South Africa's genocide case against Israel

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)
Court	International Court of Justice
Full case name	Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Started	29 December 2023
Transcript(s)	Transcript of South Africa's submissions regarding provisional measures Transcript of Israel's submissions regarding provisional measures
Claim	Israel has committed, and is committing, genocidal acts and genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in violation of the Genocide Convention
Keywords
Israeli-Palestinian conflict military occupation public international law

The proceedings instituted by South Africa against Israel on 29 December 2023 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are officially referred to as Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

South Africa's submission alleges that Israel has committed, and is committing, genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in violation of the Genocide Convention, and places the charges in what it describes as the broader context of Israel's conduct towards Palestinians, including what South Africa described as a 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year blockade of the Strip. South Africa has requested that the ICJ render immediate provisional measures of protection by issuing an order to Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. Israel's Foreign Ministry characterized South Africa's charges as "baseless" and further described South Africa as "functioning as the legal arm" of Hamas.

Israel contends that it is conducting a war of self-defense in accordance with international law following the Hamas-led attacks on Israeli territory on 7 October 2023, in which some 1,200 people were killed and the continuing firing of missiles at civilian population centers and holding of hostages; that the official directives of the Israeli war cabinet and military authorities responsible for directing the war do not indicate any policy of genocidal intent, and while acknowledging the high incidence of civilian casualties, asserts that they are a result of Hamas and other militant groups using civilian infrastructure as cover for their military assets and operations; and that it is following international law and allowing humanitarian aid into the territory.

Two days of public hearings were held on 11 and 12 January 2024 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, regarding South Africa's request for provisional measures of protection. Israel is represented by several lawyers including Malcolm Shaw and Tal Becker, and the South African legal team includes John Dugard, Adila Hassim, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi and Vaughan Lowe. Israel and South Africa appointed Aharon Barak and Dikgang Moseneke, respectively, as ad hoc judges. The Court issued an Order in relation to the provisional measures request on 26 January 2024 in which it ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, but stopped short of ordering a cessation of military operations.

Background

Main articles: Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza, Palestinian genocide accusation, and 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

After Israel began the bombing of Gaza following the 7 October attacks, some Palestinians expressed concern that the responding violence would be used to justify genocide against Palestinians by Israel. After the attacks by Hamas, Yoav Gallant, Israeli Minister of Defense, stated "We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly". Avi Dichter, Israeli Minister of Agriculture, called for the war to be "Gaza’s Nakba" on Channel 12; Ariel Kallner, another Member of the Knesset from the Likud party, similarly wrote on social media that there is "one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of [1948]. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join". Israeli historian of the Holocaust Omer Bartov wrote an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that, while Israel had not actually committed genocide, such statements contained "deeply alarming language" and "[t]aken together... could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent."

Genocide Convention

Main article: Genocide Convention

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The acts were: killing members of the protected group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the protected group. Victims must be targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Both Israel and South Africa have signed and ratified the Genocide Convention without reservation.

Proceedings

Public hearings will be held at the Peace Palace in The Hague

Proceedings were instituted on 29 December 2023 at the International Court of Justice pursuant to the Genocide Convention, and brought pursuant to Article IX of the convention.

Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch, notes that the ICJ case is not a prosecution of individuals, and does not directly involve the International Criminal Court, which is a separate body that is currently carrying out its own investigation. Jarrah stated that the case presents an opportunity to "provide clear, definitive answers on the question of whether Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people".

According to legal academics, South Africa's request for provisional measures against Israel does not require a determination of whether Israel actually perpetuated genocide, but instead requires the determination that it is "plausible" that genocide occurred. Recent rulings in regard to the granting of provisional measures have taken between two weeks and one month after hearings. A final judgement on the case could take years.

Separately, hearings begin in February 2024 in regard to a U.N. request for a non-binding advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.

On 24 January 2024, the Court announced that it would rule on the provisional measures request on 26 January 2024.

