Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused South Africa of "screaming" hypocrisy in pursuing its genocide case against Israel, hours after South Africa's legal team argued his government had no defences to the allegations of genocide it faces.

In a television address, Netanyahu again strongly denied South Africa's claims that Israel had violated provisions of the Genocide Convention – which was created in 1948 in response to the Nazis' genocide of 6-million Jews –  through its military action in Gaza.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard on Thursday that South Africa believes the Israeli government, not Jewish people or Israeli citizens, was intent on destroying Palestinians in Gaza.

South Africa submitted that any military operation intended to "destroy a people", in whole or in part, violates the Genocide Convention and must cease. 

Its lawyers repeatedly told the court that no matter how outrageous or appalling an attack or provocation, genocide is never a permissible response.

Professor Vaughan Lowe KC told the court sitting in The Hague: "Publicly available evidence of the scale of the destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza – and the deliberate restriction of the food, water, medicines and 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) is intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza as a group and is doing nothing to prevent or punish the actions of others who support that aim."

The distinction made by Lowe in his submission to the court comes as Israel has repeatedly accused South Africa of antisemitism. 

Israel has further accused South Africa of acting on behalf of Hamas despite South Africa's repeated condemnation of the 7 October attacks that claimed the lives of 1 200 Israelis, most of whom civilians. 

Justice Minister Ronald Lamola rejected assertions on Thursday that South Africa was acting on behalf of Hamas. 

He said the country was motivated by human rights and was acting in defence of ordinary Palestinians in Gaza. 

The case, which drew massive international interest and widespread support, saw South Africa telling a 15-member Bench that Israel's military invasion of Gaza was genocidal. 

"South Africa stresses that any motive or effort by Israel to destroy Hamas does not preclude genocidal intent towards the whole or part of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Evidence of other motives explaining its conduct as a perpetrator will not save Israel from a finding that it also possessed the requisite genocidal intent," advocate Max du Plessis said. 

Israel launched its military operation in Gaza after Hamas' 7 October attack.

"We fight terrorists and we fight lies. Today, we again saw an 'upside-down world' – the State of Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting genocide," Netanyahu said

"Israel is fighting against murderous terrorists who have committed terrible crimes against humanity. They slaughtered, they raped, they burnt, they dismembered, they killed children, women, the elderly, young men, young women. A terrorist organisation that committed the most terrible crime against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and now there are those who come to defend it in the name of the Holocaust. What audacity.

"[An] upside-down world. And it is precisely the IDF [Israel Defence Forces], the most moral army in the world, which does everything to avoid harming the uninvolved, that is accused by the representatives of the monsters of 'genocide'. The hypocrisy of South Africa screams to heaven. Where was South Africa when millions of people were murdered and displaced from their homes in Syria and Yemen, and by whom? By the partners of Hamas. Upside-down world. Where have you been? We know where we are , we will continue to fight the terrorists, we will continue to repel the lies, we will continue to maintain our right to defend ourselves and secure our future until the absolute victory," he said.

Israel's response to the Hamas attack resulted in the killing of more than 23 000 people in Palestine, 70% of whom were reportedly women and children.

South Africa's application states the conflict has resulted in one child dying in Gaza approximately every 15 minutes, growing levels of starvation, entire families being wiped out, and the majority of surviving children admitting they have contemplated suicide. 

This level of carnage and the growing humanitarian crisis is not, South Africa argues, unintentional.

The country has used inflammatory statements made by senior Israeli government officials, including Netanyahu, to argue that Israel's leadership has articulated "genocidal intentions" towards Palestinians by referring to them in "dehumanising" terms.

Israel has described the case against it as "blood libel" but has not specifically disputed the allegedly incendiary comments attributed to Netanyahu and other government and military officials.

Blood libel refers to the use of false antisemitic accusations of bloodletting that were used to justify the violent persecution of Jews in Europe in the Middle Ages.

In other words, Israel regards South Africa's case as both dishonest and antisemitic.

