On 29 December 2023, South Africa initiated a two-day public hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague, claiming in a case that Israel is committing “genocidal acts” in its military assaults on Gaza.

Palestinians, pro-Palestine campaigners and Israel haters around the world had hoped that the ICJ might halt Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has seen thousands of people killed, including women and children.

South Africa argued that Israel’s military action in Gaza is the cause of the “genocide” of the Palestinian people and therefore it demanded that the ICJ must call for an immediate ceasefire in order to prevent such genocide taking place.

South Africa was confident that the ICJ would find in its favour as essentially it only had to be shown that it is “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide. Israel’s critics expected that there would be an order for an immediate end of the war in Gaza and for the withdrawal of the IDF. Their expectation was realistic as in 2004, the ICJ declared Israel’s West Bank security barrier illegal and ordered Israel to remove it. However, ICJ decisions are not binding and Israel has not removed the barrier as it has proved to be an effective deterrent to suicide bombings by Palestinian terrorists and has reduced these by over 90%.

On January 26, the International Court of Justice issued a judgement confirming although it has “jurisdiction to entertain the case” brought by South Africa against Israel, it did not grant South Africa’s request to suspend its military operations in Gaza or that others under its control must do so, thus allowing Israel to continue its military operations inside Gaza. Furthermore, the court imposed several provisional measures on Israel, including undertaking all steps within its power to prevent the commission of acts defined as genocide and it also must ensure that its military does not commit any acts of genocide. Israel must also provide humanitarian aid and assistance in Gaza. Israel has confirmed that all of these measures already conform to its standing commitments.

It is also critical to note that Israel was given a month to report to the court on its fulfilment of the measures imposed and the only immediate action issued by the ICJ was for the “unconditional release” of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas, but Hamas has ignored this call.

Looking more closely at South Africa’s claim of genocide against Israel, it seems to have ignored the clear fact that Israel is defending itself against the atrocities of Hamas and its patron, Iran, against the Jewish people.

The definition of genocide by the Genocide Convention is the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

This cannot possibly apply to Israel for a number of reasons. Israel has no intention to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza. It has clearly stated that its intentions are to kill the terrorists of Hamas, not because they are Palestinians, but because Hamas is an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation and Israel is defending itself against their recent and future genocidal onslaughts.

The court did indicate that it is “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide. The Court based this preliminary conclusion on the high death toll in Gaza, the large number of displaced persons, the scale of destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis risking the lives of many. However, there is only genocide under the Convention if Israel intends to destroy the Palestinians but Israel had argued that it is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not the Palestinians. The Court did not accept Israel’s arguments, but decided that although it is possible that genocide could be happening in Gaza, it did not conclude that Israel does have genocidal intent.

Also, it is important to note, and critical to the definition of genocide, that the Palestinians are not a national, ethnical and racial or religious group but are an indivisible part of the broader Arab nation. Indeed, the Palestinians have no Palestinian language, no Palestinian history, there haven’t been any Palestinian archaeological finds and of course, there has never been a Palestinian State. The present day ‘Palestinians’ are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. It is well documented that most of their ancestors emigrated in the last century from neighbouring states such as Egypt and Syria into the area known as the Land of Israel after the Jews started to develop it. In fact, during the Mandate for Palestine, it was the Jews who were known as the Palestinians. The Arabs insisted on being known as Arabs because they believed that to be called ‘Palestinian’ was derogatory, insulting and demeaning.

On 29 November 1947, the Partition Plan for Palestine was adopted by the United Nations and recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. This resolution, known as resolution 181, recommended the creation of two independent States, one state for the Jews and one state for the Arabs. There was no reference or mention whatsoever in the resolution of the ‘Palestinians’.

One may wonder if in the Mandate for Palestine, it was the Jews that were known as the Palestinians and the Arabs were identified as Arabs, what makes the world believe that Palestinians are indigenous to the areas of the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

This is due in part to Yasser Arafat, the most famous Palestinian of them all, but who was in fact an Egyptian, who in 1964 held up a Jordanian flag with the star removed and so began 3,000 years of ‘Palestinian’ history.

Additionally, in September 13, 1993, at the White House in Washington, Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians and the PLO renounces terrorism and recognised Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and would assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for a five-year period.

And so it was the Oslo Accords, adopted by Israel and the PA that laid the foundations and created the reality for the creation of a Palestinian State for the newly invented ‘Palestinian’ people. But according to the definition of genocide, the Palestinians are not in fact covered by the Genocide Convention.

The Court will take its time to decide whether or not Israel is committing genocide, but the case will continue for years, alongside the many other cases that the ICJ is investigating. I hope and expect that the Court will eventually exonerate Israel of these charges of genocide brought by South Africa but we must remember that this is a case against Israel and biased decisions against the Jewish state have been numerous over the years.

It is extraordinarily perverse that Israel should find itself in the position of having to defend itself against such charges on the basis of military action it is taking and will continue to take in response to Hamas’s heinous genocidal attacks on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023.