Abstract
In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) started proceedings on South Africa’s application accusing the State of Israel of genocide in Gaza in Occupied Palestine, following the events of 7 October 2023. Represented by specialised legal counsel, the Israeli state rejected the accusation and defended its actions as a concern for national security and survival, responding to what it described as anti-Semitic and terrorist attacks by Hamas. To explore how a state responds to accusations of genocide, the study examined Israel’s oral defence. Using Wodak and Reisigl’s discourse-historical approach (DHA) by applying five key strategies: nomination; predication; argumentation; perspectivisation; and intensification or mitigation, the study analysed how language was used in Israel’s defence. The aim was to identify the discursive patterns Israel used to deny plausibility and build a moral image of itself before the Court. The findings showed that Israel often used the discourse of self-defence and historical persecution to justify its actions. By repeatedly referring to the Holocaust and continuing existential threats, the defence presented Israel as both victim and protector. These repeating patterns of discourse reflected victimhood nationalism, where collective trauma becomes a way to claim moral justification and avoid responsibility. By studying how a state speaks when it is accused of genocide, the research contributes to understanding how legitimacy is shaped through language to create moral and legal immunity.