Topline: On Friday, January 12, Israel presented its legal defense at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, Netherlands, responding to a legal claim of genocide leveled at the country by South Africa as a result of its ongoing conflict in Gaza. South Africa brought the charge of genocide to the United Nations’ highest court in late December of 2023, as a result of Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas attacks last year. The ongoing conflict in Gaza has so far reportedly left over 23,000 Palestinians dead.



Israel’s Strategy Explained



Israel&#8217;s legal team adopted a methodical approach at the ICJ, focusing on legal technicalities and procedural aspects. Rather than engaging deeply with the substantive aspects of South Africa’s allegations, Israel’s representatives highlighted the potential inadequacies of South Africa’s case; highlighting Israel’s right to self-defense in light of the October 7 attacks, emphasizing that the Israeli military has taken extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties, and that Israel has attempted to ensure humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza.



Also key to the arguments Israel’s representatives made is to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICJ, noting that South Africa’s communications before lodging the case with the ICJ did not constitute a formal diplomatic dispute, before escalating the matter to the UN’s highest court.



Key Facts of Israel’s Defense



<ul>
<li>Israel’s Jurisdiction Challenge: Israel questioned whether the ICJ has the right to hear the case, arguing that there’s no actual legal dispute with South Africa, referencing their communications over the Christmas period.</li>



<li>Self-Defense Claim: Israel defended its actions as necessary self-defense against Hamas&#8217;s attacks on October 7, 2023, denying any acts of genocide against them.</li>



<li>Humanitarian Aid: Israel countered claims of restricting essential supplies, stating it ensured humanitarian aid reached Gaza.</li>



<li>Questioning ICJ’s Orders: Christopher Staker, from Israel&#8217;s legal team, questioned whether the ICJ can ask a country to stop defending itself.</li>



<li>Civilian Casualties: Israel blamed the civilian casualties in Gaza on Hamas’ use of civilian areas for military operations.</li>



<li>Critique of South Africa&#8217;s Approach: Malcolm Shaw criticized South Africa for not genuinely seeking to resolve the dispute before approaching the ICJ.</li>



<li>Debating Genocide Term: Israel’s legal team argued that the term &#8216;genocide&#8217; does not apply to the situation in Gaza.</li>
</ul>



Israel’s Representatives&#8217; Quotes



<ul>
<li>Shaw, a distinguished British legal scholar specializing in international law, told a packed Peace Palace at The Hague, &#8220;South Africa did not give Israel a reasonable opportunity to engage&#8230;before filing its no-doubt long-prepared application,&#8221; criticizing South Africa&#8217;s process.</li>



<li>Staker, a legal expert with extensive experience in international and public law, posed, &#8220;Can provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself?&#8221; This reflects the complexity of international law in conflict scenarios.</li>
</ul>



Expanding the Context



Israel&#8217;s defense strategy in the ICJ case not only focuses on its right to self-defense but also brings into perspective its longstanding stance in the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The backdrop of this legal battle is a century-old saga marked by deep historical tensions and a series of conflicts that have shaped the Middle East.



Future of the Case



The ICJ&#8217;s decision on South Africa&#8217;s provisional measures request could significantly affect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given the complex and detailed nature of ICJ proceedings, which involve extensive written submissions and oral arguments, a final ruling on the genocide allegations might take several years, potentially three to four years. The final decision will occur amidst evolving political and humanitarian contexts in Gaza and Israel, and could have a substantial impact on global diplomatic policies, particularly regarding human rights and international law.



Further Reading



<a href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/current-affairs/2024/01/11/south-africa-presents-its-case-at-the-icj-over-genocide-in-gaza/">South Africa presents its case at the ICJ over genocide in Gaza</a> (Forbes Africa)

Israel begins presenting defense at world court against genocide case

Israel Rejects South Africa’s Claims Of “Genocide” At The ICJ

Topline&nbsp;



Thursday, January 11, marked the start of an unprecedented legal confrontation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in the Netherlands, as South Africa argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to “genocide”. The country has also condemned all violations of international law by all parties, including the actions of Hamas. The case, which has drawn worldwide attention, emphasizes the complexities of the ongoing conflict and the diverse global reactions it has ignited.



Key Facts



<ul>
<li>South Africa presents its case first at the ICJ. The claim by its legal team, led by Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, is supported by an 84-page application citing Israeli military and political statements.</li>



<li>The South African application states, “No armed attack on a State’s territory, no matter how serious&#8230;can provide any possible justification for or defense to breaches of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”</li>



<li>Israel&#8217;s President Isaac Herzog firmly rejects these accusations, asserting the country’s stance of self-defense and adherence to humanitarian law.</li>



<li>Ngcukaitobi stated, “The intent to destroy Gaza has been nurtured at the highest level of state,” emphasizing the severity of the situation. His colleague, Adila Hassim, reinforced this sentiment by highlighting the daily suffering of Palestinians: “Every day, there is mounting, irreparable loss of life, property, dignity, and humanity for the Palestinian people.”</li>



<li>The case has sparked significant public interest and polarized views, with demonstrations outside the ICJ and an international outcry from countries like Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Turkey and Iran supporting South Africa&#8217;s allegations.&nbsp;</li>



<li>Its outcome could have potential ramifications for South Africa&#8217;s diplomatic relations with the United States (US), an ally of Israel.</li>
</ul>



Contra



Israel has firmly rejected the accusations. Israeli President Isaac Herzog denounced the claims as &#8220;atrocious and preposterous&#8221;, asserting Israel&#8217;s stance of self-defense. &#8220;We will present proudly our case of using self-defense… under humanitarian law,&#8221; Herzog declared during a meeting with visiting US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, emphasizing Israel&#8217;s commitment to avoiding civilian casualties.



