, and children processed the shock and trauma of the attack of 7 October. An entire nation trembled and, in the blink of an eye, lost its most basic sense of security. Fears of additional attacks were palpable as infiltrations continued in the days following the attack. The immediate context in which South Africa’s request was brought to the Court should have played a more central role in the Court’s reasoning. While it in no way relieves Israel of its obligations, this immediate context forms the inescapable backdrop for the legal analysis of Israel’s actions even at this stage of the proceedings.

25. South Africa seised the Court on the basis of the Genocide Convention, Article IX of which provides the Court with jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to the “interpretation, application or fulfilment” of that treaty, “including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide”. This does not mean that the Genocide Convention provides the appropriate legal prism through which to analyse the situation.

26. In my view, the appropriate legal framework for analysing the situation in Gaza is International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—and not the Genocide Convention. IHL provides that harm to innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure should not be excessive in comparison to the military advantage anticipated from a strike. The tragic loss of innocent lives is not considered unlawful so long as it falls within the rules and principles of IHL.

27. The drafters of the Genocide Convention clarified in their discussions that

"“[t]he infliction of losses, even heavy losses, on the civilian population in the course of operations of war, does not as a rule constitute genocide. In modern war belligerents normally destroy factories, means of communication, public buildings, etc. and the civilian population inevitably suffers more or less severe losses. It would of course be desirable to limit such losses. Various measures might be taken to achieve this end, but this question belongs to the field of the regulation of the conditions of war and not to that of genocide.”"


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/103


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/55

 28. Violations of IHL occurring in the context of the armed conflict, must be investigated and prosecuted by the competent Israeli authorities.

29. Central to the crime of genocide is the element of intent, namely the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. International courts have been reluctant to establish such intent and characterize atrocities as genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established primarily to prosecute the crime of genocide. Nonetheless, it set a high threshold for proving the specific intent required for genocide. In its very first case, the Akayesu case, the ICTR described the required specific intent as a “psychological relationship between the physical result and the mental state of the perpetrator” which “demands that the perpetrator clearly seeks to produce the act charged”. This high bar explains some of the full or partial acquittals at the ICTR. An analogous bar was also adopted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia.

30. The Court, with regard to State responsibility, has similarly adopted a restrictive approach in cases involving genocide on the merits. In Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), the Court concluded that—save in the case of Srebrenica—the widespread and serious atrocities committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina were not carried out with the specific intent to destroy, in part, the Bosnian Muslim group (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 194, para. 370). Some years later, in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), the Court found that the required intent was lacking altogether and therefore dismissed Croatia’s claims in their entirety (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015 (I), p. 154, para. 524).

31. I accept that the proof of intent required at this preliminary stage is different from the one required at the merits stage. It is not necessary, at this stage, to convincingly show the mens rea of genocide by reference to particular circumstances, or for a pattern of conduct to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent. However, some proof of intent is necessary. At the very least, sufficient proof to make a claim of genocide plausible.

32. I strongly disagree with the Court’s approach regarding plausibility and, in particular, I disagree on the question of intent.

33. The Court may indicate provisional measures “only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the party requesting such measures are at least plausible” (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 18, para. 43). In the present case, the


text:
Module:Portal class/doc

This module provides the logic for portal class.

title: Module:Portal class/doc


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/104


text: Template:Portal Class/testcases

title: Template:Portal Class/testcases


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/105


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/56

 Court concluded, with scant evidence, that “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide” is plausible (Order, para. 54).

34. To understand the Court’s erroneous approach, it is important to compare the present case to the Gambia case: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020. To conclude that the asserted rights were plausible, in the Gambia case, the Court relied on two reports issued by an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission (IIFFM). These reports were based on the meticulous collection of evidence over two years, which included 400 interviews with victims and eyewitnesses, analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and videos, the cross-checking of information against credible secondary information, expert interviews and raw data. The independent experts travelled to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand to interview victims and witnesses and hold other meetings. Furthermore, the Mission’s secretariat undertook six additional field missions. In its report of 12 September 2018, the IIFFM concluded that there were “reasonable grounds to conclude that serious crimes under international law ha[d] been committed”, including genocide. The IIFFM also stated that “on reasonable grounds … the factors allowing the inference of genocidal intent [were] present”. The IIFFM reiterated its conclusions, based on further investigations, in its second report of 8 August 2019.

