just a series that steal fire rockets deep into our country and hose our citizens hostage as the authority responsible for international lloyd device to is there as a government and cabinets. i cannot face. the thing, contenting with these challenges, is rather remains committed to international. when the condoms are in guys, the law is not silent. this has been the case since is there is a stablish meant to $9.00 to $48.00 the same year the genocide convention was adopted. is there a commitment to the rule of law has remained steadfast throughout our history. despite the complex challenges we face as a nation, it reflects the commitments made at the time the state was established as reflected in our declaration of independence, which makes expressed reference to the principles of the charter of the united nations. in 1948 to he's read was

a tool forced upon it. yet despite being engaging in war, afraid survive of the young states gave great importance to immediately establishing an effective independence and impartial legal system. indeed, one of the 1st steps, the newly formed idea of 2 in the midst of the war was to establish a military justice system. the system as evolve, evolve into an in charge of the parts of the institution of the structure of the ideas. that's the idea of military advocate general holds the highest rank and the ideas save the chief of stuff. indeed, and these institutional independence from the military chain of command for stuff including international law experts are inter moving into all aspects of the military activities. they provide legal training and education. they are involved

in the drafting and preparation of military plans and doctrines. and they provide ongoing legal advice on a range of issues including targeting weaponry and obligations towards the enemies civilian population. this remains the case in the current conflicts the civilian legal system, including my department in the ministry of justice, serves as an avenue of review for the military legal system. the attorney general stands the head of the civilian legal system. in this position, she to enjoys full institutional independence at all times. the doors or the doors of tweezers, courts including either a supreme court remain up in this court is widely acknowledged for its willingness to consider issues pertaining to the conduct of, of strategies including ongoing disabilities. indeed, during the current conflict,

the court has already considered petitions on different aspects of the war. is there a legal system also ensures accountability? the idea if has a robust law enforcement system. it's also maintains an independent mechanism for examining and investigating a legit violations of international humanitarian law. this mechanism is subject to review and oversight the vic civilian justice system, including the supreme court. the system has been structurally strengthened over the past decade, including vague consultations with like minded states and international experts. assessing incidents in like a large scale of facilities outside of a space territory requires expertise. our system is provided with substantial resources and authority to fulfill its mission. the military mechanism is already

reviewing incidents relating to the current concepts. the rollover, low remains phone to ensure that a pillar of the state of israel, the applicant defends not only is red leadership, but also is rarely society news representative and selective assortment of statements to suggest genocide intentions. and the application of corner of buttons is what was counsel, professor sho, address displaying the shop anxiety and deep pain. the type of fixed it, these ready society seems october 7th, naturally leads to har statements regarding the enemy that is committed to indeed, driven by destruction of jews and these rallies. but our legal system knows how to draw a line between statements, but may be troubling and even of seen but fun within the rights of

a freedom of speech in a democratic society. and those statements which go beyond doctor rights of the attorney general re upfront public theory. simply any statement calling for intentional harm to civilians contradicts the policy of the state of reason and may amount to a criminal offense, including the offense of incitement. several such cases are currently being examined, but he's really law enforcement authorities. you would find this statement in top 16 d in the volume. but the president's members of the court. a sick in general, on the matter we alluded to is a broader implications of this application for israel and the wider international community. as we have shown, this case concerns a large scale of conflict with tragic consequences for civilians on both sides.

yes, there is a hard stretching conflict, but the attempt to classified as genocide and trigger provisional measures is not just unfolded, even though it has far reaching a negative implications. but the expense will be on the case before you ultimately entertaining the applicants request with not strengthening the commitment to prevent and punish genocide. but we can, it's, it's where to turn an instrument adopted by the international community to prevent horrors of the kind, the trucks, the conscious of humanity during the holocaust, into a width and in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or for the law if ever resort to forcing such defense against an enemy hiding behind civilians can be portrayed as genocide and trained or provisional measures. and he never to vote pension would be created between the genocide convention and states

