 o'r llu'r Llywodraeth Cymru, o'r gweithio gyda'r gweithio'r gwasanaethau i gynhyrchu'r gweithio, ac o'r bydwch gyrdwch ei ddigonwch. Mae'r ddweud ei ddweud o ddweud o'r rei'r gweithio, a'r wneud oed yn gallu gwneud. Mae'r cwntecau gyda'r cyfnodau cydweithreduol, i ddweud y ffordd o'r cyfnodau, As it has unfolded, particularly the 7th of October, is that of an armed conflict, a heavily armed militia, and its allies precipitated egregious hostilities and the consequences lie everywhere. Point is this, armed conflict, even when fully justified and conducted lawfully, is brutal and costs lives, particularly when the militia in question specifically targets civilians and civilian facilities and when it is patently unconcerned about causing civilian casualties on its own side. The conflict is also regulated by law, the rules and principles of international humanitarian law under the Hague regulations, the Geneva conventions of 1949 and customary international law. These are well developed and applicable and are fully respected by Israel. Such rules cover permitted activities and international humanitarian law where civilian damage and loss always to be regretted are caused in the legitimate pursuit of military objectives through to the violation of the law, engraved breaches of legitimate conventions and up to war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the only category before this court is genocide. Not every conflict is genocidal. The crime of genocide in international law and under the genocide convention in international law is a uniquely malicious manifestation. It stands alone amongst the violations of international law as the epitome and zenith of evil. It has been described correctly as the crime of crimes, the ultimate in wickedness. Indeed, the court itself emphasised in its order of the 2nd of June 1999 that the threat or use of force cannot in itself constitute an act of genocide within the meaning of article two of the Geneva Convention and particularly instant bombing as lacking the element of intent in the circumstances to put it another way. If claims of genocide were to become the common currency of our conflict whenever and wherever that occurred, the essence of this crime would be diluted and lost. I turn now to the question of the primary facial jurisdiction of the court in the matter before us. Article nine of the genocide convention to which both states are parties without reservation makes the court's jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute relating to the interpretation application or fulfilment of the convention and the relevant date for determining the existence of such a dispute is the date on which the application is submitted to the court. Whether or not a dispute in these terms exists at the time of the filing of the application is a matter for objective determination by the court. It is a matter of substance and not a question of form or procedure. The court will take into account in particular any statements or documents exchanged between the parties as well as any exchanges made in multilateral settings, the court has said. The key point here is the use of the term exchange between the parties. Unilateral assertion does not suffice. There needs to be some element of engagement between the parties. The element of interchange and bilateral interaction is required. A dispute is a reciprocal phenomenon. This point has been consistently noted by the court. For example, the court reaffirmed in the Mayan Mar case the view that it had expressed earlier that in order for a dispute in the sense of article nine to exist, it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other. The court further referred in the Marshall Islands cases to the need that the respondent should not be deprived of the opportunity to react before the institution of proceedings to the claim made against its own conduct. Where a state makes an assertion concerning the conduct of another state, it must thus give the latter a reasonable opportunity to respond before resorting to litigation, particularly in a matter of such severity as an accusation of genocide and particularly before a cause of this standing. And it behoves that state to provide supporting evidence of some credibility. Here South Africa cites only a couple of general public statements by Israel referencing merely a press report by Reuters and a publicity release from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These responses were not addressed directly or even indirectly to South Africa. There is no evidence of positive opposition as required by the court. Further, South Africa cites no relevant exchange between the parties which would be the normal fashion for the expression and determination of a dispute between states. This actually typifies how South Africa has approached this matter. It seems to believe that it does not take two to tango. It is sufficient if one state determines there is a dispute leaving the other party full amongst. Professor Dugard explains that South Africa had voiced its concerns in the Security Council and in public statements and referred and had further referred the matter to the International Criminal Court. At that point he says it became clear there was a serious dispute between the two states. The court has emphasised that in the case of statements made by one state in a multilateral forum, the court must give particular attention into Ilya to the content of a party statement and to the identity of the intended addresses in order to determine whether that statement, together with any reaction there are two, show that the parties before it held clearly opposite views. South Africa's actions were insufficient. Indeed in the Marshall Islands cases the court referred specifically to statements made at a conference noted that it did not call for a specific reaction by the UK and thus no opposition of views can be inferred from the absence of any such reaction. Specific reaction. It is disingenuous for Professor Dugard to conclude that Israel must have been a war from South Africa's public statements, De Marsh and referral to the ICC of Israel's Genocidal Acts that a dispute existed between the two states. This is not a dispute, it is a unispute, a one-sided clapping of hands. Professor Dugard perhaps tries to retrieve the situation by declaring that special considerations apply to the existence of disputes concerning Article 9 without telling us what those conditions could possibly be. We come now to the rather bizarre story of the exchange of note verbal. Professor Dugard would have us believe that such exchanges are merely a matter of courtesy of little real consequence. This is not the normal understanding of such notes and their importance in international relations but he says this for a reason as we shall see. South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel on the 29th of December in its long recital. The application notes that on the 21st of December South Africa sent a note verbal to Israel raising its concerns about genocide in Gaza. The application further states that Israel has not responded directly to South Africa's note verbal. This is incorrect. Israel did indeed respond that very day informing South Africa that the note verbal has been forwarded to capital and that a response was expected shortly. South Africa confirmed the next day that it had received the message. On the 26th of December the director general of Israel's ministry of foreign affairs proposed to his counterpart in the department of international relations and cooperation of South Africa by text to schedule a meeting at his earliest convenience in order to discuss the issues raised. On the 27th of December the embassy sent to South Africa by email a note verbal suggesting a meeting of respective