35. In the present case, there is no evidence comparable to that available to the Court in the Gambia case. To determine the plausibility of rights in the present case, the Court relies on four sets of facts. First, it looks at the figures for deaths, injuries and damage to infrastructure reported by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) (see Order, para. 46). Second, it relies on a statement made by the Under-Secretary-General of OCHA (see Order, para. 47), a report of the World Health Organization (see Order, para. 48), and a statement by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA (see Order, para. 49). Third, it notes the statements of three Israeli officials (see Order, para. 52). Fourth, it considers the views expressed by a group of Special Rapporteurs and the CERD Committee (see Order, para. 53).

36. Regarding the figures for death, injuries and damage to infrastructure, the Court omits to mention that such figures come from the Ministry of Health of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas. They are not the United Nations’ figures. Furthermore, these figures do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between military objectives and civilian objects. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from them.

The statements by the Under-Secretary-General of OCHA, the WHO and the Commissioner-General of UNRWA are insufficient to prove plausible intent. None of these statements mention the term genocide or point to any trace of intent. They indeed describe a tragic humanitarian situation, which is the unfortunate result of an armed conflict, but there is no reference


text: The Earth Turns South/Green Leaves

title: The Earth Turns South/Green Leaves


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/57

 to the subject-matter of the Genocide Convention. Furthermore, the Court is unaware of the underlying information or methodology used by the individuals who made these statements. This is in stark contrast to the evidence available to the Court in the Gambia case.

The declarations made by the President of Israel and the Minister of Defence of Israel are not a sufficient factual basis for inferring a plausible intent of genocide. Both authorities have issued several statements clarifying that Israel’s intent is the destruction of Hamas, not the Palestinians in Gaza. For example, on 29 October 2023, Israel’s Minister of Defence, stated that “we are not fighting the Palestinian multitude and the Palestinian people in Gaza”. On 29 November 2023, the President of Israel said that “Israel is doing all it can, in cooperation with various partners, to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to the citizens of Gaza”. Regretfully, the Court did not take note of these statements. Finally, regarding the statements made by the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, the latter is not an official with authority over the military. The relevant factual basis allowing for an inference of intent to commit genocide must stem from the organs which are capable of having an effect on the military operations. These organs have repeatedly explained that the purpose of the military operation is to target Hamas, not the Palestinians in Gaza.

37. It is concerning that certain Israeli officials have used inappropriate and degrading language, as noted by the group of Special Rapporteurs and the CERD Committee. Indeed, it is an issue that will have to be investigated by the competent Israeli authorities. However, to infer an intent to commit genocide from these statements, which were made in the wake of horrific attacks against the Israeli population, is plainly implausible.

38. The evidence presented by Israel shows that it is the opposite intent that is plausible and guides the military operation in Gaza. Israel pointed out that it has adopted several measures to minimize the impact of hostilities on civilians. For example, Israel continues to supply its own water to Gaza by two pipelines; it has increased access to medical supplies, facilitated the establishment of field hospitals and distributed fuel and winter equipment (see Order, para. 64, referring to CR 2024/2, pp. 50-52). Furthermore, the Prime Minister of Israel stated on 17 October 2023 “[a]ny civilian death is a tragedy … we’re doing everything we can to get the civilians out of harm’s way,” and on 28 October 2023 that “the IDF is doing everything possible to avoid harming those not involved”.

39. It is surprising that the Court took note of Israel’s statements explaining the steps it has taken to alleviate the conditions faced by the population in Gaza, together with the Attorney General’s statement announcing the investigation of any calls for the intentional harm to civilians (see Order, para. 73), but then it completely failed to draw conclusions from these statements when examining the existence of intent. It is even more surprising that the Court did not view any of these measures and statements as sufficient to rule out the existence of a plausible intent to commit genocide.

