[17] In late February, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International asserted that Israel had failed to comply with the ICJ's provisional measures and that obstructing the entry and distribution of aid amounted to war crimes.

[30][38] Separately, hearings begin in February 2024 in regard to a U.N. request for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.

[44] The South African legal team includes John Dugard, Adila Hassim, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Max du Plessis, Tshidiso Ramogale, Sarah Pudifin-Jones, Lerato Zikalala, Vaughan Lowe and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh.

[4][51] South Africa requested that the ICJ issue a binding legal order on an interim basis (i.e., prior to a hearing on the merits of the application), requiring Israel to "immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.

[43] Genocidal actions alleged in the suit included the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of their homes, their expulsion and displacement, as well as the blockade on food, water and medical aid to the region.

South Africa alleged that Israel had imposed measures preventing Palestinian births through the destruction of essential health services vital for the survival of pregnant women and their babies.

[55] The South African application set out nine provisional measures of protection requested:[56] After the filing of the charges on 29 December, the Israeli Foreign Ministry rejected the allegations "with disgust", stating that Israel operates according to international law and focuses its military actions solely against Hamas, and that the residents of Gaza are not the enemy.

Shaw contended that the South African case provided only a partial narrative and urged the court to consider the decisions of the Israeli cabinet instead of focusing on "random statements by politicians who are not decision-makers".

[66]: 22–40 [70] In its initial ruling on 26 January 2024, the court accepted the plausibility of "at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa" under the Genocide Convention, and found it has prima facie jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

[102] After the ICJ declined to grant the emergency application, Kenneth Roth, the former director of Human Rights Watch and a professor at Princeton University, stated, "What the court just did though, it said, 'We already ordered all this to stop.

[105] Israel's legal team described South Africa's request as "wholly unfounded in fact and law, morally repugnant, and represent an abuse both of the Genocide Convention and of the court itself".

Judge Georg Nolte asked Israel to clarify the conditions in these zones, including how it plans to ensure the safe passage of evacuees and the provision of essential supplies such as food and shelter.

[119] Oxfam stated, "The risk of genocide is increasing in northern Gaza because the Government of Israel is ignoring one of the key provisions of the International Court of Justice, to provide urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance".

[129] In a series of posts on Verfassungsblog, University of Haifa law professor Itamar Mann stated that it "seems rather unlikely" that the Court would grant all provisional measures sought by South Africa, following oral argument in the case.

Israeli response followed a narrative of "...the harm and suffering experienced by Palestinian civilians were a regrettable, wholly undesirable but ultimately inevitable consequence of an intensive armed conflict taking place in an urban area...".

[134][135][136][137] South Africa's claims were also criticized by The Economist, for diverting attention from real issues such as potential breaches of war laws and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,[134] and, by David Scheffer, for ignoring Hamas' actions.

[142] In a separate report, Forensic Architecture found that in eight instances, the Israeli defense had "misrepresented the visual evidence they cited, through a combination of incorrect annotations and labelling, and misleading verbal descriptions.

[149][150][151] Francesca Albanese wrote on X: "The day after International Criminal Court (ICJ) concluded that Israel is plausibly committing Genocide in Gaza, some states decided to defund UN Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA)".

[159] In October 2024, Amnesty International stated, "It has been nine months since the ICJ warned the risk of genocide in Gaza is real yet Israeli authorities continue to violate the provisional measures ordered by the court".

[166][167] Yuval Yoaz, an Israeli lawyer and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, described the core issue as "whether the qualification – "which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" – applies only to "any other action," or also to "military offensive."".

[23] In a statement, Amnesty stated, "The ground incursion and the associated mass forced displacement it has caused, pose further irreparable risk to the rights of the Palestinian people protected under the Genocide Convention".

[175] Slovenia announced that it will participate in the ICJ proceedings initiated by the UN General Assembly concerning Israel's allegedly controversial activities in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

"[214] Belgian PM Alexander De Croo and foreign minister Hadja Lahbib expressed disapproval with Gennez's comments, with the latter saying: "If we want to play a role, it should be that of mediator and not prosecutor.

[216] On 12 January, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the "massive civilian casualties during the current escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are outrageous and deeply regrettable ... And in this regard, we understand the motives of South Africa's appeal to the International Court of Justice.

[248] South Africa's case has been opposed by the United States; U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said the U.S. found the "submission meritless, counterproductive, completely without any basis in fact whatsoever".

[64] The British government was accused of double standards and hypocrisy as the UK, as well as Canada, Germany, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, joined The Gambia's ICJ case against Myanmar in November 2023 for committing the Rohingya genocide.

"[290] A group of New Zealand's legal experts, led by David Williams and Jane Kelsey, signed an open-letter urging Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to support South Africa's petition.

[291] Responding to the court's ruling on the provisional measures, Ilias Bantekas, a professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, stated, "Reading between the lines, this is a clear call that there is evidence that Israel has committed genocide.

[309] One week after the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor stated that Israel was ignoring the court's order, with the IDF killing nearly 1,000 people in those seven days.

[315] On 5 February 2024, the aviation unit of Itochu stated it was ending its strategic partnership with Elbit Systems, citing the ICJ's provisional order to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians.