South Africa has urged the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to order Israel to halt its assault on Rafah as part of its case accusing Israel of genocide against the Palestinians.

This latest request is part of a broader ongoing case brought by South Africa in January, which accuses Israel of acts of genocide against Palestinians.

The ICJ issued an interim ruling in January that found that “Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention.”

However, the court rejected a second South African application for emergency measures made in March over Israel’s threat to attack Rafah.

The latest request was filed after Israel intensified air attacks on Rafah and issued orders for residents to evacuate.

Aside a halt to Israel’s Rafah assault, South Africa requested that the court order “as a matter of extreme urgency” that Israel lets officials from the UN and other bodies providing humanitarian aid into Gaza as well as the unimpeded access of fact-finding missions, internationally mandated investigators and journalists to document and preserve evidence on the ground.

South Africa also requested that Israel submits open reports to the court on all measures taken to give effect to these provisional measures within one week from the date of the order and all measures taken to give effect to all previous provisional measures indicated by the court within one month of the order.

It told the ICJ that the Palestinian people are facing “ongoing annihilation” and the assault on Rafah was “part of the endgame in which Gaza is utterly destroyed.”

South African lawyer, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said that Israel is pressing on with its attacks in Rafah despite “explicit warnings” that they could carry “genocidal” consequences.

Ambassador Madonsela stated that South Africa returned to the court to “do what it can to stop the genocide”, which he says has almost “knocked Gaza off the map” and “shocked the conscience of humanity.”

He says that since the ICJ first ordered Israel to implement measures to prevent genocidal acts, Israel has “willfully breached the binding orders of the court”, escalating its attacks on Palestinians.

The gravity of the attacks requires the court’s “urgent and speedy proceedings to preserve the rights of the Palestinian people, a commitment that South Africa takes seriously”.

Lawyer Vaughan Lowe, who also spoke for the South African delegation, noted that Israel’s argument that it is acting in self-defence in Gaza fails due to three main points; a state’s right to self-defence does not give it the right to “unlimited violence”, self-defence cannot justify genocide and a state’s right to self-defence does not apply to a territory it occupies.

Israel will respond on Friday, May 17, 2024.

ICJ Order Deemed Significant

Hassan Barari, a Professor of international affairs at Qatar University, opined that while there is no mechanism for the implementation of the ICJ’s rulings, an order by the court carries significant weight.

“It gives ammunition to the international community to call a spade, a spade; to tell the Israelis that what you’re doing is a genocidal attempt to probably clear out Gaza from the Palestinians,” he said.

William Schabas, a Professor of international law at Middlesex University also stated that the court’s previous orders for additional provisional measures have been “significant” even if Israel ignored them.

“And of course, one of the things that South Africa is seeking is some recognition by the court that Israel has failed to implement them,” he averred.

Schabas added that Israel’s failure does not mean that the measures have been to no purpose or have no effect “because they have clearly influenced the political situation and the political debate.”

“The determinations by the court in these provisional measures orders have had a huge political impact not only on states that have been traditionally very critical of Israel, but also on many of the states that are most friendly to it who are increasingly persuaded of the harm that Israel is doing and of the need to stop it by the rulings of the court to date.”
William Schabas