40. The Court’s approach to plausibility in the present case is not akin to the one it took in the Gambia case, where the Court had compelling evidence of “clearance operations” committed against the Rohingya. These “clearance operations” included sexual violence, torture, the methodical planning of mass killing, denial of legal status, and instigation of hatred based on ethnic, racial, or religious grounds.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3166

128 STAT. 3142 ::::(II) the Secretary determines that the concessioner has operated satisfactorily during the term of the contract (including any extension); and
 * (III) the concessioner has submitted a responsive proposal for a proposed new concession contract that satisfies the minimum requirements established by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (4).
 * (C) —A concessioner that holds a concession contract that the Secretary estimates will result in gross annual receipts of less than $500,000 if renewed shall be entitled to a preferential right of renewal under this subchapter if—
 * (i) the Secretary has determined that the concessioner has operated satisfactorily during the term of the contract (including any extension); and
 * (ii) the concessioner has submitted a responsive proposal for a proposed new concession contract that satisfies the minimum requirements established by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (4).
 * (9) —The Secretary shall not grant a preferential right to a concessioner to provide new or additional services in a System unit.
 * (10) —Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary to determine whether to issue a concession contract or to establish its terms and conditions in furtherance of the policies expressed in this subchapter.
 * (11) —Notwithstanding this section, the Secretary may award, without public solicitation, the following:
 * (A) —To avoid interruption of services to the public at a System unit, the Secretary may award a temporary concession contract or an extension of an existing concessions contract for a term not to exceed 3 years, except that prior to making the award, the Secretary shall take all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid the interruption.
 * (B) —The Secretary may award a concession contract in extraordinary circumstances where compelling and equitable considerations require the award of a concession contract to a particular party in the public interest. Award of a concession contract under this subparagraph shall not be made by the Secretary until at least 30 days after—
 * (i) publication in the Federal Register of notice of the Secretary’s intention to award the contract and the reasons for the action; and
 * (ii) submission of notice to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives.

§ 101914. Term of concession contracts

A concession contract entered into pursuant to this subchapter shall generally be awarded for a term of 10 years or less. The Secretary may award a contract for a term of up to 20 years if the Secretary determines that the contract terms and conditions,


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3167

Rh including the required construction of capital improvements, warrant a longer term.

§ 101915. Protection of concessioner investment

(a) —In this section:
 * (1) —The term “capital improvement” means a structure, a fixture, or nonremovable equipment provided by a concessioner pursuant to the terms of a concession contract and located on land of the United States within a System unit.
 * (2) —The term “Consumer Price Index” means—
 * (A) the “Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers” published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor; or
 * (B) if the Index is not published, another regularly published cost-of-living index approximating the Consumer Price Index.

(b) —A concessioner that constructs a capital improvement on land owned by the United States within a System unit pursuant to a concession contract shall have a leasehold surrender interest in the capital improvement subject to the following terms and conditions:
 * (1) —A concessioner shall have a leasehold surrender interest in each capital improvement constructed by a concessioner under a concession contract, consisting solely of a right to compensation for the capital improvement to the extent of the value of the concessioner’s leasehold surrender interest in the capital improvement.
 * (2) —A leasehold surrender interest may be pledged as security for financing of a capital improvement or the acquisition of a concession contract when approved by the Secretary pursuant to this subchapter.
 * (3) —A leasehold surrender interest shall be transferred by the concessioner in connection with any transfer of the concession contract and may be relinquished or waived by the concessioner.
 * (4) —A leasehold surrender interest shall not be extinguished by the expiration or other termination of a concession contract and may not be taken for public use except on payment of just compensation.
 * (5) —The value of a leasehold surrender interest in a capital improvement shall be an amount equal to the initial value (construction cost of the capital improvement), increased (or decreased) by the same percentage increase (or decrease) as the percentage increase (or decrease) in the Consumer Price Index, from the date of making the investment in the capital improvement by the concessioner to the date of payment of the value of the leasehold surrender interest, less depreciation of the capital improvement as evidenced by the condition and prospective serviceability in comparison with a new unit of like kind.
 * (6) —


