Tag: Humanitarian Emergencies

• by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
• Friday, January 26, 2024
• Inter Press Service

South Africa argued that the scale of destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines, and electricity demonstrated that the government of Israel and its military were intent on destroying Palestinians as a group.

The case was argued on January 10 and 11, 2024, and today’s decision is only likely to deal with jurisdiction and the provisional measures that South Africa asked the court to impose.

The provisional measures include:

• that military operations are immediately ceased;
• that the State of Israel take reasonable measures within its power to prevent genocide, including desisting from actions that could bring about physical destruction;
• rescind orders of restrictions and prohibitions to prevent forced displacement and ensure access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, sanitation and medical supplies;
• avoid public incitement;
• ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts and
• submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to the order.

South Africa argued that the scale of destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines, and electricity demonstrated that the government of Israel and its military were intent on destroying Palestinians as a group.

Israel disputed this, saying that the country had a right to defend itself in the face of the October 7 massacre in Israel. It was argued that South Africa brought a fundamentally flawed case. 

IPS will update the outcome later today.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

• by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
• Friday, January 12, 2024
• Inter Press Service

Israel’s co-agent, Tal Becker, said in his opening address that Jewish people’s experience of the Holocaust meant that it was among “among the first states to ratify the Genocide Convention, without reservation, and to incorporate its provisions in its domestic legislation. For some, the promise of ‘never again for all people’ is a slogan. For Israel, it is the highest moral obligation.”

He then accused the South African government of bringing a fundamentally flawed case, which would in effect deny the country’s right to defend itself.

“The applicant has now sought to invoke this term (genocide) in the context of Israel’s conduct in a war it did not start and did not want. A war in which Israel is defending itself against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations whose brutality knows no bounds.”

Giving details of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which he said was “the largest calculated mass murder of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust,” he accused South Africa of trying to “weaponize the term genocide against Israel,” delegitimizing the country and its right to defend itself.

“What proceeded under the cover of thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel? Was the wholesale massacre, mutilation, rape, and abduction of as many citizens as the terrorists could find before Israel’s forces repelled them openly, displaying elation. They tortured children in front of parents and parents in front of children. Burned people, including infants alive, systematically raped and mutilated scores of women, men, and children. All told, some 1200 people were butchered that day, more than 5500 names, and some 240 hostages abducted, including infants, entire families, persons with disabilities, and Holocaust survivors, some of whom have since been executed, many of whom have been tortured, sexually abused, and stabbed in captivity.”

Becker said the applicant is essentially asking the court to substitute the “lens of armed conflict between a state and a lawless terrorist organization with the lens of a so-called genocide of a state against a civilian population” and that Israel’s action against Hamas was legitimate defense of the country.

Professor Malcolm Shaw argued that the applicants right to approach the court was premature as there was no dispute between the countries.

He argued that Israel had responded to the applicant on December 27, 2023, “in good faith,” and had attempted to hand deliver notes, but the South African Department of International Relations rejected them because it was a public holiday and instructed them to try again on January 2, 2024.

However, before the notes could be delivered, South Africa launched the court application on December 29, 2023.

Shaw also said statements relied on by South Africa to show intent to commit genocide were not grounded in the policy frameworks of Israel.

He argued that the Prime Minister, during ministerial committees, issued directives “time and again” on methods to prevent a humanitarian disaster, which included looking at solutions to ensure a supply of water, food, and medicine and the construction of field hospitals.

“The remarks or actions of a soldier do not and cannot reflect policy,” Shaw told the court, saying it’s response included statements from, for example, the Minister of Defense on October 29, which made it clear that the country was fighting Hamas and not the people of Gaza, and from the President declaring that the country was operating militarily according to international law.

These decisions show that Israel lacked “genocidal intent” and said its actions were contrary to the South African argument inherent in the rights of any state to defend itself, which is “embedded in customary international law and enshrined in the UN Charter.”

Galit Raguan, Director of the International Justice Division, Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel, told the court that it was “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 were 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 among the civilian population.”

