South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor tells journalists that the ICJ legal case is 'not a matter of South Africa Vs Israel [...] the real issue is the people of Palestine who are being killed every day'.

South Africa Invokes Mandela Legacy With Case Against Israel

In a landmark ruling on Friday, the International Court of Justice ordered that Israel must take action to protect human life in Gaza, siding with South Africa after it accused Israel of committing genocide in the territory — while stopping short of demanding a ceasefire.

South Africa accused Israel of genocide on Dec. 29, three months after a Hamas attack killed 1,200 people and took many more hostage. Israel responded by launching a war on Hamas in Gaza which, at the time of the ICJ filing, had killed more than 23,000 people, according to Hamas-run authorities.

The case, which won widespread support across the Global South, represents a step by President Cyril Ramaphosa to reclaim the moral authority that South Africa gained after Nelson Mandela became president and then lost during Jacob Zuma’s corruption-tainted decade in power, according to political analysts.

“Some have told us to mind our own business,” Ramaphosa said in remarks after the ruling. “Others have said it was not our place. And yet it is very much our place, as people who know too well the pain of dispossession, discrimination, state-sponsored violence.”

With Ramaphosa’s African National Congress facing the prospect of losing its majority in this year’s elections, the Gaza issue is at the center of what his party hopes will be his administration’s legacy. South Africa’s stance against Israel is the latest in a series of outspoken positions Ramaphosa has taken on foreign policy, even as his government has struggled with domestic issues such as a crippling power crisis.

According to Sanusha Naidu, an independent foreign policy analyst, after years of losing its standing in the world order, the ICJ case represents a “moral victory” for South Africa. “History will remember this as the moment that defines a precedent in international law and a precedent in international relations,” she said.

The case has unified the ANC, which has been divided in recent years, and helped rally the party around Ramaphosa. The fate of Israel and the Palestinian people is a particularly charged issue in the country, as South Africa’s white supremacist apartheid government was established in 1948, the same year the state of Israel was founded, and the two developed strong economic ties right from the beginning.

The ANC, the black liberation party that in later years would take up arms against the government, recognized a counterpart in the Palestinian cause. Since the war began on Oct. 7, South African critics of Israel have drawn parallels between the killing of civilians in Gaza and the violence of South Africa’s own apartheid regime.

South Africa’s delegation was led by the youngest minister in Ramaphosa’s cabinet, 40-year-old Ronald Lamola, who delivered the opening speech before the court. In it, he outlined how the decades-long conflict had escalated, and why urgent intervention was needed.

“The international community has now seen in forensic detail the atrocities of what is happening in the Gaza strip,” Lamola told Bloomberg before the ruling was handed down. “We believe we have exposed the propaganda by the state of Israel under the guise of hunting for Hamas.”

Read More: UN Tells Israel to Protect Gazans, Avoids Cease-Fire

Israel has denied any intent to commit genocide and characterized the South African case as “absurd blood libel.” It maintains its right to self-defense against Hamas, which is categorized as a terrorist organization by the EU and US. Despite mounting international pressure, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained that the war will continue until Hamas is eradicated and all of the hostages have been freed.

According to Sydney Mufamadi, a former security minister under Mandela and now Ramaphosa’s envoy to conflict zones, South Africa’s reckoning with its own dark history has given it a “moral authority” in matters of international law, including Israel’s intervention in Gaza.

After more than four decades of repressive white minority rule, the country negotiated a relatively peaceful transition to democracy in 1994 with the election of Mandela. His conciliatory approach towards the outgoing regime was credited with averting the kinds of violence then taking place in other former colonial territories.

Partly as a result of this legacy, Mufamadi noted that South Africa has been consistent in its view that warring parties must be open to dialogue. “We don’t know of a conflict which does not end up at the table,” he said.

At the same time, the ICJ decision is likely to further polarize an increasingly fragmented global order. Dozens of countries have aligned themselves with South Africa’s bid to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza, while Western nations including the US, UK, Germany and France continue to side with Israel.

To many South Africans, the country’s outspoken advocacy on behalf of Palestinians has become a point of national pride. Sithembile Mbete, a political analyst, characterized the ICJ case as having “cemented” a global reckoning that was already underway.