In the absence of written submissions by Israel, but with a keen awareness of the country's public pronouncements on the accusations against it, South Africa's lawyers used the three hours given to them on Thursday to both outline the country's basis for accusing Israel of genocide and to pre-empt the defences it may raise.

Self-defence 

Lowe, one of two external counsels on South Africa's legal team, asserted that any attempt by Israel to justify its actions in Gaza as self-defence would have no legal basis. 

"What Israel is doing in Gaza, it is doing in territory under its own control. Its actions are enforcing its occupation. The law on self-defence under Article 51 of the [UN] Charter has no application. Israel says that Palestine and Palestinians are not its target, and that its aim is to destroy Hamas, but months of continuous bombing, flattening entire residential blocks and cutting off food, water, electricity and communications to an entire population cannot credibly be argued to be a manhunt for members of Hamas.

"It is an indiscriminate attack, killing, maiming and terrorising the entire population of Gaza with no regard to questions of innocence or guilt, obliterating the homes and cities in which they live, and destroying any practical possibility of their return to make their homes amid the rubble."

He added that "the exercise of the right of self-defence cannot justify or be a defence to genocide".

South Africa is endorsing Hamas atrocities

South Africa has condemned Hamas' attack on Israel and stressed that the massacre cannot be used to justify subsequent violation of the provisions of the Genocide Convention.

Lowe also shot down any suggestion that South Africa could have, or should have, taken legal action against Hamas over its massacre of Israeli civilians.

"As the court will understand, Hamas is not a state and cannot be party to the Genocide Convention, and it is not a party to these proceedings," he said.  

"There are other bodies and processes that can address the questions of steps to be taken in respect of past atrocities against other actors, and they are no doubt doing so. But, as a matter of law, under the Convention, South Africa cannot request an order from this court against Hamas." 

Israeli leaders' comments on Gaza are not evidence of genocidal intention

The list of statements attributed to Israeli leaders and military heads arguably presents one of the biggest legal challenges in its genocide defence, particularly given that advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi specifically showed how these dehumanising pronouncements had been repeated and adopted by Israeli soldiers on the ground.

Israel is expected to argue that these alleged genocidal statements were either not made by people in authority, did not represent official state policy or had been misunderstood.

Ngcukaitobi pre-empted these defences by reminding the ICJ of "the authority and identity of the genocidal inciters: The prime minister, the president, the minister of defence, the minister of national security, the minister of energy and infrastructure, members of the [Israeli Parliament], senior army officials and foot soldiers."

"Genocidal utterances are therefore not out in the fringes, they are embodied in state policy. The intent to destroy is plainly understood by soldiers on the ground," he said.

Ngcukaitobi added that these statements, which allegedly incited violence and destruction against Palestinian people, "were made by persons in command of the state". 

The advocate also dismissed the claim that the comments had been misconstrued.

"These are orders to destroy and to maim what cannot be destroyed. These statements are not open to neutral interpretation or after-the-fact rationalisations and reinterpretations by Israel," he said. 

Israel will comply with the Genocide Convention without being ordered to do so

According to Lowe, "Israel may say that it will comply with all of its obligations under the Genocide Convention and that these orders from the court are not necessary. But, in previous cases, the court has held that such unilateral statements do not remove the risk of irreparable prejudice or obviate the need for a court order."

He said this risk was particularly high because of "Israel's apparent inability to see that it has done anything wrong in grinding Gaza and its people into the dust".

Worse still, he added, any departure from Israel's promised actions towards Gaza "may lead to consequences so appalling that the risk should not be taken".

Referring to the vital role the ICJ plays in preventing and punishing the crime of genocide, Lowe said it was "vitally important that states respect the court and their procedural obligations".

"This is not a moment for the court to sit back and be silent. It is necessary that it assert its authority and order compliance with the obligations under the Genocide Convention.

"Indeed, it is hard to think of a case in recent history which has been so important for the future of international law and of the court."