defending themselves against the ever increasing capacities of terrorist organizations. doing so would also signal to terrorist organizations, but they can call me to work friends and friends against humanity and then exploit these courts to obtain protection. for us, provisional measures would leads to approve versus situation. it would effectively allow, come us to continue attacking the citizens of israel to hold $136.00 hostages in unbearable conditions to keep tens of thousands of displaced is rarely from returning to their homes. and essentially to promote, explain, to must secure as many as rarities and jews as it can be done. president, members of the courts in living memory of the atrocities that gave birth to the term genocide. in the aftermath of which the state of israel was founded,

a witnessed witness to a concerted and cynical effort to prove roads, the meaning of the term genocide itself. the genocide convention is so important they'd shrink in humanity's expiration to the 5th barbarism and even to be belittled in this way. and the face that has been placed in international law and its institutions, its blue shirt cherished and assets to be squandered. we have pencil, this court not to be taken down. that's dangerous roads. but done president, members of the court for all the above reasons. is there a request the court in accordance with the article, 60 paragraph 2 of the rules of the court. for the reasons given during the hearing of january 12, 2024, and any other reasons the court might deem appropriate. one to reject the request

for the indication of provision of measures submitted by the applicant to to remove the case for me to least. but i'm president and members of the court. that concludes is there as of subversion. thank you for your kind attention. i think the co agent of israel's statement brings to an in the single round of oral arguments of israel, as well as the present series of sitting in accordance with the usual practice. i shall request the ages of both parties to remain at the course disposal to provide any additional information. the court may require. the court will render its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by south africa as soon as possible. the ages of the parties will be advised in due course as to the date on which the court will deliver the order in public sitting. since the court has no other business before it today, the sitting is declared closed this and that brings to

a close day. true of the hearings at the international court of justice of the hague in the middle is sometimes referred to as the world's top courts. so if you're just joining us, it is just past 12, g m t 1 pm in the hague. and yesterday we heard south africa make its case. the israel is committing genocide and it's war in gaza. and today, over the last few hours, we have heard israel's robust defense, that it is emphatically not committing genocide. and that the court does not need to order provisional measures for israel to stop it for in gaza. now, the judges will deliberate. we don't know how long that will take. we expect it could take weeks. although south africa has required emergency measures. so could it be shorter? yes, it could be, we don't know. let's turn thousands. you're a senior political analyst. my want to show it much more when you've listened to

what has it been, 3 hours, 3 hours of this, almost non stop, except for a little 10 minute coffee break that the judges took. a. i suppose the question right now is, what in your view were the weakest and the strongest arguments that israel made in his defense? so i think there's probably best to compare the 3 hours today with the 3 hours of yesterday. sure. because we have a very clear juxtaposition arguments here. and in fact, both themes have followed the same logic in terms of the various aspects of this case that they want to tackle separately by even separate wire to sort. i thought gross still more though, generally speaking, i thought is read last the model, factual historical humanitarian arguments is just this because of the way the situation has on drive of the last 3 months. just the sheer to death,

industrial killing and gaza, the sheer victims and the humanitarian catastrophe and guy. so i think works in favor of the palestinians. there absolutely no doubt about that is right. is an attempt at fixing the situation as if how much is the perpetrators of human rights violation guys? i don't think that worth their arguments, that they have tried to avoid human rights violations and avoid things. so with the investment destruction, i'm not sure that worked either, but i think what worked in their favor and did not work and better staying in favor . a number of arguments we've heard earlier about the arguments of jurisdiction. the arguments of the dispute between south africa is that it and how that paved the way to the, to the hague. and we've just heard the whole. busy and also argument about the

