World court concludes hearings on South Africa’s genocide petition against Israel

International Court of Justice (ICJ) has concluded its two-day hearings on South Africa’s petition against Israel, accusing it of committing genocide in Gaza

Muslim Network TV Desk

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has wrapped up its two-day hearings on South Africa’s petition against Israel, which accuses the Jewish nation of committing genocide in Gaza.

This high-stakes legal battle has garnered international attention, with both sides presenting their arguments in front of the World Court.

Israel, represented by a team of legal experts, refuted South Africa’s allegations, claiming that they are based on a distorted factual and legal interpretation of the situation in Gaza.

The heart of Israel’s defense was in its assertion that it has the legitimate right to defend itself against Hamas attacks and that South Africa’s close ties with Hamas undermine the credibility of its claims.

Israel’s legal team has argued that Hamas initiated the conflict by launching a large-scale attack on Israel on October 7. This, they contend, gives Israel the right to defend itself.

Furthermore, Israel’s legal representatives challenged calls for an immediate end to its operations in Gaza, stating that any violations by Israeli forces can be addressed through their robust and independent legal system.

Experts while noting certain weaknesses in Israel’s defense, said it did not adequately address the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They said its claims of protecting civilians also is hollow, especially considering the significant death toll that has resulted from the ongoing conflict.

ICJ President Joan Donoghue, in her closing remarks, called on the agents of both governments to remain available to the court as it will soon decide on provisional measures.

The outcome of this ruling could potentially have a significant impact on the ongoing war in Gaza.

Savita Pawnday, the executive director at the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, an NGO, expressed her support for South Africa’s decision to take Israel to court.

She compared it to The Gambia’s case against Myanmar at the ICJ, stating that it marked a crucial step in addressing the climate of impunity that has persisted for decades.

-Provisional measures

On Thursday, South Africa argued that Israel violated the 1948 Genocide Convention and sought nine provisional measures. These are cease-fire in Gaza, lifting the Gaza blockade, ensuring the unimpeded movement of people and goods through land, air, and sea crossings, protecting Palestinian infrastructure, preventing the destruction of homes, hospitals, and other essential infrastructure in Gaza, guaranteeing access to humanitarian aid, allowing free flow of vital supplies like food, water, and medical assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, investigating potential genocide, establishing an independent body to investigate alleged genocidal acts committed in Gaza, ensuring freedom of movement, protecting the right of Palestinians to move freely within the occupied Palestinian territories, releasing Palestinian prisoners, calling for the release of Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel.

Further, it has asked for holding perpetrators accountable, demanding that Israel hold accountable any individuals responsible for committing acts of genocide or other grave violations of international law, requiring Israel to provide reparations to the Palestinian people for the harm caused by alleged genocidal acts.

Israel’s deputy attorney Gilad Noam said South Africa has failed to make the case for provisional measures. He said events that are the subject of these proceedings are occurring in the framework of a war instigated by Hamas.

He said standards needed to apply provisional measures – “irreparable harm and urgency” – are not met because Israel has taken steps to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

He added that Israel has met all its legal obligations and that each of the nine provisional measures sought by South Africa is “unwarranted and prejudicial”.

“In contending with its challenges, Israel remains committed to abiding by international law”, said Gilad.

Christopher Staker, an international lawyer who was previously on the criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said South Africa’s appeal for Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in Gaza is “astonishing”.

“Can provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself?” Staker asked the court.

He listed several reasons why Israel believes there should not be these provisional measures.

-Israel claims it allows aid

Omri Sender, a lawyer another lawyer, who represented Israel at the hearing, said

Israel has ensured humanitarian aid enters Gaza and that there has been no restriction on the amount of water that may enter the Gaza Strip.

Sender says food trucks have been able to enter the strip and the sick and injured have been allowed to cross into Egypt.

Galit Raguan, acting director of the international justice division at Israel’s Justice Ministry, said urban warfare will always result in civilian harm.

“They may be the unintended but lawful result of attacks on military targets. They do not constitute genocidal acts,” he said.

Without naming the U.S., he referred to recent wars across the globe and cited that they also witnessed a heavy human toll.

Raguan asserts Israel has not bombed hospitals but that damage and harm have occurred as a “result of hostilities” in the “vicinity” of hospitals. She says the Israeli military provides advanced warnings before it launches any attack.

Malcolm Shaw, professor of international law, who also represented Israel said South Africa has approached this matter as if there were an ongoing dispute with Israel.

He referred to claims made by South Africa’s representative and international law Professor John Dugard, who said on Thursday that the two sides were in “dispute”, adding that it was instead a “unisputed”.

He then called into question South Africa’s claims that it had tried to contact Israel and open a dialogue. Instead, he said, Israel tried to open bilateral talks and South Africa instead proceeded with the ICJ case. If South Africa had taken up Israel’s offer, the parties may have decided there was no dispute to take up in court, he argued.

Tal Becker serves as the legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said calls for provisional measures for Israel to end fighting in Gaza “cannot stand” because it has the right to defend itself.

The lawyer instead said the court should apply provisional measures against South Africa, accusing it of maintaining close ties with Hamas.

Becker called South Africa’s case a “libel” but did not address in detail the genocide claims that South Africa says Israel is carrying out in its war on Gaza which has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians, most of them children and women, while also destroying civilian infrastructure, including schools, universities and hospitals.

Experts believe that a deadlock that existed in global politics and its failure to impose compliance with international laws has been broken by The Gambia and South Africa.

Kate Ferguson, the co-founder of the human rights advocacy group Protection Approaches, argues that even if Israel ignores the ICJ ruling, the effort would still not be in vain.

“Will it be enough to stem the tide of atrocity crimes? No, of course not,” she said. “But if more states can stand up and fulfill their state obligations under the convention, that can only be a good thing,” she told British newspaper Guardian.