[ad_1]
Regardless of the Western media effort to downplay the South Africa case earlier than the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice charging Israel with violating the Genocide Conference, the motion continues to be getting a good bit of play. To recap, South Africa is looking for “provisional measures” to bar Israel from committing genocide whereas the Courtroom considers a full case. We record these 9 provisional measures on the finish of the put up. We’ve got embedded the three key paperwork, the preliminary South Africa written submitting, referred to as in ICJ communicate an “software”, the South Africa oral argument, and the Israel oral argument, in a separate put up.
These “provisional measures”‘ are analogous to a brief restraining order within the US context, to forestall imminent hurt since a last choice would by (on this occasion) years away. The ICJ is predicted to difficulty its ruling within the subsequent one to 3 weeks.
Regardless of the appreciable commentary on this authorized motion, there appears a comparative dearth of dialogue on how the court docket would possibly rule and why. Thoughts you, it isn’t as if numerous commentators haven’t addressed appreciable components of the case, however I’ve but to see an effort at a by therapy (admittedly a put up from Lawfare comes shut however doesn’t take into account among the procedural questions, or the pressures on the judges). As a non-lawyer and a non-expert on this explicit kind of dispute, I’m counting on the enter of others with area information, so additional commentary welcome.
The very quick model of what follows is:
The ICJ can reject the South Africa case, can settle for it however not order provisional measures, can choose and select among the many provisional measures South Africa referred to as for, can modify some or all the advised provisions measures and even implement its personal.
Just about all commentators have punted on the difficulty we targeted on in our earlier put up,1 that Israel had claimed there was a severe procedural downside with the South Africa motion. Though the Israel presentation of this difficulty was weak and screechy (consistent with the caliber of its oral argument), a cautious studying of the South Africa oral argument and its submitting says Israel might certainly have a degree. And in case your humble blogger might discover these deficiencies, the percentages appear excessive an Israel-friendly jurist might too. There’s a query, very a lot over my pay grade, as as to whether South Africa might refile. The analogy to comparable grounds for dismissal in Anglosphere instances suggests it ought to be capable to, however that will significantly dent the credibility of South Africa (when it comes to care in going about such a severe cost) and likewise delay any aid in Gaza.2
The supporters of the South Africa case contend it might harm the credibility of the court docket if it have been to fail to implement any provisional measures. That’s the reason Norman Finkelstein has advised that a method for the court docket to compromise could be to order some however not all provisional measures. My perception is that the court docket won’t be prepared to impose the 2 provisional measures that quantity to imposing a ceasefire on Israel. The court docket would appear hard-pressed to reject Israel’s competition that Hamas shouldn’t be a celebration to the Genocide Conference, so to require solely Israel to place down its arms would quantity to inviting a full-bore Hamas onslaught.
As for the “status of the court docket,” sadly in our neoliberal world what’s more likely to matter extra is the status of the person judges of their residence nations. And we’re seeing loud arguments (admittedly right here from a media organ that’s within the can for Israel) that the “status of the court docket” arguments go in opposition to discovering for South Africa. From the Economist in Charging Israel with genocide makes a mockery of the ICJ (hat tip furzy):
With its case, South Africa is making a mockery of the court docket. Genocide requires that Israel is killing individuals in Gaza merely for being Palestinian. The truth is it’s concentrating on Hamas fighters in response to a lethal assault on its territory. Some far-right Israeli politicians have used hateful language, however they don’t seem to be articulating authorities coverage. South Africa has referred to as on the ICJ to impose a unilateral ceasefire on Israel, which would go away it unable to defend itself in opposition to Hamas, a terrorist group whose founding constitution requires the killing of Jews. By making an attempt to carry Israel solely answerable for the loss of life of Palestinians, it’s vindicating Hamas’s tactic of combating from faculties and hospitals within the information that the loss of life of civilians killed within the crossfire will inflame world public opinion.
The icj [sic] is unlikely to supply a last ruling for years. South Africa’s case is so flimsy that it might be surprising if its last arguments persuade the judges that Israel had dedicated genocide.
It’s astonishing to see the depth of perception amongst Israel-defenders, even with orthodox retailers like CNN conceding in a headline final week A whole bunch of 1000’s are ravenous in Gaza as famine arrives at ‘unbelievable velocity,’ UN support chief warns. However that view is more likely to animate among the ICJ jurists.
