Why it’s important:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing is critical for Israel as it represents not just a legal dispute over accusations of genocide against Palestinians, but also reflects the deep divisions within Israeli society regarding how it engages with the international community and administers justice. The case, and responses from Israeli politicians, has significant implications for Israel’s global diplomatic reputation and legal standing.
What happened at the ICJ:
The Israeli legal representation took the stand at the ICJ last Friday with a mission to refute grave accusations concerning breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention, sparked by the actions of the Gaza conflict. A professional and notably skilled team, including Israel Foreign Ministry legal adviser Tal Becker and barrister Malcolm Shaw KC, presented Israel’s defense, emphasizing a counter-narrative to the assertions made by the South African legal team the day before.
Political ramifications:
Netanyahu’s unexpected decision to nominate Prof. Aharon Barak, former Supreme Court president and commonly regarded as a liberal figure, as Israel’s representative at the ICJ caused a stir within right-wing circles. This move seemed to momentarily bridge the divide between Israel’s conservatives and the country’s centrist/leftist legal perspectives, yielding a transient victory. Nonetheless, this has raised conjecture about Netanyahu’s motives and the potential aspersions this might cast on the more liberal segment of Israel’s judiciary should the ICJ’s decisions turn unfavorable.
The higher justice debate:
In reaction to the criticism centered around what some deem radical ideological positions held by right-wing Israeli politicians, Netanyahu quelled the heat by reinforcing Israel and the IDF’s uncompromising adherence to international lawful practice. Comments made by politicians, such as Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu’s supposed advocation for an atomic option against Gaza, beckon scrutiny on how the expressions of Israel’s public officials weigh against the country’s quest for upholding justice and humanitarian standards.
The media’s impact:
The substantiation encompassed by Israeli politicians calling for severe measures against Gazans has not gone unnoticed. The South African legal team cited open sources of such incendiary speech, pressing the monumental role the media plays and its potential exploitation as evidence in such court cases. Moreover, it questions the balance between freedom of speech and perceived international harm in the democratic atmosphere of Israel.
Looking ahead:
If the saying goes that actions speak louder than words, then allegations based on political rhetoric present a complex landscape for the ICJ to navigate. As the narrative plays out beyond The Hague’s austere halls, Netanyahu disarms critics of overvaluing politicians’ remarks while the war cabinet’s decisions remain central. The result of the ICJ decision looms, yet Netanyahu’s underlying hope is that the ICC will share his discernment between rhetoric and state-sanctioned action.
About the author:
Susan Hattis Rolef regularly contributes her expertise on Israeli politics through journalistic and academic articles. She brings years of experience from her service in the Knesset and an insightful edge sharpened by her recent work on Israeli parliamentarianism published by Routledge.
This story was first published on jpost.com.