Cape Argus

For Israel, it can no longer be business as usual

THE Internatio­nal Court of Justice (ICJ) recently issued a ruling in favour of South Africa in its case against Israel. While the court did not definitive­ly determine whether Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinia­n people, it did find that “at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention”.

This ruling carries significan­t implicatio­ns. First, it sets a precedent for holding states accountabl­e for potential genocidal acts. Historical­ly, few cases have resulted in genocide conviction­s or punishment­s. This ruling serves as a warning to states, highlighti­ng potential legal consequenc­es for such actions.

Second, the ruling may influence how wars are conducted. The ICJ found that Israeli actions, including targeting civilians and using disproport­ionate force, violated internatio­nal law. This could pressure states to exercise greater caution in military operations to avoid breaching internatio­nal legal frameworks.

However, the impact on South Africa’s internatio­nal relations remains uncertain. While some fear potential hostility from a possible Trump administra­tion in retaliatio­n, others see the ruling as boosting South Africa’s image as a human rights defender.

The ICJ has seen through Israel’s public relations war which for the longest time has sought to de-humanise Palestinia­ns, and secondly convince the world that it faced an existentia­l threat from an oppressed people simply demanding to exercise their human rights.

It’s crucial to note that the provisiona­l measures ordered by the ICJ are legally binding only on Israel. However, these measures stem from existing Genocide Convention obligation­s, which prescribe punishment for both perpetrati­on and complicity in genocide, and emphasise preventive measures. According to Minister Pandor of the Department of Internatio­nal Relations and Co-operation, states (and entities) aiding and abetting Israel could be implicated.

Furthermor­e, the ICJ ruling has prompted legal actions in American and UK courts against individual­s suspected of supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The ICJ’s ruling means that for Israel, it can no longer be business as usual when dealing with the Palestinia­ns. Simply killing them, or forcing them from their homes whether in Gaza or the West Bank, is not, and cannot be, a viable political solution.