Prof. Irwin Kotler is certain that the person on trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is not only the State of Israel, but the court itself, the international order and the future of Western countries. It's much bigger than us, says someone who almost became part of the panel of 17 judges representing the State of Israel, and the basis lies in the new kind of anti-Semitism. Michal Kotler-Wunsch, a special envoy to combat anti-Semitism on behalf of the State of Israel, describes the battle for Israel's image in The Hague as a battle in the eighth arena, the one that is taking place on world public opinion and in which Israel tends to lose. Anti-Semitism, have we already said? The two, father and daughter, in separate interviews from Canada and Israel, describe a defining moment in history, and you, gentlemen, are the important witnesses.
"The pursuit of justice is not only for Israel, but for the international order. The judges in the trial must understand that the struggle here is for the court they represent, for the international law they are obligated to defend, and for the pursuit of justice. So in my opinion, Israel's performance in The Hague is a performance for the whole world – for the sake of the genocide convention and for ensuring the 'never again' mechanism. The judges need to understand that this is what is at stake," says Prof. Kotler, who has decades of experience in the international legal arena and as a human rights expert.
Supporters of Israel march to court, accompanied by families of abductees | Netael Bandel
"This is another arena that is raging, this is an unconventional war on world public opinion," Michal Kotler-Wunsch defines the "eighth arena," as she puts it, alongside the seven military arenas that Israel is dealing with. "It happened at the UN in 1975, when they defined Zionism as racism, it happened in 2001 when they tried to determine in Durban, South Africa, that Israel is an apartheid state, and now it's happening in The Hague, when they accuse Israel of committing genocide. In an Orwellian reversal, the country in the ashes with which the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide was written, which acted in response to war crimes and crimes against humanity, referring to genocide as it was in the events of October 7.
"The opinion of every Holocaust survivor, his children or grandchildren cannot accept this distortion. Every jurist in the world should see this as a disgrace, and oppose the collapse of the mechanisms established to ensure that 'never again.' Anyone who sanctifies the values of life and liberty must see it as a call to action," Kotler-Wunsch states, when "she, the Jew among the nations, finds herself accused of 'genocide,' just as the presidents of Ivy League universities explain that the question of whether calling for genocide of Jews violates their rules of conduct is 'context-dependent.'"
What is the story of South Africa
Israel's accusation of genocide by South Africa, as noted, has a close relevant background. Two decades ago, an important conference against racism convened in the country turned a discourse on human rights into an attack on Israel. Overnight, Israel became an "apartheid state" and the global human rights discourse was abandoned. The trial in The Hague is seen by the two as an opportunity to correct the distortion, and not as a replay. Prof. Kotler addresses the question of why South Africa is putting this demand on the table, and defines it, like his daughter, as a new mutation of anti-Semitism.
Photo: Olivier Fitoussi, Flash 90
"I guess the best way to describe it is to say that anti-Semitism is not only the oldest, longest and deadliest hatred, but one that has produced mutations over the years. They can be put on an axis: first towards Jews, then against the Jewish people, and finally against the Jewish state, which has become 'an enemy of all that is good and the embodiment of all that is bad.' This is a kind of anti-Semitic slur that reflects the spirit of the times, and the accusations change according to it."
Prof. Kotler first wrote about this as a law professor in the mid-70s, when "human rights" emerged as the new secular religion of our time, and accordingly Israel became the representative of everything that is wrong with the discourse due to the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. "Since then, there have been two turning points, and this is where South Africa comes in: the definition of Zionism as racism at the UN in '75, which was grounded in the false accusation that began at the time that Israel is an apartheid state. The second turning point was to take this false libel of Israel as a racist state and frame it at the Durban Conference Against Racism in 2001. I was part of the Canadian delegation to the Durban conference, and I remember the anticipation for this conference, which was supposed to be the first conference against racism of the 21st century, specifically in Durban, South Africa, which was the seat of the apartheid regime."
Prof. Kotler, 83, who gave the 1981 "If Sharansky, Why Not Mandela" speech in South Africa, recalls his arrest in the country and returns to the Durban conference: "I expected to be there and help frame the human rights discourse in the 21st century, but what happened there, to use the same metaphor for what is happening in The Hague today, was an Orwellian reversal: a conference for the defense of international law became a conference against international law, A conference that was supposed to fight racism became a conference of racism against Israel and the Jewish people, and I say this as someone who was there. Thus was born the false legal reversal that we now see in the cruelest way in the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel as a 'perpetrator of genocide.'"
Kotler-Wunsch, a lawyer and former Knesset member who deals with international law, argues, like Prof. Kotler, that the denial and attacks against Israel after the massacre embody a new breed of anti-Semitism, culminating in the filing of the lawsuit in The Hague. "Anti-Semitism, as a virus, develops new strains over thousands of years and they build resilience. Traditional anti-Semitism denied the Jew or Jew equal treatment in the society in which they lived, and everything that has happened during the 75 years of the existence of the State of Israel is a new mutation of anti-Semitism - anti-Zionism, denial of the right of the State of Israel to exist on any border."
