For the first time in international history, there stands on the court a country which decreed war on a terrorist organization which publicly and officially announces its murderous policy. South Africa has submitted a claim against Israel on the grounds that this country is breaking a treaty with the aim to prevent and punish this offense termed 'genocide' - an international treaty upon which Israel signed. Simply stated, Israel, fighting against the Hamas organization and its subsidiaries in Gaza is accused of being guilty of genocide, as signed.
The grounds upon which this charge is made are built on selected quotes [out of context] from military figures, politicians, public figures and even popular singers, including an inane passing remark — all of which constitute the charge presented before the International Court in Holland.
In a civilized world, such petitioners would be flung down the stairs. Israel is not committing 'genocide' in the Gaza Strip, but has simply gone out to a war imposed upon it after a devastating massacre by Hamas, perpetrated without any provocation whatsoever, by an organization receiving the enthusiastic support of its horrendous deeds by the majority of the population of the Gaza Strip. Thus, we are not talking about a naive population. Moreover, Hamas says openly that it will do the same thing over again, whenever it has the opportunity.
The charges include military attacks on schools, kindergartens and hospitals with no mention whatsoever that these buildings serve as arms warehouses, battle bases and under which were dug extensive tunnels serving the Hamas terror organization. In the hospitals themselves, a good part of the staff was actively involved with Hamas, so that all laws of warfare do not apply to them at all.
Actually, according to international law, there is no protection for terrorist guerrillas who blatantly defy all laws of warfare. Besides, as is known to all, Hamas actually uses the civilian population as shields, and equally utilizes civilian buildings as military bases for all intents and purposes.
There are no legal grounds for such charges against Israel. South Africa is not an interested party in the conflict and has no right to present such charges. Furthermore, transgression of war laws can only be made against a recognized country, which cannot be said of Hamas/Gaza. In other words, there are no factual grounds for this petition and it cannot be dealt with in The Hague international court.
Nevertheless, this did not prevent that court, in which sit representatives from 'enlightened' countries which protect human rights like Russia and China, from recognizing and accepting the plea and judging it.
Israel could have ignored this totally, since we are not part of it, but it chose to deal with the negative anti-Semitic publicity by sending a representative for the defense. It is hard to believe that the court will exonerate Israel totally, especially since the majority vote is against Israel. But even though the court has no authority to enforce its decisions, nevertheless the negative publicity must be dealt with, if merely to decrease it on the world level.
According to the rules of said court, aside from the steady 15 permanent judges, both the indicted and the accusatory country are allowed to send a judicial representative for each respective side. Retired High Court judge Aharon Barak was chosen. The Israeli Rightists protested, but there is no doubt that he is the right man in the right place.
He is the very man who determined the rule that 'everything is judiciable', which is why he is suited to deal with a petition which is ostensibly not suited to be judged to begin with. He is the one who determined that every citizen has the 'right to stand' before a supreme court even if he has no personal connection to the subject being dealt with. This is in contradiction to his predecessors who summarily kicked those petitioners down the stairs if they had no relevance to the case at hand.
This is precisely why he is the best person to judge in a case presented by a country which has no connection, even coincidentally, with the subject in question. It is a country which professes to support Palestinian terror organizations, and which didn't even utter a peep of protest at the murderous massacre perpetrated by those organizations against an innocent populace.
But in the same way that it was 'established' that anyone can come and voice an opinion before a court - there is no one more suited to do so than Aharon Barak himself.
