Germany denied before the International Court of Justice in The Hague that it had violated the Genocide Convention by supplying weapons to Israel. Nicaragua accepted the issue of halting arms shipments. After the United States, Germany supplies Israel with the largest amount of military equipment and weapons.

With the indictment, Nicaragua follows the example of South Africa, which took Israel to the same court earlier this year. The judge then ruled that Israel must do more to prevent genocide.

The Nicaraguan ambassador to the Netherlands opened the hearing yesterday. He stated that German arms supplies were contributing to potential genocide in Gaza and that Germany was doing too little to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Nicaraguan said: “It is a sad excuse for the Palestinian children, women and men in Gaza to provide them with humanitarian aid with one hand, and with the other hand to provide weapons and military equipment that will wipe them off the map.” The argument.

Germany strongly denied this today, counter-arguing that 98% of weapons shipments consisted of non-lethal equipment such as helmets and shrapnel-proof vests. “Germany is doing its best to fulfill its responsibility towards both Israelis and Palestinians,” said Tanja von Oslar-Gleitchen, legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry. She described the case as urgent and spoke of “weak evidence.”

According to the advisor, arms exports to Israel are examined to ensure their compliance with international law. “Germany has learned from its past,” she added, referring to the Holocaust in World War II.

Just as Germany relies on the past, Nicaragua also has historical motivations to raise this issue. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega also held power from 1979 to 1990, and then maintained a warm relationship with Palestinian President Arafat. At the beginning of this year, a traffic artery in the capital, Managua, was called Gaza Road.

Two days were planned for the substantive hearing of the case. The court will issue a temporary ruling within a few weeks, but the actual ruling may have to wait years. The rulings are binding, but the court does not have the power to enforce their implementation.