ICJ, who are you with?

This weekend I spent reading the ICJ order South Africa v. Israel and here are my take-aways:

1. The ICJ operative clause ignores the first provisional measure indicated by South Africa: “Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in Gaza”. It means ICJ agrees that operation “Iron Swords” should continue but doesn’t want to articulate it not to sound too supportive towards Israel.
2. The entire order mentions Hamas only twice (!) First, when recalling that Iron Swords started as a response to Hamas’ attack. Second, when recalling that Hamas still holds some hostages (130, of which two are kids aged 1 and 4). There is no single line stating that Israel defends itself against Hamas.
3. The ICJ order ignores the fact that 10/7 can be characterized as genocidal action (the arguments are presented in paragraphs 12-22 of the public sitting on 12.01 and they are terrible). The ICJ abstains from qualifying 10/7 anyhow.
4. The separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak (Israel) is of particular interest. Judge Barak signals that the ICJ decided not to order South Africa to take measures to protect the rights of the Israeli hostages and to facilitate their release by Hamas.
5. The ICJ completely ignores Israel’s obligation towards 110 000 Israelis that were internally displaced from their homes because of Iron Swords (see para 25 of the public sitting). Is their safety unimportant in the context of 10/7?
6. The ICJ relies on the data provided by UNRWA. 3 days after the issue of the order UNRWA’s key donors suspended its funding because 12 UNRWA staff were killing Jews on 7 October, 3000 staff were celebrating this massacre not to mention several evidences how UNRWA schools for years are teaching Arab kids to hate Jews.
7. The ICJ completely ignores evidences that Hamas converts civilian infrastructure into weapon storages; hinders civilians from evacuating; steals and hoards humanitarian supplies. The fact that humanitarian crisis is created by Hamas is not present in ICJ’s reflections at all! How to explain such a blindness of 14 ICJ members out of 15?
8. Well, I had a look at who the judges are and their blindness became explainable. 3 judges represent the countries that support either Hamas or Iran (Russian Gevorgian, Chinese Xue, Brazilian Brant); 3 judges represent historically antisemite Arab population (Moroccan Bennouna, Somalian Yusuf, Lebanese Salam);  four judges are long-term UN employees (which equals “anti-Israel”): American Donoghue, Slovak Tomka, Jamaican Robinson, German Nolte. With the remaining 4 judges I was struggling: French Abraham (probably the wish to please the “Arab street” in France?);  Indian Bhandari (the wish to support BRICS peers?); Japanese Iwasawa and Australian Charlesworth (both countries don’t have a clear position and probably voting in favour looked like a safer solution).
9. The only hero in this process is the Ugandian Sebutinde  who voted against all the provisional measures. She also issued a dissenting opinion stating that South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel were committed with the necessary genocidal intent.

What is my conclusion? South Africa didn’t win the case because its primary goal to stop Iron Swords and save lives and political powers of its Hamas’ friends hasn’t been achieved. The only winners of the ICJ order are Hamas and antisemites from democratic countries: they can keep hating Israel as the ICJ order doesn’t point at Hamas as a root cause of the war.