In a riveting two-day hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel mounted a vigorous defence against allegations of genocide levelled by South Africa in the context of the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The proceedings, broadcast globally, unfolded as a high-stakes legal battle with significant implications for international law and the protracted Israel-Palestine conflict.
The first day of the ICJ hearing set the stage for a fierce legal confrontation, with South Africa accusing Israel of committing "systematic" acts of genocide in Gaza. The legal team representing South Africa argued that the evidence of genocidal intent was "overwhelming and incontrovertible," pointing to the staggering death toll of over 23,500 Palestinians, with a majority being women and children.
Against this grim backdrop, South Africa urgently requested the ICJ to issue provisional measures to halt what they described as the ongoing Israeli aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza. The crux of the matter became South Africa's call for immediate action to address the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the beleaguered enclave.
In response to South Africa's grave accusations, Israel, led by the seasoned British lawyer and academic Malcolm Shaw, launched a comprehensive counterargument on the second day of the ICJ hearing. Each facet of South Africa's claims was dissected as Israel sought to dispel the allegations.
Israel contended that the conflict was triggered by a pre-emptive Hamas attack on army outposts and surrounding villages on October 7. They asserted their inherent right to self-defence under international law, emphasizing the historical context of the Genocide Convention as a moral obligation for the state of Israel.
Israel denied accusations of an inherent intent to "destroy" the Palestinian people, dismissing them as baseless "random assertions." The defence argued that statements made by high-ranking officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were taken out of context and did not indicate genocidal intentions.
Israel put forth a defence against allegations of genocidal actions, asserting that Hamas was using civilians as human shields. They claimed that Israeli forces were making conscientious efforts to minimize civilian harm. Critics, however, pointed to instances where civilians were killed while unarmed and attempting to evacuate, raising serious concerns about Israel's adherence to its stated objectives.
Israel raised a procedural challenge, arguing that South Africa had failed to communicate with Tel Aviv before filing the ICJ application, thereby violating the court's rules. This raised questions about the court's jurisdiction, with Israel suggesting that the case might lack the necessary prerequisites, casting doubt on whether the ICJ should adjudicate the matter.
Disputing allegations of blocking critical supplies from Gaza, Israel asserted that substantial amounts of aid were allowed into the enclave before and during the conflict. Critics, including Human Rights Watch, countered, claiming that Israel deliberately obstructs essential supplies, using starvation as a weapon of war.