The International Court of Justice is set to rule only on South Africa’s plea for emergency measures, not on the fundamental issue of whether Israel could be committing genocide.
Minister of International Relations Naledi Pandor is leading a South African delegation to The Hague ahead of the landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Friday in the case the country has brought against Israel over alleged genocide in Gaza.
The ICJ could potentially order Israel to stop its military campaign in Gaza, sparked by the unprecedented Hamas attack on October 7.
South Africa has hauled Israel before the court, alleging it stands in breach of the UN’s Genocide Convention, signed in 1948 as the world’s response to the Holocaust.
It wants the ICJ to issue provisional measures, emergency orders to protect Palestinians in Gaza from potential breaches of the convention.
Orders from the ICJ, which rules in disputes between countries, are legally binding and cannot be appealed.
However, the court has little power to enforce its verdicts – for example, it ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine a month after it began, to no avail.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that he would not feel bound by any ICJ order.
“No one will stop us – not The Hague, not the Axis of Evil and no one else,” he said on January 14, referring to the Iran-aligned “axis of resistance” groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
The court is ruling only on South Africa’s plea for emergency measures, not on the fundamental issue of whether Israel could be committing genocide. That would take years.
An ICJ ruling against Israel would increase political pressure on the country.
Testifying in the grand halls of the Peace Palace, a world away from the suffering in Gaza and Israel, Pretoria acknowledged the “particular weight of responsibility” of accusing Israel of genocide.
But lawyers for South Africa alleged that Israel’s bombing campaign aimed at the “destruction of Palestinian life” had pushed the people “to the brink of famine”.
“Genocides are never declared in advance, but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” said lawyer Adila Hassim.
Israel countered that it was not seeking to destroy the Palestinian people and dismissed the South African case as a “profoundly distorted factual and legal picture”.
“Israel is in a war of defence against Hamas, not against the Palestinian people,” said lawyer Tal Becker. “In these circumstances, there can hardly be a charge more false and more malevolent than the allegation against Israel of genocide.”
The verdict is being seen as a key test for international justice and will be keenly scrutinised across the world.
The US has rejected South Africa’s case, and Germany has said it would intervene as a third party on Israel’s side when the court heard the broader genocide case.
The Mercury