directors general at the earliest convenience in order to discuss the issues raised. An attempt by the embassy to hand deliver the note was refused due to a national holiday and the South African Department of International Relations specifically advised the embassy on the 28th of December to hand deliver the note on the 2nd of January. The application was instituted on the 29th of December. Okay, and right now that is Malcolm Shaw presenting the basics of Israel's defense. We're going to return to our studio discussion panel opening once again with Dr. Leron Libman, former head of international law with the IDF. Leron, this was not nearly as charismatic as the first speech by Talair, but this is very much the pure meat of the law. Walk us through the general thrust of the arguments being made. Okay, the question of jurisdiction is the first and most crucial question because if the court does not have jurisdiction then everyone goes home. There would not be no provisional measures and all the discussion of genocide yes or no without jurisdiction the court doesn't operate because the court is a kind of an arbitrator. States have to agree and in this case South Africa claims that Israel agreed when it signed the genocide convention, which has a clause stating that disputes would come to the ICJ, the International Court of Justice. And now Professor Shaw is claiming that actually there's no dispute in a legal sense between South Africa and Israel. With no dispute there would be no jurisdiction, with no jurisdiction, the discussion would end. I'm not sure at this stage should say how strong an argument it is, but it's a very crucial argument. And if the court would want the safe way to get out of this with as less political damages possible, this is like the legal technical way to say our hands are tied, we do not have jurisdiction. I'm going to turn to you, Dani Aialon, former Israeli ambassador to the US. Is that really enough because once the case is brought up, it's in the international headlines that Israel has been charged with genocide before the ICJ, getting off on a technicality of jurisdiction isn't going to change the minds of the world that's watching. So I think we should look at it at the right perspective, which is not legal at all. It's the whole, I would say, episode here, which is quite outrageous, is part and parcel of the Palestinian attempt to continue and delegitimize Israel. Palestinians have waged a total war on Israel, not on the 7th of October, but long before. And when I talk about Palestinians, it's just that the Hamas, it's also the Palestinian Authority. And this is very relevant now when some say, and especially the Americans, expecting that the Palestinian Authority, in some revitalized way, would continue to come into Gaza. This shows, and it's no secret that actually the South Africans are standing as a stooge for the Palestinians. And within this action, the Palestinians show, and I'm talking about Abu Mazen and his cronies, that they are not really looking for peace coexistence or even negotiations on peace with Israel, but quite they are continuing to try and put Israel in the corner. They cannot win militarily, so they will try to do it legally or through the international community. So this is one aspect which is very important, and it is not failed by the Americans, which understand quite accurately what is happening. So I think at the end of the day, it will again backfire against the Palestinians who, for the last 120 years, made mistakes over and over again, and always actually compromising their own national interests. The same case is here. I don't know what will be the results of the court, but I think it's almost immaterial, because if indeed the Palestinians and the South Africans will succeed to convince the court, and I'm not talking about the long-term verdict which can take years, but I'm talking about days of calling for ceasefire. This is not enforceable by the court. It will go back to the Security Council, where the United States will veto it, and here again, the Palestinians will not gain anything. What Israel has lost is again in the public opinion arena and the fact that we have to appear before the court claiming that we have not committed genocide, just attributing or putting the names of genocide by the name of Israel in a court like that and in a trial like that is another political victory by the Palestinians, and this is how we should look at it. So the Palestinians will continue to try to score points in the political arena, but strategically they will lose because they will not further their interest quite the country. I want to build on some of those points with you, Lleuron, because we heard about the PLO and the PA's own points, their own statements that are no less radical than Hamas's in many cases. Does that change the global perception? Does that change any of the points of law where Israel's operations aren't simply against one terror organization, but when you look at much of the Palestinian national identity that is just as dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, does that change in any way or influence the points of law? I think in this proceeding less, but if I can refer to what Johnny just said, I think of course this kind of case has ramifications which are important and relevant in the international sphere and a political sphere, but you have to understand the legal procedure to understand ramification, right? We are here on a discussion on provisional measures, and I think there's a hint in yesterday's argument by South Africa of their strategy here. I think they know they have a very weak case to prove eventually genocide, and if I have a minute, I'll explain why, okay? Genocide, like every crime, and that's the crime of crime, as Professor Schultz has said, has two elements. There's the factual elements, the acts, and the intention of the perpetrator. Now the acts, you can take the killing, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and so on, say, well, these are acts that can be genocide, ignoring context, and when they go to intention, they take all of these statements, irresponsible, repugnant statements of different Israeli politicians and even singers that goes to, yes, there's a genocidal intent, but you have to have a connection between the actions and the intent, not just people putting steam off in television, right? And you have to really prove that the actions could not be explained by another intent, like Dr Becker said in the beginning, the intent to defend Israel and the fight Hamas, which is acting amid Palestinian civilians. And this is a very hard, possibly, I think, impossible for South Africa. But what they really emphasized yesterday is we are talking about provisional measures and here the threshold is very low. Jezas have to show they have a plausible case, plausible. They said that even if there is a possibility of another intent at this stage, it's not enough to say they don't have a plausible case, that even in some of the acts they are referred to, we're not committed in purpose deliberately by Israel, it doesn't mean that they don't have a case. And why is the emphasis on this? Because once they get provisional measures from the court, just because they have a plausible case, no matter what the provisional measure would be, it will mean that the ITJ thinks there's a plausible case of an Israeli genocide in Gaza. And this alone would cause us many problems because let's take exports or imports to Israel. Many states are party to the arms trade treaty or have internal laws which prohibit exporting weapons to states who commit gross violations of human rights law. If they have a case before the ICJ that said there's a plausible genocide in Gaza, that would cause Israel problems