South Africa has submitted a request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a United Nations body, to initiate proceedings against Israel, along with a request for provisional measures against Israel for its alleged failure to prevent genocide against the Palestinians subjected to continuous bombing in the Gaza Strip.
The French news site Mediapart highlighted the ICJ's jurisdiction, distinct from the International Criminal Court, to settle disputes between states.
It noted that the court's powers are limited due to state sovereignty, under which a state falls under its jurisdiction only from the moment it consents or signs an optional clause related to compulsory jurisdiction, something only a third of UN member states have done.
Due to this limited jurisdiction, South Africa has taken a third path by turning to the court based on an international treaty that includes a judicial jurisdiction clause—the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948.
Pretoria thus aims to condemn and prevent "genocide" in relation to Israel's war on Hamas, which has turned into a war on the Palestinian people. According to the request, genocide must be prevented or suppressed as soon as the intent defined by specific acts "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group" is revealed.
The South African request, submitted last December 29, asserts that "Israel's actions and negligence constitute genocide to the extent that they are accompanied by the specific intent required for the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza as part of a larger national and racial community."
Deceptive Argument
Earlier this year, a request for an advisory opinion was presented at The Hague to the ICJ regarding "the legal consequences arising from Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem," based on a UN General Assembly resolution adopted on December 30, 2022.
Israel's UN representative futilely opposed such a resolution which "demonizes Israel," according to him, "and absolves Palestinians of any responsibility for the current situation."
The Israeli delegate added that referral to the institution "would destroy any chance for reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians," a deceptive argument also adopted by Washington, London, and Ottawa, unlike Paris.
In 2004, the ICJ issued a clear advisory opinion against "the separation barrier" built by Israel, which the UN institution deemed to be a barrier to the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.
The advisory opinion recommended demolishing the wall, compensating for damages, and prohibiting companies from continuing construction, but Israel found it challenging to accept such an interpretation of its systematic policy.
Since then, the court has lost 15 of its most wise and skilled international judges, in the words of one observer, and replaced them in one day with diplomats skilled in the art of divisiveness, driven by a desire not to offend anyone.
Netanyahu: Our war is unmatched in justice and morality (Reuters)
Contemptuous Rejection
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently "contemptuously" dismissed South Africa's claims, stating, "We will continue our defensive war, which is unmatched in justice and morality," adding that the military "does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas does everything to harm them, using them as human shields."
The Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Lior Haiat, described the request as "defamatory without a legal basis," affirming that their country "respects international law in its war against Hamas in Gaza." Nevertheless, Pretoria's application will have consequences that are unsettling to those who rely on erasing them.
The path to justice in this matter remains long and winding, according to Feliyo, and the outcome is no longer determined solely by the strongest parties. It's a reminder to our rulers that no one stands above the law.
