An Israeli patriotic journalist will find it difficult to relate to the discussions in The Hague with the degree of objectivity required in the profession, and that's a good thing. But together with the comment, it can be summarized that after a very good and worrying opening by the South African prosecution, there was some subtlety with the impressive appearance of the Israeli defense team. Insofar as the discussion is legal in general, and not diplomatic in legal guise, the team touched on the right points and even fought back against South Africa itself. Still, the assessment is that the court will grant the prosecution's request for an interim injunction – it will probably be a softened interim injunction that will not stop the fighting, but it may very well limit it.
Demonstration of the families of the abductees in front of the ICC in The Hague // Photo: Netael Bandel
The Israeli letter of defense left no stone unturned and distilled the moral and legal mandate for Israel's various combat operations in Gaza. Regarding the statements made by senior Israeli officials, the defense argued that most of them are not even members of the decision-making forums. Not only that, but these forums, including the prime minister, condemned these statements. Other statements, such as those of the defense minister, for example, can only be interpreted as referring to the destruction of the Hamas terrorist organization and its operatives, and not to the civilian population.
The Haganah presented many extensive Israeli actions to improve the humanitarian crisis, but was accurate and said that the situation was the fate imposed by Hamas on the residents of the Gaza Strip. Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg put it in one of the rulings regarding the holding of the bodies of terrorists in exchange for the return of abductees from Gaza, that these and other actions "are nothing but the shameful fruits of murderous terrorism, due to the cruel enemy, which we must do so." I want to say: Even difficult and painful actions should be interpreted as good and necessary. Professor Malcolm Shaw was accurate when he said that even if violations of international law are found, there is no factual basis for a backlog of accusations that even establishes a fear of genocide. Certainly not for such an intention.
South Africa's ambassador at the ICC in The Hague, photo: AP
In addition, the defense also dealt with deflecting facts presented by the prosecution. For example, South Africa claimed that residents of northern Gaza were given only 24 hours' notice to leave their homes before Israel attacked the area. However, Dr. Galit Rajwan, who stood out in the discussion for her talent and quality, presented that Israel had warned the residents three weeks before the Israeli attack, to the point that it had in fact revealed to Hamas the initial focal points of the attack. This is one example, but there were more.
The face of South Africa
Prof. Shaw presented an important fact that, frankly, even in Israel tends to be forgotten. "South Africa talked about occupation and apartheid for the Palestinians from the perspective of 75 years, but why stop there? Why not in 1922, in the Commonwealth declaration recognizing the rebirth of Israel, or even earlier in the Balfour Declaration? In fact, why not 3,200 years earlier, when the tribes of Israel entered the land?" In other words, the Bible continues to be the Koshen.
Representatives of the families of the abductees at the ICC in The Hague, photo: AP
Deputy Attorney General for International Law, Dr. Gil-Ad Noam, who summarized the defense's arguments, made an important point: a decision that would determine fear of genocide is not only baseless, it effectively discards the UN Convention Against Genocide. In effect, it turns the Charter into a letter of immunity for terrorist organizations that themselves carry out proven acts of genocide, as we learned on October 7. It would be a moral injustice on an international scale. South Africa, whose government is made up of the pioneers who overthrew the apartheid regime in the country, has embarked on a crusade against similar regimes around the world. But along the way, she made a serious mistake in navigation, shook the hand of the Islamist Nazis Hamas and attacked the people who recently survived murder themselves, whom Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and others want to return to the crematoria. Actual crematoria, as they did in Kibbutz Be'eri, for example.
Dr. Gilad Noam said that a resolution that would establish a fear of genocide was not only baseless, it effectively stripped of the UN Convention Against Genocide. It would be a moral injustice on an international scale
As stated, it is not at all certain that the discussion is legal. The assessment among many legal experts and among the Israeli team is that the court will grant the prosecution's request and issue an interim injunction. However, and this is the more important news, the level of discussion today has the power to repel an order that would stop the fighting in Gaza, a possibility that Israel cannot tolerate, and settle for much more modest orders. For example, an order instructing Israel to open an investigation into various statements, an order ordering the full opening of the Gaza Strip to the entry of humanitarian equipment, an order restricting combat operations in certain ways, or a general declaratory order instructing Israel to act in accordance with international law. With most of them, Israel will be able to live completely.
Strategic threat
The danger of stopping the war has brought international law back to the forefront. International law is not a slur by globalist leftists, but can pose a real strategic threat to Israel. Israel does not exist alone, and it is a member of the community of nations and leading countries in the world that sent destroyers at the beginning of the war - and only this week attacked the Houthis in Yemen who attacked Israeli merchant ships. International law should be discussed, it is not binding, it is even appropriate to criticize the legal echelon on claims of limiting the military's actions, and yet, as of this week, it is clear that all this has entered a much more balanced context. We opened up this week as well.
The ICC hall in The Hague, photo: AP
Defending the country can be with a helmet and vest, and it can also be in a suit, and loads of ammunition. All words of description should not be exaggerated to reflect the dramatic importance of the discussion. The intensity of the fateful discussion could be seen through Gil-Ad Noam's face, which remained sealed and only his eyes blinked. This person, whom you probably haven't heard of, along with Dr. Rajwan, Dr. Tal Becker and the other crew members, are the General Staff Patrol that was sent to rescue us. Several possible points for improvement can be raised, such as greater emphasis on the Israeli abduction tragedy, but they do not appear to be critical. A journalist cannot write this way to the subjects of criticism, but an Israeli patriot cannot avoid it: Thank you.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us