Why has South Africa taken Israel to the World Court?

In a historic ruling, the ICJ said it had jurisdiction to rule in the case filed by South Africa accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. The interim ruling issued by the court ordered six provisional measures, including for Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective steps to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.

The ICJ also ordered Israel to preserve evidence of genocide and to submit a report to the court within a month regarding its compliance with the order.

The facts

In its 84-page submission to the ICJ, South Africa asserted that Israel was breaching its obligations under the 1948 Geneva Conventions, specifically concerning the prevention and punishment of genocide.

South Africa has reiterated its call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza assault, the opening of corridors for humanitarian assistance, and the release of hostages and political prisoners. President Ramaphosa also advocated for a two-state solution respecting the 1967 borders.

Domestically, his party, the African National Congres (ANC) argues that, having lived in a “free and democratic society” for 30 years post-apartheid, South Africa has a responsibility to support Palestine. Ramaphosa expressed deep indignation at the injustice against the people of Palestine, emphasizing the shared sentiment among South Africans who still carry the scars of apartheid.

Since the October 7 Hamas attack and Gaza bombardment, South Africans from various backgrounds have staged daily vigils and protest marches, pressuring the Ramaphosa government for action. Activist groups demanded concrete measures, such as cutting diplomatic ties with Israel. South Africans rallied around their government’s decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice for alleged genocide in the Gaza Strip, with many saying they were motivated by their own country’s struggle against apartheid.

The arguments

Many South Africans, compare Israel’s policies regarding Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with South Africa’s past apartheid regime of racial segregation. For years, South Africa has consistently supported the Palestinian cause, despite facing opposition from the white-majority Democratic Alliance (DA), the largest opposition party in the country.

To fully grasp Pretoria’s fervent backing of the Palestinian cause, it’s worth mentioning the historical relationship between the late Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress (ANC), and Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, according to analysts. The two organizations mutually supported each other’s causes, and Mandela, in a 1990 television interview in the United States, referred to Arafat as a “comrade in arms.”

Political analysts underscore the solidarity shown by the people of Palestine during South Africa’s apartheid rule, stating that when South Africans see human rights being abused, as is happening in Israel, they feel compelled to act, considering their own experience with apartheid just 30 years ago.

On January 14, during the ANC’s 112th-anniversary celebration, which typically sets the political tone for the year, President Ramaphosa reiterated the party’s unwavering stance on the Palestinian issue. He stated, “The ANC has consistently stood alongside the Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination because, similar to our situation before 1994, they are confronted with a brutal apartheid regime. President Nelson Mandela famously declared that the freedom of South Africa was incomplete without the freedom of Palestine.”

Despite substantial domestic support for South Africa’s actions, President Ramaphosa’s intentions face scrutiny. A former freedom fighter and protege of Mandela, some critics suggest he is emulating Mandela’s statesmanlike foreign policy approach. Others argue that amid challenges like economic issues and corruption, the Ramaphosa administration is being opportunistic rather than entirely altruistic on the Palestine issue. Critics say that Ramaphosa needed this case to boost his image internally.

While some argue that Ramaphosa’s actions are not solely aimed at boosting his profile, acknowledging the positive impact of the ICJ case on his foreign image, others underline the principled moral stand behind the case.

With elections approaching and ANC support dipping below 50%, there’s a possibility for other parties to be part of the government. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), founded by Julius Malema, a former ANC member, has been a challenging force for the ruling party, even heckling Ramaphosa in parliament over allegations in June 2022. Malema’s stance – “ANC is dead” – is one of the EFF’s campaign slogan.

A surge in support for ANC was seen as South Africa, grappling with corruption scandals and challenges, experiences a surge in global goodwill reminiscent of the post-apartheid campaign in the ’80s and early ’90s. The legal team’s rousing welcome at Johannesburg airport highlights the resonance of the ICJ case with the public.