On January 11th and 12th, many people sat in front of their screens for hours. Right down to the crash of the United Nations website on which the live broadcast was broadcast, a completely extraordinary thing. In fact, it is probably the first time that so many people have followed with great interest the public hearings of a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). At the end of December, South Africa condemned Israel, accusing it of failing in its obligation to apply the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the Jewish state is a signatory.
The basis of the accusation is the destructive war in the Gaza Strip since October 7th after the bloody surprise attack by Hamas, which Pretoria places in the larger context of apartheid, occupation and siege. “The violence and destruction in Palestine and Israel did not begin on October 7, 2023,” South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola told the court. “Palestinians have experienced systematic oppression and violence over the past 76 years.”
It is hard to ignore what the Palestinians are experiencing. In the age of social networks and instant information, news from Gaza has managed to reach beyond the enclave, despite internet disruptions and censorship repeatedly imposed by Israel since the start of the war. And Israeli statements suggesting the start of a third phase of lower-intensity fighting appear to be contradicted by the facts, while the death toll cited by Gaza authorities exceeds 24,000 dead.
“So many people are shocked by the number of Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza that South Africa's genocide claim against Israel is attracting extraordinary attention,” says Kenneth Roth, former director of the US NGO Human Rights Watch (since 1993 to 2022). , currently a professor at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University in the United States. This is all the more so as the hearings to determine the interim measures demanded by South Africa – ie the cessation of Israeli military operations – are taking place at the same time as the conflict rages on. The Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera, which has distinguished itself with its reporting from the Gaza Strip, broadcast live images in addition to broadcasting the hearings that showed the destruction and suffering in the enclave.
Although trials related to genocide are rare and difficult to prove, since not only the existence of the crime but also the intent to commit it must be proven and years of proceedings are involved, a court decision on this matter is expected in the coming weeks Matters include the provisions that Israel should take immediately to prevent a possible genocide. “This case offers hope for another way to enforce accountability,” Roth notes. “If the court, as part of its interim measures, orders the Israeli government to stop carrying out genocidal acts, this could help save the lives of many Palestinian civilians.” According to several analysts, there is a good chance that the court will take action, but the international jurisdiction does not have the tools to enforce it except through the UN Security Council, where Tel Aviv's staunch US ally would certainly enforce its veto. Given that the threat of genocide is very real, such a decision would still cause significant harm to Israel.
Fear that its image and international reputation will be tarnished by the original sin that is the very basis of its founding has led the Jewish state to undertake a major communications offensive aimed at foreign public opinion and its allies in order to to discredit the South African complaint. Some observers judged journalistic coverage of the trial in Western countries to be inadequate and denounced media bias and lack of independence.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called the indictment “the Dreyfus affair of the 21st century,” calling it a “shameful display of hypocrisy and blatant anti-Semitism.” On January 11, after hearing from lawyers in Pretoria who cited preliminary data on damages, losses and casualties, as well as evidence and indications of genocidal intent, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that “Israel is accusing it of genocide during its struggle.” a genocide, it is a world turned upside down.
What is particularly unusual about this complaint is the fact that it comes from the global south. International justice is often criticized for its expense and slowness, but many also view it as biased, a variable-geometry instrument of power deployed by Western powers. A reality that appears to have been disputed in South Africa's complaint.
“The attention this case has received is also due to the fact that it represents an example of a major human rights initiative by a government in the Global South,” emphasizes Kenneth Roth. Western governments, often champions of human rights, have done nothing or almost nothing to stop Israel's devastation in the Gaza Strip and prevent the deaths of more than 24,000 Palestinians.
If you comment on the South African team hearings on social media, you will make history, whatever happens.”
Will this be an opportunity for international justice to regain credibility in the eyes of the Global South? The hearings were closely followed from Pretoria to Gaza, as far as possible under the current conditions. “Although most people don’t know much about the International Court of Justice – many confuse it with the International Criminal Court (ICC), they do know that Israel is on trial,” emphasizes Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at The Institute for Policy Studies in Washington: “And it is unprecedented, because for decades the United States has not only supported Israel with billions of dollars in military aid, but also offered it impunity.”
This sentiment also emerges from the stalled investigation launched by the ICC in 2021 into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since June 2014. “Many are frustrated that their Attorney General, Karim Khan, has so far only…“released press releases without pressing charges of war crimes,” notes Kenneth Roth, who believes that progress in the case “is making a big difference in restoring trust in international law “could do.
The former director of Human Rights Watch specifies: “Without the law, we would be limited to the power politics that have so far only strengthened the Israeli government in its course.” It remains to be seen whether the members of the International Court of Justice will not be influenced by their national affiliation , as the President of the Court, Joan Donoghue, is a US citizen. “Not all justices will likely vote according to their administration's preferences, but they will certainly be mindful of the political consequences,” Bennis predicts. However, “the judges are undoubtedly concerned about their credibility and that of the court in the future and are aware of the global outrage over Israel's actions in Gaza.” ◆ fdl
To know
A hundred days later
◆ One hundred days have passed since the start of the Israeli military offensive this year Gaza StripAccording to Hamas authorities, the bombings killed 24,448 people, about 1 percent of the territory's population. In recent days, Israeli attacks have focused on Khan Yunis, the great city of the south. The Israeli army said one of the four divisions involved in the ground offensive left the Gaza Strip on January 15. At the same time, however, the Israeli government insists that the conflict will continue for months and on January 15 it committed $15 billion to cover the costs.
◆On January 15, Hamas announced the deaths of two Israeli hostages in an army bomb attack. Afp
Internazionale publishes a page of letters every week. We would like to know what you think about this article. Write to us at: [email protected]