by itself. Even as, as Zanni said, in a few years, the verdict would be not guilty. The problems would be now, not in a few years. This is why this jurisdiction question is very important and provisional measures are a critical question in this matter, not just what would be the provisional measures, but saying that there is a plausible case for South Africa would be very problematic for Israel. And before we continue this discussion, we do want to go live from the Hague where we have our contributor, Alex Kettier, joining us from just outside. Alex, we did see that there were some mass demonstrations last night and we're hearing some reports of more of them today. What's going on out there? Yeah, well, you could probably hear them over my voice. These protesters are assembled in their numbers. If I look directly in front of me, I can see hundreds of Palestinian flags, a few South African flags as well, and a few hundred feet, a few hundred meters down the road to my left, you will see a few hundred Israeli flags, as well as some Dutch flags as well, between them, the International Court of Justice, the Peace Palace behind me and also a couple hundred Dutch law enforcement officers as well. They are watching proceedings on the big screens. They have heard the Israeli defence accusing South Africa of ignoring altogether the atrocities committed on October 7 by Hamas in that terror attack, saying that in fact the violence, the level of atrocity committed on the 7th of October justifies Israel's right to defend itself and therefore the accusations leveled by South Africa do not stick. That is the defence by Israel. Ronald Lamola, who is the South African Justice Minister, did acknowledge yesterday when South Africa was presenting its arguments the attack by Hamas on October 7 and saying that no matter how violent the attack, even if it included atrocity crimes it does not justify a breach of the convention, a breach that Israel firmly denies here at The Hague. Thank you very much for that report from what's going on out there. Is there any sort of indication that we are seeing about, in public perception, which actually before we do that let's listen live to the continuation of Shah's statements. It has had the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part the Palestinian people as such. The intention faced with the 7th of October atrocities and the continuing rocket fire and the incarceration of the hostages on the parts of Israel to act in order to defend itself so as to terminate the threats against it and rescue the hostages certainly exists. The intent to deal with the armed militants of Hamas and other such groups is undeniable. Were it the case which we deny that Israeli forces have transgressed some of the rules of conflict then the matter will be tackled at the appropriate time by Israel's robust and independent legal system. But that is not the intent to destroy all or part of a people as such. Israel's actions in restricting its targeting practices to attack military personnel or objectives in accordance with international humanitarian law in a proportionate manner in each case as well as its practice of mitigating civilian harm such as by forewarning civilians of impending action by the unprecedented and extensive use of telephone calls, leafletting and so forth coupled with the facilitation of humanitarian assistance all demonstrate the precise opposite of any possible genocidal intent. South Africa in seeking to discover the necessary intent presents a distorted picture. It misunderstands the nature and provenance of certain common comments made by some Israeli politicians. Let me try and explain the big picture. Israel possesses a clear and effective structure of authority with regard to governmental decision. The war against Hamas is managed on behalf of the government by two central organs. The ministerial committee on national security affairs and the war cabinet, the latter established for the purpose of managing the war by the former. These bodies make the relevant decisions regarding the war's conduct and according to Israeli law the decisions of the government and its committees obligate the ministers of the government in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility. It is the collective decisions of these bodies which are the binding provisions in question. The Prime Minister stands at the head of these organs decides on the agenda of their meetings, steers their activity and summarises the meetings and the instructions issued therein to make it clear. In order to determine the policy and intentions of the government of Israel it is necessary to examine the decisions of the ministerial committee on national security affairs and the war cabinet and to examine whether the particular comments expressed conform or not with the policies and decisions made. Thus to produce random quotes that are not in conformity with the government policy produced as describing is misleading our best. Such as the statements by the minister of heritage for example who is completely outside the policy and decision making process in the war. In any event his statement was immediately repudiated by members of the war cabinet and other ministers including the Prime Minister. In tab 1a of the volume which Israel has submitted to the court one may find numerous excerpts from internal cabinet decisions that attest to Israel's true intent throughout this war. For example one finds the instructions from the Prime Minister in a meeting of the ministerial committee on national security affairs from the 29th of October stating the following one. The Prime Minister stated time and again we must prevent a humanitarian disaster too. The Prime Minister indicated the possible sorts of solutions that will ensure required supply of water, food and medicine increasing the amount of trucks entering with the necessary inspections. Three promoting the construction of field hospitals in the south of the Gaza Strip to re-emphasise this is a directive to authorities nothing less. Tab 1a contains a considerable number of similar directives emphasizing the need to avoid harm to civilians and facilitate humanitarian aid. Genocidal intent? Let me turn to the IDF. This is this like every army is a hierarchical body that operates by way of orders from and now also joining us in studio is ambassador Adlon Leal Thelmer former ambassador to South Africa. Thank you very much for being with us. I want to actually open with you this time because we have seen these extremely strong invectives from South Africa. What's their motivation for putting on this show? South Africa was always strongly connected to the Palestinians from the time of the struggle. When we asked Mandela why is he so close to Arafat, he said when I was 27 years in jail only three leaders in the world cared about my whereabouts and it was Castro, Arafat and Gaddafi. Where were you? You all called me a terrorist and when he came out of jail he said including in conversations with me if you will enable the Palestinians to get the freedom will open a new page and this was always the guideline in South African foreign policy. Are we close to a Palestinian state? Are we close to Palestinian freedom or not? In the last few years as you know we had no negotiations and we had a deterioration in the West Bank and things deteriorated to the point that they had a decision to close our embassy and their relations were emptied of content. But there's a marked difference from having bad or virtually non-existent relations to directly using the international courts as a weapon of policy. Yeah, you're correct. But the South African, the only way the South African could approach the international court of justice was by the claim of genocide. They could not claim for crimes