WATCH: Israel’s response to SA’s accusations of genocide at the ICJ

Israel responded to accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Friday after South Africa told the top UN court that Gaza is a concentration camp where genocide is taking place.

Like South Africa, Israel will have three hours to argue its case before a bench of 15 judges at the Peace Palace in the Hague.

ALSO READ: WATCH: SA’s arguments and requests against Israel at the International Court of Justice

According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, more than 23 400 people have been killed in Gaza, about 70% of them women and children, while 59 600 have been injured.

Israel’s legal team argued the right to defend itself from Hamas, antisemitism, and that its actions complied with international law.

Watch Israel’s responding arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

SA hypocrisy

Just hours before Israel’s appearance before the court, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “the hypocrisy of South Africa screams to the heavens”.

“We are fighting terrorists; we are fighting lies… Today we saw an upside-down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide,” he said.

READ MORE: ‘Hypocrisy of South Africa screams to the heavens’ – Netanyahu

SA has weaponised the term genocide- Israel

In Israel’s opening statement, legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry Tal Becker argued that South Africa case hinged on “a deliberately curated, decontextualized, and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities”.

“South Africa purports to come to this court in the lofty position of a guardian of the interest of humanity. By delegitimizing Israel’s 75-year existence in its opening presentation yesterday, that broad commitment to humanity rang hollow. And in its counter-factual description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seemed to erase both Jewish history and any Palestinian agency or responsibility,” Becker said.

Becker said the delegitimizes of Israel sounded “barely from Hamas’ rejectionist rhetoric”, and SA had weaponised the term genocide.

“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,” Becker argued.

READ MORE: South Africa has weaponised the term genocide- Israel

‘This is no genocide’

Professor Malcolm Shaw (KC) rejected claims of genocide by Israeli forces, saying South Africa was not presenting all of the facts.

“There is no genocidal intent here. This is no genocide.

“South Africa tells us only half the story: ‘Israel is guilty of genocide; we cannot deal with Hamas. Only Israel must be stopped from protecting its citizenry and eliminating the threat that is Hamas. We cannot deal with Hamas’,” he argued.

Shaw defended Israel’s attacks on Hamas forces and claimed the group’s attack on 7 October was itself an act of genocide.

“Allegations have been made that verge on the outrageous. The attack on Hamas on the 7th of October, with its deliberate act of atrocities, clearly falls within the statutory definition of genocide. Israel’s response was, and remains, necessary. It acts in a manner consistent with international law.”

READ MORE: ‘This is no genocide’, Israel tells International Court of Justice

SA tailored Gaza genocide story to pre-existing narrative

Galit Raguan, Director of the International Justice Division, Office of the Deputy Attorney General for International Law Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel, claimed South Africa’s arguments had tailored “its story to a pre-existing narrative.”

She said the charge of genocide is “frankly untenable”, given the efforts by Israel for humanitarian assistance.

Raguan argued that Hamas was intent on “wiping out” Israel and was taking advantage of civilian resources.

“When a population is ruled by a terrorist organisation that cares more about wiping out its neighbour than about protecting its own civilians, there are acute challenges in protecting the civilian population.

“Those challenges are exasperated by the dynamic and evolving nature of intense hostilities in an urban area where the enemy exploits hospitals, shelters, and critical infrastructure,” she said.

Dr Christopher Staker questioned South Africa’s claim to the right to ensure the Genocide Convention was not violated.

“It is absurd to suggest that the only way to ensure observance of the Genocide Convention in a military operation is to prevent the operation from being conducted at all. In order, according to South Africa, to secure the humanitarian response and avoid more unnecessary death and destruction. That goes beyond preventing genocide.”

READ MORE: Israel claims SA tailored Gaza genocide story to pre-existing narrative