What are the reactions to the proceedings at the ICJ?

South Africa has brought a case against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The ICJ heard arguments about whether Israel is violating the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

South Africa's legal arguments presented evidence including statements by Israeli officials, high civilian death tolls in Gaza, and humanitarian conditions worsened by Israeli actions.

Israel responded, defending its military actions as self-defense against Hamas and arguing that no genocide is taking place.

The U.S., U.K., and Germany, among other countries, support Israel and have rejected South Africa's allegations as unfounded or unjustified.

Over 50 countries have reportedly backed South Africa's case, with the majority from the Arab world and Africa; Turkey is the only European country to publicly support the claim.

It is unclear how many countries from regions like South America and Asia support either side, as many have remained silent or neutral.

Some prominent celebrities, like Susan Sarandon and Lena Headey, have publicly supported South Africa's charge against Israel.

National leaders and government officials from various countries have been actively commenting on the case, with Germany announcing its intention to intervene on Israel's behalf at the ICJ.

The genocide case against Israel is part of a broader narrative in which the ICJ may also need to decide on provisional measures, and the case could potentially take years for a final verdict.

South Africa is requesting that the ICJ implement provisional measures that would require Israel to refrain from actions that might constitute genocide, such as restricting humanitarian aid or closure of hospitals during the ICJ's proceedings.

An opinion column by Canadian jurist Rosalie Abella published by The Globe and Mail characterizes the ICJ case as an abuse of the postwar legal order, with the charges described as cynical and outrageous.

The Daily News Egypt implied that this case could represent a test for the West's claim to moral superiority.

Haaretz presented a rhetorical question challenging the notion that if not genocide, then what term should describe the mass killings in Gaza.

The case tests the post-war international legal order, particularly the definitions and applications of terms like "genocide" in conflicts involving states and non-state actors like Hamas.

A ruling from the ICJ, even on provisional measures, will have significant symbolic weight and could impact international perceptions and pressure on Israel.

The global split in support for the case demonstrates a division between Western and non-Western countries' views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

How the ICJ handles this high-profile case might set precedents for future disputes involving allegations of genocide and war crimes.

The involvement of major world powers and their alignment in this case may influence the balance of global political power and discourse on human rights and international law.