provisional measures me, i thought these writers also here, based on the jurisdictional and procedural arguments, they weren't able then to make additional arguments. so was the palestinians won the model arguments? i think these really is made the dent on the procedural and the jurisdiction arguments. yeah. the jurisdiction just to make sure of yours, follow this. the jurisdiction is the question of whether the court actually has the power of the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. and israel made, and you told us this earlier, made an interesting argument, some might say, compelling, that actually there isn't a dispute between israel in south africa over this. and if there isn't a dispute, then the court shouldn't be, um, shouldn't be adjudicating this in the 1st place. and you were saying earlier, if this were to succeed, israel essentially would be getting off on a technicality. but there's this exactly, you're right, 100 percent down. i'm glad you kind of underlined a get off on the technicality. because our viewers around the world will have been

following this tragedy for the past 3 months. must be putting you there had a turn to generally make sense of what the hell is going on. because again, the sheer size of the stretch of the, the way it's unraveled in plain sight, on television screens for the past 3 plus months. make 11 the wait a minute what. what exactly are we discussing? can't you see that the same people didn't see the bombings of the hospitals? how many times do after say, 78000 children? by how many times you have to say almost $100000.00 casualties of, or the uh, you know, been the, to the price of this war and it's continuing. it's, i'm driving as we speak the w h o that extra yesterday said we cannot get the aids in 2000 and so on, so forth. so people see this and they say, well, what are we arguing about? we are so busy dying guys have to pay attention about the finishing over the general side. well, the court is different than the court. you have to establish the part of meters,

the framework that what you are acting up under is the genocide convention. apparently it's very tough to prove intent. yeah. and again that's was the strongest, is riley argument. now again, some of us who've been following this noise, that's nothing. yeah. how is the ultimate liar that he speaks from octopus sides of his mouth? that is really, is, has about all is brilliant. that's fake news. there's been there, p r spent the odd on song. so where they are brilliant, but that, but for the hey, for the court, for the i c j, that's not exactly the point is because if it's that was able to keep up appearances of keeping a record of this kind of thing and then you have procedures in the army and then government and just the justice department for the court. it could be more than enough. right. but in real life, how do these procedures translate into preventive genocide from driving or her ending war crimes from taking place on so far as a whole different ball game?

and that's why once again, the spot, the heart, or despite the anger and the anguish, despite the frustration of one of the many of our viewers watching this. and secondly, the palestinian people who live on the barge meant to live in shelters who live without stuff without food and sanitation, and so on, so forth. their frustration must be heard in this courtroom. and yet the best go to him was take the case when it's met and it wouldn't judge whether they do have jurisdiction or not over this issue. and that is a very high bar for the south african, the for the south, i come to the team to be able to prove in the weeks and months become more on your staying with us. i want to go to step boss and alpha 0 step boston, who's joining us from the i c j, the international court of justice at the hague step. there, there are 2 things i want to ask you. one is, if you can recap and i know it's a very tall order, but essentially what israel's defense is, what it is said over the last 3 hours. not everything. of course, they said many,

many great many things. but just the main things that our viewers need to know if they're tuning it and, and then we'll get to what happens. now. let's start with what is israel's defense against the accusation by south africa that they are committing genocide and gaza. a bulletin summit up with uh towards basically also that uh, something that the legal experts have telling me it's an surprising but also very well crafted legally. um the, the main, so the main defense is that it was self defense against the mazda attacks of october 7. not surprisingly, we had a very long argument about how atrocious these attacks were. they show to a pictures of the hostages, and they also mentioned that south africa didn't mention anything about this on the 1st day of the hearings on thursday. and that was really misleading the work. misleading has been mentioned many times and the intent with just

a very important issue here to prove that it's well in the has the intent to commit genocide against the people of gaza at the arguments by israel was that it was clearly not government policy according to them, although south africa as mentioned, also statements from ministers from the prime minister himself that could be pulled genocide of or at least calling for genocide. but according to the as well defined, see this is not government policy. i'm actually a interesting lady also just sat that a half open some traditional cases against people who have used inflammatory language and that they're dealing with it legally. that's another thing that is route pointed out is that we are a rule based countries and we have a legal system. so everything that goes wrong and guys are, if we feel my primes in guys had those will be dealt with in the national courts.

