Day 2 of the genocide case at the ICJ, Israel's response:
South Africa presented "profoundly distorted factual and legal picture," argues Israel
Legal adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry Tal Becker, left, and British jurist Malcolm Shaw
Israel said South Africa presented to the UN's top court a "profoundly distorted factual and legal picture," as the second and final day of the hearing on Israel's genocide case began. "The entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated, decontextualized and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities," said Tal Becker, one of the lawyers representing Israel, in his opening remarks at the International Court of Justice on Friday.
Becker said Israel was "singularly aware" of why the genocide convention was adopted. "Seared in our collective memory is the systematic murder of six million Jews, as part of a premeditated and heinous program for their total annihilation," he said. Becker argued that the convention should not have been invoked in this case.
"The genocide convention was not designed to address the brutal impact of intensive hostilities on the civilian population," he argued. Instead, it was designed "to address a malevolent crime of the most exceptional severity."
He criticized South Africa for "weaponizing" the term "genocide" against Israel, adding "we live in a time when words are cheap."
"The attempt to weaponize the term 'genocide' against Israel in the present context does more than tell the court a grossly distorted story, and it does more than empty the word of its unique force and special meaning. It subverts the object and purpose of the convention itself, with ramifications for all states seeking to defend themselves against those who demonstrate total disdain for life and for the law," he said."
Israel slams ICJ case as a "libel" aiming to "deny Israel the right to defend itself"
“It is respectfully submitted that the application and request should be dismissed for what they are: a libel designed to deny Israel the right to defend itself according to the law from the unprecedented terrorist onslaught it continues to face and to free the 136 hostages Hamas still holds," said Tal Becker, one of the lawyers representing Israel.
Becker was echoing claims made by Israel ahead of the hearing at The Hague. Israeli officials called the accusation of genocide a "blood libel" by South Africa, a thinly veiled accusation of antisemitism. "What Israel seeks by operating in Gaza, is not to destroy a people, but to protect a people, its people, who are under attack on multiple fronts,” Becker said, adding that Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists not the civilian population.
He reaffirmed comments made by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel does not seek to "permanently occupy Gaza or to displace its civilian population."
If genocidal acts have been committed, they were "perpetrated against Israel," Israel argues
Israel shared multimedia, oral and written evidence of the atrocities committed by Hamas militants on October 7, during the hearing at the UN’s top court, arguing if genocidal acts had been committed, “they have been perpetrated against Israel.” Israel said it felt “compelled to share with the court some fraction of [October 7's] horror,” but stressed it knew this did not justify violations of the law in reply.
“We do so not because these acts, however sadistic and systematic, release Israel of its obligations to uphold the law as it defends its citizens and territory – that is unquestionable,” said Tal Becker, representing Israel. “We do so because it is impossible to understand the armed conflict in Gaza without appreciating the nature of the threat that Israel is facing, and the brutality and the lawlessness of the armed force confronting it.”
Becker argued that the acts of Hamas on October 7 were genocidal in nature, and provided evidence of Hamas' leaders "proudly declared agenda of annihilation." “The annihilationist language of Hamas’ charter is repeated regularly by its leaders, with the goal, in the words of one member of Hamas’ political bureau, of ‘the cleansing of Palestine of the filth of the Jews,’” Becker said "If there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel,” he said.
The court was shown a video of an interview shortly after October 7, in which Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas leader, told a Lebanese TV channel: “We will do this again and again.” He said the attack was “just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth.” Becker argued the provisional measures requested by South Africa for the court to order Israel to suspend its military operations would deny Israel its ability to “meet its obligations to the defense of its citizens, to the hostages, and to over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis unable to safely return to their homes.
Israel has the "inherent right" to take all legitimate measures to defend its citizens, he said.
Decisions made by Israeli leadership "lack any genocidal intent," argues Israel
Barrister Malcolm Shaw, center, speaks on behalf of the Israeli delegation
Israel has responded to claims put by South Africa to the UN’s top court on Thursday, alleging Israel’s leadership was “intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza.” Malcolm Shaw, a lawyer representing Israel, argued Israel’s leadership had not shown “genocidal intent” in the wake of Hamas’ October 7 attacks.
“Any careful review of the official and binding policy decisions made by the relevant authorities in Israel clearly evidence that such decisions lack any genocidal intent,” Shaw said. Shaw said some pronouncements made after October 7 were “rhetorical” and pointed instead to statements made by Israeli leaders asserting their country was complying with international law.
Among others, Shaw cited a later speech by Netanyahu on January 10. "Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law,” Netanyahu said. Shaw said such pronouncements “are indicative of the consistent and relentless commitment of Israeli relevant authorities to mitigate civilian harm and alleviate civilian suffering in Gaza.”