against humanity or war crimes because they were not a direct subject to any Israeli hostilities. So the only way they could approach the court is on genocide because genocide is something that is damaging the whole humanity and the court enables every country even if it was not directly affected to approach the court every country that is a member to approach the court and claim for genocide accusations. So this was the only way they could approach the court. But we also have to note that South Africa maintains very close relations with Iran as well, Russia and China. Is this them taking another shot at the Western world? Do they have any real interest in this? They have good relations with Iranians. By the way, in the past they were very close to the Fatah, to our fat. In recent years, they became much closer to Hamas and definitely they act here on the behalf. But you must remember that they have their traumas from the past and they well remember the 20 years in which we were the allies of South African apartheid and they make all these connections and in a way they're punishing us now for being allies of those who tortured them when under apartheid. Are they not cutting off their own nose despite their face here if they're trying to make a rhetoric equals genocidal intent speech when you have their leading party filling stadiums of people chanting kill the bow or untold violence on racial grounds on the countryside. Is this not just opening them to a countersuit of their own and damaging their own interests? You mean the country South Africa? I don't think so. First of all, the world considered the fight against apartheid. It was very legitimate. The world joined. The fight, the world was part of removing apartheid, and the world was very joyful when apartheid was gone. So they didn't fight on their own, and they couldn't do it on their own. Another thing is it's very difficult to claim that South Africa is an anti-Semitic country because a Jewish community was flourishing there in the past when I was ambassador. There were 120,000 Jews there strongly into the business community, but also ministers and the Supreme Court judges and so on. And even I would dare to say that even today when the community is about half the size, I don't think they are in danger because there was no direct anti-Semitism. You have to remember that along Mandela, Jewish people fought in the struggle, joined the struggle, and some of them became ministers in Mandela's cabinet. So they have a good record in relations with Jews, definitely the whites in the apartheid because the Jews were part of the white community. But even later with the black community, they treated the Jews fairly. I want to move back to the very specifics of this case with you, Dr Leron, because we are seeing the case laid out and the basics of the defenses laid out here. We were speaking just a moment ago while we had some time about where Israel is going to run into its hardest legal discussions, and that is on the invective and the rhetoric that Israel, some of its ministers have used. Let's walk into the pitfalls that are inherent to that part of the case. Well, I'll say the problems are a few problems which are of course connected. It's the rhetoric which is very problematic and some of it from people of high position which are relevant. The actions, not the actions, the outcomes of what's going on in Gaza that you cannot deny that the situation is very hard. And the fact that in this stage it just has to prove a plausible case. So even if it's possible that Israel did not intend to destroy the Palestinian population, they can still have provisional measures, right? That's very problematic for Israel. That's really the core problem here. And I want to turn back to you because ultimately anything the court decides still has to go through the Security Council. As you said, when we're talking about provisional measures, how is that going to stand up to the United States of Israel? Well, I think that whatever the outcome will be on the court in Hague, the real decisions will be made in New York in the Security Council. No way the United States will allow these outrageous allegations to sustain. Not only that, but also the American geostrategical interests are very clear, a decisive victory over Hamas and over Iran at the end of the day. So even as Dr Lyfmann said about the risk of some countries invoking any kind of, any kind of decision by the court, of not sending arms to Israel, I think this will not stand. I think you cannot stand. The United States will continue to supply the arms. Other countries will do the same because at the end of the day we see that what the Palestinians and the Hamas are trying to make it is really a division in the world between the United States and its allies, mainly the Western world and the other side, which we call it the Axis of Evil, maybe the New Axis of Evil, but basically it's Iran, its proxies, and Iran is being supported economically by China and politically and militarily by Russia. So at the end of the day I think that the United States will not allow any decision in the Security Council which will be against Israel's interest, mainly also American interests. But if we go back to where we started, this is a total war by the Palestinian, this is part of the political war against Israel and the fact that Israel is standing there, it's already a victory by the Palestinians. By the way, there is another issue and I will close here which is very symbolic because what the Palestinians are trying to do is take Israel down the road of South Africa apartheid and what we see in the campuses in the United States accusing Israel of apartheid is also something of quite successfully being presented by the Palestinians and the fact that South Africa is the one that is invoking the case against Israel is again more than symbolic and putting Israel in association with not just genocide but also apartheid. I want to add here something about the Security Council. First of all, there are several interim measures possible on the humanitarian aid, on the displacement and so on, but the one that is worrying Israel very much is the total halt of hostilities. If Israel will not respect this interim demand of total cease to fire and it will go to the Security Council, it will be a very complicated veto for the United States. It's not a normal veto. It's a veto on a request of the international court of justice on accusations about genocide. I agree with Danny, they will veto but they will put straightforward demands to Israel before they veto including, I think, end of the war, including the beginning of negotiations so the Americans will negotiate with us the veto before and because if they don't veto then it can go to section seven and so on in the Security Council and be very, very complicated so they will veto but have their conditions. Well, we're going to discuss this and what those conditions might be in a little bit but first we're going to return back to Professor Shaw's arguments because he is addressing the question of rhetoric in this exact time. The court was prepared to consider not only the question of the plausibility of rights, well some have shuffled my papers, but also the question of the possible breach of such rights. Power of the court to indicate provisional measures and article 41 of the statute has its object, yes, someone thought that my speech was a pack of cards. Indeed, in the Jadav case, my apologies, the court was prepared to examine evidence as to the existence of asserted rights and whether as a matter of fact the violations had plausibly happened. The final point to be made in this section of my pleading is simply to underline the obvious point that the court needs to consider the relevant respective rights of both parties, respondent as well as the applicant. Article 41 provides that the purpose of the provisional measures is to preserve the rights of either party. I would note the court's order of the 16th of March 2022 in Ukraine, Russia stating that the power of the court to indicate provisional measures has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties and further quote the comment in the Myanmar case that the function of provisional measures is to protect the respective rights of either party pending its final decision. This mutual protection or balancing criterion in the light of the rights of both parties is intended to prevent either party being placed in a situation of disadvantage and to ensure that irreparable prejudice will not be caused to either party. I will look briefly at the relevant rights of both parties here. As regards the applicant, I make three simple and brief points. First, South Africa has presented a confusing and a partial recycle of the facts. This will be discussed later this morning by Ms Rajwan. Secondly, that the appropriate legal framework for this tragic situation is that of international humanitarian law. Thirdly, that Israel's efforts both to mitigate harm when conducting operations as well as its efforts to alleviate suffering through humanitarian activities have gone relatively unnoticed and dispel or the very least mitigates against any allegation of genocidal intent. As from Israel's withdrawal of its civilian and military presence from Gaza in 2005 which brought an end to its belligerent occupation and the violent coming to power of Hamas in 2007, a situation of conflict has existed with Hamas firing rockets as Israeli towns and villages unceasingly. However, the attack on Israel on the 7th of October was qualitatively different from all that went before. The truth is that if there has been any genocidal activity in this situation it was the events of 7th of October. Acts and intent can and have been adequately demonstrated. But Hamas recognised as a terrorist group by at least 41 states including the US, the UK, all members of the EU, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Colombia is not before the court only South Africa a third party that is not involved in the armed conflict appears. Nevertheless, as South Africa has pointed out, complicity in genocide is in play. States that supported, condoned, praised or glorified the events of the 7th of October, both at the time and later stand guilty of a violation of article 3e of the convention as being complicit in genocide and indeed of the duty to prevent genocide under article 1. And as the agent has pointed out, South Africa has given succor and support to Hamas at the least. Clearly of relevance to a discussion of the situation is the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, something that hardly fits well with accusations of genocidal intent as my colleagues will demonstrate. Israeli-Israel's activities in this area need to be addressed and not swept aside as South Africa seeks to do. Prime amongst the rights of the respondent that are critical to any legal evaluation of the situation is the inherent right of any state to defend itself embedded in customs international law and enshrined in the UN Charter, this right afforded to states reaffirms and underlines the responsibility of all states towards their citizens and marks the acceptance by the international community of the political reality and legal confirmation that states when attacked may legitimately respond in a forceful and proportionate manner. Professor Low yesterday sought to maintain that Israel has no right to self-defense in this situation. How could anyone possibly argue that Israel could not defend itself faced with the 7th of October atrocities and the incessant attacks against its civilians since? Indeed a very wide range of states has acknowledged the right of self-defense here ranging from the UK to the US, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Ghana and Guatemala and others. Israel bears the responsibility to exercise its protection over its citizens, not only those constantly subjected to bombardment from Gaza but also and critically with regard to those captured and held hostage as a result of the 7th of October outrage. These rights exist and cannot be disregarded. Of course Israel does not have any right to violate the law, still less to commit genocide and indeed it does not but it does have every right to act to defend itself in accordance with the rules of principles of international law and so it has done. A link has to be established between the rights asserted and the provisional measures requested and this issue will be addressed by Mr Staker and he will show that the measures proposed go far beyond the protection of the rights asserted. Other than President Members of the Court, this is an important case. Allegations have been made with verge on the outrageous. The attack by Hamas on 7th of October with its deliberate commission of atrocities clearly falls within the statutory definition of genocide. Israel's response was and remains legitimate and necessary. It acted and continues to act in a manner consistent with international law. It does so not in an unrestrained manner but in investing unprecedented efforts in mitigating civilian harm at a cost to its operations as well as alleviating hardship and suffering with investment of resources and efforts. 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 egregious threat that is Hamas. We cannot deal with Hamas. Meanwhile we must bind the arms of the state of Israel. Hamas is for some other body. I conclude. First the core of genocide is intent. Without intent there can be no genocide in law. It is true for the merits. It is equally true for provisional measures. Any prima facie consideration indeed of intent even at this preliminary stage will only demonstrate its absence from Israel's activities. Second there is here no dispute under the genocide convention as of the time of submission of the application. As a lecturer South Africa now is required for prima facie jurisdiction. Indeed South Africa's own precipitate activities with notes over recent weeks demonstrates the lack of its confidence in this respect and that is telling. Thirdly the right to be protected in the provisional measures procedure cover not just the applicant but also the respondent and chief amongst these rights is that of the right and obligation to act to defend itself and its citizens. This must be considered unwaid by the court as against the false accusations level of Israel. Madame President, members of the court, thank you for your kind attention. I would ask you to call Madame Rajwan at your convenience. Thank you Professor Shaw. Before I give the floor to the next speaker the court will observe a coffee break of 10 minutes. The sitting is adjourned. That's a perfect opportunity for us to discuss the situation further with our studio discussion panel. I want to open with you first LeRon because we were talking about the merits of this case and where you think the stronger and the weaker arguments are. What the strong arguments for South Africa are the fact that the reality on the ground in Gaza is bad and there are these statements, repugnant statements by Israeli politicians about wiping Gaza and so on. That works for them but they have to prove the connection which is more harder. That's what would be problematic for them but at this stage it's up to show that the case is plausible, plausible is a very low threshold, right? That would be the problem for Israel. Jurisdiction, if Israel would succeed in claiming that there is not a real dispute here so there is no jurisdiction for the court that would be an easy way for the court to get out without too