South Africa Flexes Its Muscles: Takes Israel to ICJ

By Prince Kurupati

In an unprecedented move, South Africa recently took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The African nation accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza saying Israeli leaders are “intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza”. South Africa hopes that through the ICJ and the United Nations (UN), Israel will be pressured to cease the atrocities that it's committing in Gaza and possibly be handed a tough punishment.

Commenting on why his country approached the ICJ, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said, “Our opposition to the ongoing slaughter of the people of Gaza has driven us as a country to approach the ICJ… As a people who once tasted the bitter fruits of dispossession, discrimination, racism, and state-sponsored violence, we are clear that we will stand on the right side of history”.

On the first day of the hearings at the ICJ, lawyers representing South Africa painted a gory picture of the atrocities that are happening in Gaza perpetrated by Israel. Lawyer after lawyer highlighted how the statements attributed to top Israeli leaders all demonstrate a clear intention to “bring about the destruction” of Palestine hence signaling a clear “genocidal intent”.

While acknowledging and condemning the actions taken by Hamas to attack Israel on October 7 2023 hence sparking the current Gaza War, South Africa said the response from Israel has been disproportionate and heavy-handed. In its response to the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023,  South Africa said Israeli forces have unreservedly attacked every corner of the Palestinian country including areas known to be housing civilians and children only. Owing to these attacks, over 23,000 people in Gaza have died – a huge population of which are civilians and children.

In approaching the ICJ and calling for Israel to be restrained and possibly sanctioned, one of the lawyers representing South Africa Vaughan Lowe said, “The point is not simply that Israel is acting disproportionately. The point is that the prohibition on genocide is an absolute. Nothing can ever justify genocide.”

At the time of writing, Israel was yet to deliver its response in court but the country through its official communication channels had already stated its side. The Israel government website said the case against it is “absurd blood libel” while Israeli President Isaac Herzog said it will simply say before the ICJ that its reaction is self-defense. In the process, President Isaac Herzog said it would also show and prove before the court that it has acted in “utmost” and under “extremely complicated circumstances” to avert civilian casualties. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu weighed in saying, “No, South Africa, it is not we who have come to perpetrate genocide, it is Hamas. It would murder all of us if it could. In contrast, the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is acting as morally as possible”.

During the hearings, South Africa said Hamas should be held liable for the October 7 attacks but said this should be handled by other “bodies” as “Hamas is not a state and cannot be a party to the genocide convention”. As signatories of the 1948 Genocide Convention, both South Africa and Israel can take any other nation or be taken to the ICJ if there is a breach of the Convention.

By taking Israel to the ICJ, South Africa ensured that the Jewish State for the first time has to answer to its role in the Israel-Palestine conflicts/wars which are a constant on-off phenomena. In the heads of arguments, South African lawyer Adila Hassim said, “It is not necessary for the court to come to a final view on the question of whether Israel’s conduct constitutes genocide. It is necessary to establish only whether at least some of the acts alleged are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention”. South Africa also stated that Israel’s genocidal acts should be considered “within the broader context of Israel’s 25-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year siege imposed on the Gaza Strip”.

South Africa’s case has divided opinion both in the international circles and back at home. On the global stage, South Africa is being backed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a grouping of 57 Muslim countries which include Malaysia, Turkey, and Jordan. The United States through the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has described South Africa’s case as “meritless” saying its “galling given that those who are attacking Israel – Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, as well as their supporter of Iran – continue to openly call for the annihilation of Israel and the mass murder of Jews”.

Back at home, some commend the decision to approach the ICJ saying it’s the morally right decision as apartheid is something that needs to be stamped out. of course, with the wounds of apartheid still fresh in the minds of most South Africans, this is to be expected. Some within the country however accuse the country of being two-faced when acting in the international arena. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies said, “South Africa’s doublespeak and double standards is also evident with dogged determination to remain neutral and ‘talk to both sides’ in the Russia-Ukraine War. Yet, with Israel, it has taken constant punitive action, including refusing to offer condolences to Israel after the 7 October massacre.”

If found guilty, Israel will not have the chance to appeal against the ICJ decision. However, as the ICJ does not have an enforcement mechanism, Israel may decide not to heed the ICJ ruling. This may in turn attract sanctions from the UN but because of the U.S’ influence which is an Israeli supporter, the U.S. may veto any sanctions decision.