Contact B'nai B'rith

1120 20th Street NW, Suite 300N Washington, D.C. 20036


As the International Court of Justice begins hearing the case of South Africa v. Israel, B’nai B’rith has submitted arguments refuting South Africa’s false claim of genocide. Read the Jerusalem Post’s coverage of our joint submission. Read more coverage in Arutz Sheva English (Israel National News).

B’nai B’rith International, the oldest Jewish human rights organization, submitted arguments on Tuesday to the International Court of Justice against the case of South Africa v. Israel that will be heard starting Thursday.

“B’nai B’rith International asserts that Hamas has inflicted genocide both on the Jewish people for decades, consistent with its mantra of hate against those of the Jewish religion who reside in Israel and elsewhere, and particularly demonstrated by its terrorist attack on October 7th; and on the residents of Gaza who are Arab-Palestinians, by engineering and instrumentalizing their victimization during the Israeli response to the October 7th attack in order to shift the blame to Israel,” according to the argument.

In its argument, B’nai B’rith says if the Court is to be fair and assume jurisdiction over the Application of South Africa, it must also consider submissions that Hamas is guilty of genocide inflicted on both the Jewish and Palestinian people.

“Should the Court have any reluctance to consider and determine submissions that Hamas is guilty of genocide inflicted on both the Jewish and Palestinian people if Palestine chooses not to participate in the proceedings, the only appropriate conclusion to draw in those circumstances would be that the Court has no jurisdiction to determine the South Africa Application at all,” the argument said.

The argument also said South Africa’s request for Provisional Measures should be rejected on the basis it would allow Hamas to rearm and relaunch its genocidal attack on Israel, Jewish people, residents, and visitors of Southern Israel.

B’nai B’rith’s case

B’nai B’rith outlines the history of Hamas, its defense, responsibility, and legal standards.

The argument seeks to discredit South Africa’s claims of Israeli racism, colonialism, and occupation.

B’nai B’rith also criticizes South Africa’s application for excluding mention of Hamas utilizing civilians and civilian sites as shields and for excluding alternative responses which would allow Israel to respond with fewer civilian casualties.

“Because of this silence, South Africa does not deny that Israel had no alternative response to the response that they did make,” the argument said. “The implication of the South African position, in the absence of a suggested viable alternative, is that Israel should accept passively the genocide of its own people at the hands of Hamas, who initiated and launched its heinous terror attack upon innocent Israelis living and enjoying their lives within sovereign Israel territory. That position is untenable.”

B’nai B’rith’s argument calls on South Africa and other members of the Genocide Convention to ban Hamas and its activity, prohibit its financing, prevent the organization from committing future acts, and take steps to hold Hamas legally accountable.