so the whole case was not valid. you just discussed the jewess addiction, this disputes that should be here at the international court of justice. one of the requirements is that those are the states that take a case to this for should try to get as solve this problem 1st and according to s. 5 they didn't manage to talk to south africa before they brought this case to the, to the, to this court. although they try and business. uh, it could be quite a strong legal argument discussing this jurisdiction. so these i think are the main points of roughly from the last 3 hours of intense arguments. okay? so a number one is real, a has the right to self defense. number 2, there was no genocidal intent from on the part of israel. and number 3, that this court doesn't even have jurisdiction to, um, to engage with this, this, this dispute, which is real,

called the unit skills because they're not in the dispute. they say with south africa. so what happens now? this is interesting because we've had this type of side cases here at the i c j and the last couple of years before that was a case against me on. # because of the hang china side, also a case against russia, it's coming from ukraine. and in those cases, the court decided actually that these provisional mattress wasn't necessary because these professional matchers, these urgent injunctions don't need the burden of proof of the actual genocide case . so many experts were believing until now that it wasn't a big deal for the courts to actually impose an urgent injunction because that sort of puts the whole case on hold until the whole legal argument is finished, which could take years. so legal, legal experts was still believing they were still optimistic that this injunction

could be imposed. we don't know. we have to wait and see, of course, what the court is going to make of today's hearing. what we do know is that on february 6th, the courts will change. it's, uh, it's a composition. so before this date, we are expecting a decision by this court of 17 judges. okay. that is, that's really interesting. and it bears repeating for of yours and people who take an interest in this that there are essentially 2 timelines going on here. one is the very short term south africa asking for emergency measures, ordering israel to stop the, the, the conducting this war. the way it's conducting it to is the much longer timeline that's known to be on the merits of the case, which is the fundamental question of whether is realist committing, genocide and gods, and so to timelines you could hear noise. they are behind step boss and who's in the compound of the international court of justice, that noise, presumably coming from the protest, just outside the i, c. j. where we find osama binge of aid. i can see the policy and the flags behind

you. what's going on what does a charge drug is gathering for the 2nd day here that we've heard those arguments being made by israel, that there is no genocide. this crowd was charging that. we charge you with genocide, product pinion activists have been running, live comment, feet on what you've been hearing from these radius size. the pictures, the, and the accounts that israel has been presenting for the sports are being like the funds, so to speak by the activists who will gather tear from all parts of europe and many other parts of the world. they're saying that many israel was showing pictures of incubated it was off the ship to a hospital and was besieged because attacked. those babies, as the old soul, were not allowed to go in. and the provider is electricity and warm and they have to be evacuated. it was then, is then provided some incubators, as the doctors were saying,

then that they don't need interventions. they need electricity to run the debates as if they have, and his band needs to stop bombing on the question of a boxes that these really side showed active. it's telling us that those were boxes for photo ups and did not tardy anything with some that has also been a documented by doctors who were present on the ground and so on and so forth. so as israel was presenting its case legal case, it seems to have a very different understanding to the people who been watching this close to people who are here, who are beating the cold and say that they use israel of genocide. they believe that the south africans are the right side of its feet. and they believe everyone who's standing with israel is complicit. some events evade reporting from that protest just outside the international court of justice at the hey, thank you very much of some i want to bring in thomas with matt, us know, director of the international state crime initiative, a queen mary university. you are joining us from london. can i ask you for your snap judgments on the totality of israel's defense?