South African government position

South Africa accuses Israel of committing acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defined and prohibited genocide. South Africa brought the case by invoking its "obligation to prevent genocide" as a signatory to the United Nations Genocide Convention. The South African legal team includes John Dugard, Adila Hassim, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, Max du Plessis, Tshidiso Ramogale, Sarah Pudifin-Jones, Lerato Zikalala, Vaughan Lowe and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh. South Africa has also appointed former Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke as an ad hoc judge. During his period of imprisonment on Robben Island, Moseneke had met and befriended fellow anti-apartheid activist and future President Nelson Mandela, who went on to become a supporter of the Palestinian cause himself. A number of international political figures will be joining the South African delegation, including Jeremy Corbyn and Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

In the country's 84-page application it alleged that Israel's actions "are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group". South Africa requested that the ICJ issue a binding legal order on an interim basis (i.e., prior to a hearing on the merits of the application), requiring Israel to "immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza." Additionally, the incumbent South African president Cyril Ramaphosa also compared Israel's actions to apartheid.

The submission states that "acts and omissions by Israel ... are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent ... to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group". Genocidal actions alleged in the suit included the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of their homes, their expulsion and displacement, as well as their blockade on food, water and medical aid to the region. South Africa said that Israel had imposed measures preventing Palestinian births through the destruction of essential health services vital for the survival of pregnant women and their babies. The suit argued that these actions were "intended to bring about their [Palestinians] destruction as a group". South Africa asserts that statements made by Israeli officials, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are evidence of genocidal intent.

The South African application set out nine provisional measures of protection requested:

Number	Summary	Full description
1	Suspension of military operations	The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.
2		The State of Israel shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed, supported or influenced by it, as well as any organisations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to point (1) above.
3	Prevent genocide	The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide.
4	Desist from killing, injuring, destroying life and preventing births	The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
5	Prevent displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life	The State of Israel shall, pursuant to point (4)(c) above, in relation to Palestinians, desist from, and take all measures within its power including the rescinding of relevant orders, of restrictions and/or of prohibitions to prevent: the expulsion and forced displacement from their homes; the deprivation of: access to adequate food and water; access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene and sanitation; medical supplies and assistance; and the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza.
6	Desist from incitement, and punish acts of and encouragement to genocide	The State of Israel shall, in relation to Palestinians, ensure that its military, as well as any irregular armed units or individuals which may be directed, supported or otherwise influenced by it and any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, do not commit any acts described in (4) and (5) above, or engage in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, and insofar as they do engage therein, that steps are taken towards their punishment pursuant to Articles I, II, III and IV of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
7	Prevent the destruction of and ensure the preservation of evidence	The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; to that end, the State of Israel shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by fact-finding missions, international mandates and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence.
8	Submit ongoing reports to the Court on measures taken	The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one week, as from the date of this Order, and thereafter at such regular intervals as the Court shall order, until a final decision on the case is rendered by the Court.
9	Refrain from aggravating the situation	The State of Israel shall refrain from any action and shall ensure that no action is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.

South Africa in its case against Israel cited statements by Benjamin Netanyahu to establish intent to destroy the Palestinian people by quoting his statements on Amalek which was a reference to the command given by God to Saul for the destruction of the people known as the Amalekites. The quote of the command was "Put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." References to Amalek by the IDF were also cited by South Africa to establish intent, referring to soldiers dancing while singing "We know our motto: there are no uninvolved..." and that they would "wipe off the seed of Amalek."

Israeli government position

After the filing of the charges on 29 December, the Israeli Foreign Ministry rejected the allegations "with disgust", stating that Israel operates according to international law and focuses its military actions solely against Hamas, and that the residents of Gaza are not the enemy. It asserted that it takes steps to minimize harm to civilians and to allow humanitarian aid to enter the territory and accused South Africa of "cooperating with a terrorist organisation that is calling for the destruction of the State of Israel" and the actions of South Africa as a blood libel. An Israeli government spokesperson later asserted that "History will judge South Africa for abetting the modern heirs of the Nazis".

On 2 January 2024, the Israeli government decided to participate in the ICJ proceedings, despite having previously refused to participate in previous international tribunals.

The Foreign Ministry conveyed through diplomatic channels that a ruling against Israel "could have significant potential implications not only in the legal realm but also in practical, bilateral, economic, and security-related aspects." The ministry characterized the South African charges as "baseless" and further described South Africa as "functioning as the legal arm" of Hamas.

