🤥 Israel has its own judicial system that will hold its military accountable if mistakes were made.

Answer 1

The role and processes of Israel’s military court doesn’t replace that of the International Court of Justice, because Israeli courts rarely prosecute IOF members for crimes against Palestinians and instead have enabled impunity at the highest levels. Israelis can make the claim that the ICJ prohibits prosecuting crimes when national courts are capable and willing to prosecute their own citizens under what is known as the ‘principle of complementarity’; but this is futile due to the lack of willingness of Israeli courts to act transparently and indiscriminately. This imposes the need for cases to be raised to the ICJ instead.
Both South Africa and Israel are signatories to the Genocide Convention, which gives the ICJ the jurisdiction to rule on disputes pertaining to the convention.

Answer 2

Not according to Israeli and international human rights organizations, including B’Tselem, Yesh Din, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Israel’s judiciary–its laws, policies, and practices– serves to uphold and enforce Israeli impunity and its system of apartheid against Palestinians. Its Supreme Court has regularly ruled in favor of demolishing entire villages for illegal settlements, upholding administrative detention of Palestinians without trial for years, and allowing the Israeli military to take punitive measures against child detainees, such as demolition of their homes. When complaints have been made against IOF soldiers for torture, killing or other crimes against Palestinians, under one percent of complaints have led to indictments and even when they do, they tend to be acquitted.