The opposite wee “status of the court docket” downside the ICJ has no enforcement powers. It will take UN motion (which the US is certain to veto) or measures by states, individually or appearing in live performance.3 And Netanyahu has already mentioned he’d defy any ICJ opposed ICJ choice.
Prejudices of and Pressures on the Judges
The fifteen common judges for the ICJ now include representatives from 4 of the 5 everlasting members of the Safety Council, the US, China, Russia, and France, and eleven different judges, from Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Slovakia, Somalia, Uganda (see right here; (Craig Murray mentions in passing that the Normal Meeting succeeding in changing the UK ICJ choose with one from India was a Massive Deal; will probably be much more so if in opposition to the percentages, South Africa will get any provisional measures permitted; new judges should get a majority vote from each the Safety Council and the UN as a complete) . They’re joined by two ad hoc judges sworn in for this case, one from Israel and and one from South Africa (every get together to a case has the proper to nominate a choose if they don’t have already got a nationwide consultant on the panel). We’ll chorus from discussing the Israel ad hoc choose, Aharon Barak, save to level out that as an Israel Supreme Courtroom choose, he has persistently handled the whole lot the IDF mentioned as gospel and has supported the defiance of previous ICJ rulings. He might wind up being a small internet plus for South Africa by overplaying his hand.
Deciding a query in favor of the plaintiff requires a majority. So an abstention is tantamount to a vote for Israel.
Norman Finkelstein, in counting noses earlier than the listening to, argued that France was 50/50, and that Russia and China have been unlikely to vote for South Africa. Finkelstein argued neither nation would need to open the Genocide Conference can of worms (any ruling that lowered the bar may very well be turned in opposition to them). Russia has additionally been pointedly staying as distant as doable from the Gaza controversy, after they would have been anticipated to clear their throats by now and disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Do not forget that as Finkelstein put it, “Germany by no means met a genocide it didn’t like.” Germany was fast to say it might intervene within the case in help of Germany within the trial part. Finkelstein additionally identified that Uganda at all times sides with Israel.
The percentages of France siding with South Africa seem to have since dropped after the French Overseas Minister lambasted the South Africa case. From Center East Monitor:
French Overseas Minister Stephane Sejourne has advised that Paris might not settle for the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ)’s ruling in opposition to Israel for genocide, as a result of it “crosses an ethical threshold”.
“To accuse the Jewish state of genocide is to cross an ethical threshold,” Sejourne mentioned. “The notion of genocide can’t be exploited for political ends. This has at all times been our place.”
Regardless of some criticism inside the EU, there was no walkback.
Earlier than you contend that these ICJ judges are, or no less than may very well be, unbiased, do not forget that they don’t seem to be appointed for all times, in contrast to US Federal Courtroom judges. Judges whose phrases expire in 2027 or 2030 are from Slovakia, France, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Lebanon, Japan, Decide Georg Nolte Germany and Brazil. Whereas some ICJ judges are re-elected, that’s not a certain wager.
So all these judges, except they plan to retire, must assume they’re going again to regular life of their residence nations. You don’t must go down the ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern/Larry Johnson line of pondering, that the US will probably be out to alert any doable wrong-thinking choose of kompromat that may very well be made public. If any of those judges are within the Collective West energy construction (and those in these nations must be to get into the ICJ within the first place), the judges seemingly know nicely of how an unwelcome choice might value them: kids’s purposes to elite faculties rejected. A partner in knowledgeable providers enterprise (say regulation or consulting) sees his shoppers disappear.
Finkelstein underscored this concept in a later interview, the final in a 4 half collection on the Connections Podcast on Jadaliyya, after either side had made their oral arguments. At 19:10, he defined that just about each authorities had taken sides for or in opposition to Israel, and it might be very tough for a choose to buck his authorities. Finkelstein mentioned the case of Richard Goldstone, whose profession was ruined when his 2009 report back to the UN discovered each Israel and Palestine had dedicated warfare crimes.
Do not forget that was 2009. Cancel tradition is way more open and cruel than it was then.
