Israel rejected allegations made by South Africa before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that its actions in Gaza amounted to genocide on the second day of a public hearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Israel's legal representatives claimed on Friday that South Africa's case was “baseless,” “absurd” and amounted to “slander,” saying Israel was not trying to destroy a people but to protect them.
On Thursday, the first day of hearings, South Africa argued that Israel had committed “systematic” acts of genocide in Gaza, where more than 23,500 Palestinians were killed in Israel's military campaign, at least 70 percent of whom were women and children. according to Gaza's Ministry of Health.
Israel's arguments centered on its “right to self-defense” after Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks, as well as what it described as a lack of evidence of “genocidal intent.”
Christopher Staker, a lawyer representing Israel, said: “The inevitable death and human suffering of conflict is not in itself a pattern of behavior that plausibly reveals genocidal intent.”
Malcolm Shaw, an international law professor who represents Israel, said the case involves only the charge of genocide, which is “unique among violations of international law as the epitome of evil.” If the accusation of genocide were falsely made, “the essence of this crime would be lost,” he said.
Shaw added that such evidence was missing from the arguments made by South Africa a day earlier.
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, a lawyer for South Africa, detailed her evidence on Thursday, saying: “The evidence of genocidal intent is not only horrifying, it is overwhelming and irrefutable.”
“Massive connection loss”
Israel's legal representatives stressed that its army acted in accordance with international law in Gaza and aimed to mitigate harm to civilians by warning of impending military action, including through telephone calls and leaflets.
Omri Sender, another lawyer, argued that Israel's efforts to facilitate humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza were evidence of its goal of protecting, not destroying, civilians.
However, Thomas MacManus, a lecturer in state crime at Queen Mary University of London, told Al Jazeera that the ICJ was likely to witness a “massive discrepancy” between Israel's image of its humanitarian concern for Gaza and “the reality on the ground” where UN Organizations say people are starving, lacking water and there are attacks on hospitals, schools and universities.”
Speaking before the International Court of Justice hearing, Galit Raguan, acting director of the International Justice Department at Israel's Ministry of Justice, rejected claims that Israel had bombed hospitals. She argued that Israel had found evidence that Hamas was using “every single hospital in Gaza” for military purposes.
Responding to claims that hospitals were being used as military bases, Palestinian Foreign Ministry official Ammar Hijazi told Al Jazeera outside The Hague that Israel's arguments were based neither on facts nor the law.
“What Israel has provided today are many of the lies already exposed,” he said.
“Plausible right to self-defense”
The International Court of Justice is expected to rule on nine interim measures that are effectively aimed at suspending military operations in Gaza. However, a timetable for this was not given. Israel has argued that the interim measures cannot oblige a state to refrain from exercising a “plausible right of self-defense.”
On the question of jurisdiction, Israel argued that one of the requirements of the ICJ's mandate is that the state bringing the case should first try to resolve this issue. According to Israel, they failed to talk to South Africa before taking this case to court. South Africa, in turn, argued that it had contacted Israel but received no response.
The Israeli team made strong “legal and procedural arguments,” said Marwan Bishara, senior political analyst at Al Jazeera, but added: “Israel has lost the moral, factual, historical and humanitarian argument because of the way the “The situation in Gaza has developed – with the sheer death and industrial killing there.”
Tal Becker, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, said at the ICJ hearing that South Africa had close ties with Hamas and was therefore trying to present a “distorted factual and legal picture.”
South Africa “strongly rejects this claim,” Al Jazeera’s Fahmida Miller said in a report from South Africa.
“The South African government has stated that it does not have bilateral relations with Hamas and that its stance in support of the Palestinian struggle against the occupation does not equate to support for Hamas,” she said.
In their presentation on Thursday, South Africa's lawyers also condemned Hamas' actions on October 7.
ICJ President Joan Donoghue concluded the two-day hearing by saying the court would announce its decision in the coming days.