South Africa’s political leaders are closely aligned with Hamas, so it’s not surprising that South Africa took it on itself to bring a claim of Genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel for Israel defending itself against the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Palestinian “civilians” who murdered, tortured, sexually mutilated, and raped Israelis and foreigners on October 7.
The entire proceeding is a farce. South Africa seeks to weaponize the ICJ so that Hamas and other Islamist radicals can commit genocide against Jews. It’s a complete inversion of the purpose of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the role of the ICJ – South Africa doesn’t seek to prevent genocide, it seeks to enable genocide against Jews by preventing Israel from defending itself and making sure the butchers of October 7 can never do it again – and they have promised to do it again. South Africa seeks extraordinary “provisional remedies” ordering Israel to cease military actions.
Just because the charge of Genocide is a farce doesn’t mean Israel will prevail at the ICJ, which serves under the tutelage of the U.N. General Assembly. The Judges have superficially impressive credentials, and on any other issue perhaps that would matter. But as to Israel, is a Judge from Lebanon really going to rule against Hamas? Same with Judges from Russia, China, Somalia, and several other countries hostile to Israel.
It’s basically a U.N. General Assembly vote, where you keep hoping they will do the right thing, but they never do. Maybe this time will be different because the nationality of Judges from countries hostile to Israel is not as skewed as in the overall General Assembly, but I’m not hopeful.
Here is Israel’s entire presentation today:
Below is Israel’s opening statement
My selected excerpts (full transcript below):
7. We live at a time when words are cheap. In an age of social media and identity politics, the temptation to reach for the most outrageous term, to vilify and demonize, has become for many irresistible. But if there is one place where words should still matter, where truth should still matter, it is surely a court of law.8. The Applicant has regrettably put before the Court a profoundly distorted factual and legal picture. The entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated, decontextualized, and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities.11. The attempt to weaponize the term genocide against Israel in the present context, does more than tell the Court a grossly distorted story, and it does more than empty the word of its unique force and special meaning. It subverts the object and purpose of the Convention itself – with ramifications for all States seeking to defend themselves against those who demonstrate total disdain for life and for the law.23. The annihilationist language of Hamas’s Charter is repeated regularly by its leaders, with the goal, in the words of one member Hamas’s political bureau, of the “cleansing of Palestine of the filth of the Jews”. It is expressed no less chillingly in the words of senior Hamas member, Ghazi Hamad, to Lebanese Television on October 24th, 2023 who refers to the October 7th attacks, what Hamas calls the Al Aqsa Flood, as follows: [Screen clip 2] [“The Al Aqsa Flood”, he says “is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third and a fourth”]. In the continuation of this interview, Hamad is asked: “Does that mean the annihilation of Israel”. “Yes, of course.” he answers. “The existence of Israel is illogical”; and then says “Nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,0000 – everything we do is justified”. Given that on October 7, before any military response by Israel, South Africa issued an official statement blaming Israel for the “recent conflagration”, – essentially blaming Israel for the murder of its own citizens – one wonders whether the Applicant agrees.24. Second, it is in response to the slaughter of October 7 – which Hamas openly vows to repeat – and to the ongoing attacks against it from Gaza, that Israel has the inherent right to take all legitimate measures to defend its citizens and secure the release of the hostages. This right is also not in doubt. It has been acknowledged by States across the world.25. Astonishingly, the Court has been requested to indicate a provisional measure calling on Israel to suspend its military operations. But this amounts to an attempt to deny Israel its ability to meet its legal obligations to the defense of its citizens, to the hostages, and to over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis unable to safely return to their homes.27. Hamas is not party to these proceedings. The Applicant, by its request, seeks to thwart Israel’s inherent right to defend itself – to let Hamas not just get away with its murder, literally, but render Israel defenseless as Hamas continues to commit it.29. If the claim of the Applicant now is that in the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, Israel must be denied the ability to defend its citizens – then the absurd upshot of South Africa’s argument is this: Under the guise of the allegation against Israel of genocide, this Court is asked to call for an end to operations against the ongoing attacks of an organization that pursues an actual genocidal agenda. An organization that has violated every past ceasefire and used it to rearm and plan new atrocities. An organization that declares its unequivocal resolve to advance its genocidal plans. That is an unconscionable request, and it is respectfully submitted that it cannot stand.30. Third, the Court is informed of the events of October 7 because, if there are any Provisional Measures that should appropriately be indicated here, they are indeed with respect to South Africa itself.31. It is a matter of public record, that South Africa enjoys close relations with Hamas, despite its formal recognition as a terrorist organization by numerous States across the world. These relations have continued unabated even after the October 7 atrocities. South Africa has long hosted and celebrated its ties with Hamas figures, including a senior Hamas delegation that – incredibly – visited the country for a “solidarity gathering” just weeks after the massacre.50. In these circumstances, there can hardly be a charge more false or more malevolent than the allegation against Israel of genocide.51. The Applicant has, regrettably, engaged in a transparent attempt to abuse the Convention’s compulsory jurisdiction mechanism, and in particular the Provisional Measures phase of proceedings, to bring under the purview of the Court matters over which, in truth, it lacks jurisdiction.52. Madame President, Members of the Court, the Genocide Convention was a solemn promise made to the Jewish people, to all peoples, of “Never Again”. The Applicant invites the Court to betray that promise. If the term genocide can be so diminished in the way it advocates, if Provisional Measures can be triggered in the way it suggests, the Convention becomes an aggressor’s charter. It will reward, indeed encourage, the terrorists who hide behind civilians, at the expense of the States seeking to defend against them.53. To maintain the integrity of the Genocide Convention, to maintain its promise, and the Court’s own role as its guardian, it is respectfully submitted that this Application and Request should be dismissed for what they are – a libel, designed to deny Israel the right to defend itself according to the law from the unprecedented terrorist onslaught it continues to face, and to free the 136 hostages Hamas still holds.
Germany is intervening on the side of Israel:
The ICJ being a function of the General Assembly, has limited power to implement anything. But even the finding of Genocide, though without basis, would be another bullet in the guns of the fake human rights activists and genocidal terrorists and governments to use against Israel.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY