Naka-pin na Tweet
Fact-Checking @DrGiladNoam’s statement:
1. On punctuality and tone:
Israel has finally, after an extension and a 2-day delay, submitted its Counter-Memorial to the ICJ. Calling the proceedings "baseless and libelous" is more of an emotional appeal than a factual statement.
2. The "Black Box" fallacy:
You claim: "As demonstrated in the Counter-Memorial...". However, there is no link to the text, making it impossible to verify that you have indeed exhaustively refuted the allegations. We cannot know if it is you who are distorting reality and twisting the principles of international law—just as was done regarding Iran by labeling as a "preemptive strike" an attack that precisely violates international law.
3. On Jurisdiction (The legal fact):
Israel cannot demonstrate that the Court lacks jurisdiction in the South Africa v. Israel case. Both countries are parties to the UN and the Genocide Convention; therefore, the ICJ has clear jurisdiction over both states. The Court already confirmed this by issuing provisional measures.
4. Appealing to history vs. present facts:
You appeal to the Holocaust, but one only needs to look at the documented use of cluster bombs, white phosphorus, Palestinian civilians used as human shields, and children killed by the IDF—recorded by both the UN and your own media outlets—to know that your narrative is false. The Convention judges present acts, not historical identities.
5. Commitment vs. Evidence:
Again, you mention a Counter-Memorial that no one has access to except yourselves and the ICJ judges. You claim to be committed to the Convention, but the public statements made by your own Ministers, for example, demonstrate exactly the opposite.
English