many political ramifications. We are judges, this is the law, we do not, our hands are tied, we do not have jurisdiction but I suspect the chances are not very high. But as long as the court decides there's plausibility to the claims then they can try to implement these sort of injunctions such as a ceasefire and the like for the duration of the case going forward. Exactly. And the context that Israel based its opening arguments around would be the closest or the best defense against exactly that sort of procedure. Yes, yes, exactly. To claim that since we do have other statements that of course South Africa omitted from Haiti, sometimes the same statement just after the sentence South Africa used has saying that we are at war with Hamas and not with the Palestinian population. But I mean that does make Israel's case harder. Now we had actually been having just during some of that break a discussion about the weaknesses of South Africa's case and why it reflects their own experiences rather than the points of law and you wanted to open up on that. Yeah I think here I think the weakest point that South Africa made yesterday in the oral presentation is a point they even did not include in their application. And at one stage Professor Van Roy I think said well so if some ask why Hamas is not here and we have a legal argument okay Hamas is not a state it is not a state party to the genocide convention so we could not bring it here okay. So that's the reason why only Israel is here because we of course South Africa care for humanity not just we're not just having here a political exercise in favour of Palestinians and against Israel but this is a very weak argument for two reasons. First while Hamas is not a state party the state of Palestine is recognized by South Africa as a state and not just by South Africa but many states and the state of Palestine has ratified the genocide convention and while Ramallah does not control Gaza it does not say it doesn't have some obligation under the genocide convention. Did you hear Ramallah denouncing the genocide opening an investigation into the genocide these are all allegations against Israel why you're not doing that why why there is such such incitement what about Palestinian incitement just not just by Hamas in the Palestinian Authority textbooks there also a genocidal incitement okay taught to children. So if South Africa would come in clean hands really caring about preventing genocide they should have the case also against the state of Palestine and they did not did it. The second point is that as I said earlier South Africa has a relation not just with the Palestinian Authority but also with Hamas and South Africa's foreign minister had a phone call with Hamas leader Ismail Aniyah I think like 10 days after October 7 and Hamas claimed that he actually congratulated them for the Alexa flood he of course immediately said it's not true but he didn't acknowledge that there was a conversation about how to get humanitarian aid to Gaza. Now at 17th of October it was very clear what happened in the Gaza envelope on the 7th of October South Africa so very acutely caring about preventing genocide its foreign minister did not say a word to Hamas leader about the genocide did not denounce it did not ask it to stop nothing in the heart they denounced it yes but only now not when it could have mattered I mean Hamas leader asked the call that's an opportunity to do something because someone needs you and at least say that you are against the genocide you should not do it again of course with it prevent Hamas for doing it again I'm not sure but if South Africa really cared about humanity and these very high values it should have been done so they come to the court in unclean hands that would probably not bring this case to an halt but it is an important point about South Africa as you probably know South Africa go through terrible years economic deterioration corruption and all this exercise of toppling the apartheid is seen after 30 years as a failure and many people who supported the fight the struggle against apartheid are very disappointed that the record of South Africa here they come back to the international court of justice and they've come back they've come back they remind the world about the hero heroism and and in the struggle against apartheid and here they come to save the world again from a new apartheid a new possibility of genocide and and look how much focus on South Africa and who spoke about South Africa in the last decade and if anyone did they only mentioned the failures of South Africa the fact that you have four hours of electricity a day in South Africa and shortages of water and endless cases of corruption even high level corruption so here they come with the struggle days with the with the and show the world remind the world of the heroism of the struggle against apartheid in the attempt to to come and do it again along the flip side the flip side is that if it will be obvious to most of the international community that they came in for self-serving purposes not for some lofty ideas but they are really playing they are in the compass of Iran and Hamas actually they are playing for them i think this will discredit the South Africa certainly in Washington in European countries and that could be a real long-term danger for the status of South Africa and for its own interests sure sure they they're part of bricks so they are anti colonialism anti the west if you want strongly associated economically definitely with Russia China Iran and these countries so these are known things you don't you don't have to have a new research to show where they stand internationally and this might work against them true but the but the fact that Mandela Mandela is an international figure admired figure and here they come the children of Mandela come to save the world from evil again this is this is working in favor of South Africa but it's not really Mandela that we're talking about we're talking about a regime that seems to coordinate and cooperate directly with Hamas which is a much blacker mark this isn't talking about the existence of apartheid in the past this is talking about the current government of South Africa coordinating collaborating and possibly depending on how the court ends up looking at the subject of incitement being part and parcel to that I already said South Africa was strongly always strongly recommending the case of Hamas defending the case of the Palestinian people Hamas became a player after the presidency of Mandela but I remember when we expelled the 400 leaders of Hamas to Lebanon I was summoned to Mandela and he asked me what are you doing and I told him look these are not the Fatah people these are not the Mandela people this is the the opponent the the Arafat people these are the opponents of Arafat and so it was new to him the phenomena of Hamas was new at that time but over the years also because they have a strong Islamic community they connected with Hamas and today they're closer to Hamas and to the Fatah I mean it seems like just trying to rest on some of their past accomplishments to hide their current corruption and links to these very sadistic murderous regimes Yes I think so far that's succeeding a lot of attention the enemies of Israel definitely see them now as their ambassadors as their representatives and I think they have not much to lose because even if in two three years the court will decide that Israel is not exercising genocidal methods or so on South Africa gained international attention that they were looking for and I don't think they have much to lose of course like Danny said if we will be able to prove that Iran is financing it or friends of Hamas are financing it or they had legal advice from people connected to Iran it