Pretoria filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice. According to this South African request to the UN's highest court, the Jewish state is attempting to “provoke the destruction of a significant part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”
Have “genocidal acts” been committed in the Gaza Strip since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas? Hearings are expected at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday 11 and Friday 12 January on an application filed by South Africa at the end of December. In its application (in PDF format), the South African government concludes that since the beginning of its operations in the Palestinian enclave, the Jewish state “has been complicit, is complicit, and is at risk of engaging in genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.” continues to be committed.” , in retaliation for the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th.
South Africa is a long-time supporter of the Palestinian cause. “Our freedom is incomplete without that of the Palestinians,” declared Nelson Mandela in 1997. What does South Africa criticize and demand from Israel? What can the UN's highest court do? How are the Israeli authorities reacting? Franceinfo answers all these questions.
Why was the matter referred to the International Court of Justice?
South Africa and Israel are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As the UN explains, the text “provides that States may take legal action to prevent the crime of genocide” and “obliges States Parties to the Convention to take measures to prevent and suppress the crime of genocide.”
South Africa therefore “unequivocally” condemns Hamas’ terrorist attacks, but judges that an attack, “no matter how serious” and even if it involves atrocities, “cannot justify or defend violations of the Genocide Convention.” For Pretoria, Israel's response to these attacks involves “genocidal” acts because “they aim to bring about the destruction of a significant part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”
This is the definition of the crime of genocide under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: the murder of members of a group, a “serious attack on their physical or mental integrity,” or even a “deliberate subjugation of the group.” to conditions of existence that may lead to their total or partial physical destruction,” “with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
To support these accusations, South Africa cites “the murder of Palestinians in Gaza,” “severe physical and psychological harm,” and “living conditions likely to lead to their physical destruction” since the start of an “extraordinarily brutal military operation” in the Gaza Strip. According to the Hamas-run Health Ministry, the war claimed at least 23,357 people in the three months following the attack, which killed about 1,140 people in Israel, according to AFP's count. An assessment that cannot be verified locally due to the lack of an independent source, but which is taken up by the UN.
What can this jurisdiction do?
With its application, Pretoria is asking the International Court of Justice to take “interim measures” “necessary for protection”. [les Gazaouis] against further serious and irreparable violations of the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention.” As the court gets to the heart of the matter, South Africa is calling for an immediate cessation of Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip. It also calls for an end to the forced relocation of Gazans, sufficient access to humanitarian aid, food and water, and even the preservation of evidence that could be examined in the case.
If the ICJ takes interim measures, these will be legally binding, reminds the UN. They cannot be appealed, but the court has no power over their request. In March 2022, the International Court of Justice ordered Russia to “immediately suspend” the invasion of Ukraine… but this measure was never respected by Moscow. As The Conversation website points out, the ICJ's decision on interim measures regularly comes one to two months after hearings.
“The International Court of Justice can adopt interim measures before declaring jurisdiction,” explains Yann Jurovics, lecturer in international law at the University of Paris-Saclay, on the matter. By announcing interim measures, “she says that there are elements that make her take seriously the question of her competence,” adds the former lawyer of the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
If this process continues, it is expected to take several years. “It is very difficult to establish the facts of a genocide. It is a crime that requires many elements. It must be established that there is a desire to destroy a group simply because it exists,” recalls Yann Jurovics. However, the latter doubts that the action initiated by Pretoria will be successful.
What are the reactions?
South Africa decided on November 21 to suspend diplomatic relations with Israel. Not surprisingly, the Jewish state reacted strongly to the South African accusations. The Israeli government spokesman criticized these as “absurd slanders”. For Eylon Levy, on the contrary, Pretoria is “criminally complicit in Hamas’ genocidal campaign against our people” and “voluntarily fights for anti-Jewish racists”. “History will judge you,” the spokesman continued.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also responded to Pretoria's request to the International Court of Justice. He spoke of “a false accusation” and expressed his “disgust.” “No, South Africa, we did not come to commit genocide, Hamas did,” explained the head of government. Hamas, he continued, “would kill us all if they could. On the contrary, the IDF is acting in the most moral way. It does its utmost not to harm civilians, while Hamas does everything it can to harm them by using them as people.” Shield.
The South African request was also rejected by the United States, Israel's historic ally. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called it “unfounded, counterproductive and without any factual basis.” U.S. State Department spokesman Matt Miller said the United States “did not observe any act that could constitute genocide” in Israeli operations.