Israel Refutes Genocide Accusations at International Court, Arguing Gaza War was Self-Defense
On Friday, Israel rebuffed an allegation of genocide it labeled as "significantly deformed," brought against it by South Africa. Israel defended its position at the top court of the United Nations (UN), declaring that the case was an attempt to "twist the definition" of the term.
On the second and final day of hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel contended that its war in Gaza was fought in self-defense. Its target was Hamas, not Israeli citizens, and its leaders had shown no genocidal intent.
South Africa had argued on Thursday that Israeli leaders intended "to annihilate the Palestinians as a group in Gaza" and that their aerial and ground attacks on the enclave were designed "to provoke the destruction of its Palestinian population."
Israel asserted that the case was "a deliberate and cynical effort to distort the very meaning of the term 'genocide' itself". It called on the ICJ, based in The Hague, Netherlands, to dismiss the case as unfounded and to reject South Africa's request that the court order an end to the war.
The ICJ was formed in 1945 following World War II and the Holocaust. It hears cases brought by states accusing others of violating UN treaty obligations. South Africa and Israel are signatories to the 1948 Genocide Convention, which obliges them not to commit genocide and to prevent and punish it.
Opening his address, Israel's attorney, Tal Becker, alluded to Israel's intense awareness of why the genocide convention was adopted. "The systematic murder of 6 million Jews, as part of a deliberate and horrific program for their total annihilation, is inscribed in our collective memory," he said.
However, Becker argued that the convention was tailored only to "confront an evil crime of the most extraordinary circumstances" and "was not designed to address the brutal impact of intense hostilities" on civilians during war.
Galit Raguan (left) and Omri Sender (right) speaking on behalf of Israel at the International Court of Justice. Credit: Hollandse Hoogte/Shutterstock.
The UN defines genocide as an act "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." This term supposes a response to the systematic murder of Jews by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
The final decision on this case will take years. This week's hearings pertain solely to South Africa's request for "provisional measures," which act similarly to a restraining order to prevent exacerbation of a conflict while the court scrutinizes the full case based on its merits, which could take years.
For these provisional measures, the court need only decide if, at first glance, the alleged actions—including Israel's usage of 2000-pound bombs and restricting food and water to Gaza—could be contrary to the genocide convention. "It is only necessary to establish whether even a few of the alleged acts can fall within the provisions of the convention," argued South Africa on Thursday.
South Africa called on the court to require a halt of Israel's military campaign in Gaza. Still, even if the court finds a testimonial case sufficient at first glance, the provisional measures it decides upon will not necessarily be those requested by South Africa.
In the past, the ICJ has allowed similar requests. In January 2020, the court granted Gambia's request for provisional measures to protect Rohingyas remaining in Myanmar from genocide. Similar protective measures have been employed for Ukrainians exposed to ongoing Russian aggression and for Bosnians during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.
The Court's judgments are final and binding, but it effectively lacks any means of enforcing them. A 2022 report by Human Rights Watch found that abuses against Rohingyas remaining in Myanmar continued despite the provisional measures. And, despite the Court's order in March 2022 to Russia to immediately suspend its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow's war continues nearly two years...