The government appointed former President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak as an ad hoc judge to sit on the ICJ, as permitted by the court's statutes. Barak's appointment was supported by the majority of the Israeli public in opinion polls, due to his status as an internationally respected legal authority, but was criticised by several far-right Israeli politicians, including Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Amihai Ben-Eliyahu.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that it was Hamas that was committing genocide, instead of Israel. Netanyahu added that the Israel Defense Forces are "acting as morally as possible". In a later statement, Netanyahu stated that "nobody" could stop Israel from continuing its actions in Gaza, including The Hague. The Israel Defense Forces stated that it takes actions to reduce civilian casualties such as warning civilians in targeted areas and not striking certain areas with civilians. The Israeli government stated multiple times that it wants to eliminate Hamas and not Palestinians.

Israel contends that it is conducting a war of self-defense in accordance with international law following the Hamas-led attacks on Israeli territory on 7 October 2023, in which some 1,200 people were killed and the continuing firing of missiles at civilian population centers and holding of hostages; that the official directives of the Israeli war cabinet and military authorities responsible for directing the war do not indicate any policy of genocidal intent, and while acknowledging the high incidence of civilian casualties, asserts that this because Hamas and other militant groups use civilian infrastructure as cover for their military assets and operations; and that it is following international law and allowing humanitarian aid into the territory.

ICJ hearing

The representatives selected to present Israel's case at the ICJ hearing on 12 January were Tal Becker, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Legal Adviser, Malcolm Shaw, British jurist and Professor of International Law, Christopher Staker, British barrister, Omri Sender, Israeli Attorney at Law and Galit Raguan and Gilad Noam, Deputy Attorney Generals for International Law in the Ministry of Justice, along with several other supporting legal counsel and advisors.

The representatives of Israel responded to South Africa's charges at the ICJ by asserting that the charges lacked both legal and factual basis:

On factual grounds, representatives of Israel argued that the context of the conflict, particularly the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, demonstrate that if there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, they were perpetrated against Israel. They emphasized that Israel is committed to complying with international law, even as Hamas shows contempt for that law by using Palestinian civilians as human shields and civilian infrastructure for military uses, firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilian targets and by taking and holding hostages. They highlighted Israel's efforts to mitigate civilian harm and address the humanitarian situation in Gaza by warnings for civilians to evacuate areas of planned attacks, permitting the entry of aid, and the establishment of field hospitals.

On legal grounds, the Israeli team claimed that the court has no jurisdiction over this case, as no disputes exist between the country and South Africa. Shaw cited the exact dates of Israeli responses to the diplomatic notes it received, including proposals for meetings between South African and Israeli officials to talk about Gaza. Israel further argued that South Africa had failed to show intent, a fundamental element of genocide, about the acts which are the subject of the complaint, in order for it to fall within the provisions of the Genocide Convention and therefore asserted that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction over the Gaza war. Shaw contended that the South African case provided only a partial narrative and urged the court to consider the decisions of the Israeli cabinet instead of focusing on "random statements by politicians who are not decision-makers".

Israeli team asserted that the requested provisional measures would deprive Israel of its obligation under international law to provide defense to its citizens, to the hostages, and to over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis; it would also encourage further attacks.

Ruling on provisional measures

In its Order of 26 January 2024, the Court accepted jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. While Israel was not ordered to suspend its military operations in Gaza, the Court ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and to report to the Court regarding these within one month; to prevent and punish incitement to genocide; to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza; and generally, to take more measures to protect Palestinians.

Analysis

Lawfare, a website affiliated with the Brookings Institution, likened South Africa's application to proceedings instituted by The Gambia against Myanmar in relation to the Rohingya genocide. Writing in Just Security, an online forum based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security, Alaa Hachem and Professor Oona A. Hathaway note South Africa's invocation of erga omnes partes, a doctrine of legal standing which "allows a State party to a treaty protecting common legal rights to enforce those rights even if the State is not directly affected by the violation". Hachem and Hathaway state that the Rohingya genocide case (specifically, the acceptance of jurisdiction by the ICJ), "revolutionized" the doctrine of erga omnes. They concluded that it was "highly likely" the Court will find that South Africa has standing to institute the proceedings. They also stated that establishing genocidal intent is "extraordinarily challenging".

