In seeking a glimpse of a living hell, one need not venture far beyond the relentless turmoil besieging Gaza. Scattered over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea lie the remnants of failed peace plans, international summits, secret negotiations, UN resolutions, and state-building programs. Over 28,000 Palestinians, including 12000 children, have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, since October 7. The UN estimates that nearly 1.9 million people are internally displaced, and Gaza officials say more than 65% of housing units in Gaza have been destroyed.
Using analysis of satellite data, Corey Scher of New York’s CUNY Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University found that almost 900,000 buildings across Gaza have suffered severe destruction and damage from Israeli bombardments, including places of worship, hospitals, schools, and residential buildings. Daily videos show dismembered infant corpses, usually surrounded by bloodied, screeching adults who, like the dead, have absolutely nothing to do with what drives this carnage
Palestinian death toll from Israeli attacks on Gaza rises to 28,775
South Africa, positioned on the periphery of another continent, demonstrated the fortitude to indict Israel for genocide and pursue legal action against the nation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Ironically, not a single Muslim nation, purportedly champions of the Palestinian plight, exhibited the moral resolve to take similar steps. On the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its interim ruling. The January 26 ruling, marked a milestone in the decades-long Palestinian struggle for dignity and efforts to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law.
South Africa, Israel, and the Palestinian Connection
For those with long memories, the seed of South Africa’s case against Israel—accusing it of genocidal acts in the Gaza Strip—might be traced to a spring day nearly 50 years ago. On April 9, 1976, South Africa’s white supremacist prime minister, Balthazar Johannes Vorster, was welcomed with full red-carpet treatment to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem.
The moment was incongruous for those familiar with the prime minister’s past. A former Nazi sympathizer who had proudly declared in 1942, “We stand for Christian Nationalism, which is an ally of National Socialism,” bowed his head, knelt, and laid a wreath in memory of Hitler’s victims before his diplomatic entourage whisked him away to more important meetings. Vorster was not in town to make amends for his Nazi past. He was there to cement arms deals with the Israeli government, which had, since 1974, become one of the apartheid regime’s most significant suppliers of military technology.
In the dying days of apartheid in the late 1980s, when U.S. sanctions had begun to bite and Pretoria faced a widespread internal uprising and a major war in neighboring Angola and Namibia, Israel was a lifeline. Then-Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon urged the West to sell arms to South Africa; former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Raful Eitan told a university audience in Tel Aviv that “[Blacks] want to gain control over the white minority just like the Arabs here want to gain control over us. And we, too, like the white minority in South Africa, must act to prevent them from taking us over.”
At a time when Israel was backing black South African’ oppressors, the ANC received support from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It came as no surprise that just two weeks after his release from prison in 1990, Nelson Mandela met with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, declaring, “There are many similarities between our struggle and that of the PLO. We live under a unique form of colonialism in South Africa as well as in Israel.” In later speeches, he stated that “our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
However, South Africa’s decision to pursue the ICJ case at this juncture stems from its desire to restore its international standing as a moral authority, cultivated during the optimistic post-apartheid era of the 1990s. Yet, this reputation has suffered due to years of aligning with authoritarian regimes, failure to condemn human rights abuses, and neglecting international legal obligations.
The West’s moral standing
The ICJ, unlike Ukraine v. Russia conflict, did not order the ceasing of the military operations in Gaza, but it did indicate six significant provisional measures. These measures require Israel and its military establishment, not just to prevent the commission of genocide but also to prevent public incitement to commit genocide, ensure humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, prevent destruction of evidence related to allegations of genocide, and submit a report to the court on all the measures adopted within a month.
The ICJ also said that all parties involved in the Gaza conflict are bound by international humanitarian law. The ICJ’s decision is binding on Israel and constitutes part of its international legal obligations. If Israel continues its calamitous military action, ignoring its obligations under the Genocide Convention, it will be a brazen violation of international law.
