Israel has strongly rebuffed South Africa’s allegations of genocide in Gaza, contending that the presented narrative is a “partial and deeply flawed picture.” The Israeli defense, presented at the international court of justice in The Hague, refutes South Africa’s assertion that Israel has committed genocidal acts in Gaza with intent from the highest levels of state. Israel contends that responsibility for the substantial number of Palestinian civilian casualties, exceeding 23,000 people or about 1% of Gaza’s population since October 7, and the widespread destruction of buildings primarily lies with Hamas, either directly or indirectly.
Israel’s legal team argues that South Africa’s portrayal of events is deliberately curated, decontextualized, and manipulative, presenting a distorted factual and legal picture of the current hostilities. Tal Becker, the Israeli foreign ministry’s legal adviser, stated, “The entirety of this case hinges on a deliberately curated decontextualized and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities.”
Israel disputes South Africa’s claim that its political and military leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demonstrated intent to commit genocide. The Israeli legal team argued that comments made by Netanyahu had been partially quoted and emphasized Israel’s inherent right to defend itself against threats.
The court session witnessed a back-and-forth between the legal teams, with Israel asserting that South Africa’s application for the court to issue provisional measures, ordering a ceasefire, represents an unconscionable request that seeks to undermine Israel’s right to self-defense. Palestinian supporters outside the court chanted “Liar! Liar!” as Israel’s legal team presented its case.
The court, consisting of 17 judges, is expected to deliver its decision on whether provisional measures should be granted as soon as possible. South Africa seeks an immediate halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza through these provisional measures, while the broader case is likely to extend over an extended period. Israel maintains that all provisional measures requested by South Africa should be rejected, cautioning that granting them would advantage Hamas at Israel’s expense.
In response to the accusations made by South Africa, Israel’s legal adviser, Tal Becker, asserted that civilians were killed by Hamas due to actions such as booby-trapping homes, mining alleyways, and misfiring rockets. He argued that Hamas’s use of schools and hospitals for military purposes contributed to the collapse of these structures. Becker criticized South Africa’s presentation, stating it provides a distorted and manipulative description of the current hostilities. He labeled South Africa’s request for provisional measures, including a ceasefire, as “unconscionable” and an attempt to undermine Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.
The information provided by Tal Becker included graphic details of the October 7 attacks by Hamas and other militants, emphasizing acts of violence such as rape and mutilation. Becker played audio of a Palestinian militant boasting about killing 10 Israelis. He argued that sharing such details was not to absolve Israel of its responsibility but to highlight the nature of the threat faced by Israelis. Palestinian supporters outside the court chanted “Liar! Liar!” Israel’s legal team contested South Africa’s claim of intent to commit genocide by its political and military leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguing against such allegations.
Prof. Malcolm Shaw argued that comments by Netanyahu were partially quoted, stating that the full remarks included Netanyahu highlighting the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as the most moral army globally, emphasizing efforts to avoid harm to the uninvolved. He considered some cited comments by South Africa as rhetorical and not indicative of genocidal intent, expressing anguish after traumatic events. Dr. Omri Sander mentioned Israel’s efforts to improve Gaza’s humanitarian situation, hindered by Hamas, while Dr. Galit Raguam contended that hospitals were not bombed; instead, the IDF sought to search and dismantle military infrastructure, minimizing damage and disruption.
Damage to hospitals has been documented by humanitarian organizations, including a Guardian investigation.
At the conclusion of Friday’s hearing, Judge Joan Donoghue, the president of the court, stated that the panel of 17 judges would aim to provide their decision on whether provisional measures should be granted as soon as possible.
South African lawyers asked the court on Thursday to order an immediate halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza. A decision on that request will likely take weeks, and the full case is expected to last for years.
Israel has urged the rejection of all provisional measures requested by South Africa, warning that if ordered, they would advantage Hamas at Israel’s expense.
Having listened to Israel’s arguments on Thursday, South Africa’s justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who opened the case against Israel at the ICJ, said he remained confident in South Africa’s “compelling” case.
He said that contrary to the suggestion by Israel, South Africa had condemned Hamas and called for the militant group to release the hostages and be investigated. He also said: “No matter what some individuals within the group of Palestine and Gaza may have done, and no matter how great the threat to Israel citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza … with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.”
The 1948 Genocide Convention, enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The ICJ’s decisions are final and without appeal, but the court has no way to enforce them.
Image source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67944903
