The first hearing of the case against Israel

South Africa claimed that Israel is engaging in genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza conflict. Still, an Israeli lawyer dismissed this as a broad and speculative interpretation of the situation during a presentation to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The statement is saying that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the top court of the United Nations, wants Israel to stop its military actions. 

Even though the ICJ's decisions are supposed to be legally binding for countries involved, like Israel and South Africa, they cannot be enforced.

Israel responded to the court's case a day after South Africa presented its arguments. Outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the police set up barriers to separate opposing groups. 

On one side, people waved Palestinian flags and displayed banners with images of Nelson Mandela, drawing parallels between the situation in Gaza and the past apartheid era in South Africa.

A symbolic Sabbath table was set up a short distance away, featuring empty chairs with attached photographs of over 130 Israelis still held hostage by Hamas. 

It's important to note that Hamas is designated as a terrorist group in the US, UK, EU, and other places.

South Africa claims that Israel is breaking the 1948 Genocide Convention, a pact both countries signed. The convention obliges parties to take measures to prevent genocide.

Since October 7, Israel has conflicted with Hamas, the ruling group in Gaza. This began when hundreds of Hamas gunmen invaded Israel, resulting in approximately 1,300 deaths and 240 people taken as hostages back to Gaza. 

In the International Court of Justice (ICJ), family members of the hostages heard Israel present its case. According to the Gaza health ministry, over 23,350 people, primarily women and children, have been reported killed by Israel in the ongoing conflict.

Is there a genocide case against Israel?

South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claiming that Israel has committed 'genocidal acts.'

Tal Becker, in his opening statement, mentioned that while civilian suffering is tragic, Hamas intentionally seeks to cause harm to both Israelis and Palestinians, whereas Israel aims to minimize it. 

He criticized South Africa for presenting a distorted and manipulative portrayal of the current hostilities, stating that their case relies on a deliberately curated and decontextualized description of reality.

Mr. Becker accused South Africa of attempting to weaponize the term genocide against Israel. He claimed that South Africa is also trying to undermine Israel's right to self-defense by seeking a court order to halt Israel's military operation against Hamas.
It seems like you've provided a passage describing statements made by advocates representing South Africa in a court setting, expressing their views on Israel's actions in Gaza. 

It mentions claims of "genocidal intent" and a plan to "destroy" Gaza at the highest level of the state. Adila Hassim emphasizes the ongoing loss of life, property, dignity, and humanity for the Palestinian people, stating that only a court order can stop the suffering.

These statements represent the legal arguments and perspectives presented by South African advocates. It's essential to note that court proceedings and legal arguments are subject to interpretation, and perspectives on geopolitical conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can vary widely. 

Legal cases often involve complex issues, and the final judgment will depend on the specific legal arguments presented, the evidence provided, and the court's interpretation of relevant laws and international norms.

In response to South Africa's accusation of genocide against Israel, the German government issued a statement rejecting the accusation, emphasizing that it had "no basis whatsoever." Germany, considering its historical context and commitment to the Convention against Genocide, expressed opposition to the political instrumentalization of the accusation. 
The government affirmed its participation in the main hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The UK Prime Minister's spokesperson, Rishi Sunak, deemed South Africa's case "completely unjustified and wrong," asserting the UK government's support for Israel's right to self-defense within the bounds of international law. 

The ICJ's forthcoming opinion on the genocide allegation will be closely monitored, but a final ruling could take years. However, the court might expedite a decision on South Africa's request for Israel to halt its military.

Ref-BBC