Here’s what you need to know about the genocide case against Israel at ICJ

South Africa has brought a significant case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - the judicial wing of the United Nations - accusing it of committing genocidal acts in Gaza.

This marks the first time Israel faces trial under the UN’s Genocide Convention.

South Africa’s key arguments

South Africa's case against Israel at the ICJ is centers around the accusation of genocide in Gaza, as defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

This is a landmark case, not only because of the gravity of the charges but also due to the complex nature of proving genocide in an international legal framework.

South Africa has submitted an 84-page document detailing Israeli acts it believes amount to genocide, as defined by Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

The Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

Presenting its argument, South Africa presented the claim that Israel's actions in Gaza directly meet this definition.

Evidence of genocidal acts

The cornerstone of South Africa's case rested on a plethora of evidence Israeli government and military officials have left behind during the course of the ongoing brutal war.

Evidence that South Africa argues demonstrates Israel's alleged genocidal acts. This includes the high number of civilian casualties, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the blockade restricting essential supplies to Gaza.

Adila Hassim, a lawyer representing South Africa at the ICJ in the case against Israel argued, "Israel deployed 6,000 bombs per week … No one is spared. Not even newborns."

South Africa’s legal team further contended that these actions lead to a situation described as "a graveyard for children," indicating the severity of the impact on the civilian population.

A clear genocidal intent

To demonstrate genocidal intent, South Africa focused on interpreting and presenting statements made by Israeli officials.

The argument was aimed at establishing a pattern of behavior and rhetoric that could suggest a deliberate intention to destroy a significant portion of the Palestinian population in Gaza, which is a key requirement for proving genocide under international law.

This pattern of behaviour and rhetoric was laid out before the court under a number of key, interlocking arguments. The first came with citing direct statements by Israeli leaders post October 7.

Inflammatory remarks

South African lawyers highlighted specific statements from Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as evidence of genocidal intent.

For instance, they referred to Netanyahu’s comparison of Palestinians to the Amalek, a biblical nation marked for destruction. This comparison was interpreted as implying a genocidal intent. The biblical verse referred to states: “Now go and smite Amalek … kill both man and woman, infant.”

Contextualising military actions

Beyond the rhetoric, South Africa's legal team sought to link the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza to these statements.

The argument was that the scale of military agression, the high civilian casualties, and the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure were, and are consistent with the alleged genocidal intent expressed in official statements.

The legal team used strong and direct language to describe the impact of Israel's war.

It argued that actions such as indiscriminate bombings and executions of civilians, as well as the blockade of essential supplies, pushed Gaza to the brink of famine and the measures are indicative of an intent to destroy a significant part of the Palestinian population.

South Africa also drew parallels between the situation in Gaza and historical instances of genocide.

By doing so, they aimed to frame the actions and statements of Israeli officials within a broader historical understanding of what constitutes a genocidal behaviour.

These arguments were part of South Africa's broader strategy to persuade the ICJ of Israel's alleged violation of the Genocide Convention.

A complex affair

However, it is important to note that proving genocidal intent in international law is a complex and challenging task, requiring a high standard of evidence and rigorous legal scrutiny.

The ICJ's assessment of these arguments will involve a detailed examination of both the legal and factual basis of the claims made by South Africa.

South Africa's case attempts to address this by citing specific statements from Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, which they interpret as evidence of such intent.

The case is further compounded by the fact that Israel has strongly rejected these accusations, with Israeli officials labelling them as baseless and equating them to "blood libel”.

Furthermore, timing is on the side of South Africa, or the people of Gaza who are continuing to be bombarded by the Israeli military.

This is because ICJ's proceedings in such cases are typically lengthy and involve detailed examination and cross-examination of arguments and evidence presented by both parties.

What comes next?

If the ICJ rules in favour of South Africa against Israel, the immediate impact for Gaza and Palestine could be significant in several ways, although it is important to note that the actual effects might vary depending on the political and diplomatic responses following the ruling.

For Palestinians in Gaza and the broader Palestinian community, a ruling in favour of South Africa might serve as a symbolic victory.

It could be seen as an international recognition of their grievances and sufferings, possibly boosting morale and providing a sense of justice.

Such a ruling could attract more international attention to the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian cause. It might lead to increased support from other nations and international organisations, potentially resulting in more humanitarian aid and support for Palestinians.

The ruling could influence the dynamics of international diplomacy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Countries and international bodies might be more inclined to apply pressure on Israel to alter its policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank or to re-engage in peace negotiations.

The ruling could energise global advocacy and activism supporting Palestinian rights. International civil society groups, NGOs, and activists might use the decision as a basis to intensify their campaigns against what they perceive as injustices in Gaza and the occupied territories.

However, it is crucial to understand that the ICJ's decision is binding but lacks enforcement power, and its immediate practical impact on the ground in Gaza and Palestine may be limited.

The significance of the ruling would largely depend on the reactions and actions of the international community and the parties involved.