Israel’s Defense in Genocide Case Heard at International Court of Justice Amid Israel-Gaza Conflict
Last Updated on January 12, 2024 by News Desk
Facts of the Case:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held its second public hearing on a genocide complaint that South Africa brought against Israel during the Israel-Gaza conflict. Israel’s case revolved upon the fact that it was acting in retaliation for assaults carried out by Hamas and other terrorist groups. Significant losses were suffered by both sides in the battle, which was started on October 7, 2023, by a Hamas onslaught.
Arguments Presented by Parties:
In their argument, South Africa misrepresented the law and the facts, according to Israel, which was represented by UK professor Malcolm Shaw and attorney Tal Becker. Israel claimed that there was no intention of genocidal action and that its military actions were just acts of self-defense. As for Israel’s use of its inalienable right to self-defense against ruthless terrorist groups like Hamas, Professor Shaw contended that the war made sense.
Reasoning of the Judgment:
Israel’s defense team pointed out that the accusations of genocide were baseless and cited the ongoing attacks by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Tal Becker, the legal counsel, said that rather than inciting genocide, Israel was acting to defend its residents. He claimed that the court need to take into account the difficulties of urban warfare as well as Hamas’s strategies for causing the greatest amount of injury to civilians.
The defense team said that Israel’s separate judicial system would deal with any violations of the laws of war. Professor Shaw went on to say that South Africa had not shown that Israel intended to exterminate the Palestinian people, rejecting utterances that were cited as haphazard and unrepresentative of official government policy.
Judgment:
Currently, the court is still holding hearings, thus no final verdict has been rendered. Israeli officials, on the other hand, fiercely denied any genocide accusations and justified their military actions as legal acts of self-defense that adhered to international law. As an attempt to obstruct Israel’s duty to defend its citizens, the defense team denounced South Africa’s request for temporary measures, including the cessation of Israel’s military operations.
Determining the case’s legal and factual foundation requires the ICJ to carefully weigh the arguments made by each side. The interim measures that South Africa is seeking are still under additional review, and the final decision is anticipated to take some time.
The ongoing hearings are illuminating the intricacies of the Israel-Gaza conflict and posing significant queries on the applicability of international law in instances of armed conflict.
Written By: Nikita Shankar @nikitaashankar
