On October 7 Hamas, a proxy of Iran, inflicted a brutal savage physical attack on Israeli citizens. Israel predictably retaliated so Hamas, by its wanton evil acts, ensured their hoped for propaganda coup which was the high death rate of Palestinians. The latter was inevitable as their whole military operation is embedded in civilian structures. The focus was no longer on Hamas's barbarity but rather on the "neo colonial apartheid aggressors".
South Africa, Iran’s newest proxy, prowess at disinformation skyrocketed following their obscenely leveled charge of genocide against Israel. Skeptics speculated whether Israel’s devastating rebuttal against the tendentious charges could positively impact public opinion. They proved correct as hundreds of thousands of protestors flooded the streets of the capitals of the world in anti Israel rallies after the International Court of Justice's proceedings.
SOUTH AFRICA BECOMES A PAID PROXY OF IRAN
Almost immediately following October 7 the South African Foreign Minister visited Teheran. After that liaison the ANC government made an ostentatious presentation in support for Hamas. That visit was followed up, in December, by a Hamas delegation to South Africa. Also in attendance was the Hamas representative to Iran. Within a short space of time South Africa made an urgent application to the International Court of Justice to rule on Israel’s alleged genocide. As conclusively proved at The Hague last week South Africa in their rush to proceed flouted procedure by not having the statutory dialogue with the respondent in an attempt to resolve the issue. On this point alone their case should be thrown out. They did not care because this gambit was all about post truth.
According to Dr.Frans Cronje, former head of The South African Institute of Race Relations, South Africa has sold the direction of its foreign policy to Iran just as it has done with other state assets. The ruling ANC was bankrupt and their headquarters in Johannesburg House, the iconic Luthuli House, was about to be handed over to the creditors. Behind in the polls there was speculation as to how on earth the ANC would be able to pay for an expensive political campaign especially as the opposition parties had coalesced. But lo and behold before the sequestration in November the ANC payed its debts, announced that it has enough money to finance its election campaign, as well as finance a troop to go to the Hague for a full court presentation.
South Africa is the ideal attack dog in this situation. Who better to accuse Israel of being an apartheid regime capable of genocide than the country who was subjected to a racist apartheid regime and who overcame neo colonialism? Who could question the credentials of the leader of Mandela’s African National Congress, Cyril Ramaphosa, who was in the vanguard of the transformation of the “New South Africa”?
Thus in the most audacious cynical maneuver, South Africa with malevolent intent accused Israel of genocide in defending itself against a self confessed genocidal terrorist organization. The Israeli Prime Minister, for example, was not impugned because he was a narcissistic wannabe authoritarian but rather because he was a Jew. (He is an easy target because it has to be hard to imagine him acting solely in the interests of his country).
THE OVERALL PICTURE INVOLVED IN THE CHARGE BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, (ICJ), IN THE HAGUE
South Africa has accused Israel of committing genocide In the war precipitated by Hamas’s breach of Israel’s sovereignty on October 7. Anyone, with a legal mind, who listened to the six hours of court proceedings at The Hague has to come to the conclusion that there is no basis in fact and international law to support the accusation. No one is more aware of that fact than the South African plaintiffs. They are aiming rather for the handing down of a “provisional order” from the court that will politically suit their aims and that of their newest best friends Russia, China and Iran. To succeed in that mission there is a very low bar as all that has to be demonstrated is to show that there is enough “evidence” to investigate an allegation of genocide. The litigants are also aided by the fact that the relevant statute does not allow to take into account the precipitating cause for the alleged genocide.
In spite of the fact that the South African arguments were demolished by a highly sophisticated team including experts in international law, the conventional view is that The Court will come to a compromise verdict and issue “provisional orders” just short of demanding a cease fire as the latter would deprive Israel of their legal right to defend themselves. They may well instruct Israel to do what it is already doing, namely providing humanitarian aid and other seemingly obvious ways of conducting warfare. Needless to say Hamas will be asked to do nothing. In fact if you only watched the South African three hours of oral argument you would swear that Israel was the only combatant in this war.
Opinion is currently against Israel for waging this “devastating flattening of Gaza and its inhabitants”. Israel as the stronger country is the victimizer against the victim, allegedly all Palestinians. Only the war is against a terrorist organization Hamas who seized power in 2007 and has an army of 30,000 trained warriors. They have spent billions of aid dollars in arms purchases, rocket launchers and the most sophisticated underground tunnel system in history.
Onto the merits of South Africa’s referral to the IJC, a referral that has been declared “meritless” by the European Union, the USA and Canada for starters.
SOUTH AFRICA’S CASE OF GENOCIDE - THE INTENT
Briefly South Africa, a third party, has intervened on the side of Hamas although it claims that the war is in effect against the 2.2 million Palestinians. The thrust of their argument is couched in 8 pages of quotes of individuals, some very important, which were mostly made immediately after October 7.
So what was said by individuals as there was cheering and jeering crowds in the streets of Gaza as raped bleeding women were paraded and as the atrocities of October 7 became more and more evident, is the basis for Israel's genocidal intent and the issuance of "provisional orders". Jay H. Ell will detail some of these incidents as they are the burden of South Africa’s argument. Apparently cooler heads should have prevailed in the wake of the barbarism.