a yeah, i think as you were discussing, discussing with their correspondence, there was some good legal case at points made. i don't think they were particularly strong to be honest. and then there was a lot of discussion of how masses, activities and how masses behavior. a lot of times you could have been excused for thinking that we were looking at a genocide case against from us. and this is a kind of a justification. i suppose that the state of israel is trying to use. i think it was a highly polished presentation and dealt with in sections and trying to look at all the issues. but um, it certainly was not as convincing as the case that was put forward yesterday as simply because there's a lot of generalities we have to take their word for for what they're saying. i know a folder was filed with the judges. the have all these,

these documents that were provided as evidence, but it was, it was very lacking. and very general, i thought on the, on the facts of the issues, what would you say is the strongest argument, the strong, what do you think is the strongest argument? they made the strongest argument. i mean, the, the 3 points that you raise the 3 organs. the roommate were raise was the interference with self defense. that is an interesting legal debate to be have, but i think we can park it now for the purposes of preliminary measures. that's something that would be dealt with down the line. and jurisdiction would be the strongest. and is there a genuine disputes between israel in south africa, but it's a hard one to argue against south africa, or are you choosing israel of genocide or do they agree with us? or do they know off the course the i c. j. how those in this case law should. ready look very wide, kind of interpretation of what it means to be

a dispute. so i don't think they're going to have any problems bringing this case within their jurisdiction from a question now from the, from a layman's point of view, many of the speakers, the world defending israel, all high caliber lawyers were saying, look, is real, is facilitating humanitarian, a to the gaza strip israel who's dropping leaflets, israel and told people to leave areas that it was going to bomb israel just now in the last few days and weeks has agreed to increase humanitarian aid. all those things mean we are actually trying to protect the civilian population or at least mitigate harm to the civilian population. obviously, i'm paraphrasing, but this was one of the major thrusts of the arguments the israel was making. how do you think that sits, will sit, could sit with the court or i think the court's going to see a mass of disconnects between the picture that israel painted today of their

extensive humanitarian operations with the statements. it's gonna be hard to square that with the statements on the ground from you and agencies saying that people are starving saying that we think that a 100 children are be killed every day since the star who's on average saying that there is no supply of water or about the depth of the area is completely under siege. the most of the buildings, especially in the north, have been destroyed, that there are tax on the hospitals, schools and universities, and old infrastructure. i think the court is going to find it very difficult to square those 2 things together. how could israel, as is their responsibility, be providing a huge humanitarian, a project which they tried to outline to us today? how does that match with what the u. n. is telling us and, and they don't the, the 2 things don't fit together as people on the ground and gather will tell you

what about intent. because that is the key part as we were discussing earlier of genocide, right. if there is no intent to commit genocide, then we might still be talking about war crimes, but at least we're not from a legal standpoint talking about genocide. therefore, if you can't prove intent this whole thing, this whole case that the international court of justice, you know, it goes away. and these really defense teams were saying the statements there, plenty of statements that were made, that sound of seed was one word that was used by the last speaker, but you'd actually have to throw them out because they were not made by decision makers. and the people were actually prosecuting this war, so they don't count, they fall into freedom of speech. so yeah, a very interesting approach. the team, the as rarely legal team talked to this intent because i think because of the devastating presentation yesterday on the statements of governments. and they kind of cherry picked a few statements to say that these people are not involved with the decision making

. but we know that the statements of the c o g i t which, which were reference today, the, the, the, the community responsible for the, the, the, the operations in gaza. we have seen statements from members of this group, outlined in south africa, is case if you look through the a 2 page document. but so africa file, we have statements from them which were ignored by israel today. so what they're trying to paint is a picture of yes, uh people were angry and these statements were made in anguish and make kind of making excuses. but also saying that these people are outside of the decision making profile. and all of this would be something that will be looked at at the merits stage, but the courtney needs only to look up. so that for cuz submission, look at the statements in there. look at the, the ranking and the authority of the people making those statements on us from

selves is a plausible but these statements would reach the level of intent required for genocide under the trees here. and i think, i think that will, they will have to do this, right. it's a different burden of proof to impose a provisional measure than it is to actually judge the case. the fundamental issue of whether genocide is happening at thomas mcmanus so good to talk to you. thank you very much. let's bring back in more one to show it more one your thoughts and everything you just heard. i just wanted to be for a change, the practical guy here, practically speaking. what does this really mean before february 6, when this court changed to some of his judges and so on, so forth. what about those provision? other measures with the court take some emergency measures regarding the whatever event you call them.