It’s day two of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing on South Africa’s genocide accusations against Israel over Israe-Hamas war.
13h15: Omri Sender, attorney from Tel Aviv has now taken the stand.
He tells the court that South Africa’s case is “terribly one sided” and makes no mention of the “extraordinary efforts” taken by Israel to improve the humanitarian situation.
Sender says Israel has made a great effort invested in eliminating bottleneck to improve entrance and distribution of aid “not withstanding” Hamas constantly stealing it.
Staker focuses on provisional measures (11:56 GMT)
“Can provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself?” Staker asked the court.
He lists several reasons why Israel believes there should not be these provisional measures. Here is a short summary of his main points:
- Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Israel and some other countries
- On October 7, Hamas committed “a large-scale terrorist attack” on Israel
- Israel’s military operation is a right to defend itself
- Israel is committed to complying with international humanitarian law
- This is not a case where provisional measures could require both parties to a conflict to exercise mutual restraint as Hamas intends to carry out continuing attacks against Israel and its citizens
- Provisional measures would deprive Israel of the ability to contend with the security threat against it
- Such measures would end attempts to rescue captives from Gaza
- A suspension of military operations would give Hamas more time to build its capabilities, enabling it to pose an even greater threat
Israel’s deputy attorney general speaks (12:01 GMT)
He says South Africa has failed to show that “provisional measures” should be put in place to protect Palestinians in Gaza from further harm.
More on this to come.
Noam’s opening comments (12:09 GMT)
He lists the following reasons:
- The applicant has not shown any dispute between Israel and South Africa and tried to mislead the court into thinking it existed.
- The applicant failed to meet the conditions of plausible right to be protected in the current circumstances.
- The events which are the subject of these proceedings are occurring in the framework of a war instigated by Hamas, governed by the legal framework of international humanitarian law. They do not fall within the remit of the Genocide Convention.
Final words from Noam
He added that Israel has met all its legal obligations and that each of the nine provisional measures sought by South Africa are “unwarranted and prejudicial”.
“In contending with its challenges, Israel remains committed to abiding by international law”, said Gilad.
The sitting is now closed
This also brings to an end the two-day hearing into South Africa case of genocide against Israel in its war on Gaza.
Before leaving, Donoghue said the court will announce its decision in the coming days.
Stay with us as we bring you all the reaction and analysis on the two-day hearing and what might happen next.
Catch up with the latest news from The Times Post on WhatsApp by following our channel. Click here to join.