First and foremost there was the statement of Israel’s Prime Minister to remember the biblical Exodus when the “Hebrews” were attacked by the Amalakites. The enemy were to be “smite” down to the last soul. The problem with the quote was that it left out the first bit where Netanyahu specifically addressed this to the Hamas terrorists. To show how this was an injunction that was translated into action the South African litigants ran a video of one soldier repeating the biblical exhortation. Then there was President Hertzog who blamed all the citizens of Gaza on October 15 when it became evident that non combatant Palestinians ran across the border plundered and took hostages like the rest of them. He recanted soon after when cooler heads did indeed prevail.
Both Defense Minister Gallant and Netanyahu in fits of rage when the extent of the hostage taking became apparent stated that their would be a siege of Gaza till they were all returned. That too didn’t last long.
Of course extremists such as Smotrich and Ben Gvir were shouting the odds and years back Minister Katz was also talking about Gazans who should “voluntarily leave”. All have either retracted or been discredited. In case anyone missed it the Netanyahu Government of extremists has approval ratings round about 15 percent.
So inflammatory rhetoric in the aftermath of the unspeakable carnage of October 7 was the central basis of Israel’s intent to cause genocide. Countless opinion pieces were written merely quoting South Africa’s 8 pages as the basis of finding a prima facie case of genocide against Israel. A classical example of this type of polemic appeared in The Guardian, January 13, 2024 authored by Owen Jones, entitled “The Brutality and inhumanity of Israel’s assault is no surprise. It was just what Israel promised”. Not one other fact was offered just these statements which did not reflect policy.
ISRAEL’S ANSWER TO INTENT
Professor Malcolm Shaw a foremost authority on international law appeared on behalf of Israel to answer allegations on intent. He put the above statements in their context stating that individual statements do not constitute policy. The decision makers as to Israel’s intent are the tiny War Cabinet and the Security Cabinet. He then quoted from policy decisions by those bodies which specifically stated that the military must act in terms of international law and take humanitarian considerations into their actions. In outlining this the Counsel not only negated the accuser’s contention they proved that the policy was in terms of international law. Again and again the relevant bodies had documented resolutions to that effect both in deliberations and publicly. Israel had every right to defend itself as a result of the unholy aggression of October 7. Shaw extensively referred to IJC Court precedents that flew in the teeth of the outcomes sort by South Africa.
Dr. Giliad Noam from the Attorney General’s office detailed the extensive protocols with regard to the Israel Defense Force’s, (IDF), behavior which was to follow international law. He stated that the officer in IDF that was in charge of the conduct of military operations was independent and second in rank only to the Chief of the armed forces.
Dr. Staker another expert on international law took apart all nine provisional measures that the plaintiffs wanted the court to urgently put in place. He argued that the requests were designed to protect Hamas from attack and if enforced would act as an encouragement to terrorist groups.
OTHER ACCUSATIONS
Dr. Galit Ragan dealt with the unfound allegations one by one regarding the situation of the Palestinians. None of these were substantiated by facts. They were just wild sometimes tautologous assertions. For example Israel was accused of displacing large segments of the population when they were falling over backwards to comply with international law to warn civilians of impeding danger. She listed the procedures from phone calls to leaflets to maps not to mention a three week pause before attacking so as to exhort Palestinians to get out of the immediate battlefield.
To the accusation that Israel was deliberately starving the Palestinians, testimony and documentation was produced to the effect that Israel had an agency specifically designed to meet Palestinian needs. They were situated at the Karen Shalom crossing which Hamas obliterated on October 7 killing workers and taking others hostages. Now that this crossing has been repaired more trucks containing food than entered in “peace time” were going into the ravaged strip in an attempt to avert furthering the humanitarian crisis
Jay H. Ell is not going to exhaust the list she comprehensively answered referring, as did all the Israeli counsel, to the extensive documentation provided to the court. The libel that Israel were bombing hospitals was untrue. Every hospital indeed was invaded by IDF troops and each and every one was shown to be involved in Hamas operations. In order to meet the crisis Israel had created four field hospitals in South Gaza and a floating facility, had sent in a fleet of ambulances and had provided incubators.
One final point, the Hamas health agency mortality numbers, such as they are, don’t take into account that at least 8,500 are terrorists, the number killed by 2,000 terrorist rockets that fell into Gaza and deaths caused by civilian shields, booby traps, mines and buildings collapsed because of tunnels.
AT THE END OF THE DAY
Anti semitism is alive and well and living on planet earth.
It is time the politicians in Israel axe Netanyahu and do a deal to get back all the hostages. It is an irony that The Israel the respondents painted before The Court is the very Israel the Prime Minister would eliminate to keep out of jail.
Israel should charge South Arica in the IJC for "Giving comfort to genocidal agents".
One little reported statement made by Tan Becker, Israel’s lead off attorney, was, “If Hamas surrenders and returns the hostages, Israel’s hostilities would end”.
No comments:
Post a Comment