Professor Luciano Pezzano, writing in the Blog of the European Journal of International Law, argues that invoking Article IX of the Genocide Convention is a means by which uninvolved states can fulfill their obligation to prevent genocide.

David Scheffer, who served as the first United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, criticized South Africa's case for what he called a "complete lack of recognition... that Israel is at war," and argued that any Palestinian civilian deaths are the result of a military action against an enemy which Israel has "a justifiable right to attack in self-defense," rather than genocidal intent. Scheffer said that in a military and responsorial context of events since the October 7 attack, coupled with Israel's evacuation of Gazan civilians and its humanitarian aid efforts, would make it "clearly a line too far to try to argue that it is Israel that actually has the intent to commit genocide when Israel is responding to a genocidal act in order to prevent further genocide against Israel."

Marc Weller, Professor of International Law and International Constitutional Studies at Cambridge University, argues that "Israel cannot avoid scrutiny of its use of force and associated practices, and possible interim measures of protection, simply by invoking self-defence." While stating that Israel suffered what he describes as an "atrocious attack" that will likely inform the Court's analysis of its self-defence claim, he concludes that the claim of self-defence does not bar the issuance of provisional measures of protection.

David Keane, a law professor focusing on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, states that the allegation in South Africa's application that Israel practices apartheid "is a remarkable statement coming from South Africa, which perhaps has been somewhat overshadowed by the overarching genocide claim." Keane notes that South Africa's application referred to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

In a series of posts on Verfassungsblog, University of Haifa law professor Itamar Mann stated that it "seems rather unlikely" that the Court would grant all provisional measures sought by South Africa, following oral argument in the case. He argued that the Court may impose a range of provisional measures, but would likely stop short of ordering Israel to suspend hostilities. He described South Africa’s lack of reference to the ongoing armed conflict as a litigation strategy that may work against its case. He expressed concern that the provisional measures may legitimate what he described as extended or potentially "endless" war in Gaza.

An analyses, published in "Just Security" forum, speculates that the primary difference between South Africa and Israel position lies in competing narratives presented by both parties. The South African application followed a narrative of "...Israel commencing a massive attack on the Gaza Strip [after the events of October 7th], ...causing widespread destruction of an unprecedented nature, and severely impacting the entire population of Gaza". Israeli response followed a narrative of "...the harm and suffering experienced by Palestinian civilians were a regrettable, wholly undesirable but ultimately inevitable consequence of an intensive armed conflict taking place in an urban area...".

Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that Israel made a mistake in submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICJ court, because "...it is not a real court...it reflects foreign policy, not rule of law, not judiciary". He further asserted that "{the accusation of genocide against Israel} ...is one of the most absurd abuses of the judicial process in modern history".

South Africa's allegations at the ICJ regarding Israel's actions have drawn criticism on several fronts. Critics argue that labelling Israel's actions as "genocide" cheapens the term and undermines its serious nature as defined by the UN Genocide Convention. The claims were also criticized for diverting attention from real issues such as potential breaches of war laws and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and for ignoring Hamas' actions, including the massacres carried out during the 7 October attack that started the war. Critics argue that Israel's actions are defensive responses to Hamas, not identity-based attacks on Palestinians, and warn that these claims could weaken global genocide laws, promote biased views against Israel, and oversimplify the conflict's complexities. Some warned that the country's actions could result in the politicisation of the ICJ. South Africa's stance has also raised questions of hypocrisy and opportunism, particularly in light of its recent interactions with figures accused of war crimes.

A poll by Economist/YouGov found that 35% of Americans believe that the current war is a genocide while 36% say it isn’t and 29% undecided.

Other international responses

States and international organizations

In support

South Africa's case has been supported by the following states and international organizations:

• Algeria
• Bangladesh
• Bolivia
• Brazil
• Chile
• Colombia
• Comoros
• Cuba
• Djibouti
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Iraq
• Jordan
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Malaysia
• Maldives
• Namibia
• Nicaragua
• Pakistan
• Palestine
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Slovenia
• Syria
• Turkey
• Venezuela
• Zimbabwe
• Arab League
• Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
• Non-Aligned Movement

Stances of states:

  South Africa

  Countries that have supported South Africa's case

  Countries that have supported Israel's case

  Israel

Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in dark green, observer states in light green. All members of the Arab League are also members of the OIC.