Craig Murray, one of many solely 14 who secured a seat within the ICJ gallery to observe the hearings reside, famous how uncomfortable the judges appeared and the way keen they have been when Israel introduced up doable procedural escape hatches. From his write-up of South Africa”s oral argument:
The South African delegation was buoyant and mutually supporting, with numerous inclusive physique language and comparative animation. The Israeli delegation was the alternative of animated. It appeared extreme and disdainful…
You wouldn’t assume from the physique language it was Israel that stands accused. The truth is the one individuals within the court docket whose manner was notably dodgy and responsible have been the judges. They completely seemed like they actually didn’t need to be there. They appeared deeply uncomfortable, fidgeted and fumbled papers loads, and infrequently seemed straight on the attorneys talking.
It occurred to me that the individuals who actually didn’t need to be within the Courtroom in any respect have been the judges, as a result of it’s actually the judges and the Courtroom itself on trial. The very fact of genocide is incontrovertible and had been plainly set out. However a number of of the judges are determined to discover a technique to please the USA and Israel and keep away from countering the present Zionist narrative, the adoption of which is important to maintain your ft comfortably underneath the desk of the elite.
And from Murray’s second day write-up:
He [Malcolm Shaw] argued that South Africa couldn’t convey this case and the ICJ had no jurisdiction, as a result of there was no dispute between Israel and South Africa on which the ICJ might rule…
This very a lot the judges. As I famous on day one, this acquired them extra lively than anything when Professor John Dugard addressed the identical level for South Africa. As I reported:
The judges notably loved Dugard’s factors, enthusiastically rustling by paperwork and underlining issues. Coping with 1000’s of lifeless kids was a bit tough for them, however give them a pleasant jurisdictional level and so they have been of their ingredient.
They have been much more excited when Shaw tackled the identical level. This gave them a means out! The case may very well be technically invalid, after which they’d neither must upset the main Western powers nor make fools of themselves by pretending {that a} genocide the entire world had seen was not occurring. For some time, they seemed visibly relieved.
In different phrases, the status that’s actually at stake is that of the person judges. And never in a great way.
The Courtroom’s Key Selections
The South Africa submitting and presentation was overwhelming in depicting the unprecedented degree of civilian deaths in Gaza, the destruction of infrastructure and hospitals, meals shortages approaching hunger, and the various statements by Israeli officers of their intent to remove Palestinians from Gaza. You’ll assume there was no different aspect. And by comparability, the Israel oral arguments (they didn’t submit a written submitting earlier than the listening to) appeared shrill, of the “pound the desk” college of lawyering, though in the event you learn Israeli official statements, they use that register an terrible lot.
Nevertheless, as Murray identified above, lots of the judges could be happier in the event that they didn’t must resolve the case on its deserves, however might use procedural issues to dodge this bullet. Israel raised two, and in my humble opinion, did a really lazy and sloppy on the one that’s their finest shot, the matter of whether or not South Africa had initiated a dispute earlier than it went to court docket. Word that once more as Murray made clear, judges very very similar to coping with authorized arguments, so there’s good motive to assume, as with judges in different court docket techniques, these jurists make their very own dedication and won’t rely merely on the arguments made by every get together.
Though this court docket is extra akin to an arbitration panel than an Anglosphere court docket, and thus will be forgiving on issues of process, it must be aware of the necessities of the Genocide Conference along with the “dispute” requirement. Per Jus Mundi:
Typically, the requesting get together should fulfill the next necessities (particular evaluation and case regulation on every requirement is on the market by way of the beneath hyperlinked cross-references):
prima facie jurisdiction of the tribunal;
prima facie existence of a proper inclined of safety;
necessity of the measure requested;
urgency of the measure requested; and
proportionality of the measure requested.
The South African aspect made a protracted and persuasive argument that the Genocide Conference imposed obligations on signatories to cease and stop genocide, even when their nation was indirectly affected by it, and its attorneys marched level by level by the necessities of the Conference…besides oddly proportionality.