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/115


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 128.pdf/3168

128 STAT. 3144 ::(A) —The Secretary may provide, in any new concession contract that the Secretary estimates will have a leasehold surrender interest of more than $10,000,000, that the value of any leasehold surrender interest in a capital improvement shall be based on—
 * (i) a reduction on an annual basis, in equal portions, over the same number of years as the time period associated with the straight line depreciation of the initial value (construction cost of the capital improvement), as provided by applicable Federal income tax laws and regulations in effect on November 12, 1998; or
 * (ii) an alternative formula that is consistent with the objectives of this subchapter.
 * (B) —The Secretary may use an alternative formula under subparagraph (A)(ii) only if the Secretary determines, after scrutiny of the financial and other circumstances involved in the particular concession contract (including providing notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for comment), that the alternative formula is, compared to the standard method of determining value provided for in paragraph (5), necessary to provide a fair return to the Federal Government and to foster competition for the new contract by providing a reasonable opportunity to make a profit under the new contract. If no responsive offers are received in response to a solicitation that includes the alternative formula, the concession opportunity shall be resolicited with the leasehold surrender interest value as described in paragraph (5).
 * (7) —Where a concessioner, pursuant to the terms of a concession contract, makes a capital improvement to an existing capital improvement in which the concessioner has a leasehold surrender interest, the cost of the additional capital improvement shall be added to the then-current value of the concessioner’s leasehold surrender interest.

(c) —
 * (1) —A concessioner that has obtained a possessory interest (as defined pursuant to the Act of October 9, 1965 (known as the National Park Service Concessions Policy Act; Public Law 89–249, 79 Stat. 969), as in effect on November 12, 1998) under the terms of a concession contract entered into before November 13, 1998, shall, on the expiration or termination of the concession contract, be entitled to receive compensation for the possessory interest improvements in the amount and manner as described by the concession contract. Where that possessory interest is not described in the existing concession contract, compensation of possessory interest shall be determined in accordance with the laws in effect on November 12, 1998.
 * (2) —A concessioner awarded a new concession contract to replace an existing concession contract after November 13, 1998, instead of directly receiving the possessory interest compensation, shall have a leasehold surrender interest in its existing possessory interest improvements under the terms of the new


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/116


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/117


text:
Module:Portal parent

require('strict')

local p = {}

local getArgs = require('Module:Arguments').getArgs local yesno = require('Module:Yesno') local classification = require('Module:Library of Congress Classification')._classification

function p._portal_parent(args) local current_title = mw.title.getCurrentTitle local pagename = current_title.text local class = args.class local subclass1 = args.subclass1 local subclass2 = args.subclass2 local midclass = yesno(args.midclass) or false local class_link = '' local subclass1_link = '' local subclass2_link = '' if class then if class ~= 'none' then local class_text = classification({class = class}) if class_text == pagename then class_link = 'Portal:Portals' else class_link = 'Class ' .. string.upper(class) .. ' - ' .. class_text .. '' end end elseif current_title.nsText == 'Portal' then class_link = 'Portal:Index' else class_link = 'Portal:Index' end if (subclass1 and subclass2 and midclass) or (subclass1 and not subclass2) then local class_text = classification({class = class, subclass1 = subclass1}) if class_text ~= pagename then subclass1_link = ' Subclass ' .. string.upper(subclass1) .. ' - ' .. class_text .. '' end end if subclass2 then local class_text = classification({class = class, subclass1 = subclass1, subclass2 = subclass2}) if class_text ~= pagename then local subclass_prefix = '' if subclass1 and not midclass then subclass_prefix = string.upper(subclass1) end subclass2_link = ' Subclass ' .. subclass_prefix .. string.upper(subclass2) .. ' - ' .. class_text .. '' end end return class_link .. subclass1_link .. subclass2_link end

function p.portal_parent(frame) return p._portal_parent(getArgs(frame)) end

return p

title: Module:Portal parent


text: The Earth Turns South/The Window

title: The Earth Turns South/The Window


text: Page:The earth turns south (IA earthturnssouth00wood).pdf/118


text:
Page:The Black Cat v01no01 (1895-10).pdf/25

Rh shadowy recess on the other side of the bed. I realized that the slightest expression of my real feelings might prove fatal. I set my teeth hard. My old adventurous spirit returned. As mechanically as though I were taking a school dictation, I followed the movements of the trembling white hand and traced those meaningless marks.

