That's a direct quote representing the start of a piece of trash that isn't even meeting basic standards of an opinion piece but isn't even one. So what other context is there?
It was preceded by an "Isreal's arguments were weak, South Afirca's are great!!!!"-statement (no details, reasons or anything given, because he's seemingly not a journalist but a cheerleader for his team) and followed by:
"Aware of the global audience, Israel also sought to reinforce its claims of righteousness and self-defense in fighting the war in Gaza."
So after a bullshit opinion without any agument, then some polemics we now escalate to questioning Isreal's right to defend against a terror attack (guess that happens when you are a Hamas fanboy...).
Is that enough context? Or should we continue up to one of the highlights of this piece of bullshit were all arguments of Israel's lawyers were called "supreme gaslighting"?
Or no, let's read until the end, where after pages and pages of listing Isreal's arguments (at one point calling the "a litany" even...) the author concludes that somewhow "during its presentation before the court, Israel made no arguments..."?
Yeah... I probably missed all context when I described it as "polarising bullshit and an insult to journalism". Oh, wait... No, that's actually a proper description of the whole article, not just that allegedly out-of-context quote.