Israel’s main defence in the Gaza conflict centered around the claim that its actions were in self-defence against an attack by Hamas on October 7th. Throughout the proceedings, Israel presented a comprehensive argument highlighting the severity of these attacks, showcasing visual evidence such as pictures of the hostages.
They also emphasized that South Africa had failed to mention these attacks during the initial hearing, which they deemed misleading.
One crucial aspect of Israel’s defence was addressing the issue of intent. Proving that Israel had the intent to commit genocide against the people of Gaza was a significant point of contention.
[ WATCH LIVE: ICJ Hears Israel’s Defence Against South Africa’s Genocide Case ]
Israel vehemently denied that such intent existed and argued that it was not a government policy. They countered South Africa’s claims by pointing out that while there were statements made by Israeli officials, these did not reflect the official stance of the government.
Israel further emphasized that it is a rules-based country with a robust legal system. They asserted that any crimes committed in Gaza would be dealt with through their national courts. By highlighting their commitment to the rule of law, Israel aimed to demonstrate that they were not engaging in any systematic campaign of violence or genocide.
The issue of jurisdiction also played a crucial role in Israel’s defence. According to the rules of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a state must attempt to resolve a dispute before bringing it to the court.
Israel argued that they had made efforts to engage in dialogue with South Africa before the case was brought to the ICJ. They contended that South Africa had not been receptive to their attempts at communication, justifying their decision to bring the case directly to the court.
Throughout the proceedings, Israel consistently maintained that their actions were in self-defence and were not driven by any intent to commit genocide. They emphasized their commitment to the rule of law and their willingness to address any crimes committed through their national legal system.
Israel also sought to establish that they had made genuine attempts at resolving the dispute through dialogue before resorting to the ICJ.
It is important to note that the above arguments were presented by Israel as part of their defence in the specific legal context of the case.
The purpose of these arguments was to counter the allegations made by South Africa and to establish Israel’s position as a responsible and law-abiding state. The outcome of the case will ultimately be determined by the ICJ based on the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties.
Catch up with the latest news from The Times Post on WhatsApp by following our channel. Click here to join.