In South Africa Versus Israel on Gaza, ICJ Settles for a Balancing Act
The most important question is what this ICJ ruling could mean for the US and other Western governments that support Israel’s war on Gaza. In terms of global opinion, international pressure, and moral standing, there are costs for Washington and European capitals to pay in the aftermath of this ICJ ruling. However, in more practical terms, it is doubtful that Western governments will change their policies vis-à-vis the Israeli war on Gaza.
Anticipated continuity in US foreign policy
In terms of Washington’s foreign policy, experts express doubt regarding substantial changes resulting from the ICJ’s ruling on the genocide case. The extent of the US’s involvement in Israel’s actions in Gaza transcends mere complicity; it operates as a co-belligerent in the conflict. Utilizing drones to assist Israeli intelligence gathering and the active participation of senior American military officers in Israel’s military planning highlight the depth of US engagement in the situation.
The United States already declared that the South African case was ‘meritless’ and it is not going to change its position. Because of this, I doubt that the United States will change its orientation toward the Israel-Palestine issue and will continue to support Israel politically, diplomatically, and militarily,” said Dr. Imad Harb, the director of research and analysis at the Arab Center in Washington.
While the US has a history of inconsistently applying international law and being criticized for hypocrisy in human rights and humanitarian issues, the ongoing Gaza conflict has sparked unparalleled global scrutiny of Washington’s double standards.
Following the World Court ruling, which is soon to be brought before the UN Security Council, it’s anticipated that the US will veto the resolution to protect Israel from facing accountability. If that is how Washington proceeds, there is no denying that the US will be ever more associated with Israel’s conduct, which many governments, human rights organizations, legal experts, and religious leaders label as genocidal.
The implications for Europe
European countries lack a unified set of policies toward this war. While some countries in the European Union (EU) have strongly opposed Israel’s gruesome military campaign, with Belgium, for example, going as far as calling for sanctions on Israel, Germany and some Central European nations have joined the US in terms of giving Tel Aviv uncritical support. As witnessed in the days and weeks leading to this ruling, EU member states were essentially divided into two camps. Support for the ICJ and/or South Africa’s case came from Belgium, Slovenia, and Spain, while Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Hungary were opposed to South Africa filing this case.
However, now that this ruling has been issued, EU members will need to carefully consider their next moves. Whereas Washington has been known to disregard international law and the ICJ in the past, with the Nicaragua v. United States of America case in 1984 being a salient example, the security thinking of policymakers in European capitals has traditionally placed much greater value on international law and UN bodies such as the ICJ.
“The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm,” wrote Dr. Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Perhaps Western capitals will attempt to convince Israel to modify its policies toward Gaza, mainly in terms of easing the blockade and adopting different targeting strategies that reduce civilian deaths. This ICJ ruling will be used by the West to persuade Israel to have a ‘kinder and gentler’ war and occupation strategy, not to abandon such a strategy altogether.
As the international community navigates these complex geopolitical waters, it’s imperative to recognize the profound implications of the ICJ ruling beyond legal ramifications. This ruling prompts us to question the reliability of global governance, the efficacy of international institutions, and the moral obligations of states in upholding human rights and humanitarian law.
In broad strokes, this case has also emphasized the changing power dynamics among states. The Global South, traditionally seen through the lens of the Global North, is now turning its gaze back on its colonizers. Graduating from being the criticized rule-breaker within the Western global ‘order’, the Global South now possesses enough influence to enforce rules within that order. This reflects the transformative changes in the global political landscape, signaling the emergence of a multipolar world.
About the author …
I’m Rasik Bin Altaf, currently immersed in the academic exploration of international relations, diplomacy, policy, and governance. Pursuing a Master’s degree at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, my academic focus revolves around unraveling the intricate interplay between nations, policies, and global governance mechanisms. Through rigorous research, I aim to deepen my understanding and contribute substantively to this dynamic field, seeking to uncover new insights and innovative perspectives within our globally interconnected landscape
A beautiful insight