One among Israel’s arguments amounted to “Yeah, even in the event you assume we did one thing, you have to be invoking a unique physique of regulation.” Lawfare mentioned this notion with respect to the provisional measures that will require Israel to stop navy operations, however IMHO Israel supposed for it to use typically:
That is the opening in South Africa’s case that makes an order to droop navy operations uncertain. South Africa condemned the Oct. 7 assaults and hostage taking by Hamas and different Palestinian armed teams, nevertheless it didn’t absolutely have interaction with the implications of Hamas’s persevering with navy operations, together with rocket barrages fired at Israel. It was nearly as if South Africa had determined with its attorneys: Don’t point out the warfare. Israel in contrast talked of little else. And it spoke the authorized language of warfare, in any other case often called worldwide humanitarian regulation: precautions in assault, warnings, navy targets, confronting human shielding, and authorized assessments of proportionality.
South Africa was in a position to convey this case due to the compromissory clause within the Genocide Conference, which provides the ICJ jurisdiction to listen to disputes between events over the conference’s software. Israel, nonetheless, argued that it was IHL (the regulation of armed battle) that was the suitable regulation for regulating the conduct of hostilities—together with hostilities with an enemy that itself flagrantly violated that regulation—and that supplied the right “framework for balancing navy necessity with humanitarian concerns.”
In different phrases, Lawfare didn’t take Israel’s jurisdiction handwave severely, however nonetheless concludes (as we surmised) that the court docket is extraordinarily unlikely to order Israel to halt navy operations in Gaza. The “proportionality” requirement within the Genocide Conference suffices.
Now to the dispute over the dispute.
As we warned in our earlier put up, South Africa appears to have muffed the notification to Israel of a dispute underneath the Genocide Conference. And this isn’t based mostly on Israel’s assertions, which quantities to a lame argument, “We by no means answered so there was no dispute.”
South Africa’s personal paperwork counsel it didn’t tee this matter off correctly. A studying of the footnotes within the “dispute” sections in each the unique written submitting and the oral argument who South Africa to have repeated misrepresented what the supply paperwork mentioned or stood for. This may very well be a severe personal purpose, since it might not have been laborious for South Africa to have taken the additional say three weeks to correctly notify Israel and giving them a deadline for replying earlier than going to the ICJ. However the dire and worsening situations in Gaza created time strain.
In case you learn the footnotes, South Africa treats numerous statements by nationwide leaders, primarily on Twitter or Fb, typically to the press in their very own nations, depicting Israel as conducting genocide as amounting to initiating a dispute. That doesn’t tee off an motion any greater than do the various many statements to the media that China has been engaged in ethnic cleaning and even genocide in opposition to the Uighurs quantity to an official motion. As well as, not one of the nations whose leaders used the G phrase with respect to Israel joined South Africa as co-filers of its software (though fairly just a few states later mentioned they help South Africa’s software).
South Africa additionally cites a number of Notes Verbale it despatched to Israel earlier than it filed its software with the ICJ on December 29 as proof of a dispute. However these have been all referrals to the ICC over allegations of assorted warfare crimes (you possibly can click on by from the hyperlink and skim the underlying doc), with solely the final together with genocide. Whereas all these different warfare crimes, corresponding to ethnic cleaning, can serve to substantiate genocide, they don’t seem to be in and of themselves genocide.
As well as, the ICC shouldn’t be the ICJ. The ICC prosecutes people. From the ICC’s Understanding the Worldwide Prison Courtroom:
The Worldwide Prison Courtroom (“the ICC” or “the Courtroom”) is a everlasting worldwide court docket established to analyze, prosecute and take a look at people accused of committing essentially the most severe crimes of concern to the worldwide neighborhood as a complete, specifically the crime of genocide, crimes in opposition to humanity, warfare crimes and the crime of aggression
It doesn’t have the ability to take motion in opposition to states. The authorized authority of the 2 our bodies additionally differs. As an illustration, the ICC can difficulty arrest warrants whereas as we identified, the ICJ had no enforcement powers. Equally, UN members can elect. So it’s laborious to fathom how a referral to the ICC, which might result in motion solely in opposition to people, may very well be depicted as initiating motion in opposition to a state.
