South Africa files genocide case against Israel at Internati

Post Reply New Topic

The interim orders issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to Israel amid its war on Gaza on Friday are significant, but their immediate implications are “limited” say some experts.

he ICJ also noted its grave concern over the fate of the Israelis taken captive by Hamas during its raid into Israel on October 7 and called for their immediate release.

While South Africa has claimed that those instructions implicitly translate as a call for an immediate ceasefire, Israel has pointed to the absence of that specific wording and has confirmed that it will continue its three-month-long campaign against Gaza.

“Really, the only body that can stop Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is Israel,” said Gerry Simpson, professor of law at the London School of Economics. “However, this does make it even more difficult for [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu to confidently claim to be defending the West and the rules-based order.”

Pressure mounting on Israel’s allies
While a final ruling may still take years, the court has found that South Africa’s charges of genocide contain merit, and cannot, therefore, be dismissed as baseless by Israel and its international backers.

Critically, the ruling raises the possibility that Tel Aviv’s allies in Washington, London and the European Union could even face the prospect of being implicated in having aided and abetted genocide at some future date.

Friday’s judgement will also likely carry implications beyond those specified in court, Simpson said. “This also speaks to how the public sees the war. No matter where you get your information, there’s always the suspicion of bias in the reporting. This preliminary judgement offers something different. This is a judicial verdict based on a good faith reading of the facts.”

Interpretations of the court’s findings are already polarising much of the political community. While South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor hailed it as little short of a triumph, others appeared less delighted.

A case for genocide is ‘plausible’
While Israel’s emphasis that no specific mention was made of a ceasefire was predictable, other items were less likely to feature in Tel Israel’s public account of the judgement.

“The way that South Africa and others will interpret the order is also that Israel’s supporters have basically been put on notice,” Antonios Tzanakopoulos, professor of public international law at Oxford University, said.

“The ICJ has found that the case of genocide is at least plausible. Therefore, if third-party states continue to provide Israel with money and weapons, they now do so knowing they may be aiding and abetting genocide, which all signatories of the convention are prevented from doing,” he said.

Though it stopped short of accusing Israel of committing genocide, Italy halted all shipments of weapons to Israel after the October 7 Hamas attacks, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani announced a week ago.

“This is what we mean by enforcement,” Tzanakopoulos said. “States aren’t physical things. You can’t send them to prison. But the kind of pressure that judgements like this bring, and the actions of states like Italy, make it more difficult to cooperate with Israel,” he said.

Under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention, all states have a binding obligation not only to refrain from complicity in genocide but also to prevent it, Katherine Iliopoulos, legal adviser for the MENA programme at the International Commission of Jurists, said.

Iliopoulos pointed to the actions of legal groups already under way, such as those in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, to prevent the export of weapons from their countries to Israel on the basis that they might be used to commit international crimes in Gaza. “Today’s ruling will add to such pressure on these and other countries to immediately stop arms exports to Israel,” she said.

Compliance remains an issue
A definitive ruling in South Africa’s case of genocide against Israel may take years. Moreover, as past preliminary judgements have shown, compliance remains an issue.

The 2022 ruling against Myanmar over its persecution of the Rohingya minority achieved only a partial change in tack, the United Nations noted in August. Moreover, the same year, the ICJ’s judgement against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine was simply shrugged off.

However, this is the first case against a state so closely tied to Western powers, one whose existence to a large part relies upon their provision of arms and diplomatic cover.

To what degree those states may now risk legal hazard could help determine the shape and duration of the war.

Israel's lawyers also provided it's own facts and I'm not sure which incidences of whataboutism that you're talking about. They claimed that they are trying to facilitate aid into Gaza, though I don't think that it's enough as the humanitarian aid organisations say that there's still a looming famine. I hope that the court will take that into account and still ask for provisional measures though.

Good. I hope a whole lot of heads roll over this one, they deserve it. They probably won't, but.... fingers crossed.

Israel's lawyers also provided it's own facts and I'm not sure which incidences of whataboutism that you're talking about. They claimed that they are trying to facilitate aid into Gaza, though I don't think that it's enough as the humanitarian aid organisations say that there's still a looming famine. I hope that the court will take that into account and still ask for provisional measures though.

It's own facts aka alternative facts aka disinformation.

Is it though? To me, it looks like no different from any other court case where the two side present their own evidence in favour. The judges or jury have to decide the truth from the evidence given by both sides.

The top UN court on Friday rejected a South African request to impose urgent measures to safeguard Rafah in the Gaza Strip, but also stressed that Israel must respect earlier measures imposed late last month at a preliminary stage in a landmark genocide case.

The International Court of Justice said in a statement that the “perilous situation” in Rafah “demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures" that it ordered Jan. 26.

It said no new order was necessary because the existing measures “are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah.”

The world court added that Israel “remains bound to fully comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention” and the Jan. 26 ruling which ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza.

South Africa announced Tuesday that it had lodged an “ urgent request ” with the International Court of Justice to consider whether Israel’s military operations targeting the southern Gaza city of Rafah breach provisional orders the court handed down last month in a case alleging genocide.

South African foreign ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela said in a message on X, formerly Twitter, that the court “has affirmed our view that the perilous situation demands immediate & effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024 which are applicable throughout the #GazaStrip & has clarified that this includes #Rafah.”

The court's statement was issued on the Jewish sabbath, when government offices are closed, and there was no immediate comment from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

On Thursday, Israel urged the world court to reject what it called South Africa’s “highly peculiar and improper” request.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki demanded an immediate end to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories at the start of hearings on Monday into the legal status of the occupation at the United Nations' top court.

More than 50 states will present arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague until Feb. 26, following a 2022 request from the U.N. General Assembly for an advisory, or non-binding, opinion

Al-Maliki accused Israel of subjecting Palestinians to decades of discrimination and apartheid - accusations Israel has rejected - arguing that they had been left with the choice of "displacement, subjugation, or death".

"The only solution consistent with international law is for this illegal occupation to come to an immediate, unconditional and total end," he said.

The ICJ's 15-judge panel has been asked to review Israel's "occupation, settlement and annexation ... including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures."

The judges are expected to take roughly six months to issue an opinion on the request, which also asks them to consider the legal status of the occupation and its consequences.