, Photo: EPA
According to her, "the mechanism that enabled genocide throughout history included demonization, delegitimization and a double standard," which exists today in practice around the world and on social networks against the State of Israel, making it the aggressor and not the victim of October 7. "When you see people tearing up signs of abductees in the streets, of the baby Kfir Bibas, and you ask the person, 'What are you doing?' and he doesn't see a baby there, it's dehumanizing. When you see pictures of the four abducted girls on social networks and you realize that in the eye of the beholder they are not human beings - this is the mechanism that enables genocide. That's how the Holocaust happened, that's how 7/10 happened, and that's how other events throughout history happen.
"The word 'Zionist' has become a code word for 'Jew.' And in the face of all these events we are constantly only in reactive mode of removal - it does not work. October 7 removed so many masks from UN institutions - when women's organizations did not see fit to condemn the brutal rape, and children's organizations did not see fit to condemn the fact that children were murdered and burned alive. At the same time, anti-Semitism not only enabled the massacre, but it enabled the responses to it – from the silence of international organizations to the denial, justification and support for Hamas as a murderous terrorist organization, and attacks on Jews around the world."
"The worst crime since the Holocaust"
Not only the filing of the lawsuit by a country that has experienced apartheid in two, but also the use of the Convention Against Genocide, which Israel was among the first countries to sign 75 years ago.
"What I find most worrying about the use of the term 'genocide,' conceived by the Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin, whose entire family was exterminated in the Holocaust, is the closure of the circle," Kotler-Wunsch says. "This word was armed against us and against the State of Israel, and in fact it took over the mechanisms designed to ensure that 'never again,' mechanisms that were established with the blood and ashes of the six million Jews. And at this moment, now, 75 years since the establishment of the State of Israel and the return of the Jewish people to its land, the indigenous identity of a people is taken from it, and instead a mechanism of 'colonialist whites' is applied to it, as if they came and took over the 'original indigenous people.' My father is one of the 850,<> Jews from Arab countries and Iran who were expelled, in my case, from Iraq. We are not white. Our story was taken and all the sick evils of this world were put on it and turned Zionism into racism - this is something George Orwell could not have imagined."
When asked whether it was right for Israel to face the trial of the nations in the face of mechanisms designed against it over the years, and whose state of mind can be guessed, that Israel is of course to blame for everything, both answer unequivocally, despite everything, that it was the right decision. "Over the years, Israel has not always understood that alongside the war on the battlefield, there is the war in the 'court of public opinion,' and that the UN, for better or worse, is the one that gives expression to public opinions," says Prof. Kotler. "As someone who has studied international law and deals with international human rights and the protection of political prisoners, I can understand Israel's frustration and loss of faith in the integrity of the UN and its institutions where resolutions are systematically passed against Israel, more than any other country in the world.
, Photo: Efrat Eshel
"I can understand the feeling of Israel and Israelis that they will never be able to achieve justice at the United Nations, but unfortunately this is the world we live in. So I think Israel has done the right thing here to deal with this international ICJ case and to do so not only in pursuit of the truth, not only in protecting the historical record, not just in verifying its right to self-defense, but in defending the International Court of Justice; Because that's what's at stake in this false accusation. And it is vital that the truth, the terrible truth about October 7, the worst crime in Jewish history since the Holocaust, come to light. That this testimony be heard, and that legal representation be made by Israel not only in defense of its right to self-defense but in defense of the entire international legal order of human rights."
Kotler-Wunsch says that the campaign in The Hague has a critical impact on Israel's right to exist. "This blood libel, 'Israel as apartheid,' was created on South African soil in 2001. This country has a failed, corrupt regime that met only last week with the president of Sudan, where there is genocide. The irony is long dead. When South Africa makes this case for genocide against us, it gives a kind of badge of honor, because it knows what apartheid is, and it arms that term against us. In the end, it is this war of consciousness that will decide the conventional wars we are fighting, because there is nothing to do with countries that commit genocide other than destroy them, as they did to Germany. Ultimately, this unconventional war will justify the conventional war to destroy Israel. This may amount to justifying the annihilation of the Jewish people. That's the mechanism, and some of us knew what was going to happen."
Under no circumstances, she said, should Israel enter into arguments about its performance in Gaza. "As soon as you start going down the rabbit hole – proving that Israel is not committing genocide – that's it, it's over. There is nothing to discuss here – this is what Israel should claim, and present the Orwellian reversal in which a murderous terrorist organization, which is an extension of a murderous terrorist regime, carries out against the Jews in the Jewish state the attempt at genocide by definition. After all, it is self-evident that Hamas intended to destroy the State of Israel, and this is genocide. We are committed to being there and bringing to light the war crimes of Hamas terrorists. The crimes committed on 7.10 are meant to resonate with us the memory of the past. Burning entire families embraced – it didn't just happen."
The two repeatedly reiterate the position that what is currently on trial is the historical truth and integrity of international law, as well as the institutions responsible for it. "This war is taking place and began following October 7, and this must be proven in court, together with the incitement to genocide by Hamas and the acts of genocide committed by Hamas, and the videos filmed by Hamas itself must be shown as evidence. He not only committed these terrible deeds but also celebrated them.
