The nascent Sanhedrin issued a ruling about the case brought by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide.
In late December, Pretoria submitted an 84-page charge to the ICJ in which it formally accused Israel of genocide. The South African delegation also claimed that the very establishment of the State of Israel was tantamount to genocide.
The ICJ is an international legal body that operates under the auspices of the United Nations. It has the right to adjudicate cases between states either with the explicit permission of the defendant state or by prior agreement in the form of an international agreement or by formal notification to the court.
In this case, the basis for the trial is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was established in 1948 in response to the crimes of the Holocaust and was signed both by Israel and South Africa. According to the convention, the crime of genocide requires the intentional destruction “in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Israel is the fifth country to face the charge of genocide in the ICJ.
The nascent Sanhedrin issued a ruling last week concerning the ICJ ruling.
“The Sanhedrin strongly urges the Israeli government to flee the court in The Hague as long for as long as it exists. The Sanhedrin asks the Israeli government to end the farcical testimony before the court in The Hague.
(a) Morality should be based in the Torah, as the people of Israel received from God at Mount Sinai, and not from the court in The Hague.
(b) Everyone knows who the judges are: countries that have violated many laws of honesty and justice towards their neighbors and their citizens. For example: China, Uganda, Somalia, Lebanon, and Russia. The judges themselves will be judged for their hypocrisy and for practicing discrimination.
(c) The whole issue of resistance to genocide is an issue that Israel, in most of its wisdom, presented to the world as our personal experience from World War II. Of course, this did not prevent other genocides from taking place. It is absurd that this claim has been made against the State of Israel.
(d) The war in Gaza is a response to October 7. How can it be that a court that claims to be justice discusses October 8 before October 7?
(e) The court has not yet called on Israel to stop the war. This would be a reward to the terrorist organization Hamas-ISIS. Now that Israel has presented all its evidence, the ‘show’ is over, and the truth must be told: we have no trust, no connection, and no regard for this tribunal, nor its deliberations, nor its decisions.
(f) If the tribunal has so much extra time that it can bring spurious claims against Israel, perhaps they can also deal with the Uyghurs in China, the Kurds in Turkey, the Yemenis among themselves, the Khuzestan province of Iran, and the chemical weapons used by Syria against its citizens. Insofar as the claims that Israel is carrying out genocide against the Arabs who live within its borders, our country is composed of 20% Muslims. Apparently, they are doing very well here.
“As much as this trial is justice, we can learn from the Israeli representative at the court, Aharon Barak, that all his rulings when he was president of the Supreme Court tied the army’s hands from defending and protecting the Israeli people, and ultimately brought upon us the October 7th massacre.”
“In conclusion: before the court unleashes all its anti-Semitism on us, the Israeli government must declare its non-recognition.”
