Historic hearing

 tever the outcome of the prelimin-

ary hearing at the International Court

of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, South

Africa’s case against Israel’s ongoing military

campaign in Gaza has garnered global attention

in a way no proceeding at this elite inter­state fo-

rum may have done before. As the 15­member

court assembled, along with two ad hoc judges

representing South Africa and Israel, quite a bit

of history must have weighed on the parties. Of

the two countries on either side of this dispute

over whether the Gaza war is aimed at wiping out

the people, one has left behind its apartheid past,

but believes that the other is practising 75 years

of ‘apartheid’ against the Palestinian people

since 1948; one firm in its belief that it is acting in

the interest of justice and humanity, the other

equally firm in its belief it can never be accused of

genocide, a crime that was sought to be prevent-

ed by the Genocide Convention of 1948, a treaty

to prevent the sort of Holocaust the Jewish peo-

ple had suffered. Both countries spent many

years in the last century in diplomatic isolation,

as countries and sporting bodies boycotted them,

but both had the support of their western allies.

Today, save for those few allies, the entire world

supports a ceasefire in Gaza to end the epic suf-

fering of its people.

At this preliminary stage, South Africa sought

to demonstrate that some of Israel’s acts were

capable of falling within the terms of the Geno-

cide Convention and that there was ‘genocidal in-

tent’ behind its acts. It relied on data on deaths

and destruction and the collapse of civilian life

and health infrastructure in Gaza. It drew upon

statements attributed to key Israeli government

figures to underscore what it called ‘genocidal in-

tent’. The provisional measures sought include a

suspension of military operations and steps by

the parties to prevent the occurrence of geno-

cide. Israel described the South African case as

‘blood libel’ before the hearing, but sought to

make a case that its Gaza operations were a legiti-

mate response to the terrorist attack on October

7 last year. It played down the relevance of its

leaders’ statements, calling them mere rhetoric.

It attributed the civilian casualties to Hamas us-

ing civilians as shields and hospitals as storage for

explosives and launching pads for attacks. The is-

sue before the court is quite straightforward, but

the larger concern is whether Israel will abide by

any provisional measure. Russia ignored an ICJ

order to suspend its operations in Ukraine in

March 2022. However, there is little doubt that

any provisional measure will cast a shadow on

the legitimacy of Israel’s Gaza war.

Historic hearing 

A provisional order by ICJ on Israel wil