South Africa's legal action against Israel's actions in Gaza has elevated the country's international standing and secured its position as the moral voice of the Global South. (Photo by Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu, Getty Images)
analysis
TThe International Court of Justice recognized Israel's conduct in the war.
Gaza falls within the scope of the Genocide Convention. We have published a series of
Interim order to prevent genocide from occurring.
The much-anticipated verdict in South Africa's case against Israel was handed down in The Hague on Friday. The court's decision was important in three ways.
The first is legal. South Africa claimed that Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. After an October 7 attack by Hamas that killed 1,200 people, Israel countered that it was only defending itself against the brutal terrorist group.
This judgment is a well-qualified victory for South Africa's all-star legal team, which is comprised of some of South Africa's most senior human rights lawyers. They expected the court to order an immediate ceasefire. It didn't.
However, it concluded that South Africa's genocide charges were “plausible” and issued the order.
Israel has defined Palestinians as a protected group and called for an end to the killings.
That the court felt the need to issue such an order is damning for Israel, especially when read in conjunction with the evidence provided by the court itself. This evidence links the scale of civilian deaths, estimated at more than 26,000, to the dehumanizing language used by some of Israel's most senior leaders.
It is almost incomprehensible that a country founded by survivors of genocide could be accused of committing such a grave crime. However, the world's highest court found these allegations plausible.
The second front is geopolitical. In taking the case to The Hague, South Africa defied not only Israel but also its backers, including the United States, Germany, France and Britain.
It was brave politics. These are the most powerful countries in the Western world and have enormous influence on global politics and economics. They make dangerous enemies.
But South Africa has a bigger prize in mind. Diplomats have long dreamed of establishing South Africa as the moral voice of the Global South, and this was the perfect issue to do so.
By confronting Israel's ongoing atrocities, it exposed the hypocrisy of Western countries that preach human rights and democracy but fail to apply those values to the lives of Palestinians. This message resonated strongly around the world and brought widespread international support to South Africa.
“South Africa is now the leader of the free world,” the UK-based newspaper concluded. guardian Columnist Owen Jones.
This may be an exaggeration, as South Africa itself is not immune to hypocrisy. President Cyril Ramaphosa welcomed Sudanese warlord Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedi, in Pretoria just a week before South African lawyers were to give arguments in The Hague.
Hemedi was involved in the Darfur genocide in the early 2000s, and there is mounting evidence that his forces are committing war crimes in Sudan's ongoing civil war.
South Africa's stance towards Israel is in sharp contrast to its approach to the Russia-Ukraine war, where it repeatedly refrained from condemning Russian atrocities at the United Nations in the name of maintaining non-alignment.
This caused great damage to the country's reputation. However, South African diplomats appeared to have learned from that debacle and reacted differently to the Gaza conflict. No doubt it is also influenced by this country's own lived experience of apartheid.
It turns out that there is great power in a human rights-centered foreign policy, and that South Africa's international standing is now higher than at any time since its transition to democracy, at least in the Global South.
The final front, of course, is the actual fighting taking place on the streets of Gaza, where Palestinian civilians continue to die in the face of relentless and indiscriminate onslaught.
It is not yet clear whether Hamas (which was ordered to release all remaining Israeli hostages) or Israel will abide by any part of the court's ruling.
“The Hague Shmague” was the immediate negative reaction from Israel's Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. Two decades ago, when the court ruled against Israel building a wall in the occupied West Bank, it ignored it.
But what the Hague court has made clear, with little room for debate, is that in this case Israel and its international cheerleaders are on the wrong side of history.
This article was first published continenta pan-African weekly magazineNewspaper produced in partnership with the Mail & Guardian. Designed to be read and shared on WhatsApp.Download your free copy here