Israel argues it is complying with international humanitarian law in attacks on Gaza
Malcolm Shaw at the International Court of Justice
Israel told the UN’s top court it was taking actions to minimize civilian casualties during its aerial and ground assaults on Gaza and stressed its military was complying with international humanitarian law.
Article 51 of the UN charter, which governs the use of force, gives states the right of self-defense, provided the force they use is necessary and proportionate. Proportionality does not mean symmetry. It means the defending state cannot use more force than is needed to respond to a threat. Israel argued that its right to self-defense had been triggered by Hamas’ October 7 attack.
Once a conflict has begun, states are bound by “international humanitarian law” (IHL). Under IHL, all states must minimize civilian casualties. Intentionally directing attacks against civilians is always illegal, but an attack that kills civilians incidentally can be legal if it achieves a military purpose, provided the harm caused to civilians is not “excessive” in relation to the military advantage anticipated.
Malcolm Shaw argued Israel was responding “in a proportionate manner in each case,” pointing to evidence such as “forewarning civilians of a pending action by the unprecedented and extensive use of telephone calls, leafleting and so forth, coupled with the facilitation of humanitarian assistance.” Shaw said this “demonstrates the precise opposite of genocidal intent.”
“South Africa, in seeking to discover the necessary intent, presents a distorted picture,” he said.
Gaza evacuation orders prove "exact opposite" of genocidal intent as they limit civilian harm, argues Israel
Palestinians leave from the northern part of the Gaza to move to central and southern parts of Gaza on November 8
Israel responded to South Africa’s accusations that its warnings sent to Palestinians advising them to evacuate their homes in the north of Gaza was itself “genocidal,” arguing that such measures are designed to limit civilian harm.
South Africa on Thursday told the UN’s top court that the evacuation order issued by Israel to residents of northern Gaza on October 13 was “genocidal,” since “it required immediate movement… while no humanitarian assistance was permitted.” During its argument on Thursday, South Africa said Palestinians "have been been killed if they have failed to evacuate, in the places to which they have fled, and even while they have attempted to flee along Israeli-declared safe routes.”
Responding on Friday to the accusation, Israel described South Africa’s claims as “astonishing.” “A measure intended to mitigate harm to the civilian population… is proof, according to the Applicant, of Israel’s intent to commit genocide,” said Galit Raguan, a lawyer representing Israel. “In fact, it proves the exact opposite.”
Experts say international law requires a military force to notify a civilian population prior to an attack. “Under international law, before you attack, you must warn the civilian population if they’re going to be affected. And if you’re going to attack an entire city, as clearly the Israelis were going to, you need to tell the civilian population, as a legal requirement, we’re going to conduct operations and you need to move away from the fight,” Michael Schmitt, a professor of international law at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom, told CNN.
Raguan argued the Israeli military had invested “time, resources and intelligence” in order to “save civilian lives.”
In concluding remarks, Israel says it is witnessing "effort to pervert the meaning of the term 'genocide'"
Gilad Noam, Deputy Attorney-General for International Affairs
Israel said that the accusation of genocide brought against it by South Africa was an attempt to "pervert the meaning of the term 'genocide' itself."
In concluding remarks at the end of a two-day hearing at the International Court of Justice, Gilad Noam, representing Israel, urged the court not to grant South Africa's request for "provisional measures," which could lead to the court ordering Israel to pause its military campaign in Gaza.
If the court finds in South Africa's favor, Noam said it risks benefitting terrorist groups. “Entertaining the Applicant’s request will not strengthen the commitment to prevent and punish genocide, but weaken it. It will turn an instrument adopted by the international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust, into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or for the law," he said.
Noam argued that granting provisional measures would "lead to a perverse situation," since it "would effectively allow Hamas to continue attacking the citizens of Israel" while constraining Israel's ability to defend itself. Noam said if "resort to force in self-defense against an enemy hiding behind civilians can be portrayed as genocide and trigger provisional measures," then "an an inevitable tension will be created between the genocide convention and states defending themselves against the ever increasing capacities of terrorist organizations."
Noam concluded: In living memory of the atrocities that gave birth to the term ‘genocide,’ in the aftermath of which the State of Israel was founded, we are witness to a concerted and cynical effort to pervert the meaning of the term ‘genocide’ itself."
Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot by claiming Hamas committed genocidal acts "If genocidal acts have been committed, they were perpetrated against Israel". If that's considered genocide then what do you call what Israel is doing in Gaza?
Anyway the facts after 3 months of systematic destruction of Gaza speak for themselves.
Essay Pro