On 10 January, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva expressed support for the lawsuit, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating, "The president expressed his support for South Africa's initiative to call on the International Court of Justice to order Israel to immediately cease all acts and measures that may constitute genocide". Slovenia announced that it will participate in the ICJ proceedings initiated by the UN General Assembly concerning Israel's allegedly controversial activities in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Namibian President Hage Geingob criticized Germany for supporting Israel at the case, claiming Germany had failed to draw lessons after having perpetrated the 1904 Herero and Namaqua genocide: "Germany cannot morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia, whilst supporting the equivalent of a holocaust and genocide in Gaza."

Belgian government position

On 9 January, Belgian Deputy Prime Minister Petra de Sutter stated she was encouraging her government to support the suit, stating, "Belgium cannot stand by and watch the immense human suffering in Gaza. We must act against the threat of genocide". Belgium's Development Minister Caroline Gennez questioned Germany's stance, saying: "German friends: are you really going to be on the wrong side of history twice? Are we going to continue to stand by if ethnic cleansing were to take place? Surely that was 'nie wieder'? So I hope Germans will want to look deep into their own hearts, unburdened by their own historical traumas." Belgian PM Alexander De Croo and foreign minister Hadja Lahbib expressed disapproval with Gennez's comments, with the latter saying: "If we want to play a role, it should be that of mediator and not prosecutor."

In opposition

• Australia
• Austria
• Czech Republic
• France
• Germany
• Guatemala
• Hungary
• Israel
• Italy
• Paraguay
• United States
• United Kingdom

South Africa's case has been opposed by the United States, U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said the U.S. found the "submission meritless, counterproductive, completely without any basis in fact whatsoever". U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the genocide accusation against Israel "meritless".

Guatemala said that the filing was regrettable and that Israel was making a "legitimate defense against the attacks of the terrorist group Hamas".

Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer and Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said in a joint statement that they "oppose any attempts to politicize the ICJ."

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó condemned the "legal attack launched against Israel".

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had the opinion that South Africa's case was "completely unjustified and wrong", according to his spokesperson. The British government was accused of double standards and hypocrisy as the UK, as well as Canada, Germany, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, joined Gambia's ICJ case against Myanmar in November 2023 for committing the Rohingya genocide.

Germany has announced its opposition to South Africa's application and its intention to intervene before the ICJ on Israel's behalf. Germany's Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck stated: "You can criticise the Israeli army for acting too harshly in the Gaza strip, but that is not genocide." On 10 January 2024, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said that "Israel’s self-defence" against Hamas cannot be considered genocide.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared that the Australian government will not participate in South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said that "Our support for the ICJ and respect for its independence does not mean we accept the premise of South Africa’s case".

The Irish government has announced it will not join South Africa's case against Israel. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said: "I would be a little bit uncomfortable about accusing Israel, a Jewish state, of genocide given the fact that six million Jews - over half the population of Jews in Europe - were killed." On 24 January 2024, the Irish parliament voted not to support South Africa's case and instead, voted to "strongly consider" intervening once the ICJ has made its order on preliminary measures.

Neutrality

Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, said he did not accept the premise of South Africa's genocide motion, although Global Affairs Canada has stated that Canada will abide by the ICJ ruling in the case. Opposition Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre accused Trudeau of "sinister and hypocritical" doublespeak on the issue. Canada's unclear position caused confusion, and it was initially widely misreported that Canada opposed the application. Israel's Consul-General in Toronto, Idit Shamir, claimed that "Canada is siding with Israel in its defence against allegations of genocide." On 18 January 2024, Israel's ambassador to Canada called on the Canadian government to clarify its position.

The European Commission's spokesperson on foreign affairs, Peter Stano, stated that "The European Union is not part of this lawsuit. This is not for us to comment at all."

