High at the International Earth Court {ICJ}, South Africa brushes up against Israel for distortion of truth and raising a “genocidal campaign” against the residents of the town of Rafah, located in the south of Gaza, Palestine.
The prosecution, it should be noted, started on Thursday when the legal team of the South African counterparts submitted their arguments claiming that the “invasion of Rafah by the ISRAEL” was the “last strut in the destruction of Palestine and its people.”
They accused Israeli of wanting to ” annihilate [the Palestinians] from the face of the Earth “.
They demanded the International Court of Justice to stop the military campaign forcing Israelis to stop their blockade on Gaza and allowing the work of journalists, someone who cares about them, the UN representative there, and people to investigate the matter.
On the other hand, the world itself has a different perception of reality. So, on Friday, South Africa accused Israel of a crime against humanity. In response, the country’s Attorney General, Gilad Noam, refuted these claims and stated, “The complaint made by the opposition is untrue.
He called the Rafah offensive ‘liberating Palestinians from the cruel grip of the bloodthirsty terrorist regime’ in his argument so that the ground was sundered for a wave of true peace and prosperity.
The speeches were temporarily disrupted when a feminine voice cried out “lies” in the Israeli submission, again testifying about the tense character of the siting.
This fourth application against Israel’s recent actions in Gaza is the latest of four the country has filed with the ICJ. This shows that countries will go to the lengths of approaching the international courts to try and stop hegemonic powers from oppressing innocent citizens.
In January, the court was already pursuing a trial involving a case brought by South Africa, where she issued charges against Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in the enclave.
Israel has countered these with “false” and “distorted” claims, yet the ICJ decisions have shown them to be legally binding. However, in practice, they have been difficult to enforce.
Such a long-standing court case can be viewed as a harbinger of the deep split and tension underpinning the Israeli-Palestinian controversy based on each party’s unwavering conviction and accusation regarding the other for misconstruing the whole situation.
