SA hailed for taking up the cudgels for Palestinians

Experts have hailed SA’s showing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Netherlands, where its legal deployment stood firm and presented the country’s case against Israel’s genocide on Palestinians. 

The team of legal experts representing SA made its first oral submissions at the ICJ on Thursday, accusing Israel of genocidal intent for its military campaign against Gaza. SA’s stance in the long-drawn out war in the Middle East has been hailed as a bold move that could send a strong message globally. 

“SA’s case was excellently-presented and very professionally. The legal team argued the case strictly within the scope of the Genocide Convention and substantiated every submission made to the court,” said University of Johannesburg's Prof Hennie Strydom, an expert on International Law.

“SA is complying with its obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocidal acts against the Palestinian people. On this it has a dispute with Israel and such disputes must be referred to the ICJ under the Genocide Convention. The case is important for two reasons. A ruling by the court may further develop international law on obligations under the Genocide Convention and on the nature and scope of interim measures. If SA is successful, it would mean that all members of the Genocide Convention, including Israel and the USA will have to take the measures necessary to prevent genocide. Prevention of genocide and its punishment  are a peremptory obligations under international law,” said Strydom.

Israel legal team is expected to make its arguments today. 

History and international law expert Simba Kanyoka said Israel would fight tooth and nail because if the court rules against it, it would be stripped off the emotional protection it has enjoyed for years post World War 2 after the holocaust, of being viewed as victims. 

“Any criticism against Israel is seen as antisemitism and they cannot afford to lose that emotional protection because it has garnered sympathy for them. And should the court find against them, their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be held liable. 

“The potential conflict we might see [if the court rules in favour of SA] is when the US and other Western countries realise the ability for the law to be applied equally for all countries.”  

Kanyoka said the ruling would change the world order and test the equal application of international law. 

He said there had been very little relations between the two countries, and while SA’s brave move might affect relations, the country would not feel it that much. 

“Most of the relations between the two countries were of a diplomatic nature, even then SA voted to close Israeli embassies because the country felt it was housing people who represent oppression. 

“There will be economic upset in terms of trade between the two, but it would not be bad given the limited scale on which the two countries trade.” 

Associate Prof at Wits John Stremlau also said not much would change between the two countries as there had been no love lost over the past 30 years. 

“SA has realised that they have had little influence and have taken a bold move to reinforce their stance and they don’t have much to lose. The overwhelming message by the team is that SA is not willing to stand and watch.”  

sibiyan@sowetan.co.za