The University of South Africa’s (UNISA) International Law Professor, Andre Thomashausen, says he strongly doubts that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will rule in favour of South Africa.
The comment comes after the video clips and statements used in South Africa’s presentation were taken out of context.
He says this evidence does not impute genocidal intent on the state of Israel.
“We have a member of Parliament saying kill all the Boers, it doesn’t make South Africa guilty of a plan of genocide. Obviously, emotions run high in such a situation and individuals will say all sorts of things. What has to be looked at is the conduct and there of course, evidence will have to be led because the genocidal intent has to be inferred from the conduct.”
Thomashausen, says the evidence presented by South Africa at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in Netherlands was hear-say evidence.
This as Israel is expected to present its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) shortly.
The professor says South Africa’s case against Israel is naïve and that Israel could be accused of war crimes, but not genocide.
He breaks down what he expects Israel’s line of defence will be as the case continues today.
“There was an act of aggression by what is called a non-state actor, which is Hamas and it was perpetrated with a type of violence that deprives Hamas of the protections under the Genocide Convention. They have placed themselves outside humanitarian law. So that is the first line of defence. The other line of defence is that South Africa’s very emotional and sometimes a bit hysterical presentation did not prove genocidal intent.”
PODCAST | Professor Andre Thomashausen’s full interview on SAfm’s Sunrise programme:
VIDEO | South Africa presents its case against Israel at the ICJ:
