“The case has already had, and will continue to have, an impact on media coverage and political discourse. Western media barely mentioned genocidal statements before South Africa initiated its litigation.”
On 26 January, the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest court, issued a provisional ruling on a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of committing the crime of genocide. Dr. Nimer Sultany, SOAS Reader in Law, reflects on the significance of that decision.
This is a momentous decision by the ICJ that is likely to start the political dynamics to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, though of course, this is a process that will take time, during which thousands more Palestinians will be murdered.
First, it’s worth noting how the ICJ approached Israel’s propagandistic arguments in the case. The ICJ dismissed Israel’s spurious arguments regarding jurisdiction, it ignored Israel’s attempts to obfuscate genocidal statements made by its top leaders, and it made no mention of Israel’s argument claiming self-defence, rightly so, because it is irrelevant.
Thus, the ICJ provisional ruling shuts down the Western mantra of “Israel has a right to defend itself”. The court accepted that South Africa made a strong case, compelling enough to proceed to the merits stage, thus putting all states on notice that there is possible situation of genocide and there is a duty to prevent it.
The ICJ went even further on 16 February and stipulated that compliance with the order requires Israel to ensure the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. South Africa, then, has pierced and cracked the West’s political wall-to-wall discourse in support of Israel’s savage war.
The case has already had, and will continue to have, an impact on media coverage and political discourse. Western media barely mentioned genocidal statements before South Africa initiated its litigation. Now the ICJ is also contributing to the crumbling of the uncritical narrative that Western states and media have adopted since Oct 7th.
Magazines versed in war propaganda called the South African application “flimsy”; US, Canadian, German, UK officials and spokespeople dismissed the “premise” of the case. But EU, UK, German, and US officials who met and indulged Israel’s president Herzog, and rushed to photos with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, now need to confront the fact that their statements are exhibit A in the genocide case.
What does the ICJ ruling mean for Western legal systems? It will increase domestic legal activism in Europe and the US against the arms trade and complicity in the genocide. The increase in internal disagreement over the war and external opprobrium against Israel, following the ICJ order, is likely to create the dynamics that may bring a prompt end to the genocidal war. Should the Court determine that Israel is in violation of its 26 Jan order, it will confirm Israel’s status as a pariah and rogue state.
What does the ruling mean for anti-war demonstrations in London and elsewhere? It will give them backing and invigorate them, despite relentless attacks from the tabloids and corrupt pro-genocide political class, from Labour to Tories.
What does the ruling mean for BDS? More efforts are now needed to boycott Israeli academia and economy to pressure Israel to end apartheid, end the genocide, and grant equality and freedom to all.
The ICJ will continue to consider the case, but in the meantime, there is much for activists in Britain and beyond to do to push forward BDS campaigns and the urgent call for a permanent ceasefire.
- Dr. Nimer Sultany is a Reader in Law at SOAS Law and author of ‘Law & Revolution: Legitimacy and Constitutionalism After the Arab Spring’. You can follow Nimer on Twitter/X here.
- This article was originally published in the Palestine Solidarity Newsletter on March 20th, 2024.
- You can follow the Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.
#/media/File:ICJ_South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention).jpg){kind=link}