Israel has finally wrapped up arguments in the case seeking provisionary measures before the International Court of Justice.
South Africa accused Israel of committing genocide in Palestine through its military strikes in densely populated civilian areas and has brought an urgent application to halt the onslaught in Gaza.
South Africa associates with terrorists
Israel’s legal team argued that South Africa has openly associated itself with Hamas, a group that is recognised as terrorists by at least 46 countries.
Malcolm Shaw, KC, Emeritus Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law, University of Leicester, and a member of the Bar of England and Wales, presented arguments on jurisdiction on behalf of Israel.
Shaw stressed the acts of genocide committed came from Hammas on 7 October. In response to South Africa’s submission that Israel’s military operations are beyond self-defense, Shaw contended that Israel has a right to defend itself.
“South Africa only tells half the story… this is about 7 October, when Hamas militants and armed rebels stormed into the sovereign territory of Israel and committed acts of atrocities. These events constitute the context for South Africa’s case”.
ALSO READ: All eyes are on Israel as it prepares to justify military operations in Gaza before ICJ
Israeli politicians rhetoric
Shaw also tackled allegations of ‘genocidal’ rhetoric from Israeli politicians, saying South Africa produced a random quote from officials who do not conform to the Israel cabinet on war and security.
The comments South Africa used to paint Israeli officials as egging on mass murder were taken from the Israeli Heritage minister, who is not part of the council’s war committee or state security department. The comments are also not part of the policy on war and were taken down.
Hamas condemned Palestinians
Galit Raguan, Director of the International Justice Division, addressed Israel’s motive for carrying out operations in Gaza. She argued that Hamas chose to operate in densely populated civilian areas, condemning Palestinians in the process.
She further argued that South Africa’s application did not consider the sheer extent to which Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes, showing the court pictures of how Hamas uses schools, hospitals, and mosques to launch rockets.
Raguan also provided proof of militants running into Gaza hospitals and showed how weapons were discovered in several wings of a single hospital, including in incubators.
“While Israel is seeking to minimise civilian harm, Hamas is doing everything in its power to use the civilian population and civilian infrastructure for its own protection, thwarting humanitarian efforts aimed at alleviating the distress of the civilian population.”
Omri Sender, Attorney at Law told the court that more food and aid is entering Gaza than before the war. “Israel is facilitating the delivery of bottled water and medical care. However, he says Hamas operatives are stealing aid,” he said.
Israel told the court that should it grant South Africa’s request; it would effectively box the state in and its response to terrorism on sovereign land. It would also give Hamas the green light the chance to attack without fear of reprisal.
