The Naked Truth/Jamala Rogers
Demanding Justice from the International Court
South Africa has its fair share of political contradictions. However, when it brought a case against Israel before the International Court of Justice, the world paid attention. South Africa’s action is historic because it’s the first time that Israel has been brought before the court for violating the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, a convention drafted in response to the genocide of Jews during World War II. The 84-page application to the World Court elevated the Israeli-Palestinian issue to a new level that has forced nations to respond.
Since October 7 when Hamas launched a brutal attack on Israel, more than 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, nearly 10,000 of them children. This attack prompted the bold action of South Africa, but the country has a long history of standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people’s quest for self-determination. South
Africa brings credibility to the application before the ICJ. It knows state terrorism having lived under the yoke of apartheid for almost fifty years. It characterized Israeli’s invasion as 75 years of apartheid, 56 years of occupation, and 16 years of blockading the Gaza Strip.
The ICJ’s emergency ruling stopped short of calling for a ceasefire although it ordered Israel to “take all measures” to prevent genocide in Gaza. For the World Court to even allude that genocide is taking place in Gaza is explosive. The court laid down a critical marker that forever associates Israel’s actions with genocide.
Pretoria declared these atrocities also constitute genocide: the displacement of 85 percent of Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of their homes, the blockade on food and other critical supplies, the obliteration of hospitals and health services, and more. These all fall within the convention’s definition of genocide.
South Africa’s case and the IJC’s interim decision were cause for celebration inside the country. However, it was not without accusations and criticisms from certain political quarters. Some observers were skeptical of the African National Congress’ motives being that this is shaping up to be a volatile election year. The IJC ruling gave the ANC a much-needed boost into a positive spotlight. The ANC could lose its majority in the national parliament for the first time since apartheid ended.
The issue has also pushed a wedge deeper into the fragile racial relations in the country. The majority Black population has stood with Palestine and the whites have backed Israel. One pro-Jewish group, the African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) criticized the move as “doing the bidding of its friends Hamas.”
The ICJ preliminary decision has forced countries to maybe not take sides, but certainly to speak out. It has also raised the Israeli aggressions to another level in the court of public opinion. Israel has dug its heels into the false notion of self-determination and self-defense, but it is cooperating with the court because the eyes of the world are watching.
In the U.S., it has not been a kumbaya moment either. There is plenty of shaming and blaming going down. Pressure continues to mount for a cease-fire, and President Biden seems to have softened his unconditional public support for Israel.
This is the optimum time for freedom-loving people in this country to demand that our tax dollars be used only for humanitarian purposes and to prevent genocide. The IJC’s final decision may take years. In the meantime, we must find other pressure points to save human lives.