“The majority of states in the world, judging by the decisions in the UN general assembly,” she said, “support South Africa’s position on this. South Africa is not deviating from the commonly accepted international line.”

(Bloomberg) -- Within South Africa, the case has also helped bring together the ANC at perhaps the most challenging moment in its history. After being propelled to power on a commitment to “a better life for all,” the party’s standing eroded under former President Zuma, who presided over the hollowing out of key state institutions.

Zuma has yet to be indicted for alleged corruption, and nor have friends of the former leader who stand accused of looting an estimated 500 billion rand from state coffers been held to account. As a result of protecting Zuma, the ANC suffered major losses in the last election, though still retained majority control.

When Ramaphosa, Zuma’s former deputy, took office in 2017, his first task was to address the corruption and malfeasance that had grown under his predecessor.

In recent years, Ramaphosa has tried to position himself as a voice of justice and moral clarity in international affairs. He lobbied the World Trade Organization to provide broader vaccine access during the Covid-19 pandemic, spearheaded an initiative to help bring an end to Russia’s war with Ukraine and led the charge to expand the BRICS economic bloc by inviting six nations, among them major oil producers, to join.

While these moves have been criticized as political opportunism — or as a way for Ramaphosa to deflect attention from internal politics — they have also increasingly made South Africa the voice of the Global South.

Read More: El Al Stops South Africa Route After ICJ Case Against Israel

Despite his global ambitions, Ramaphosa will have to rely on envoys in coming months as he campaigns for re-election. After 30 years in power, the ANC is more vulnerable than ever, with some polls indicating that the party will lose its majority and be forced either to govern through a coalition or out of power. Concerns about sluggish economic growth, failing state-owned companies and energy insecurity are top of mind for voters, who are unlikely to reward Ramaphosa’s international efforts so long as their quality of life continues to deteriorate.

Yet inside the party, Ramaphosa’s crusading has won him support he previously lacked.

“He’s proven to have instincts around this that are much sharper than what he was given credit for,” said Mbete.

“Whatever happens with the election,” she added, “he will have set a good foundation for himself to continue playing an international role.”

Uganda Distances Itself from IJC Judge Who Voted Against South Africa In Genocide Case Against Israel Over War In Gaza.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must start making efforts to prevent acts of genocide and provide aid to Palestine but refrained from calling for a full cease-fire as the conflict continues.

South Africa’s legal inquiry has yielded modest fruit in the fight to stop Israel as it carries out large-scale attacks against the Palestinian people in Gaza. While the ICJ’s panel of 17 judges met 15 of the 17 conditions South Africa demanded Israel carry out to mitigate the conflict, the nation’s requests for an immediate cease-fire and for Israel to fully halt its military campaign in Gaza have yet to be met.

One judge from  Uganda, Julia Sebuntinde, voted against all of the measures, arguing that “the dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political one.”

“It is not a legal dispute susceptible to judicial settlement by the Court,” Sebuntinde said in her dissenting opinion.

Israel’s military offensive and forces have killed 26,000 Palestinians, mostly women, and children since the war started last October. Nearly 65,000 people have been injured, and more than 1,000 are missing or presumed dead, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

According to the interim court order, Israel must “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip” and “take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions” Palestinians are currently facing.

It also said Israel must preserve any evidence connected to allegations of genocide.

However, Sebuntinde argued that South Africa didn’t prove that Israel’s actions were “committed with the necessary genocidal intent and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention.”

Adonia Ayebare, ambassador and permanent representative of Uganda to the United Nations, took to X to condemn Sebuntinde’s opinion.

“Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine,” Ayebare wrote. “She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda‘s voting pattern at the United Nations.”

Israel’s Reaction to the International Court of Justice’s Ruling

Israel worked to dismiss the case, but after reviewing the country’s appeal, ICJ President Joan E. Donoghue said the court would not accept their request and assessed there were plausible claims of possible genocidal acts.

In a statement swiftly issued by Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu after the ruling, he called the decision “not only false” but “outrageous” and said that Israel has “an inherent right to defend itself.” Netanyahu also said that the Israeli government will “continue to do what is necessary to defend our country.”

South Africa welcomed the “landmark ruling” and stated the court had “determined that Israel’s actions in Gaza are plausibly genocidal” by establishing provisional measures that are “directly binding.” When they brought their case to the ICJ, the country alleged that the “acts” committed by Israel were “genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group.”

