They emphasized that the damage was done as soon as the court was in session and it was time to work to mitigate it.

While the Israeli government and the Hebrew media celebrate the “distinguished professional performance” of the defense team before the High Court of Justice in The Hague, other voices based on professionalism and objectivity are rising, calling on officials to come down to the ground and take a responsible decision to stop the war as the best way out for the Hebrew state from the impasse it has placed itself in. in it.

They confirm that, regardless of the court's decision, which will be issued several days later, the harm to Israel has been caused. Although they are convinced that the court’s decision will not convict Israel of genocide against the Palestinians, as this court has not issued any decision in this spirit since its establishment in 1945, they believe that the damage was done as soon as South Africa’s lawsuit was filed, and the accompanying publication of reports and photos and various documents and information. 

Whatever the decision that will be issued by the court, it has attached to Israel the stigma of committing criminal acts that claimed the lives of many Palestinian civilians, and for which the responsibility is borne by foolish Israeli officials who made foolish statements that suggest brutality, and made people everywhere in the world link these statements with actions that did or did not occur. But it is accompanied by terrible reports, pictures and scenes of killing and massive destruction in the Strip that are published in the media and social networks around the world.

The most prominent person who spoke in this spirit was the world-renowned Israeli legal expert, Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, who wrote an article in the newspaper “Haaretz” on Friday, in which he said that the International Court should not issue a decision condemning Israel alone, because in this case “it will tie Israel’s hands but It will maintain Hamas's aggressive operating space, and will position itself on the side of the aggressor, on the side of genocide and crimes against humanity, and against the victims of Hamas' attacks in the past, present and future. The most dangerous thing is that the court will position itself on the side of the kidnappers and against the kidnapped, as human beings and victims of a serious crime, and will seek against the natural right to self-defense.”

Although Kremnitzer attacked South Africa for its attempt to “absent Hamas” from the case, and hoped that the court would issue a lenient decision against Israel, he warned the Israeli government against reckless positions in responding to the court, and said: “It would not be right to fight against decisions aimed at Ensuring humanitarian supplies to the residents of Gaza, and imposing on Israel the duty to combat incitement to genocide.” 

Here the Israeli expert vented his anger at the Israeli government and said: “If decisions like these lead to the fall of the government, we will not respond with bitter crying. But the problem that Israel faces in The Hague is mainly psychological. Simply put, for someone who does not live here and is a moral person, fighting is a harmful situation that is best avoided. For this very reason, Israel is obligated to put at the top of its attention the necessity of preventing a decision to stop the fighting.”

Kremnitzer said that there are officials in Israel who issued statements calling for genocide against the Palestinians, which the South African legal team presented in broad and detail before the court, and this “disaster was brought upon our heads, largely by people holding the highest positions, with their stupidity, arrogance, and human weakness,” and the Israeli government bears it and also responsible for this miserable failure. The minimum that could have been expected, but could not be achieved, was for the Prime Minister to hit the table and stop the cacophony of voices calling for genocide. Because the Prime Minister is not only one of those directing this discord, but he himself described the Hamas movement as “Amalek,” a description borrowed from biblical myths to describe enemies who seek to exterminate the Jews, and who must be exterminated, elderly and children.

He added: “This is an offensive use of the Jewish religion in order to legitimize the most dangerous abominations in its name. This religiosity in the army and outside it must be uprooted from its roots. The army cannot allow itself to surrender to this by ignoring it, as there are widespread racist tendencies and ideas within the ranks of the Israeli army. It is important to examine whether the spirit of this army withstands the evil winds that blow and continue to beat in the hearts of the soldiers... There has been a weakness in Israel in everything related to our human nature as a society. The occupation and strangulation around the neck of Gaza is the basis of impurity here. It is a good thing that South Africa has penetrated our consciousness. If we continue to be peace rejecters, and this includes opposition parties, we will end up being expelled from the city (the international community), like the apartheid regime in South Africa at the time.”

Israel defended its war in Gaza before the International Court of Justice on Friday, and strongly denied South Africa's accusations against it before the court of committing "genocide" against the Palestinian people. She said that the military actions in Gaza were in self-defense, and described South Africa's accusations as "grossly distorted." A day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized South Africa's accusations as hypocrisy that "cries to the heavens," Israel strongly denied the accusations made by South Africa in one of the largest cases ever brought before an international court, a case that has attracted international attention and protesters from both sides to court.

The Israeli defense, led by the British expert in international law, Professor Malcolm Shaw, relied on drawing the court’s attention to the fact that South Africa almost ignored in its lawsuit the root of the problem, which is the Hamas attack on Israeli towns on October 7th. He stressed that this attack was tantamount to an attempted genocide, and that South Africa's blatant disregard for it indicates hypocrisy and contradicts the principles of the court. He said: “Israel did not want this war, and did not launch a preemptive attack on (Hamas) even though it knew its goals were to annihilate Israel... The ongoing war on Gaza is merely a response to Hamas’s terrorist actions with the aim of preventing it from regaining the strength that would allow it to repeat the attack on the towns surrounding Gaza." He referred to the tunnels as a destructive weapon that Hamas planned to use to attack Israel. He stressed that its decision to destroy hypocrisy was an act of self-defense, and this only happens by demolishing buildings. It worked hard to avoid harming civilians in Gaza, so it asked them to leave temporarily.

The Israeli representative claimed that civilians were injured in areas where Hamas used them (civilians) as human shields.

Regarding statements issued by government ministers and members of the Knesset, such as extremists Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli team tried to clarify that the importance of these quotes and statements is less than what is said in South African arguments, and that these statements do not affect decision-making, and are not translated on the ground. reality". He said that the Israeli prosecution is studying the possibility of taking action against inciting politicians.

According to legal sources in Tel Aviv, members of the Israeli team following up on this court differ on the issue of issuing a precautionary decision by the court. Some of them are convinced that there is a high possibility of issuing an order to stop the war, especially after the scenes shown by South Africa, which showed displacement, destruction, and the sectioning of premature babies. In Al-Shifa Hospital, bombing schools and churches, and destroying historical monuments. But there is a section of them that believes that such a possibility is unthinkable, and that the greatest possibility is the issuance of an order requiring the change of the humanitarian aid system to become larger and more effective, the return of the displaced population to their areas, and the demand that Israel not control the issue of aid, and not impose a siege on Gaza.