will very much undermine the case but we have to remember that South Africa is a very high level legal expertise has a constitution that is considered a very modern constitution excellent judges by the way in the past the goldstone Richard Goldstone was a South African and so I don't think they need legal advice they probably they might need financial advice for all this exercise and it will be worthwhile checking who finances the whole thing we're going to turn back to you Danny because while we're discussing in many ways the minutia and the fine points of the law we do have that whole question hanging over us of does it even matter is it possible to get a fair trial here when you have not simply judges but national interests on the bench exactly and actually what you see here really is a realignment of the entire international community I mean this is not just a war between Israel and Hamas it's not even a war between Israel and Islamist jihad or a global jihadist which Hamas is a part of it's basically now we see a real division between the Western civilization Western world and Iran Russia in China I would add also North Korea and I think now South Africa can proudly join this axis of Iran and I think this is what is understood by Washington and I think clearly the European sentiment is also changing towards Israel as they understand what is here at stake which is not just Israel in our own interest but also the very very security of European countries and the international community as a whole does that mean this entire case can be looked at through the lens of these illiberal powers this axis you mentioned using the rules that the Western world has tried to set up to promote fairness as a way of simply tearing down that exact system that's a very good point and I think the fact that Justice Aaron Barak is there on the bench is very important because he was the one that coined the the term of a democracy defending itself against undemocratic or and against democratic ways to bring down democracies and I think here what we see that South Africa is trying really to you know represent the case of the villains under the under I would say the infrastructure of international law is very very ironic and I think I don't think it will skip the eyes of I would say the people in the international community even in academia because this is such a flagrant use of democratic and humanitarian criteria to actually bring down a humanitarian case and I think it was very important that the I think Tal Beker mentioned that the term genocide was coined after the genocide against the Jewish people and it was turned by a Jewish yeah Mr Raphael Lamkin who coined it in 1949 so here we see really an atrocious way to really change actually the situation and he said instead of putting acute lenses on the court they're just blind folding the court so I believe at the end of the day in the long term Israel may be vindicated and Hamas in South Africa will lose badly but that's in the long term I want to turn back to you Liron when we're talking about the long term is there a way if this case is not thrown out on jurisdictional grounds for Israel to beat the provisional measures to make sure that they can beat the rap but also beat the ride yeah maybe I think it's supposed to say it's not a lost battle and I wouldn't paint the whole bench at black colors I mean first there's the judicial ethos right these people are sitting there on their personal capacity not as representatives of the states and I guess most of them do not get a note from the state what they are supposed to vote so it's not a battle we have to lose right and I think it was very important as Ambassador Lleon said that Israel decided to add and add hook Israeli judge and something is the as someone is distinguished as Justice Barak because now we have somebody in the inner circle of the court deliberations right nothing would be done behind the closed doors without an Israeli representative being there and being having the possibility to affect the discussions so I don't judge among the judges exactly deliberations to but the only among the judges when they discuss when the judges would discuss the case Justice Barak would be there within the judges and that this is important I guess I don't think this case anyway would with we turned on a consensus of the bench so that's also an important point right and I do think Israel has a good chance of on the merit side and a more problematic case on on the and the court is reconvening now so we're going to take that live for you so let's take a listen to that madam president members of the court it is an honor to appear before you on behalf of the state of israel as professor shawn noted at this stage south africa does not need to prove that genocidal acts have been or are being committed but it does have to show that the genocide convention is actually relevant it has to show some level of acts and some level of intent professor shawn has spoken to the issue of express intent it is my task to speak to the circumstances of israel's actions israel cannot possibly comprehensively address today all of the allegations made in south africa's application in this regard the applicant paints a dire picture but it is a partial and deeply flawed picture the application is so distorted in its descriptions that it prevents the court from properly assessing the plausibility of the rights asserted by south africa plausibility cannot be determined based on the unsubstantiated alliation of one party to the proceedings alone if article 41 of the court statute is to have any meaning in the time available i will address three aspects of reality on the ground that the applicant has either ignored or misrepresented first hamas's military tactics and strategy second israel's efforts to mitigate civilian harm during operational activity and third israel's efforts to address humanitarian hardship in gaza despite hamas's attempts at obstruction with respect to hamas's military tactics and strategy it is astounding that in yesterday's hearing hamas was mentioned only in passing and only in reference to the october 7 massacre in israel listening to the presentation by the applicant it was as if israel is operating in gaza against no armed adversary but the same hamas that carried out the october 7 attacks in israel is the governing authority in gaza and the same hamas has built a military strategy founded on embedding its assets and operatives in and amongst the civilian population urban warfare will always result in tragic deaths harm and damage but in gaza these undesired outcomes are exacerbated because they are the desired outcomes of hamas in urban warfare civilian casualties may be the unintended but lawful result of attacks on lawfully military objectives international humanitarian law recognises this reality and provides a framework for balancing military necessity with humanitarian considerations these do not constitute genocidal acts in the current conflict many civilian deaths are directly caused by hamas booby trapped homes detonate and kill indiscriminately mines and alleyways collapse structures around them and over 2000 rockets misfired by hamas have landed inside gaza causing untold levels of harm one telling example is a blast at the al-hali hospital on october 17 hamas claimed that the israel defense forces the idf attacked the hospital headlines around the world rushed to repeat this claim the idf later proved and us intelligence and other national security intelligence agencies independently confirmed that the blast was the result of a failed launch from within gaza it was not as hamas claimed the fault of the idf damage to civilian structures is another fact claimed by south africa as evidence of genocide but south africa does not consider