Apparently, mother and son were satisfied with their scrutiny, for they soon retired to the other end of the long room. As they went, I heard her murmur to Victor:—

Come; the old miser won't forget his own flesh and blood. At any rate, that girl shall stay in the house until her notes are written out in plain English and the experiments made. I gave that foolish teacher of hers a wrong address."

At this she turned on me suddenly, and nothing on earth could have prevented my face revealing the fright that was on me. I could hide my terror only by sneezing violently into my handkerchief.

"As soon as they had withdrawn to the farther end of the room the invalid hastened to communicate as rapidly as possible the state of affairs in this strange household. The woman, Mrs. Westinghouse, was, so he said, his sister-in-law, the widow of his only brother, and Victor was, of course, his nephew. On the death of his brother, the man who now lay dying had invited the widow and her son, then a handsome lad, to make their home with him, and, indeed, had treated Victor as his adopted son and probable heir. About three years ago, however, Victor, who had acted as his uncle's assistant in the laboratory, had repaid his generosity by attempting to steal from him the secret which he had spent years in perfecting. Failing in this, he had forged his benefactor's name for a sum amounting to a large share of his fortune, and had applied the proceeds to the payment of gambling debts. Since then, Mr. Westinghouse, though allowing Victor to go free, had refused to see either him or his mother, and it was only now, when he was on his death-bed, that they returned, uninvited, with the hope of extracting from the sick man the only wealth remaining to him,—his recent discovery.

At this point the invalid stopped abruptly, and looked once more deep into my eyes. Then, with a sigh that seemed one of satisfaction, he continued:—


text: The Earth Turns South/October

title: The Earth Turns South/October


text:
Module:Portal parent/doc

This module provides the logic for portal parent.

title: Module:Portal parent/doc


text:
Page:The Atlantic Monthly Volume 1.djvu/610

602 action of New York would control the election. That State then had twelve votes in the Electoral College; but the electors were chosen by the Legislature,—not, as at present, by the people. The parties in New York were nearly equal, and the result in the Legislature was very doubtful. The city of New York sent twelve members to the Assembly, and usually determined the political complexion of that body. Thus the contest in the nation was narrowed down to a single city, and that not a large one. This gave Burr a favorable field for the exercise of his peculiar talents. His energy, tact, unscrupulousness, and art in conciliating the hostile and animating the indifferent made him unequalled in political finesse. He did not hesitate to use any means in his power. Some one in his pay overheard the discussion in a Federal caucus, and revealed to him the plans of his opponents. He had become unpopular, and had brought odium upon his party by a corrupt speculation; he therefore declined presenting his own name, and made a ticket comprehending the most distinguished persons in the Republican ranks. George Clinton, Gen. Gates, and Brockholst Livingston were placed at the head of it. The most urgent solicitations were necessary to persuade these gentlemen to consent to a nomination for places which were beneath their pretensions, but Burr answered every objection and overcame every scruple. The respectability of the candidates and the vigorous prosecution of the canvass carried the city by a considerable majority, and insured the election of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Parton finds in this abundant material for extravagant eulogy of Burr. But most people will be surprised to learn that such services constituted a claim to the Vice-Presidency. If being an adroit politician entitles a person to high office, there is not a town in New York which cannot furnish half a dozen statesmen whose exploits have been far more remarkable than Burr's.

