Israel legal team’s evidence at ICJ Gaza case was misleading: research group

A research group says it has found eight instances where the Israeli legal team at the International Court of Justice in the Gaza Strip case misrepresented the visual evidence it cited.

Forensic Architecture, based at based at Goldsmiths, University of London, said the Israeli legal team did this through a combination of incorrect annotations and labelling, and misleading verbal descriptions.

The ICJ held public hearings in January after an application by South Africa concerning alleged violation by Israel of its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

South Africa presented its case on January 11 and the next day, Israel staged its defence.

As part of its defence, the Israeli team presented visual material, including maps, videos, images, and annotated diagrams.

Forensic Architecture reviewed the visual evidence presented by the Israeli legal team according to three categories. 

It looked at whether the evidence presented had been tampered with, whether elements in the evidence had been correctly labelled and whether the claims made by the Israeli legal team were consistent with the visual evidence presented. 

“We found eight instances where the Israeli legal team misrepresented the visual evidence they cited, through a combination of incorrect annotations and labelling, and misleading verbal descriptions. 

“Our study also reveals that the Israeli legal team presented single instances of alleged Palestinian military use of civilian infrastructure as blanket justifications for the systematic and widespread attacks on civilians, shelters, schools, and hospitals,” Forensic Architecture said in the report released on Monday. 

In one instance, the Israeli team presented evidence claiming it as proof of a rocket launch site close to a water desalination facility.

Forensic Architecture said the highlighted feature was more likely a crater caused by an air drop munition from an Israel air strike. 

When presenting this evidence, the Israeli legal team claimed: “And in the next slide you can see evidence of a rocket launched from next to Gaza’s water desalination facility”. 

The research group said it used satellite images and 3D modelling to calculate the size and depth of the highlighted feature.

It said the crater measured about 7m in diameter and 2m in depth. It said the dimensions of the crater were consistent with the impacts of a bomb between 500lb and 1,000lb.

“We compared its dimensions and shape to those of other craters visible throughout Gaza and found them to be consistent with one another. 

“We found that the Israeli legal team incorrectly labelled and annotated the image presented at the ICJ hearing, labelling a crater — a trace of Israeli-inflicted destruction — as a Palestinian rocket launch site,” Forensic Architecture said. 

In another instance, the research group said the Israeli legal team presented evidence to claim that aid was entering Gaza. 

The still image was part of a video published on November 24 in an Israeli military press release. 

“We geolocated the footage and identified the location of the trucks to be about 41km from Rafah border, moving in the opposite direction towards the Nitzana border.”

The Nitzana border crossing is the land border crossing between Egypt and Israel. During the present conflict in Gaza, the border crossing was used to inspect aid bound for the Gaza Strip. After the inspection at Nitzana, trucks would then drive to the Rafah border crossing to enter Gaza from Egypt.

“The footage and caption are misleading because they claim the trucks were entering Gaza via the Rafah border; instead, they would have been checked by the Israeli army at the Nitzana border where … aid has been confiscated,” Forensic Architecture said.

TimesLIVE 

>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : TimesLive.za – https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2024-02-26-israel-legal-teams-evidence-at-icj-gaza-case-was-misleading-research-group/