The International Court of Justice, the
main judicial arm of the United Nations, rejected a request on Friday
from South Africa to order a halt to Israel’s defensive war against
Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
In its provisional ruling, the high court
insisted that the Jewish state take all necessary means to prevent
actions that could lead to genocide, and it dismissed South Africa’s
demand that residents of the northern Gaza Strip be allowed to return to
the area immediately.
A final decision from the court could take years. Friday’s ruling is binding according to international law, yet the court lacks an enforcement mechanism.
The court, which is based in The Hague,
ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent the
commission of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, to ensure that
Israel Defense Forces troops do not commit acts of genocide and to
punish alleged public incitement to genocide.
The ruling also called on Jerusalem to
“take effective measures to preserve evidence” of military actions that
might fall under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide and submit a report to the court within a month.
Israel must also take “immediate and
effective measures to enable the provision of urgently-needed, basic
services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions
of life faced by Palestinians” in the enclave, which is controlled by
the Hamas terror group.
‘Mark of disgrace’
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the court “rightly rejected the outrageous demand to deny” Israel the right to defend itself against terrorism.
“The very claim that Israel is committing
genocide against Palestinians is not just false, it is outrageous, and
the court’s willingness to discuss it at all is a mark of disgrace that
will not be erased for generations,” he added.
Netanyahu vowed to continue the war
against Hamas until “absolute victory,” and until all 136 hostages are
returned and Gazans no longer pose a threat to Israel.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
stated that the court “went above and beyond when it granted South
Africa’s antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza,
and now refuses to reject the petition outright.”
“The State of Israel does not need to be
lectured on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and the
civilian population in Gaza,” Gallant said. “Those who seek justice,
will not find it on the leather chairs of the court chambers in The
Hague. They will find it in the Hamas tunnels in Gaza, where 136
hostages are held, and where those who murdered our children are
hiding.”
‘Grossly unfounded case’
Israel “narrowly escaped diplomatic disaster in The Hague, but a dangerous precedent was set,” wrote
Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at George Mason University and
director of its Center for the Middle East and International Law. “The
court gave itself authority into supervise the conduct of democratic
countries’ wars, under the pretext of looking for genocide.”
The court “will surely be used in the
future to cause diplomatic harm to Israel,” Kontorovich added. “Israel
should immediately follow America’s lead and quit the court’s
jurisdiction.”
The international court can adjudicate
cases between states, either with the defendant state’s explicit
permission or by prior international agreement or formal notification to
the court.
The basis for this trial is the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, established
in 1948 in response to the crimes of the Holocaust and signed by Israel
and South Africa. Genocide refers to the intentional destruction “in
whole or in part” of “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,”
per the convention.
Israel is the fifth country to face the charge of genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Israel has been at war with Hamas since
the terrorist group invaded the northwestern Negev on Oct. 7, murdering
1,200 people, wounding thousands more and kidnapping more than 240.
Israel’s stated military goals are to destroy Hamas as a political and
military entity in Gaza, free the hostages and ensure that Gazans can
never again threaten Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly met
on Thursday with senior legal officials and government ministers to
prepare for the ruling. Among those attending was legal adviser to the
government Gali Baharav-Miara, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Strategic
Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Council head Tzachi
Hanegbi.
John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council of the White House, said
on Jan. 3 that South Africa’s charge of genocide against Israel is
“meritless, counterproductive, completely without any basis whatsoever.”
On Tuesday, 210 members of the U.S. Congress penned an open letter to
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemning South Africa for
filing “a grossly unfounded case against Israel at the International
Court of Justice.”
“South Africa’s accusation of genocide
against Israel exposes how far Israel’s enemies will go in their
attempts to demonize the Jewish state,” the congressmen wrote.
While South Africa barely acknowledged the
Hamas terrorists, “who gleefully massacred, mutilated, raped and
kidnapped innocent civilians” on Oct. 7, it made “grossly unfounded and
defamatory charges against Israel on the world stage,” the U.S.
lawmakers added.
International Christian Embassy Jerusalem
expressed its “utter dismay” at the court’s ruling, which it said “only
compounds the shock and pain” of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terror attack.
“That the wide majority of justices on the
court would sit calmly at the reading of its rulings on the eve of Jan.
27, set aside by the international community as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day, only deepens our disappointment at the world’s
betrayal of the Jewish state and people,” the embassy stated. “This
decision inverts justice and is built on decades of the United Nations
and all its forums becoming the world’s most cunning purveyors of
antisemitism.”
“These global institutions were founded
with honorable intentions, including to prevent a repeat of the Nazi
genocide against the Jews, yet these very forums are now placing Israel
in grave danger by giving credence to these outrageous claims it is
committing genocide in Gaza,” it added.
“Today’s determinations by the ICJ,
including wholesale dismissal of the atrocities inflicted by Hamas, its
failure to consider the compelling evidence put forward by Israel and
their reliance on the United Nations, including the discredited UNRWA
and UNHRC bodies, must bring into question the court’s lack of
impartiality and credibility,” according to Arsen Ostrovsky, a human
rights attorney and CEO of the International Legal Forum.