South Africa claimed Israel had replied. From its oral argument:
By this time, the dispute had crystallized as a matter of regulation. This was confirmed by Israel’s official and unequivocal denial on 6 December 2023 that it was committing genocide in Gaza.142
Nevertheless, in the event you use the hyperlink in Footnote 142 (https://www.gov.il/en/departments/basic/swords-of-iron-faq-6-dec-2023), it goes to a Ministry of Overseas Affairs doc, Hamas-Israel Battle 2023: Ceaselessly Requested Questions. Merchandise 10, the final merchandise, addresses “What’s the response to the cost {that a} “genocide” is happening in Gaza?”
FAQ is a format used for speaking with the media and most of the people. I requested Aurelien about whether or not this kind of response may very well be thought-about to be a reply. Aurelien does have some information of this space; as he famous, “though I used to be very deeply concerned within the sensible features of punishing atrocities at one level in my life, and even wrote a e book about it.” He did level out that there’s a lot of authorized literature and substantial case regulation what it took for a matter to quantity to a dispute for ICJ functions. The underside line is there appears to be no consensus. Nevertheless, the matter of the “reply by way of FAQ”: is in a unique class. His take:
In my expertise such responses don’t have any authorized standing in any respect. They’re similar to solutions to questions in an interview on TV.
South Africa does say it despatched a further Word Verbale on December 21 however that textual content was supplied solely to the judges so we can not inform the way it tried to finesse that the sooner complaints successfully had been about people, and never the State of Israel.4 South Africa filed its software per week and a day later, which IMHO is an inadequate period of time for a substantive response. Even within the US on procedural issues, 10 to fifteen days is the conventional deadline in most jurisdictions for a reply.
Once more, it is a very muddled space. However Aurelien’s backside line, earlier than I identified that that “reply’ was a mere FAQ,, a damaging for South Africa, was that an “activist” bench might discover for South Africa on the matter of whether or not this dispute really had “crystallized”. Once more from Aurelien: “I suppose it relies upon how courageous the Courtroom is feeling.”
I think the extra seemingly determinant of which means the court docket goes on this difficulty is what would occur subsequent if the ICJ have been to find out that South Africa had not really initiated a genocide dispute for its functions. To a layperson, this sounds analogous to dismissing a case for improper service. That kind of dismissal is “with out prejudice”, as within the plaintiff can strive once more. If the Courtroom have been to reject the submitting on this foundation, it might presumably must articulate how South Africa fell quick so it might reboot correctly. This would definitely harm South Africa’s credibility. Would it not harm the judges…greater than they may fear in the event that they discovered for South Africa? And if a refiling is feasible, it might additionally imply the case seemingly again of their laps after extra preliminary wrangling between Israel and South Africa. However then once more, issues might change within the meantime to scale back the strain on the court docket….corresponding to a prolonged ceasefire.
Different Choices for the ICJ
We’ll cowl this last subject shortly.
The ICJ might rule in opposition to all of the requested provisional measures however enable the case to proceed on the conventional dispute timetable, as in years. Other than that plan of action permitting Israel to proceed its horrorshow in Gaza, bear in mind additionally, in contrast to regular genocide disputes the place one get together is the alleged perp and the opposite the sufferer, Israel has a a lot better entry to info, notably now that Web entry has been repeatedly reduce, journalists are an endangered species, and few (no?) NGOs and UN officers have entry.
As we indicated above, the take a look at of proportionality suggests the ICJ won’t approve the requested provisional measures 1 and a pair of, to droop formal and irregular navy operations in Gaza. I think they won’t approve of three (to forestall genocide) since that’s an obligation underneath the Genocide Conference, to which Israel is already a signatory. Having its duties reaffirmed by way of a provisional measure is arguably prejudicial.
If we lived in a sane and humane world, it needs to be a no brainer for the Courtroom to implement the remaining provisional measures (with the removing of the phrase ‘desist” which Israel has complained is prejudicial) which name for Israel to supply humanitarian aid, cease killing Palestinians as members of the group, and (successfully) cease making Gaza uninhabitable. The opposite measures name for preservation of proof, enable entry by fact-finders, and submit common studies to the ICJ. However requiring Israel to implement any provisional measures requires the ICJ to have decided that South Africa made a sufficiently sturdy case that Israel was engaged in genocide in Gaza. That’s what fairly just a few ICJ judges actually don’t need to do.
So sadly the percentages favor the ICJ punting, both by way of a procedural difficulty such because the one I outlined, or worse, a failure to get the wanted votes on the deserves of the case.
