Israel dismissed South Africa’s allegations before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the second day of a public hearing at the organization’s headquarters in The Hague, which alleged that its actions in Gaza constituted genocide.
On Friday, Israel’s legal representatives asserted that South Africa’s case was “libellous,” “absurd,” and “unfounded,” adding that Israel’s goal was to defend its people, not to destroy them.
South Africa contended on Thursday, the inaugural day of hearings, that Israel was implicated in “systematic” acts of genocide in Gaza, where the Israeli military campaign has claimed the lives of over 23,500 Palestinians, at least 70 percent of whom were children and women, according to the Health Ministry of Gaza.
Israel’s justifications centred on its “right to self-defense” subsequent to the October 7 attacks carried out by Hamas, in addition to what it termed the absence of evidence indicating “genocidal intent.”
An attorney for Israel, Christopher Staker, stated, “The inexorably high human casualties and suffering that accompanies any conflict do not inherently indicate a pattern of behaviour that suggests genocidal intent.”
Professor of international law Malcolm Shaw, who represents Israel, stated that the case only pertains to allegations of genocide, which “stands alone among international law violations as the epitome of evil.” According to him, “the essence of this crime would be lost” if the accusation of genocide were to be formulated incorrectly.
Furthermore, such evidence was absent from the arguments presented by South Africa the day before, according to Shaw.
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, a South African attorney, described the evidence in detail on Thursday, stating, “The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling but also overwhelming and incontrovertible.”
“Extreme disconnection”
Legal representatives of Israel maintained that their country’s armed forces operated in Gaza in accordance with international law and with the intention of preventing damage to civilians by providing advance notice of impending military operations via leaflets and telephone calls.
Another attorney, Omri Sender, argued that Israel’s endeavours to facilitate humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza demonstrated that its goal was to safeguard the civilian population, not to destroy it.
According to Thomas MacManus, a senior lecturer in state crime at Queen Mary University of London, there is likely to be a “huge disconnect” between Israel’s humanitarian portrayal of Gaza and “the reality on the ground, where UN agencies report people are starving, without water, and seeing attacks on hospitals, schools, and universities.
Galit Raguan, interim director of the international justice division at the Israeli Ministry of Justice, refuted the allegation that Israel had bombed hospitals prior to the ICJ hearing. She maintained that Israel had uncovered proof that Hamas had acquired access to “every single hospital in Gaza” for military objectives.
In response to allegations that hospitals were converted into military bases, Ammar Hijazi, a representative of the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told outside The Hague that Israel’s arguments lacked factual or legal support.
“Israel has presented numerous lies that have been debunked thus far today,” he stated.
The “plausible right to defend oneself”
A timetable for the International Court of Justice’s decision on nine provisional measures that effectively seek the cessation of military operations in Gaza has not been disclosed. Israel has argued that a state cannot be obligated to abstain from exercising a “plausible right to defend itself” under provisional measures.
Regarding the matter of jurisdiction, Israel contended that a prerequisite of the International Court of Justice’s mandate is that the state initiating the case makes an initial effort to resolve this issue. Israel asserts that they were unable to communicate with South Africa prior to presenting this case in court. South Africa countered that it had initiated communication with Israel but had not received a reply.
Senior political analyst Marwan Bishara of Al Jazeera stated that while the Israeli team did present compelling “jurisdictional and procedural arguments,” “Israel lost the moral, factual, historical, and humanitarian argument due to the manner in which the situation has degenerated in Gaza – with the sheer death toll and industrial killing there.”
The legal counsel to the Israeli foreign ministry, Tal Becker, testified before the International Court of Justice that South Africa’s efforts to present a “distorted factual and legal picture” were motivated by its close ties with Hamas.
“Don’t miss out! Grab your free shares of Webull UK today!”
She stated, “The South African government has stated that it has no bilateral relations with Hamas and that its support for the Palestinian resistance against occupation does not constitute support for Hamas.”
Thursday’s presentation by South Africa’s legal representatives also criticized the actions taken by Hamas on October 7.
The two-day hearing concluded with ICJ President Joan Donoghue stating that the court will render its decision in the days to come.
