A reflection on why South Africa v Israel in ICJ is important for the world now

It's crucial to remember that the genocide case between South Africa (SA) and Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has taken place nearly 100 days since Hamas launched attacks on Israel, following which Israel declared a war that has significantly destroyed Gaza. Many Palestinians have “lost multiple family members, and hundreds of multigenerational families have been killed in their entirety, with no remaining survivors” (Page 33 of the SA’s Application). And the return of Israeli hostages has seen minimal progress.

As SA repeatedly quotes in its application to ICJ: “?????????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????????”.

This is a space where 2.3 million people are already struggling to live every day and are now seeing their homes turn to hell. It has undoubtedly not proven any safety for Israeli hostages. They have not returned home.

The haunting question for reasonable and compassionate individuals holding to the idea of humanity is: What does it take to end this horrifying situation?

The lack of diplomatic efforts and effective interventions by the United Nations have impeded progress towards a ceasefire. As a UAE diplomat pointed out, “?????? ?????????????????? ???? ?????????????????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????????????????????? ???? ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????, ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ????????”.

Beyond Gaza, the world grapples with weaknesses in a system established to ensure rights, security, and peace. This devastating situation has contributed to global despair about whether the principles of justice and humanity embedded into this system after World War II are still alive. The failure of this system means no one is safe, no nation, no community, no individual.

The South African genocide case against Israel should be viewed in the context of evaluating the effectiveness of the system without bias toward any specific nations. The critical question is whether the system functions to prevent abuse, regardless of the countries involved.

Delving into the reasons behind SA’s initiation of this case is of secondary significance, as they are delineated in the application. Essentially, South Africa is upholding its commitment as a State party to the Genocide Convention, with the primary goal of preventing genocide. Additionally, the application is situated within the broader framework of South Africa's foreign policy objective: “?????? ?????? ???????????????????? ???? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ??????????????????, ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????? ???? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????, ?????????? ???? ?????????? ???????????????? ???? 4 ???????? 1967, ?????????? ???? ?????? ???????????????? ???? ?????? 1967 ????????-?????????????? ??????, ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????????? ??????” (see para 3 of the Application).

Nevertheless, it prompts contemplation on why South Africa, similar to Gambia, another African state, took action against Myanmar. Perhaps these countries have comparatively less at stake concerning national interest and international relations. If that is the case, it raises the question of whether global systems safeguarding rights, justice, security, and peace need to be scrutinised and repaired within global politics.

In the present moment, irrespective of the outcome of this case, we find ourselves at an opportune juncture to institute reforms and improvements in the system. This is why this case is important to the world. It is a case that is nudging our collective conscience, failing which humanity will become its destruction.

From my perspective, a pivotal aspect of this case is the interconnectedness of justice, security, and peace for Palestinians and Israelis. SA's application highlights the limitations of the ICJ's jurisdiction when addressing the urgent matter of promptly returning Israelis and other hostages, and this is unfortunate. Nonetheless, SA argues that the requested provisional measures are in accordance with and hold the potential to contribute to the progress and resolution of these issues. Acknowledging the validity and importance of this standpoint is crucial. Ensuring the secure return of Israelis and other hostages comes with a commitment to preserving the lives of Palestinians with dignity and ensuring their right to self-determination, safety, and long-term peace—a desire shared by Israelis for themselves. This fundamental truth must be realised on all sides and the world.

Indeed, given the adversarial nature of the case, the polarisation extends beyond individuals and communities to include states. Divisive opinions are surfacing with the rise of online juries, and individuals are aligning themselves with particular sides while others opt for silent observation. This phenomenon is not new; it's a familiar occurrence.

Nevertheless, in this context, it remains crucial to safeguard the potential for peace between the warring states. Overlooking this possibility would be unwise, as it might lead to a temporary resolution rooted in animosity and hostility, only to erupt again in the future. Prioritising a sustainable path towards peace is essential to avoid perpetuating cycles of conflict and resentment.

Acknowledging that certain countries, leaders, and individuals may have to take on challenging roles in this mission is crucial. While non-binding, the International Court of Justice's verdict does not signify the conclusion of this conflict; instead, it serves as a pathway.

What is this pathway? That is the crux of this case before the world’s court, which is why it is important for Palestinians, Israelis and the rest of the world.