If that’s the consequence, it can solely affirm that there are two requirements of justice on this planet, one for white colonialists5 and one other for everybody else.
___
1 This contains John Mearsheimer.
2 The ICJ has such an enormous historical past of listening to disputes that there are nearly definitely procedural precedents. However none have been in high-stakes instances like genocide.
3 I imagine there are some measures that take impact automagically in sure states as a result of pre-existing regulation. Whether or not provisional measures would set off them is once more over my pay grade.
4> From the transcript of the oral argument:
Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, earlier than submitting the current Utility, on 21 December 2023, South Africa despatched a Word Verbale to the Embassy of Israel to reiterate its view that Israel’s acts of genocide in Gaza amounted to genocide — that it, as a State get together to the Genocide Conference, was underneath an obligation to forestall genocide from being committed143. Israel responded by the use of a Word Verbale that failed to handle the problems raised by South Africa in its Word and neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a dispute. This was emailed late on 27 December 2023, this Word Verbale was obtained by the related South African workforce on 29 December 2023 after the current Utility was filed.
I’m making an attempt to keep away from reliance on something Israel has mentioned, however my impression from the Israel whinging is that if a reply have been made, the potential plaintiff wants both to handle that, as in have some forwards and backwards with the offending State earlier than going to the ICJ and talk about that historical past, or alternatively, clarify it its software why the reply confirmed that that there was an irrevocable dispute.
5 Who’s white modifications over time. The Irish within the US within the early 1900s weren’t white. Matt Stoller and Alastair Crooke, amongst others, preserve that (no less than) Ashkenazi Jews are white.____
South Africa’s requested provisional measures:
(1) The State of Israel shall instantly droop its navy operations in and in opposition to Gaza.
(2) The State of Israel shall be certain that any navy or irregular armed models which can be directed, supported or influenced by it, in addition to any organisations and individuals which can be topic to its management, route or affect, take no steps in furtherance of the navy operations referred to level (1) above.
(3) The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall every, in accordance with their obligations underneath the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian individuals, take all cheap measures inside their energy to forestall genocide.
(4) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations underneath the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian individuals as group protected by the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the fee of any and all acts inside the scope of Article II of the Conference, particularly: (a) killing members of the group; (b) inflicting severe bodily or psychological hurt to the members of the group; (c) intentionally inflicting on the group situations of life calculated to result in its bodily destruction in complete or partially; and (d) imposing measures supposed to forestall births inside the group.
(5) The State of Israel shall, pursuant to level (4)(c) above, in relation to Palestinians, desist from, and take all measures inside its energy together with the rescinding of related orders, of restrictions and/or of prohibitions to forestall: (a) the expulsion and compelled displacement from their properties; (b) the deprivation of: (i) entry to satisfactory meals and water; (ii) entry to humanitarian help, together with entry to satisfactory gas, shelter, garments, hygiene and sanitation; (iii) medical provides and help; and (c) the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza.
(6) The State of Israel shall, in relation to Palestinians, be certain that its navy, in addition to any irregular armed models or people which can be directed, supported or in any other case influenced by it and any organizations and individuals which can be topic to its management, route or affect, don’t commit any acts described in (4) and (5) above, or have interaction in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, try to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, and insofar as they do have interaction therein, that steps are taken in direction of their punishment pursuant to Articles I, II, III and IV of the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
(7) The State of Israel shall take efficient measures to forestall the destruction and make sure the preservation of proof associated to allegations of acts inside the scope of Article II of the Conference on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; to that finish, the State of Israel shall not act to disclaim or in any other case limit entry by fact-finding missions, worldwide mandates and different our bodies to Gaza to help in guaranteeing the preservation and retention of mentioned proof.
(8) The State of Israel shall submit a report back to the Courtroom on all measures taken to present impact to this Order inside one week, as from the date of this Order, and thereafter at such common intervals because the Courtroom shall order, till a last choice on the case is rendered by the Courtroom.
(9) The State of Israel shall chorus from any motion and shall be certain that no motion is taken which could irritate or prolong the dispute earlier than the Courtroom or make it harder to resolve it.
[ad_2]
Source link
