In a heated session at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Israel has vehemently denied accusations of genocide made by South Africa. The two nations are locked in a legal battle over the recent hostilities in Gaza, with both presenting contrasting views of the events.
Israel’s Defense: A ‘Distorted’ Picture
Israel accused South Africa of presenting a “profoundly distorted” view of the hostilities, claiming that the depiction is “barely distinguishable” from that of Hamas, the militant group in control of Gaza. Israel contends that the blame for civilian deaths and widespread destruction lies with Hamas, accusing them of booby-trapping homes, mining alleyways, and misfiring rockets.
South Africa’s Genocide Claims
A day prior, South Africa argued at the ICJ that Israel had committed genocidal acts in Gaza with the intent from the “highest levels of the state.” They claimed that more than 23,000 Palestinian civilians had been killed since October 7, with intent and involvement from Israeli political and military leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israel’s Counterarguments
Israel’s legal team, led by Tal Becker, the Israeli foreign ministry’s legal adviser, disputed South Africa’s claims, stating that the evidence presented was a “partial and deeply flawed picture.” They argued that South Africa’s application for a ceasefire represented an “unconscionable request” that sought to undermine Israel’s inherent right to self-defence.
Controversial Statements and Reactions
Israel countered South Africa’s citation of statements made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, claiming they were partially quoted and taken out of context. The court was played audio reportedly of a Palestinian militant boasting of killing Israelis. Palestinian supporters present outside the court chanted “Liar! Liar!” in response.
International Support for Israel
Germany announced its intervention in the proceedings on Israel’s behalf, firmly rejecting the accusation of genocide. The German government emphasized its commitment to the UN genocide convention, enacted in 1948 after the Holocaust, and expressed that there was “no basis whatsoever” for the accusation against Israel.
At the end of the hearing, the president of the court, Judge Joan Donoghue, stated that the panel of 17 judges would aim to decide on whether provisional measures, including a ceasefire, should be granted as soon as possible. South Africa’s justice minister, Ronald Lamola, remained confident in their case, while Israel urged the rejection of all provisional measures, arguing that they would advantage Hamas.
The legal battle between Israel and South Africa at the ICJ is likely to continue for years, with the decision on provisional measures expected to take weeks. The conflicting narratives presented highlight the complexity of the situation and the challenges in determining responsibility for the civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza.
