The Israeli advocate at the International Court of Justice in the Hague accused South Africa of grossly misinterpreting international law in accusations of genocide against Israel for a self-defensive existential war.

In a highly charged session at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Israel firmly contested allegations of genocide in Gaza brought by South Africa. The Israeli defense was led by Deputy Attorney General Gilad Noam, who argued that the accusations were both legally unfounded and politically motivated.

“By exploiting the genocide convention, South Africa is suggesting a convoluted reading of international law, under which any conflict can be brought to this court,” Noam told the justices. “There is a tragic war going on, but there is no genocide” (Times of Israel).

Noam contended that South Africa’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention was being manipulated to serve political ends, asserting that South Africa’s actions might inadvertently support Hamas, which it does not wish to see defeated. He cited a meeting between the South African foreign minister and a Hamas delegation in Johannesburg earlier this year, during which there was no call for Hamas to release hostages or cease its use of human shields (Jewish News).

In Israel’s defense, Noam emphasized that Israel’s actions in Gaza are part of a legitimate response to terrorism. “What Israel is doing in Gaza is not to destroy people but to protect people. Its people,” Noam stated, highlighting the threat posed by Hamas and its commitment to the destruction of Israel (Jewish News).

Tal Becker, legal adviser for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, supported Noam’s arguments, describing South Africa’s case as presenting a “grossly distorted” view of the situation. Becker stressed that the brutality of Hamas’s attacks on October 7, 2023, which included taking hostages and causing significant loss of life, must be understood to appreciate the context of Israel’s military operations.

The ICJ has ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, such as killings and the infliction of conditions aimed at destroying a population. However, it stopped short of ordering a ceasefire, despite South Africa’s requests.

While the court’s final decision may take years, the current proceedings reflect a complex intersection of law, politics, and international relations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how international law is interpreted and applied in conflicts around the world.

Israel argues in front of the International Court of Justice in the Hague that while there is a “tragic war” ongoing in
Gaza, “there is no genocide.”

“By exploiting the genocide convention, South Africa is suggesting a convoluted reading of international law, under
which any conflict can be brought to this court,” Israeli attorney Gilad Noam tells the justices.

Noam suggested that South Africa is allied with Hamas, “which it does not wish to see defeated.”He pointed to the South African foreign minister meeting with a Hamas delegation in Johannesburg earlier this year, and said she “did not urge Hamas to release hostages, cease using human shields, cease operating in UN hospitals, other protected sites.” South Africa, Noam says, “is not interested in truth, law or justice.”

Noam concluded that: “There is a danger that the court will find itself engaged in micromanagement of an armed conflict — which is what South Africa wants it to do.”