On Friday, the United Nations' highest court will make a decision on South Africa's request to take precautionary measures against Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip. The African country accuses Israel of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against the Gazan population. The ruling could include an order to stop hostilities.
Key hours for justice. The judges of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, will decide this Friday, January 24, whether or not to issue emergency measures against Israel, in the historic trial requested by South Africa, which denounces “genocidal intentions” against the population of Gaza by Israel .
The resolution will constitute the initial phase of the litigation brought by South Africa. Israel denies the accusations and asked the court to dismiss the case.
South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor will travel to The Hague to represent the country in Friday's ruling, her ministry announced. Although Israel has been reluctant to collaborate with international courts, as a signatory to the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide, it is obliged to confront the case and deployed a high-level legal team earlier this month.
For analysts, it represents a sign of Israel's concerns that any court order could cancel its military offensive, which would represent a serious blow at the diplomatic level. Despite this, if the court rules in favor of South Africa's requests, it is unclear whether Israel will comply.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to continue his war against Hamas until he achieves “complete victory” with the eradication of the Islamist group. The war, which began with the Hamas assault on Israeli territory on October 7 that killed 1,200 people and kidnapped another 250, has so far claimed the lives of 25,490 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. , controlled by Hamas.
What are the measures requested by South Africa?
For these so-called “provisional measures” to be issued, the 17-judge panel must determine that the court has jurisdiction over the matter, that there is a dispute between South Africa and Israel over the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that There is an immediate need to implement emergency measures while the case continues.
Earlier this month, South African lawyers argued that the actions of the Israeli military and statements by senior officials evidenced Israel's deliberate intention to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
“The magnitude of the destruction in Gaza, the attacks on family homes and civilians, the fact that the war is against children, make it clear that the genocidal intent is understood and has been put into practice. The articulated intention is the destruction of Palestinian life,” said lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi.
Malcolm Shaw, a member of Israel's legal group at the hearings in The Hague, called the comments cited by South Africa “random quotes that do not conform to government policy.” For his part, Israeli legal advisor Tal Becker told the court that the country is fighting a “war that it did not start and did not want.”
“Under these circumstances, there can hardly be a more false and more malicious accusation than the accusation of genocide against Israel,” he added.
South African Adila Hassim stated that “Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to constant bombing wherever they go: in their homes, in places where they seek refuge, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, and while they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they fail to evacuate, and in the places they flee to. And even when they try to flee through the supposed safe routes declared by Israel.”
Among the measures requested are the suspension of military operations in Gaza, the guarantee that the Israeli Army does not promote these operations and compensation and means for the reconstruction of what was destroyed in the region.
South Africa wants to avoid “deprivation of access to adequate food and water” for the population of Gaza and called on Israel to ensure that people “under its control do not publicly and directly incite genocide.” If this occurs, they would be held accountable in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
Israel warned that imposing precautionary measures “will put an end to attempts to rescue the hostages”, “will give Hamas room to preserve its capabilities” and assured that this would allow the group to “pose an even greater risk” to Israelis.
Is there a history of similar cases?
The court has two pending genocide cases. One of them was presented by Ukraine after the start of Russia's invasion and the other involves Gambia, which accuses Myanmar of genocide against the Muslim minority Rohingya people.
Two defunct UN tribunals held historic genocide trials. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia issued convictions against several Bosnian Serb leaders, including former president Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic. The sentences were for their involvement in the massacre that occurred in July 1995, where more than 8,000 people lost their lives in the Bosnian city of Srebrenica. Karadzic and Mladic received life sentences.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda also convicted several leaders of the 1994 genocide in the African nation, when some 800,000 people, most of them ethnic Tutsi, were murdered.
The city of The Hague, known as the international capital of peace and justice, houses both the headquarters of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, and the International Criminal Court, ICC.
While the ICJ plays a crucial role in resolving cases between nations, often addressing border disputes or disagreements over the interpretation of international treaties, the ICC is tasked with holding individuals accountable for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, with the aim mandate to end impunity worldwide.
With EFE and AP
#ICJ #decide #Friday #Israel #stop #offensive #Gaza #Strip