Burr's nomination, however, was not solely due to his labors at this election, but in part also to his subsequent address. The importance of New York made it desirable to select the candidate for the Vice-Presidency from that State. A caucus of the Republican members of Congress directed Mr. Gallatin to ascertain who would be the most acceptable candidate. He wrote to Commodore Nicholson, asking him to discover the sentiments of the leading men in the State. The names of Livingston, George Clinton, and Burr had been suggested. Livingston was deaf, and Nicholson is said to have determined to recommend Clinton. Burr, however, saw him afterwards, and persuaded him to substitute his name instead of Clinton's in the letter which he had prepared to send to Philadelphia. Col. Burr was accordingly placed upon the Republican ticket.

The tie vote between Jefferson and Burr, which unexpectedly occurred in the Electoral College, has given rise to the assertion that Burr endeavored to defeat Jefferson and secure his own election. Mr. Parton devotes a chapter to the refutation of this charge, but does not succeed in making a very strong argument. The evidence of Burr's treachery is as positive as from the nature of the case it can be. Of course, he made no open pledges; it was unnecessary, and it would have been impolitic to do so. The main fact cannot be denied, that for several weeks before, and after the election went to the House of Representatives, Burr was openly supported by the Federalists in opposition to Jefferson. Burr knew it; everybody knew it. Why was this support given? It will require plain proof to satisfy any one who is familiar with the motives of political action, that a party would have so earnestly advocated the election of any man without good reason to suppose that he would make an adequate return for its support. There was but one course which Burr, in honor, could take; he should have peremptorily refused to permit his name to be used. A word from him would have ended the matter; but that word was


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/58

 41. It is concerning that applying the Genocide Convention in these circumstances would undermine the integrity of the Convention and dilute the concept of genocide. The Genocide Convention seeks to prevent and punish the physical destruction of a group as such. It is not meant to ban armed conflict altogether. The Court’s approach opens the door for States to misuse the Genocide Convention in order to curtail the right of self-defence, in particular in the context of attacks committed by terrorist groups.

42. I now turn to the measures indicated by the Court. It is important to recall that the Court has not made any findings with regard to South Africa’s claims under the Genocide Convention. The conclusions reached by the Court in this preliminary stage do not prejudge in any way the claims brought by South Africa, which remain wholly unproven (see Order, paras. 30 and 62).

43. Regarding the conditions for the Court to indicate provisional measures, for the reasons stated above, I am not persuaded by South Africa’s arguments on the plausibility of rights, since there is no indication of an intent to commit genocide. This is why I voted against the first and second provisional measures indicated by the Court. Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance to highlight that the first and second measures indicated by the Court merely restate obligations that Israel already has under Articles I and II of the Genocide Convention. The Court has made explicit what is already implicit in light of Israel’s existing obligations under the Convention.

44. Although I am convinced that there is no plausibility of genocide, I voted in favour of the third and fourth provisional measures.

With regard to the third measure, which concerns acts of public incitement, I have voted in favour in the hope that the measure will help to decrease tensions and discourage damaging rhetoric. I have noted the concerning statements by some authorities, which I am confident will be dealt with by the Israeli institutions.

With regard to the fourth measure, I voted in favour, guided by my deep humanitarian convictions and the hope that this will alleviate the consequences of the armed conflict for the most vulnerable. Through this measure, the Court reminds Israel of essential international obligations, which are already present in the DNA of the Israeli military. This measure will ensure that Israel continues to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, which I see as an obligation arising under IHL.

45. However, it is regretful that the Court was unable to order South Africa to take measures to protect the rights of the hostages and to facilitate their release by Hamas. These measures are based on IHL, as are those enabling the provision of humanitarian aid. Moreover, the fate of the hostages is an integral part of the military operation in Gaza. By taking measures to facilitate the release of the hostages, South Africa could play a positive role in bringing the conflict to an end.

46. I voted against the fifth provisional measure, which concerns the preservation of evidence. I did not vote against this measure because evidence is not important, but because South Africa has not shown that Israel has destroyed or concealed evidence. This claim is baseless and therefore should not have been entertained by the Court.


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/59

 47. Genocide is a shadow over the history of the Jewish people, and it is intertwined with my own personal experience. The idea that Israel is now accused of committing genocide is very hard for me personally, as a genocide survivor deeply aware of Israel’s commitment to the rule of law as a Jewish and democratic State. Throughout my life, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention is realized in practice; and I have fought to make sure that genocide disappears from our lives.

