Dr. wrote. Maher Al-Sharif: In mid-November 2023, South Africa, in partnership with Bangladesh, Bolivia, the Comoros and Djibouti, took the initiative to file a lawsuit before the International Criminal Court, requesting “an investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine,” as said by Karim Khan, the Attorney General of this The court, which announced that “its mandate applies to alleged crimes committed during the current war,” but the court teams were unable, he added, to enter the Gaza Strip or Israel, especially since the latter is not a member of the International Criminal Court, he stressed, in a statement. His office “received the referral, and is currently investigating the situation.”

The South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that it had submitted this referral, along with “other states that share the same concerns,” in order for this court to pay “urgent attention to the current situation in view of its seriousness,” and that it “also encourages other states parties to the Rome Statute to join the referral.” Or make separate referrals independently.”

South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice
On December 29, 2023, the South African government submitted a new lawsuit to another court, the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing acts of “genocide” in the Gaza Strip. On the 30th of the same month, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation welcomed the filing of this lawsuit. . It should be noted that the International Court of Justice, established in June 1945, is the main judicial organ of the United Nations, which is responsible for “adjudicating, in accordance with the provisions of international law, legal disputes arising between States and providing advisory opinions” on legal matters that may be referred to it. States or United Nations bodies and specialized agencies.
This court includes 15 judges, from different countries, headed by Judge Joan Donohue from the United States, and alongside her are three former presidents of the court, including representatives of Slovakia, France, and Somalia, and her deputy is a judge from Russia. As for the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, it was approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, and includes 153 state parties. It defines “genocide” as including the following acts, committed with the intent to “destruct, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” , including: “Killing members of the group; inflicting serious physical or mental harm on members of the group; intentionally inflicting on the group conditions of living intended for its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent the birth of children within the group and the transfer of children from the group, “Forcibly, to another group.”

Cases brought to the International Court of Justice are heard by all fifteen of its judges, but both sides of the case may nominate one judge to serve on the committee, and decisions are made by an ordinary majority of the judges conducting the session. It is known that Israel is one of the signatory countries to the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, and therefore it is subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and is obligated to send representatives to the court following the filing of a case against it.

In its 84-page lawsuit, South Africa asserted that Israel “since launching its offensive against Hamas in Gaza in October, has engaged, is practicing, and risks continuing to engage in acts of genocide,” with the aim of “destroying the Palestinians of Gaza who are part of The largest national, racial and ethnic group of the Palestinian people.

Given that proving the crime of “genocide” requires clear intent to commit it, South Africa has confirmed that Israel’s accusation is justified because this “clear intent” was expressed “at the highest levels” of the state, by “the Israeli president, the prime minister, and the minister.” Defense”. These actions include “killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious physical and psychological harm, and imposing on them living conditions likely to lead to their physical destruction,” “the indiscriminate use of force and forcible transfer of residents,” and “the failure to provide food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and other Humanitarian aid to the besieged Palestinian people, pushing them to the brink of collapse from starvation.” South Africa stressed that it had resorted to the court “to determine Israel’s responsibility for violations of the Genocide Convention,” but also “to ensure the possible, urgent and most complete protection for the Palestinians,” and asked the court to “compel Israel to allow the Palestinians, who were uprooted from their homes in the Gaza Strip, to return to them.” “Stop depriving them of food, water, and humanitarian assistance; ensure that Israelis do not incite genocide, and punish anyone who does so; and allow an independent investigation into everything Israel has done.”

Given that this case may not be decided for many years, South Africa asked the court to meet in the coming days to take “temporary measures calling for a ceasefire,” especially since the court is qualified to call for quick measures, including issuing an order. For Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip, abandon the forced displacement of Palestinians in the Strip, and allow Gazans to receive humanitarian aid.

South Africa’s case against Israel is credible
Experts assert that South Africa’s claim is credible because Israel has committed, and is committing, acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. The intense and unprecedented bombing of densely populated urban areas, carried out by Israeli aircraft with artillery support, aims to “kill members of the group,” and the targeting of hospitals, schools, and refugee camps has caused “serious harm to the physical or mental integrity of members of the group,” in addition to He stated that the comprehensive blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip, which left the population without water, electricity, or fuel, and prohibited the provision of care for the sick and wounded, aims to “deliberately subject the community to living conditions with the intention of destroying it in whole or in part.” The target group is the Palestinian people, which international law defines as “a people enjoying the right to self-determination,” as indicated by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion issued in 2004 regarding the construction of the separation wall in the Palestinian territories.