Amidst the legal battle, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) has criticized the South African government&#8217;s approach. In a statement issued by Prof Karen Milner, National Chair of the SAJBD, the organization accused South Africa of an &#8220;inversion of justice&#8221;. Milner pointed to South Africa&#8217;s alignment with Hamas and the inclusion of controversial figures in its delegation as evidence of a flawed and biased perspective. &#8220;This says volumes about South Africa’s intention,&#8221; Milner remarked, questioning the motives behind the legal action.



Key Background&nbsp;



This legal confrontation at the ICJ comes against a backdrop of escalating violence and political strife in Gaza. The 84-page application was lodged with the ICJ on December 29 2023. The ICJ&#8217;s role in this matter is limited to issuing opinions on allegations, which, while not enforceable, carry significant moral and political weight. The conflict has claimed over 23,000 lives according to Gaza’s health ministry.



The US, historically an ally of Israel, may find its diplomatic stance with South Africa challenged, depending on the outcome and reactions to the ICJ&#8217;s ruling. Zane Dangor, Director-General of South Africa&#8217;s Department of International Relations and Cooperation, commented on the potential impact of the case during a media conference last week. “We will be able to see how we regain this after the hearings are done but clearly, under the current circumstances, the relationship is not going to be normal and we will have to look at how do we engage after this, particularly working towards a permanent solution for the relationship,” adding, “We feel that our position is the principled one and that is something that they understand.”



Further Reading



<a href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/current-affairs/2024/01/01/south-africa-accuses-israel-of-genocide-in-un-filing/">South Africa Accuses Israel Of Genocide In UN Filing (F</a><a href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/current-affairs/2024/01/01/south-africa-accuses-israel-of-genocide-in-un-filing/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ORBES AFRICA)</a>

South Africa’s genocide case against Israel begins at International Court of Justice

South Africa Presents Its Case At The ICJ Over “Genocide” In Gaza

The World Court on Monday told Britain to give up control over the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, and said it had wrongfully forced the population to leave in the 1970s to make way for a U.S. air base. 



Britain split the archipelago off from its colonial island territory of Mauritius in 1965, three years before granting independence to Mauritius &#8211; minus the islands.



In the early 1970s, it evicted almost 2,000 residents to Mauritius and the Seychelles to make way for the base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, which it had leased to the United States.



In a non-binding advisory opinion, the top United Nations court for inter-state disputes said Britain had acted unlawfully in the decolonization process and should relinquish control over the islands, which it calls the British Indian Ocean Territory.



Although the court was not asked to issue an opinion on sovereignty, Monday’s decision in effect urged Britain to hand the islands, which it has controlled since 1814, over to Mauritius.



But Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf said in a summary of the decision that Britain was “under obligation to bring to an end the administration of Chagos Islands as rapidly as possible”.



The case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the World Court is officially known, is seen as a test of the legitimacy of deals struck between great powers and small states at the end of the colonial era.



For years Chagossians have lobbied London to let them return. In 2016, Britain extended the United States’ lease of Diego Garcia until 2036 and said expelled islanders could not go back.



<h4 class="wp-block-heading">“HISTORIC MOMENT”</h4>



 Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth said it was “a historic moment for Mauritius and all its people, including the Chagossians who were unconscionably removed from their homeland and prevented from returning for the last half century”.



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">“Our territorial integrity will now be made complete, and when that occurs, the Chagossians and their descendants will finally be able to return home.”</blockquote>



The U.N. General Assembly asked the court in February 2017 to advise on whether the process of decolonization had been concluded lawfully.



In his summary, Yusuf said: “The court having found that the decolonization of Mauritius was not conducted in a manner consistent with the right of peoples to self-determination, it follows that the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State.”



Mauritius argued that it had been forced to give up the archipelago to gain independence from Britain. Britain maintained that Mauritius had given up the islands willingly.



By 13 votes to one, the judges backed the decision, which is not binding but carries weight under international law.



Diego Garcia has played an important role in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 1991, acting as a launch pad for U.S. long-range bombers. The United States and Britain both voted against the U.N. resolution seeking the court’s opinion.



Philippe Sands, a member of the Mauritius legal team at the ICJ, said the next step would be for Britain and Mauritius to sit down and work out a handover:



“A way will be found to move this forward, safeguarding the interests of everyone but recognizing what the court has said.” -Reuters



-Anthony Deutsch

Tag: International Court of Justice

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Israel Rejects South Africa’s Claims Of “Genocide” At The ICJ

South Africa Presents Its Case At The ICJ Over “Genocide” In Gaza

World Court: Britain Must Return Indian Ocean Islands To Mauritius