“Although it should be underscored that
the ICJ decision to grant provisional measures did not make any
determination as to the substance of South Africa’s allegations, nor did
it order a ceasefire or compel Israel to stop its military operations,
it may now create a dangerous precedent,” Ostrovsky told JNS. “Such low
threshold, whereby any state can initiate baseless and politicized
proceedings, seeking to constrain the ability of democracies, such as
Israel, to fight jihadist terror.”
“It should also not go unnoticed that this
decision has been handed down on the eve of International Holocaust
Remembrance Day,” he added. “The very term ‘genocide’ was created in the
wake of the Holocaust, to describe the attempted annihilation of the
Jewish people, and is now being unconscionably weaponized and subverted
by South Africa, in the wake of the single largest massacre of Jews,
since the Holocaust itself.”
‘Out of context’
In late December, South Africa submitted the 84-page charge to the Hague court in which it formally accused Israel of genocide.
The South African legal team is headed by John Dugard, who chaired a
U.N. Commission of Human Rights inquiry committee and who has said
Israel is an apartheid state and called for an arms embargo on Israel.
“Israel has transgressed article two of
the convention, committing acts that fall within the definition of
genocide,” attorney Adila Hassim claimed during arguments on Jan. 11.
The South African delegation also claimed that the establishment of the State of Israel was tantamount to genocide.
“The violence and the destruction in
Palestine and Israel did not begin on Oct. 7, 2023. The Palestinians
have experienced systematic oppression and violence for the last 76
years,” South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola told the court.
In an attempt to establish intent, the
South African delegation brought a series of quotes from Israeli
personalities, spanning from the prime minister and defense minister to
soldiers fighting in Gaza and even an Israeli singer.
‘Quotes taken out of context’
In one piece of alleged evidence, South Africa showed Netanyahu citing the biblical commandment to “wipe out the seed of Amalek,” a tribe described in the Torah that mercilessly, persistently and opportunistically attacks the Jews.
In another claim, South Africa purported
to show Israeli soldiers celebrating as they blew up a part of the
Shejaia neighborhood in Gaza City.
Avraham Shalev, an adviser and specialist
in public law at the Kohelet Policy Forum, told JNS that “the quotes of
anyone who isn’t directly involved with the decision-making process of
the war are not relevant for establishing intent.”
“Many of these quotes were taken out of
context,” Shalev said of the quotations that South Africa cited from
members of the Israeli war cabinet. He noted that Israel’s accusers
claimed that Gallant’s statement that Israel is “fighting human animals”
was “genocidal, but it is clear he was talking about Hamas fighters.”
South Africa continued to charge what it called “acts of genocide.”
The delegation mostly referenced
statistics about the scale of the destruction throughout the Gaza Strip
and alleged that the scale of destruction of property and loss of
civilian lives demonstrates a purposeful attempt by the IDF to destroy
the Palestinians living in the Strip.
The six-person Israeli delegation, headed
by British law professor and leading international law expert Malcolm
Shaw, argued before the court on Jan. 12. It argued that the conflict in
Gaza cannot be discussed outside the context of the Oct. 7 attacks.
Israeli attorney Tal Becker described some
of the atrocities committed on Black Saturday “not because these acts,
however sadistic and systematic, release Israel of its obligations to
uphold the law as it defends its citizens and territory, but because it
is impossible to understand the armed conflict in Gaza without
appreciating the nature of the threat that Israel is facing and the
brutality and lawlessness of the armed force confronting it.”
Becker accused South Africa of
purposefully misrepresenting the conflict. “The events of that day are
all but ignored in the applicant’s submissions,” Becker said. He added
that the events of Oct. 7 established a legal basis for Israel to
declare war and pursue legitimate enemy targets.
On the subject of intent, the Israel
delegation strongly opposed South Africa’s description of Israeli policy
as targeting civilians.
“Israel’s lawful aims in Gaza have been
clearly and repeatedly articulated by its prime minister, its defense
minister and all members of the War Cabinet,” Israel said. Its legal
team also cited the official IDF directive to soldiers to “distinguish
between combatants and civilians.”
The team concluded that Israel’s
persistent efforts to protect civilians, by dropping leaflets with
orders to evacuate, by securing humanitarian corridors in Gaza and by
providing humanitarian aid shows a clear lack of intent to commit
genocide.
“To produce random quotes which are not in conformity with government policy is misleading at best,” Shaw said.
Israel argued further that the “acts of
genocide” that South Africa alleges are legitimate acts of war. Becker
accused South Africa of ignoring the ongoing military conflict in Gaza
and painting the situation only as a series of Israeli actions against
an unarmed population.
“In the applicant’s telling, it is almost
as if there is no intensive armed conflict taking place between two
parties at all, no grave threat to Israel and its citizens, only an
Israeli assault on Gaza,” he said.
Shaw also argued that the reality of the
ongoing conflict in Gaza and Hamas’s consistent use of civilian
installations to launch its attacks renders the term “genocide”
inapplicable.
Civilians suffer in all armed conflicts,
“especially when a side attacks civilians and is unconcerned” by the
welfare of civilians on its side, he said.
“Not every conflict is genocidal. The
crime of genocide in international law and under the Genocide Convention
is a uniquely malicious manifestation and stands alone among violations
of international law as the zenith of evil, the crime of crimes,
ultimate in wickedness,” he added.
The Israeli team argued that the court interceding in the ongoing war would remove Israel’s right and ability to defend itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment