UPDATE 3 - Israel denies committing genocide, claims to world court it is protecting its people

UPDATES WITH MORE REMARKS; ADDITIONS TO DECK

By Beyza Binnur Donmez

GENEVA (AA) - Weaponizing the term "genocide" against Israel "averts" the aims of the UN Genocide Convention, Israel contended on Friday, claiming during its oral arguments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague that it is only trying to protect its own people.

"The key component of genocide, the intention to destroy people, in whole or in part, is totally lacking," argued the Israeli delegation to the court. "What Israel seeks by operating in Gaza is not to destroy people, but to protect ... its people who are under attack on multiple fronts, and to do so in accordance with the law, even as it faces a heartless enemy."

It also asserted that the 1948 Genocide Convention "was not designed to address the brutal effects of intense hostilities on civilians," and added: "Even when the use of force raises 'very serious issues of international law, and involves an enormous suffering and continuing loss of life'."

"The attempt to weaponize the term genocide against Israel, in the present context, averts the object and purpose of the convention itself," it claimed.

The entirety of South Africa's genocide case, presented to the court on Thursday, "hinges on a deliberately curated decontextualized and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities," Israel argued.

- South Africa 'enjoys close ties' with Hamas

The delegation accused South Africa – the country that filed the genocide case against Israel – of having close ties with Palestinian group Hamas not only before but also after Hamas’ Oct. 7 cross-border attack, which killed over 1,000 Israelis.

"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," it said. "These relations have continued unabated even after the Oct. 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 'solidarity gathering' just weeks after the massacre."

It also accused South African delegation, when it presented its case on Wednesday, of neglecting the facts, saying: "It is almost as if there is no intensive armed conflict taking place between two parties at all. No grave threat to Israel and its citizens. Only an Israeli assault on Gaza."

The delegation also disputed the number of people killed in Gaza presented to the court in South Africa's oral arguments, voicing disbelief at the figure of over 23,000 casualties, calling Palestinian sources "hardly reliable."

Israel's defense in the case is its highest-profile public effort to date to try to justify its attacks and draconian blockade on the Gaza Strip, which have drawn widespread international outrage.

- Israel denies aim to permanently occupy Gaza

Rejecting accusations that Israel is causing forced displacement, the Israeli delegation claimed that it only aims to ensure a "terror-free" Gaza.

"Israel aims to ensure that Gaza can never again be used as a launchpad for terrorism, as the Prime Minister (Benjamin Netanyahu) reaffirms Israel seeks neither to permanently occupy Gaza or to displace its civilian population."

"Israel is in a war of defense against Hamas, not against the Palestinian people," it said, claiming that the country is taking "genuine measures on the ground to mitigate civilian harm."

Additionally, it accused Hamas of using human suffering as a strategy, saying: "If Hamas abandons the strategy, releases the hostages, (and) lays down its arms, the hostilities and suffering would end."

Israel has launched relentless air and ground attacks on the Gaza Strip since a cross-border attack by Hamas which Tel Aviv says killed around 1,200 people.

At least 23,708 Palestinians have since been killed, mostly women and children, and 60,050 others injured, according to Palestinian health authorities.

Soon after the current conflict began on Oct. 7, Israel ordered over 1 million people in the northern Gaza Strip to relocate to the south, regardless of warnings from humanitarian groups that such a large displacement would be a humanitarian disaster.

According to the UN, 85% of the population of Gaza is already internally displaced amid acute shortages of food, clean water, and medicines, while 60% of the enclave's infrastructure damaged or destroyed.

- South Africa 'misunderstood' biblical reference

In court, Israeli also argued that South Africa "misunderstood" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reference to the Amelekites (descendants of Amelek), an ancient group of people seen in the Jewish scriptures as a persecutor of the Israelites.

Despite South Africa's claims, the term has nothing to do with "incitement to genocide against the Palestinian people," Israel claimed.

"South Africa misunderstands the nature and provenance of certain common comments made by some Israeli politicians," it said. "There is no need here for a theological discussion on the meaning of Amalek in Judaism, which was indeed not understood by the applicant."

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, a South African lawyer, on Thursday told the court that on Oct. 28, Netanyahu used the biblical Amalek story to incite Israeli soldiers to attack Gaza, saying that this is a violent narrative that refers to entirely crushing the population of Gaza, including its women and children.

According to Israel, its measures in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack "are intended to constitute a shield and not a sword, to preserve not undermine rights."

- Israel calls South Africa's arguments 'confusing and partial'

All speakers focused on criticizing South Africa from a political perspective, claiming that there was no intention of Israel to commit genocide without providing an explanation for the bombing of civilians and the large number of deaths.

Israel's lawyers claimed that South Africa told the court "only half the story," claiming that it presented "a confusing and a partial recital of the facts."

Arguing that the crime of genocide requires intent, it said: "Without intent, there can be no genocide in law." Israel had no intent to commit genocide, it added.

It accused South Africa of not giving Israel "a reasonable opportunity to engage with it on the matters under consideration" before filing its application.

It furthermore claimed that South Africa failed to prove that Israel has committed or is committing genocidal acts, as Israel has "no intent to destroy all or part of a people."

"Israel's efforts to mitigate the ravages of this war on civilians are the very opposite of intent to destroy them," the delegation said. "It is Israel and its citizens who would risk irreparable harm if the requests of South Africa were to be granted."

The delegation rejected that Israel gave 24 hours to people in northern Gaza to evacuate to the south, claiming that Israeli army "urged civilians to evacuate to southern Gaza for over three weeks before it started its ground operation."

Israel also denied all accusations against the blockade of humanitarian aid – a fact already confirmed by the UN and it is agencies – and claimed: "As publicly stated repeatedly, there is no limit on the amount of food, water, shelter, or medical supplies that can be brought into Gaza."

- Asked provisional measures 'not within ICJ's power'

Israel's delegation defended that the inevitable fatalities and human suffering of any conflict is not of itself a pattern of conduct which plausibly shows a genocidal intent.

Also, provisional measures must have limits and right to defend itself would not require imposition of such a measure, it argued.

It said: "These provisional measures therefore are not within the court's power."

The delegation said that "this is not a case where provisional measures could require both parties to exercise mutual restraint," and added that "provisional measures would deprive Israel of the ability to contend with this security threat against it."

Imposing provisional measures would also "end attempts to rescue those already taken hostages," it claimed.

"The requested measures would not put an end to the conflict, but only to military operations by one party to the conflict," it said. "These measures would assist the other party, and encourage the commission of further terrorist attacks."

Israel also argued South Africa's request of urgent implementation as it considers "punishment of genocide is not something that needs to be done urgently."

It also defended its position on not allowing access to Gaza by fact finding missions and international mandates. "Israel has no obligation under international law to allow access from its territory into Gaza."

Finally, Israel requested the court to reject the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa.

- Public hearings

On day one of the trial, South Africa presented hard evidence in the case it filed on Dec. 29, accusing Israel of genocide and violations of the UN Genocide Convention with its actions in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7.

The South African side is requesting an injunction by the top UN court to halt Israel's military assault on Gaza, which has dragged on for more than three months.

The 84-page filing by South Africa accuses Israel of acts and omissions "genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent … to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group."

It says Israel's genocidal acts include killing Palestinians, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, mass expulsion from homes and displacement, imposing measures intended to prevent Palestinian births, and deprivation of access to adequate food, water, shelter, sanitation, and medical assistance.

The International Court of Justice ended the session with asking both parties of interest to remain at the court disposal to provide any additional information the court may require.

It said: "The court will render its order on the request for the provisional measures submitted by South Africa as soon as possible."