Before the International Court of Justice, Israel is struggling to defend itself

Israel denied the allegations on 12 January “grossly distorted” It called the genocide baseless and declared that South Africa, which brought the case to the United Nations (UN) Supreme Court, was acting as a mouthpiece for Hamas, which it considers a terrorist organization it wants to eliminate. His army targeted Hamas militants, not Palestinian civilians, he said.

More demanding than expected

The arguments of the team of lawyers representing Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) were particularly awaited. In general, Israel believes that international organizations act against its interests and ignores them. It is therefore rare to hear legal arguments from a country that has not implemented even one of the dozens of UN resolutions in its regard. We can also say that South Africa has already earned a point. Because of his stubbornness, his desire to ensure respect for international law and his firm support for the Palestinian people, Pretoria referred the matter to the ICJ. South Africa has since joined dozens of countries in the Global South (but only one of the European Union, Belgium), which is no coincidence.

Israel could not fail to attend the session, which began on January 10 with arguments from South Africa and continued on January 11 with the intervention of Israeli lawyers. A few hours ago, this Friday, Tel Aviv set the tone. Israel’s foreign ministry spokesman, Lior Hayat, confirmed on Cannes public channel that Israel is appearing before the ICJ. “Because we are not guilty. »

According to this member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, “If there is a party that is trying to commit genocide, it is Hamas. » An aggressive tone may indicate some concern.

Because the day before, through a legal development, the South African side painted a real picture of the occupation, thus showing that, October 7 – the attack of Hamas – in no way triggered the element of Palestinian suffering. People and, ultimately, the risks of genocide that justified the referral to the ICJ. South Africa asked the judges on Thursday to impose emergency measures ordering Israel to immediately stop the military offensive. This, by air, ground and naval forces, has killed more than 23,000 people in Gaza, according to Hamas health officials, and is intended to provoke. “depopulation” From Gaza.

Israel behind his three pillars

Advocates relied on three pillars in Israel’s defense. Tal Baker, Legal Adviser to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said so “If there were acts of genocide, they were committed against Israel. Hamas wants to commit genocide against Israel. » The underlying idea is that the 1948 Genocide Convention was adopted after the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. So the idea that Jews could act would be inconceivable. This is the second column. “For some, “never again” is the motto. This is the greatest moral obligation for Israel.”. He took care to accompany his remarks with photos of hostages still in the Gaza Strip.

A day ago, South African jurists took care to point that out “Genocide is never announced in advance” And above all that “It is not the Jews or the Israeli citizens but the Israeli government and its army that as a group are trying to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza. »

“It’s not genocide, South Africa is only telling us half the story. »

Lawyer Malcolm Shaw

But for Tal Baker, who had the enormous task of drawing up the political framework in which all the interventions that followed would take place, “The terrible suffering of civilians, Israeli and Palestinian, is the result of Hamas’s strategy”Such insistence “The main element of genocide, the intent to destroy people, is completely lacking”. Accordingly, Israel argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention to order it to end its military operations in Gaza.

“It’s not genocide, South Africa is only telling us half the story”, lawyer Malcolm Shaw insisted. For that, only the collective instructions of the War Council and the Ministry of Defense count, constituting the official orders transmitted to the army. Personal statements, even those made by members of the Government under the influence of emotion, should not be considered.

Israel has accused Pretoria of representing Hamas

Finally, according to the third pillar on which the Israeli team wants to win the ICJ, there is no need to refer to this UN body because South Africa and Israel are not in conflict and all diplomatic possibilities have not been used. This did not stop Israel from accusing Pretoria of representing Hamas, although South Africans condemned the October 7 attack as any attack against civilians. Gildas Noam, deputy prosecutor for international affairs, concluded more than three hours of arguments by opposing South Africa’s argument that suggests Israel may have committed genocide. “The war in Gaza is complicated and Israel is conducting it according to international law”.

South Africa’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Vusimuzi Madonsela, recalled addressing the judges at The Hague on 10 January: “This is not the time for the Court to remain silent (…). It is the credibility of the law-based world order that is at stake”.

After oral arguments, the judges had to decide whether to ask Israel to “immediately” halt the military campaign against Gaza, as Pretoria advocated.