The ICJ issued its ruling on the request for indication of provisional measures in the South Africa case against Israel. According to the list of measures the court indicated Israel shall:

1- take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on Genocide.

2- ensure that its military does not commit any acts described in the Convention.

3- take all measures to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

4- enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance.

5- take measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of any evidence of genocide.

6- submit, within a month, a report to the Court on measures taken to give effect to these provisional measures.

Judge Aharon Barak, who was chosen as an ad hoc judge for this case by Israel, prepared a separate dissenting opinion which can be found here:

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak (icj-cij.org)

It is worthy of careful reading because:

a) Dissenting arguments in general offer an alternative legal perspective. They are usually educational, thought-provoking, and delve into overlooked legal interpretations and policy considerations.

b) It was written by Aharon Barak! His opinions with the Supreme Court of Israel on safeguarding human rights while countering terrorism are canonical. His rulings on the use of torture, confiscation of land, administrative detention and other security measures might arguably be one of the reasons why the judicial overhaul law was proposed by the current Knesset. 

Here are some personal takeaways from the dissenting opinion:

1- While Judge Barak expounds on the events of October 7 and the existential threat Hamas poses, he also states that this should not "undermine the suffering of innocent Palestinians". "I have been personally and deeply affected by the death and destruction in Gaza," he says. "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."

2- Based on this conviction, Judge Barak voted in favour of the fourth provisional measure ordered by the Court, agreeing with the need that Israel "must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance".

3- Judge Barak argues that the bar to establish "intent" to commit genocide was judiciously set at a high level by previous ICJ rulings. In the case of Gambia against Myanmar, the Court relied on two reports issued by an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission (IIFFM), which were based on the collection of evidence over two years, "including 400 interviews with victims and eyewitnesses, analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and videos, the cross-checking of information against credible secondary information." One can quibble on the right threshold to establish "intent", but perhaps Judge Barak was alluding to the need for a similar IIFFM for Gaza, and was agreeing, at least in principle, to an international call for one.

4- The dissenting opinion argues that statements by Israel's President and Minister of Defense do not prove intent to commit genocide, as they should be considered along with other remedial statements these officials later made. However, noting that these statements are concerning, and lamenting the use of "inappropriate and degrading language" by certain officials, Judge Barak voted for the third measure calling on Israel to "take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip."

5- Judge Barak voted against the first two provisional measures because of his disagreement with the Court's approach to finding plausibility in South Africa's arguments, specifically arguing that the approach was different in the Gambia case. But is precedence the end-all of legal yard sticks? And should the unfortunate use of "inappropriate and degrading language" at the highest level of government not suffice as grounds for plausibility?

6- Though he voted against the first two of the provisional measures, Judge Barak makes it clear that these merely restate existing obligations upon Israel under the first two Articles of the Genocide Convention. Israel should follow through on these obligations regardless of the Court's opinion. 

7- The dissenting argument makes clear, and rightly so, that the ICJ "has not made any findings with regard to South Africa’s claims under the Genocide Convention." This is a ruling on provisional measures, not a statement of fact on the perpetration of genocide. The Court also does not claim that the intention to commit genocide was proven. The legal case is only just beginning.