Movements, parties, and unions

The lawsuit has also been supported by hundreds of activist groups, NGOs, political parties, unions, and other organizations, with (as of mid-January 2024) over 1400 showing support in the form of a letter organized by the newly-formed International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine. Some of that letter's signatories, and other supportive organizations, include:

• Al-Haq
• Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights
• Amnesty International
• Boycott from Within
• CodePink
• De-Colonizer
• Democratic Socialists of America
• Human Rights Watch
• International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
• International People’s Assembly
• Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
• Israelis Against Apartheid
• Jewish Voice for Peace
• La Via Campesina
• National Lawyers Guild
• Nelson Mandela Foundation
• New Zealand Labour Party
• Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
• Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions
• Palestinian NGO Network
• Progressive International
• RootsAction
• People's Forum
• Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
• World Beyond War
• World March of Women

Individuals and other groups

Raz Segal, an Israeli historian of genocide, stated the case was notable due to the "mountain of evidence on genocidal intent that’s been expressed by people with command authority". Rosalie Silberman Abella, a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, called the ICJ proceedings an "abuse of the principles of the international legal order." Pierre Poilievre, leader of Canada's official opposition, the Conservative Party, called the accusation "a shameless and dishonest attack on Jewish people and the Jewish state."

The National Council of Canadian Muslims said it was "beyond disappointed" by the Canadian government's response.

Christian Zionist groups throughout South Africa, including Christian View Network, Bridges for Peace and International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, condemned their government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ.

On 18 January, a group of survivors of the Bosnian genocide wrote an open-letter to the ICJ, urging the court to "implement necessary provisional measures swiftly to protect Palestinians in Gaza" and avoid repeating the "grievous mistake" of failing to protect civilians from genocide.

Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: "It is not a blood libel to deplore the failure to hold to account Israeli soldiers and armed settlers who have killed hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7, or the prolongation of a war whose conduct has raised grave international humanitarian and human rights law concerns."

Ofer Cassif, an Israeli politician representing the left-wing party Hadash, signed South Africa's petition and accused Israel of genocide. In response, lawmakers began proceedings to expel him from the Knesset. On 9 January, an open letter to the ICJ signed by over 600 Israelis stated their support for South Africa's case. A group of New Zealand's legal experts, led by David Williams and Jane Kelsey, signed an open-letter urging Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to support South Africa's petition.

South African businessman Ivor Ichikowitz criticized the South African government for hypocrisy and double standards, recalling that South Africa failed to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during his visit to South Africa, despite Bashir being accused of genocide and wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and did not condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and was reluctant to comply with the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Marco Sassoli, a professor of international law at the University of Geneva, said that not "everyone in the West is in favour of Israel and [not] everyone in the Global South is opposed to Israel," adding that "Both Western States and the Global South have double standards. Double standards are a poison for the credibility of international law."

See also

• International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine
• Israeli war crimes
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
• List of International Court of Justice cases
• Genocides in history (21st century)
• Rohingya genocide case
• Ten stages of genocide

Bibliography

• Antonio, Raymund (23 October 2023). "Civilians not a target: Envoy decries 'genocide' tag of Israel–Hamas war". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 1 November 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• Bishara, Marwan (12 October 2023). "Israel is manufacturing a case for genocide". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 20 November 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
• Chacar, Henriette (10 November 2023). "Israel revises Hamas attack death toll to 'around 1,200'". Reuters. Archived from the original on 11 November 2023.
• Mackenzie, James; Lubell, Maayan (29 October 2023). "Israel launches Gaza war's second phase with ground operation, Netanyahu says". Reuters. Archived from the original on 29 October 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• Nichols, Michelle (11 October 2023). "Palestinian UN envoy accuses Israel of 'genocidal' campaign against Gaza". Reuters News. Archived from the original on 14 November 2023. Retrieved 13 October 2023.
• Smith, Mitch; McCarthy, Lauren; Londoño, Ernesto; Jordan, Miriam (12 October 2023). "Palestinian Americans, Dismayed by Violence, Say Historical Context Is Being Overlooked". The New York Times. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 12 November 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
• Human Rights Watch (10 January 2024), World Court to hear Genocide Case Against Israel, retrieved 10 January 2024

External links

• Overview of the case (from International Court of Justice website)
• Public hearing videos: Oral argument of South Africa and Israel (International Court of Justice website]