Holding Israel to account

EDITORIAL: As Israel’s brutal war in the Middle East continues the annihilation of Gaza and its hapless population, with more than 23,000 Palestinians having lost their lives — nearly 10,000 of them children — there appears to be little the world can do to put a stop to the massacre of an innocent population.

Given this background, South Africa’s courageous decision to launch a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, which was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, is not only highly welcome, it puts to shame world powers that have continued to tolerate the intolerable in Gaza.

The first hearing of the case, originally filed in December at The Hague, began yesterday. As both South Africa and Israel are signatories to the UN’s Genocide Convention, it gives the ICJ jurisdiction to rule on disputes over the treaty, which defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

South Africa has averred in its submission that Israel “has engaged in, is engaging in, and risks further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza”. Further, its petition that the country fully and impressively explained in yesterday’s hearing states: “Evidence of Israeli State officials’ specific intent … to commit and persist in committing genocidal acts or to fail to prevent them has been significant … Those statements of intent — when combined with the level of killing … and destruction on the ground, together with the siege — evidence an unfolding and continuing genocide.”

The legal claim then goes on to exhaustively list the statements made by senior officials of the Israeli government – including the country’s prime minister – parliamentarians, IDF soldiers and members of the wider Israeli society, to prove Israel’s genocidal intent.

While it may take years before a final ruling on the case is furnished, the 84-page submission by South Africa has requested the ICJ to take “provisional measures” on an emergency basis to prevent Israel from committing acts of potential genocide.

This could be done by the court ordering an immediate halt to hostilities in Gaza while the wider case continues to be heard. Drawing from precedence, it is entirely conceivable the ICJ could deliver an interim ruling within a matter of weeks, if not days.

The fact remains, however, that the ICJ has limited power to enforce its rulings even if they are supposed to be legally binding. Even so, the huge symbolic significance of a ruling that could potentially result in the demolition of Israel’s stance on its actions in Gaza, cannot be overstated.

Tel Aviv, on its part, has reacted predictably in terming these accusations as “blood libel” and “baseless”. What was less predictable, however, was the country reversing its decades-old policy of not appearing before the ICJ.

This just goes to show the strength of South Africa’s legal claims, which provide comprehensive references to UN reports and statements by the world body’s officials that detail Israel’s inhumane actions. The potential for immense reputational damage for Israel, therefore, is significant, hence its decision to contest the charges.

While Israel’s traditional allies, including the US and the UK, are actively opposing South Africa’s filing, a number of countries, including Pakistan, have expressed support for the case, with our representative at the UN General Assembly rightly welcoming Pretoria’s “initiative to bring Israel’s transgressions … to the ICJ”.

It goes without saying that South Africa’s international standing and reputation as an independent country that remains opposed to Israel’s apartheid-like policies have solidified. It remains to be seen, however, whether Israel will finally face some justice – even if symbolic in nature – for the mass slaughter it has been carrying out in Gaza.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024