Israel has formally responded at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the genocide accusations made by South Africa.
The case, invoking the 1948 Genocide Convention, alleges that Israel has committed genocide in its actions against Palestinians.
Also read: Protesters show support for South African case at International Court of Justice
The court proceedings saw a significant presence of pro-Palestinian activists from Europe and other countries, expressing solidarity with South Africa and scepticism about Israel’s claims of not targeting civilians.
Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, Marwan Bishara, stated that Israel’s defence began weakly but gained strength.
He remarked that attempts to deflect blame and downplay the context of Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine seemed illogical and that the argument that Israeli forces are trying to protect civilians appeared unconvincing given the high Palestinian casualty numbers.
Bishara said Israel’s lawyers did well to focus on the ICJ’s jurisdiction, pointing out that the court must specifically prove Israel is guilty of genocidal intent, not any other violations.
‘You can claim Israel has committed heinous crimes, but if they do not fall under the framework of genocide, the court has no jurisdiction,’ he said.
Galit Raguan, representing Israel, blamed Hamas for the high civilian toll in Gaza. She argued that urban warfare inevitably leads to civilian casualties and refuted allegations of Israel targeting hospitals, asserting damage occurred due to hostilities nearby.
Also read: City warns against the creation of illegal public art and murals
As per the BBC, Tal Becker, a legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the court that while the civilian suffering was ‘tragic,’ Hamas sought ‘to maximise civilian harm to both Israelis and Palestinians, even as Israel seeks to minimise it.’
Christopher Staker, a British barrister, questioned South Africa’s call for Israel to suspend military operations. He argued that provisional measures should not limit Israel’s self-defence, especially given the ongoing threat from Hamas.
‘Can provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself?’ he asked the court.
Gilad Noam, Israel’s deputy attorney general, argued against the provisional measures to protect Palestinians, claiming Israel is addressing the humanitarian crisis and abiding by international law.
He said that the events in question occurred during a war instigated by Hamas and fell under international humanitarian law, not the Genocide Convention.
The two-day hearing concluded after Israel’s team finished presenting its arguments.
ICJ president Joan Donoghue announced that the court would deliver its decision in the coming days.
Also read:
Foundation to erect Desmond Tutu statue with Palestinian scarf
Picture: Sora Shimazaki / Pexels