the sheer extent to which hamas uses ostensibly civilian structures for military purposes houses schools mosques un facilities and shelters are all abused for military purposes by hamas including as rocket launching sites hundreds of kilometres of tunnels dug by hamas under populated areas in gaza often caused structures above to collapse and the slides before you you can see a militant priming projectiles for launch on idf forces in gaza you can see the holes in the residential house to hide and launch them here you can see projectiles discovered underneath a bed in a child's bedroom here a rocket being fired from a school the launch site is circled in red here you can see firing from a un school you can see the letters un on the roof and the fire is circled in red and here long range rocket launchers hidden inside a scouts club building finally you can see part of a tunnel that runs for four kilometres including nearby the era's crossing which is adjacent to israel gaza's infrastructure has certainly been harmed during the conflict however south africa would have the court believe that israel is deliberately and unlawfully destroying homes without cause but harm caused to lawful military objectives and harm caused as a result of hamas's actions is not evidence of genocide south africa also alleges that israel has waged an assault on gaza's health system what south africa has neglected to bring before the court however is the overwhelming evidence of hamas's military use of such hospitals hamas militants retreated to rentisi hospital in gaza on october 7th with hostages from israel whom they then held in the basement in the slide before you you will see a militant going into kud's hospital with an rpg hamas fired an idea of forces from near and from within the kud's hospital a chief hospital gaza's largest hamas managed operations from a closed off area here you can see an opening to the tunnel that ran for hundreds of meters directly under the hospital here you can see the weapons found in different wings of the hospital and here cctb footage showing armed militants bringing hostages into the hospital's lobby more than 80 militants hiding inside another hospital the adwan hospital surrendered themselves to the idf and here you can see a weapon that idf forces discovered hidden inside incubators at the hospital the director of the hospital has admitted that numerous members of hospital staff belong to hamas's military wing in the indonesian hospital in the neighbourhood of jabalia hamas forces managed their operations from that hospital until the idf reached it idf forces recovered the bodies of five murdered hostages from a tunnel dug underneath the hospital the list goes on in every single hospital that the idf has searched in gaza it has found evidence of hamas military use israel is acutely aware that because of hamas's use of hospitals as shields for its military operations in gray violations of international humanitarian law patients and staff and we are going to discuss this for the last couple of minutes we have ambassador leol i want to come to you on this one because despite the merits or lack thereof in the case the fact that there is a case is still causing untold damage to israel's reputation i think from the international angle it's causing damage it is associating the name of israel with a claim for genocide repeatedly with unbelievable international coverage unbelievably international interest so it's causing damage no doubt but i want to say something as an israeli about what's happening inside israel what it can cause inside israel the israeli leadership maybe not netanyahu but other politicians were almost ignoring the international community over the last years saying we care about ourselves about the future of the jewish people we'll do what's necessary and kind of the world can shout and we will go on and here we are in the hug the world the world is dealing with our case and who is defending israel not politicians there is no one politician here defending israel only professionals legal experts civil civil servants that the israeli government for many years kind of sidelined i know it from my friends the diplomats they were sidelined and even they ever come back well it is a question that is going to have to be looked at as we go forward of should israel be dealing with that three politicians should it be trusting these international systems but for today we have to deal with the process as it stands i thank both of you for breaking this down for us for everyone else though we are out of time catch us again for some follow-up of this in our next broadcast at two o'clock local time from israel with dozens of correspondence throughout the world brings the truth from israel to hundreds of millions of people in scores of countries bringing israel's story to the world by 24 news channels now on hot did you know that martin luther king's famous 1968 mountaintop speech was based on his trip to the promised land well now 55 years later his prophetic words are coming true hundreds of african-american women took a journey of a lifetime to the holy land will introduce you to the amazing female spiritual religious leaders who are infusing new energy into the next generation of african-americans if the plastic particles breaks up it does not stop at the micron size it can actually go even smaller so once it decides goes below one micron people call it nano plastics because now it's in its sizes in the nano range these tusks belong to elephants they shoot their most beautiful on the elephants and we should leave them on the elephant every tusk you see today represents an animal that has been killed now shocking images of four terrified israeli hostages were published on the front page of a british publication this week pictures taken on the day they were abducted by Hamas terrorists more than three months ago now their families are calling for global action as more harrowing accounts from released hostages continue to emerge more in this report four new photos of kidnapped israeli women made the front page of a major foreign publication on monday later that same day a video of the four women was made public as well showing them in a terrible state some of them bleeding and one of them crying uncontrollably in more footage released from that black sabbath october 7th the day they were kidnapped by Hamas they can be seen in the back of a van in shock while an angry chanting gazon mob surrounds the van earlier this week one of the hostages who was released from hamas captivity spoke of encountering some of the women still being held by the terrorist organization embyddwot byddwot mwyod mwyod casiodd weimrwch hafawod sielom eto palod on tuesday aviva segal who returned from captivity spoke in the israeli parliament disclosing more unsettling details about the condition of the young women one of the girls returned from the bathroom and i could tell that she was distraught i got up and gave her a hug i apologise for my language but this mother effa touched her another time a young woman that they thought was an idea if officer arrived and they tortured her in front of me i'm her witness 95 days after that brutal hamas assault 15 women are still being held by Hamas israelis are demanding the international community intervene amid growing concerns over the mental and physical well-being of the captives rape can never be accepted it cannot be justified by the context over certain vacuums to which we've heard international community officials refer to some acts are purely evil and should always be denounced Hamas the group that committed such acts has taken hostage 90 women 15 are still held there in Gaza by Hamas as of now u and women has failed to issue any message condemning this footage or the testimony