Finally, the intention “to destroy the group in whole or in part,” is demonstrated by an unprecedented set of genocide declarations issued by the Israeli executive and military, which “range from a justified attack on human animals” (Defense Minister Yoav Galant), to mention of the use of nuclear weapons ( Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu), passing through the Biblical reference to the destruction of Amalek (Benjamin Netanyahu). These announcements do not only include incitement to destroy the group, but rather express a policy followed by orders issued to its implementers.

Israeli reaction to South Africa’s lawsuit
The International Court of Justice is expected to convene to present South Africa’s case against Israel on January 11 or 12. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs had criticized South Africa, from the moment this lawsuit was filed, accusing it of supporting the “Hamas” movement, and rejected “with disgust the defamation promoted by South Africa and its resort to the International Court of Justice,” noting that South Africa had “denounced the October 7 attack.” committed by Hamas,” but added that “nothing can justify acts of genocide” committed by Israel.

However, regardless of this position, the Israeli press indicates that officials “from the Prime Minister’s Office and from several ministries and government bodies are participating in dealing with the case accusing Israel of committing the crime of genocide against the Palestinians, which South Africa submitted to the International Court of Justice,” one of them explained. Officials “that the proceedings taken in the International Court of Justice are not of a criminal nature, the defendant is the State of Israel, and accordingly, no criminal consequences would ensue for the Israeli officials, if the International Court of Justice ruled against Israel, although that might lead to some Diplomatic repercussions.

He also explained, “There are fears in Israel that South Africa will ask the court to apply temporary measures against Israel, which may include issuing an order to stop combat operations, especially since the State of South Africa has confirmed that it is demanding such measures to ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide.” Collective.”
According to the newspaper “Haaretz”, senior officials in the Israeli army, including Chief of Staff Herzi Halevy, recently warned “of a real danger that the court would issue an order ordering Israel to immediately cease fire in the Gaza Strip,” and Israel would be “forced to comply with the court’s decisions.”

South Africa’s steadfast solidarity with the Palestinian people
The lawsuit submitted by Africa against Israel to the International Court of Justice falls within the framework of its firm solidarity with the Palestinian people and their just cause. The late South African and world leader Nelson Mandela famously said: “As long as Palestine is not free, South Africa will never be truly free.”
South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor had issued a statement on October 17, 2023, after receiving a phone call from the head of the Hamas political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, in which she renewed “South Africa’s solidarity and support for the Palestinian people,” but she “expressed her sadness and regret.” For the loss of innocent lives, Palestinian and Israeli,” she noted, noting that that phone call “focused on the possibilities of reaching an agreement to ensure the arrival of urgent aid to the Gaza Strip.” While South African President Cyril Ramaphosa likened Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories to the apartheid regime in his country, which ended in 1994 after nearly half a century of struggle, he stressed that “the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians, through Israel’s illegal use of force, constitutes a war crime.” “The deliberate deprivation of medicine, fuel, food, and water to the people of Gaza amounts to genocide.” Last November, members of Parliament voted in favor of suspending diplomatic relations with Israel and recalling all South African diplomats from Tel Aviv until a ceasefire was reached in the Gaza Strip. In fact, South Africa’s support for the Palestinian cause does not date back to this destructive war that Israel launched on the Gaza Strip about three months ago. Rather, it dates back to the international policy of the African National Congress, Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has been in power for 30 years, and which often compares its own battle Against apartheid, the struggle of the Palestinian people.

Conclusion:
Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who has in the past followed the implementation of the Genocide Convention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, believes that all the documents submitted by the Republic of South Africa are well-founded, and that it “may obtain an order against Israel to stop committing All acts of genocide against the Palestinians,” and all contracting parties, i.e. 153 states, will be obligated, under Article 1 of the Convention, to work to prevent the genocide committed by Israel against the Palestinians. He expects that when the international court issues this desist order against Israel, the Joe Biden administration may be “convicted under Article III, paragraph (e), of the Genocide Convention, which criminalizes complicity in genocide.”

But he expressed his fear about the position that could be taken by the chief justice of the court, who “formerly worked in the US State Department,” and who, in his estimation, is still in contact with this department, “to provide them with information about everything that is going on there, behind the scenes in The Hague.” “We will abide by the State Department’s line in this lawsuit.” After noting that the President of the International Court of Justice “has many powers,” and that the current President of the Court may “use these powers to direct proceedings in favor of Israel,” he explained that the Republic of South Africa would now “appoint a special judge, which is its right under the Statute of the Court of Justice.” “International”, hoping that “the South African special judge will do his best to try to keep Joan Donohue straight.”