Amidst the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas, South Africa has boldly stepped onto the international stage by bringing a case against Israel to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ).
According to AP, South African lawyers are arguing that the recent Gaza war is not merely an isolated event but rather part of a protracted history of oppression against the Palestinian people by Israel.
Adila Hassim, a prominent South African lawyer, emphasized the urgency of the situation during the court proceedings, urging the ICJ to issue binding preliminary orders on Israel, including an immediate cessation of its military campaign in Gaza.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
“Nothing will stop the suffering except an order from this court,” Hassim said.
The Health Ministry in Gaza, controlled by Hamas, reports that over 23,200 Palestinians have been killed by Israel’s offensive. Approximately two-thirds of the casualties are women and children, and the death toll does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.
“Mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, cousins are often all killed together. This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life. It is inflicted deliberately. No one is spared. Not even newborn babies,” added Hassim.
South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola further expanded the scope of the case, contending that the violence and destruction in Palestine and Israel did not originate with the recent conflict but have deep roots in decades of systematic oppression and violence. Leading the South African delegation, Vusimuzi Madonsela drew poignant parallels between Israel’s actions and South Africa’s own history under apartheid.
The African National Congress, South Africa’s governing party, has consistently drawn comparisons between Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank and the apartheid regime that persisted until 1994.
In response to South Africa’s allegations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video statement vehemently denying charges of genocide. Netanyahu asserted that Israel has no intentions of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population, framing the conflict as a defensive measure against Hamas terrorists.
“Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population,” he said. “Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law.”
The legal dispute has garnered global attention, with demonstrations held outside the court by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups. The United States, a staunch ally of Israel, dismissed the case as “meritless.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during a visit to Tel Aviv, criticized the lawsuit, deeming it “galling” and highlighting ongoing threats from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
“It is particularly galling, given that those who are attacking Israel — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, as well as their supporter Iran — continue to call for the annihilation of Israel and the mass murder of Jews,” he said.
The ICJ, tasked with resolving disputes between nations, has never before held a country responsible for genocide. The case hinges on the genocide convention established in 1948 after World War II, with both Israel and South Africa being signatories to this convention. The ICJ came close to such a ruling in 2007 when it found Serbia in violation of preventing genocide during the Srebrenica massacre.
South Africa seeks interim orders for an immediate halt to Israel’s military actions, and a decision from the ICJ is expected in the coming weeks. Should the ICJ rule in favor of South Africa, it could set a groundbreaking legal precedent with far-reaching implications for international relations. However, given the intricate geopolitical dynamics, the outcome remains uncertain.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, Israel is set to face additional legal scrutiny on the international stage. In the upcoming month, the ICJ will convene hearings to address a United Nations request for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The lawsuit has the potential to strain the relationship between Israel and South Africa further. The historical comparisons drawn by South Africa between Israeli actions and its own apartheid past introduce a layer of complexity to diplomatic ties. Despite Israel’s usual skepticism towards international tribunals, it has dispatched a robust legal team to defend its military operations.
The unfolding legal battle at the ICJ hangs the Israel-South Africa relationship in the balance. Analysts believe that the resolution of this case has the potential to shape future international responses to conflicts and alleged acts of genocide, influencing how nations handle their commitments to human rights and international law amidst geopolitical conflicts.