She said urban warfare will always result in tragic deaths, harm, and damage.

Using the example of the blast at al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which was blamed on the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), it was in fact independently confirmed as the result of a failed launch from within Gaza.

“South Africa does not consider the sheer extent to which Hamas uses ostensibly civilian structures for military purposes. Houses, schools, mosques, facilities, and shelters are all abused for military purposes by Hamas, including as rocket launching sites. Hundreds of kilometers of tunnels dug by Hamas under populated areas in Gaza often cause structures above to collapse,” she told the court.

Raguan also disputed South Africa’s version of Israel’s efforts to mitigate civilian harm.

“Here, the applicant tells not just a partial story but a false one. For example, the application presents Israel’s call to civilians to evacuate areas of intensive hostilities ‘as an act calculated to bring about its physical destruction.’ This is a particularly egregious allegation that is completely disconnected from the governing legal framework of international humanitarian law.”

Instead of 24 hours, as South Africa alleges, “the IDF urged civilians to evacuate to southern Gaza for over three weeks before it started its ground operation. Three weeks that provided Hamas with advanced knowledge of where and when the IDF would be operating.”

Raguan asked the court: “Would Israel work continuously with international organizations and states, even reaching out to them on its own initiative, to find solutions to these challenges if it were seeking to destroy the population? Israel’s efforts to mitigate the ravages of this war on civilians are the very opposite of the intent to destroy them.”

Dr Omri Sender elaborated on the humanitarian efforts, saying that more aid was reaching Gaza than before the war.

“The accurate average number for trucks specifically carrying food is 70 trucks a day before the war and 109 trucks a day over the last two weeks… Access to water has also been a priority. As with food supplies, there is no restriction on the amount of water that may enter Gaza. Israel continues to supply its own water to Gaza through two pipelines.”

Christopher Staker, a British barrister representing Israel, questioned whether “provisional measures require a state to refrain from exercising a plausible right to defend itself.”

The court, he argued, needed to take into account that Hamas was considered a terrorist organization by Israel and other countries, and secondly, it committed a large-scale terrorist attack on Israeli territory, so the country had a right to defend itself. The country was also taking steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation.

Staker also argued that the provisional measures would not constrain Hamas.

“This would deprive Israel of the ability to contend with this security threat against it. More rockets could be fired into its territory, more of its citizens could be taken hostage, raped, and tortured, and further atrocities could be conducted from across the Gaza border.”

The court’s president, Judge Joan Donoghue, closed proceedings and said the decision of the court would be communicated as soon as possible.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

• by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
• Thursday, January 11, 2024
• Inter Press Service

The top legal team, composed of both South African and international human rights lawyers, spent over two and a half hours arguing that it had an obligation as a signatory to the Genocide Convention to bring this case and that the court had an obligation to accede to the provisional measures included in the application, which include an immediate suspension of its military operations against Gaza and the prevention of acts of genocide against Palestinian people.

Professor Vaughan Lowe KC summarized the arguments heard throughout the day succinctly, saying:

“South Africa believes that the publicly available evidence of the scale of the destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines, or electricity available to the population of Gaza demonstrates that the Government of Israel, not Jewish people or Israeli citizens, the government of Israel, and its military are intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza as a group and are doing nothing to prevent or punish the actions of others who support that aim.

“And I repeat, the point is not simply that Israel is acting disproportionately. The point is that the prohibition on genocide is an absolute, peremptory rule of law. Nothing can ever justify genocide,” he told the court.

“This is not a moment for the court to sit back and be silent.”

The preceding arguments included the reasons the court should act—and act urgently.

Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC argued that if the bombardment continued, there would be irreparable harm to the Palestinian people, where entire multigenerational families would be obliterated.

She referred to what she termed a “terrible new acronym” that emerged from the Israeli action.

“WCNSF—wounded child, no surviving family.”

Ghralaigh argued there was no merit in the argument of Israel that it was not responsible for the humanitarian crisis; she told the court that humanitarian workers stretching as far back as the Killing Fields of Cambodia had not seen a humanitarian crisis so utterly unprecedented that they had “not the words to describe it.”