Palestinian leaders also responded to the ruling.

“ICJ judges assessed the facts and the law, ruled in favor of humanity and international law,” Riyad Al-Maliki, the foreign minister for the Palestinian Authority, said.

The International Court of Justice is the highest court in the United Nations. While it has the authority to make rulings on acts of war and global conflict, it doesn’t have the power to enforce orders. The court relies on governmental leaders to answer to the stipulations it lays out in its rulings.

It gave Israel a month to submit a report on all of the provisions it listed in its ruling.

Its decision on Israel’s role in the conflict does not include a ruling on whether the nation committed genocide. That investigation could reportedly take years to complete.

It's not enforceable. It doesn't say if Israel is committing genocide. What's ICJ's Gaza ruling for?

A panel of 17 judges at the Hague-based International Court of Justice on Friday ordered Israel to implement a series of measures aimed at averting genocide in the Gaza Strip.

The order is part of a wider case brought by South Africa at the U.N.'s highest court into whether Israel is already committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza as it fights the war against Hamas.

Even though the ruling is not enforceable, and the actual legal case as to whether Israel is guilty of genocide is expected to take several years to wend its way through the court, the order is more than just symbolic.

Here's what the ICJ's order, which Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs Riyadh Maliki has described as a ruling in "favor of humanity and international law," means for the Israel-Hamas war.

What impact will the ICJ ruling have on Gaza?

Perhaps not a lot immediately in terms of a material change to conditions on the ground.

South Africa had asked the court to issue an emergency order to compel Israel to commit to a cease-fire in Gaza. It didn't do that. Instead, it ordered Israel to undertake actions to prevent the killing and harming of civilians in Gaza, such as refraining from killing members of a group and not imposing conditions that could prevent women from giving birth. It ordered Israel to prevent and punish public comments that incite genocide.

Still, even if the ICJ had demanded that Israel halt its military campaign, the court has no formal way to implement this order -- and Israel has made it clear that it only intends to stop fighting when Hamas is defeated, and Israel gets all of its hostages back. "We will continue to do what is necessary to defend our country and defend our people," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday, speaking after the court's ruling.

Meanwhile, Palestinian lawmaker Mustafa Barghouti said that because of the scale of destruction and ongoing fighting in Gaza, "Israel cannot implement ICJ decisions without an immediate and permanent ceasefire."

What pressure does this put on the U.S.?

There are some big potential implications for the U.S., long Israel's staunchest military and diplomatic ally. The U.S. is facing increasing pressure to twist Israel's arm and stop a war that has killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, mainly civilians, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.

For a start, because the ICJ has no real mechanism to enforce its decisions, the matter could be pushed to a vote in the U.N. Security Council, where members can order economic sanctions or military action.

If a U.N. Security Council vote does happen, "the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for 'not standing by Israel,'" said Trita Parsi, the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy think tank in Washington, D.C., said that the ruling from the ICJ "is more than a legal technicality; it's about safeguarding human rights on a global scale."

So far, the White House hasn't said much about the ICJ's ruling − even whether it respects the decision.

Okail said this sends the wrong message.

"If we support the creation of a global community based on shared rules rather than simply might makes right, it is absolutely essential that all countries, including the United States, acknowledge the legitimacy of this ruling and take necessary steps in response," said Okail, in emailed comments.

What happens now?

The ICJ has ordered Israel to report, within a month, back to the court detailing what it's doing to uphold all the measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza. Israel has not said whether it will comply with this.

In fact, after the ruling some of Israel's most senior officials such as its Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Foreign Minister Israel Katz expressed disappointment, as well as a tone of defiance.

"The state of Israel does not need to be lectured on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and the civilian population in Gaza," Gallant posted to social media. "The IDF and security agencies will continue operating to dismantle the military and governing capabilities of the Hamas terrorist organization."

Katz said Israel was committed to international law that existed "independently of any ICJ proceedings."

Attention now turns to reports in recent days suggesting President Joe Biden plans to dispatch CIA Director William J. Burns to the Middle East to help broker a deal between Hamas and Israel that would involve the release of all remaining hostages held in Gaza and the longest cessation of hostilities since the war began last year.