When we began discussing a fellow student’s graduation research in 1989, as we were in our final year of the Political Science Department at the Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University, focused on nuclear cooperation between South Africa and Israel, none of us imagined that one day this significant African state would lead the stance against Israel amidst the world's nations.
The notion of ending apartheid, and the great freedom fighter Nelson Mandela leaving prison for the throne, seemed like a fantasy to us then, and while we anticipated it, we had no expectation of it happening before decades had passed.
A Bitter Experience
South Africa emerged from the plight of discrimination against blacks adhering to Mandela's axiom: "We forgive, but we do not forget," standing as a faithful enforcer of this principle.
Since it has not forgotten, its approach toward the conflict Israel wages on Gaza resonates from the heart of a bitter experience it endured, beginning with colonial settler replacement, followed by a bloody armed struggle, then peaceful resistance which generated international sympathy towards the discriminated, crystallizing into rejection, boycotts, and isolation of the racist regime, eventually forcing it to discard its recognition, understanding, laws, procedures, and governance style. This led to the downfall of apartheid and the rise of a democratic state, granting equal rights and responsibilities to both black and white citizens.
This entire history now frames Johannesburg’s understanding of international issues, applying it to Gaza to find no recourse but to file a case before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing "genocide" in this narrow geographic strip, not limited to humans, but also extending to infrastructure.
A Courageous Step
The importance and momentum of South Africa’s bold step are undoubtedly influenced by this experience, the framework, and indeed the image this African nation projects to the entire world. This, in part, extends to the Palestinian cause, as they also face a settler colonial replacement and live behind walls that turned the Gaza Strip and West Bank into massive prisons while the occupation discriminates blatantly against those Palestinians who remained within Israel since 1948 and hold its citizenship.
Additionally, part of this perception is that South Africa represents the world with its diverse ethnicities and cultures. We found that among the team arguing before the International Court of Justice were members of European, African, and Asian descent, and within the state itself, representation of the three religions most engaged with the Palestinian issue: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
By intervening on behalf of the Palestinian people, South Africa adds a new dimension to its well-circulated image; for any fair and free person in this world, it compels an inner and heartfelt declaration of "Thank you, South Africa."
Extremism and Arrogance
Comparing Mandela's country's stance to others reflects a broad awareness of two fundamental truths: first, that just as with individuals, there are honored and dishonored nations, courageous and cowardly ones, and second, the affection and respect lavished on Mandela stem from the merit of his person, path, and people.
All these factors render South Africa’s stance through the International Court of Justice more potent and convincing, leveraging the state's existence and image, its role in settling conflicts in Africa for roughly a quarter of a century, and the popularity it has recently gained.
Perhaps that's why some Israelis recognize that being taken to the International Court of Justice for the first time – and by South Africa, of all countries – bears significant international pressure that must be seriously addressed, which Israel did by attending the trial and defending itself, while some of their internal voices drowned in extremism and arrogance calling not to stand trial at all.
Some Israelis may scoff at the proceedings, assuming that the court's decision will ultimately be passed to the Security Council, where the U.S. will exercise its veto power. Yet they fail to grasp that what transpired at the International Court of Justice symbolizes Israel's moral downfall, foreshadowing a severe political cost for both Israel and Washington should it continue its unwavering defense of Israeli aggression.
The Fall of False Facades
Israel might not adhere to a court-ordered cessation of hostilities, but the broad condemnation – and vilification before the world – reinforces its image stripped of the positive facade it marketed for decades, and increases global sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
Now, reshaping the Palestinians' mental image, marred by pervasive and hurtful distortions at the hands of Israeli machination, is no longer so difficult. South Africa's legal and logical appeal presented before an international court has permeated the consciousness of the entire world through both traditional and modern media.
Even if Israel escapes the "genocide" charge, which necessitates criminal intent, its actions against Gaza's residents amount to unambiguous war crimes and crimes against humanity meant to cease immediately, regardless of a future court ruling. If Israel fails to comply, international outcry will intensify, and the attractive colored coatings it hid behind will crumble, revealing the stark truth that Palestinians are under occupation – the core of their suffering and adversity; no settlement or peace can come without addressing it, perpetuating bloodshed, flames, and agony.
Evading Responsibility
Israel seems well aware of this reality and attempts to mask it, as seen in its representative's court defense, where they omitted any reference to the occupier, instead attempting to evade responsibility for the population under occupation, blaming Egypt for the "Rafah" crossing, while ignoring six other Israeli-controlled Gaza crossings that were closed to tighten the blockade.
In the days ahead, Israel is likely to face pressures urging it to fulfill the obligations of an occupier, with the central aim being to recognize Palestinians as an "occupied people," an obscured truth behind pretexts like the establishment of a token Palestinian Authority or the presence of groups and organizations rejecting Israel's existence and peace.
But most importantly – and this is already in hand – South Africa's move makes it difficult for Israel to proceed with its plan to displace Palestinians, whether out of Gaza – as is currently proposed – or in the West Bank, as Tel Aviv intends to in the future.
Yes, this plan is primarily thwarted by the resilience of the people of Gaza and their overwhelming majority clinging to their land, even if life there is extremely perilous amid ongoing war, or tremendously challenging post-war due to the wreckage of fundamental life infrastructures. But accusing Israel of "genocide" – and the force with which it must fend off the charge – will bind its hands from expelling Palestinians from their land.
Israel’s image post-January 11, 2024, will differ markedly from what it was before, facilitated by South Africa’s critical steps, which provided irrefutable arguments expressed clearly, reflecting not only the ability of its elite to manage crises but also their belief that combatting killing, oppression, and discrimination is morally incumbent on states.