48. Had the Court granted South Africa’s request to put an immediate end to the military operation in Gaza, Israel would have been left defenceless in the face of a brutal assault, unable to fulfil its most basic duties vis-à-vis its citizens. It would have amounted to tying both of Israel’s hands, denying it the ability to fight even in accordance with international law. Meanwhile, the hands of Hamas would have been free to continue harming Israelis and Palestinians alike.

49. It is with great respect that I have joined this Court as an ad hoc judge. I was appointed by Israel; I am not an agent of Israel. My compass is the search for morality, truth and justice. It is to protect these values that Israel’s daughters and sons have selflessly paid with their lives and dreams, in a war that Israel did not choose.

(Signed) Aharon


text:
Page:The Atlantic Monthly Volume 1.djvu/608

600 time a Napoleon, argues a boldness of conception which makes criticism dangerous.

Mr. Parton occasionally assumes an air of impartiality, and mildly expresses his disapprobation of Burr's vices; but in every instance where those vices were displayed he earnestly defends him. In the contest with Jefferson, Parton insists that Burr acted honorably; in the duel with Hamilton, Burr was the injured party; in his amours he was not a bad man; so that, although we are told that Burr had faults, we look in vain for any exhibition of them. In the cases where we have been accustomed to think that his passions led him into crime, he either displayed the strictest virtue, or, at most, sinned in so gentlemanlike a manner, with so much kindness and generosity, as hardly to sin at all.

There are three ways of writing a biography: one is, to make a simple narrative and leave the reader to form his own opinion; another, to present the facts so as to illustrate the author's conception of his hero's character; a third, and the most common way, to proceed like an advocate, to suppress everything which can be suppressed, to sneer at everything which cannot be answered, to put the most favorable construction upon all dubious matters, and to throw the strongest light upon every fortunate circumstance. Mr. Parton has tried all three modes, and failed in all. He is an unskilful delineator of character, a poor story-teller, and a worse advocate. His book, despite its spasmodic style, lacks vigor. It indicates a want of firmness and precision of thought. It leaves a mixed impression on the mind. We venture to say, that two thirds of its readers will close the volume with an indefinite contradictory opinion that Burr was a sort of villanous saint, and that the other third, by no means the most inattentive readers, will not be able to form any opinion whatever.

There are four periods or events in the life of Burr which are worthy of attention: his career in the army; his political course and contest with Jefferson; the duel; and the Mexican expedition. Upon the first and most pleasing portion of his life we cannot dwell. He entered the service shortly after the battle of Bunker Hill, and in two years rose to a Lieutenant-Colonelcy. Though engaged in several important battles, he did not have an opportunity to display great military talents, if he possessed them. He was distinguished, but not more so than many other young men. He resigned in the spring of 1779, as he alleged, on account of ill health, but more probably because the failure of the Lee and Conway intrigue had disappointed his hopes of promotion.

As an indication of character, the most important circumstance of Burr's military life was his quarrel with Washington. This difficulty is said to have grown out of some scandalous affair in which Burr was engaged, a belief which is strengthened by his intrigue with the beautiful and unfortunate Margaret Moncrieffe a few months after. But aside from any such cause, there was ground enough for difference in the characters of the two men. Discipline compelled Washington to hold his subordinates at a distance of implied, if not asserted inferiority; and Burr never met a man to whom he thought himself inferior. Mr. Parton's explanation is, that "Hamilton probably implanted a dislike for Burr in Washington's breast." The only difficulty with this theory is one which the author's suppositions often encounter,—it has no foundation in fact. At the time that Burr was in Washington's family, Hamilton was probably not acquainted with the General; he did not enter his staff until nine months after Burr had left it.

Burr entered public life at the only period in our history when a man of his stamp of mind could have played a conspicuous part. At the close of the Revolution, in addition to the Tories, there were already two political factions in New York. As early as 1777 the Whigs had divided upon the election for Governor, and George Clinton was chosen


text: South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024)