She also accused the international community of erring in their duty to prevent genocide.

“Now, notwithstanding the genocide conventions and recognition of the need to rid the world of the odious scourge of genocide, the international community has repeatedly failed. It failed the people of Rwanda. It had failed the Bosnian people and the Rohingya, prompting this court to take action,” Ghralaigh argued, saying it failed again by ignoring the early warnings and the grave risk of genocide to the Palestinian people.

“The international community continues to fail the Palestinian people, despite the overt, dehumanizing genocidal rhetoric by Israeli government and military officials, matched by the Israeli army’s actions on the ground—despite the horror of the genocide against the Palestinian people being live streamed from Gaza to our mobile phones, computers, and television screens—the first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time.”

Professor Max Du Plessis argued that South Africa had jurisdiction to bring this matter to court. Quoting the court’s findings in the case filed by The Gambia against Myanmar in 2019, he said: “All the States’ parties to the Genocide Convention have a common interest in ensuring that acts of genocide are prevented.”

This court action should not have come as a surprise. Professor John Dugard explained that the South African application followed a long series of diplomatic efforts to express concern about the Israeli action in Palestine.

“South Africa has a long history of close relations with Israel. For this reason, it did not bring the dispute immediately to the attention of the court. It was harder as Israel responded to the terrible atrocities committed against his people on the 7^th of October with an attack on Gaza that resulted in the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, most of whom were women and children,” Dugard told the court. “The South African government repeatedly voiced its concerns in the Security Council and in public statements that Israel’s actions had become genocidal.”

Adila Hassim, an attorney, gave a detailed account of the effects of the bombardment on the civilian population when she informed the court that Israeli forces had killed 23,210 Palestinians during the continuous attacks over the previous three months, with 70% of them thought to be women and children. Some 7,000 Palestinians are still missing, presumed dead under the rubble.

“Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing, wherever they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they failed to evacuate in the places to which they have fled, and even while they attempted to flee along Israeli-declared safe routes,” Hassim said.

Showing photographs of mass graves, she told the court: “More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members, and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors. Mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and cousins are often all killed together. This killing is nothing short of the destruction of Palestinian life. It is inflicted deliberately. No one is spared. Not even newborn babies.”

Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said the genocidal rhetoric was nurtured at the highest level of the state.

“There is an extraordinary feature in this case that Israel’s political leaders, military commanders, and persons holding official positions have systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent,” he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public address when he declared war on Gaza, where he warned of an unprecedented price to be paid by the enemy.

On October 28, Ngcukayitobi said Netanyahu referred to the people of Gaza as the Amalekites, a biblical reference to the retaliatory destruction of a people, men and women, children and infants with their cattle and sheep, camels, and donkeys, considered the enemies of the Israelites.

The language of genocide had not stopped there, as the Palestinian people were often referred to as “human animals.”

Other high-level politicians also made comments that confirmed the country’s genocide intent.

Israel’s Energy and Infrastructure Minister, MK Israel Katz, called for the denial of water and fuel: “As this is what will happen to a people of children: kill us and slaughter us.”

Ngcukaitobi said there was no ambiguity. “It means to create conditions of death for the Palestinian people in Gaza to die a slow death because of starvation and dehydration, or to die quickly because of a bomb attack or snipers.”

South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola told the court this was brought in the spirit of Nelson Mandela’s humanity, and the country unequivocally condemned the targeting of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in the taking of hostages on October 7, 2023.

Vusi Madonsela, SA Ambassador to the Netherlands, read the provisional measures that the South African government requests the court consider, including responding to the application as a matter of urgency. Among others, these include:

• that military operations are immediately ceased;
• that the State of Israel take reasonable measures within its power to prevent genocide, including desisting from actions that could bring about physical destruction;
• rescind orders of restrictions and prohibitions to prevent forced displacement and ensure access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, sanitation and medical supplies;
• avoid public incitement;
• ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts and
• submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to the order.

Israel will respond on Friday, January 12, 2024.

© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service