"Israel is responding to the attack and to an organization whose charter is committed to the destruction of Israel. It is not only its right to self-defense but its duty to its citizens. If Hamas had laid down its arms and returned the hostages and surrendered and stood trial, there would have been no ongoing war between Israel and Hamas and we would have avoided all human suffering in Gaza. I am not saying that there is no death and destruction in Gaza, but you cannot blame the victim called Israel for exercising his right of self-defense in a justified war."
Kotler-Wunsch extends the perspective back decades, when every time Israel was attacked and forced to defend itself, it was simultaneously attacked on the international front. "Time and again, those who tried to destroy the State of Israel for 75 years did not succeed, and then an unconventional war was declared against us that we missed its meaning. This is a great miss of the unconventional war on world public opinion, which, after being declared almost 50 years ago, is coming full circle by accusing Israel of genocide."
Isn't this too harsh an accusation by world public opinion, which was actually on Israel's side in the first days after the massacre?
"The question is what is 'with us.' Do you know the book People Love Dead Jews? It's an important book, and I had this insight: for thousands of years we were terribly sorry in retrospect for the murder of Jews, and for the first time in modern history we have the ability to defend ourselves. But what is considered self-defense by the whole world is considered genocide to us, because this time the Jews are not dying quietly. So why wasn't I surprised after they came here to mourn the murdered Jews, when the Jews stood up and said 'never again' in the face of our enemies, who said 'October 7 again and again.' When the world saw that these Jews were not going to be murdered quietly, that they were going to fight, it was quickly clear that it would turn on us."
What would Mandela say?
The speed with which it "turned on us" to the accusation of genocide against those attacked by murderers armed with genocidal ideology should not have surprised us this time either. Prof. Kotler recalls the night he took off from Durban and landed back in Canada on the morning of 11/9 – the World Trade Center bombing. He then received a phone call from a colleague from South Africa who told him: "If 11/9 was Kristallnacht of terror, Durban would be Mein Kampf." "But we've forgotten that," Kotler says, "and right now we're seeing a repeat of the false lie that manifests itself in false accusations. Now there's a term in international law called 'false accusations in the mirror,' where those who make the accusations are the ones who are themselves guilty, and that's what we're witnessing where Hamas – the terrorist organization that commits genocide – turns itself into a victim of genocide."
., Photo: AFP
He knows the parallel judge Aharon Barak, the one appointed by South Africa to sit on trial, and even pins some hope on him that justice will be done. "He was vice-president of the South African Constitutional Court and a cellmate of Nelson Mandela. He spoke here at the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights, which I head, five years ago. Wallenberg is our honorary citizen of Canada, while Nelson Mandela is the second to receive this title. I am sure that if Mandela were alive he would have rejected these accusations. While he was critical of Israel and a strong supporter of Palestinian rights, he spoke of Israel's right to live in peace and security – a right that was attacked on 7 October and has been under constant threat since Hamas came to power in 2007.
"Mandela received an honorary degree from Ben-Gurion University in 1988. He would never have received an honorary degree if he believed that Israel was an apartheid state or committing an act of genocide. Therefore, this entire lawsuit against Israel by South Africa is in fact a denial of South Africa's history, its heritage of human rights and against apartheid. She single-handedly turns Mandela's legacy upside down and Mandela's legacy and understanding of Israel. I hope the judge understands that too."
Kotler-Wunsch refers to the moment when Israel may have to get up and walk away from the trial it stood for: "If what is accepted there by the 17 judges is to investigate in some way the accusations of 'genocide' committed by Israel in Gaza, in my view the Israeli representative at that moment should give Emile Zola's 'I accuse' speech and not continue to represent anything there. As soon as we start answering the accusations against us there, we lost. Because the very idea that we are discussing the intolerable possibility that the State of Israel is committing genocide is like discussing that Zionism is racism and Israel is an apartheid state.
"South Africa's argument is that when Jews defend themselves, it's genocide, that's what's new here – everything that is allowed to any other country, is forbidden to the Jewish state. A double standard is used against a country that is part of the Commonwealth," Kotler-Wunsch says. She sees here as an internal Israeli historic opportunity for change: "For decades we have invested in planes, tanks and gunfire, on the first floor of security. The big miss was that the war of consciousness would affect our ability to fight the conventional war as well, and now this is the responsibility of our generation. On the 75th anniversary of the miracle that is the State of Israel, the time has come to build the additional layer of moral values, to clarify what the Declaration of Independence says about the state of the Jewish people who returned to their land after thousands of years of exile.
"This will be the mechanism that will make it possible to answer the arguments against us why the State of Israel is not an apartheid state and why Zionism is not racism and why Israel does not commit genocide. We have a state, sovereignty and a defense army. Half of the people are here and half of the people live in countries with relative security in the Diaspora, and they too are Boots on the Ground in this war of consciousness in the United States - this is their war: to create alliances with those who are not Jews or do not define themselves as Zionists, but they will understand that the threat to Israel, the one that turns out to be in The Hague, is a threat to the democratic infrastructure of the United States."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us