Gaza genocide case will lead to Israel’s increasing isolation on the world stage

South Africa's bold move in bringing Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over genocide in Palestine is a challenge to the Jewish state and its supporters in the West. The case not only illuminates Israel's actions, but also compels Western nations to question whether they are really committed to a rules-based international order.

South Africa meticulously examined international and human rights law, anchoring the case in the Genocide Convention, and the allegations against Israel showcased South Africa's commitment to upholding international law. The nation's distinctive moral voice, forged through its apartheid history, resonated powerfully on the world stage. The South African legal team skilfully unveiled Israel's genocidal actions and intent. Beyond highlighting mass killings, they proved Israeli intent within the framework of human rights law and the Genocide Convention.

Predictably, Israel's principal backers — the US, the UK, Germany and France — dismissed South Africa's allegations with disdain, revealing implicit racist assumptions that a white majority cannot perpetrate genocide against people of colour. None of the leaders from these countries seriously engaged with the facts presented by South Africa.

Yet South Africa’s legal arguments presented a chilling case. The ICJ judges, unpersuaded by Israel’s defence, rejected the notion that South Africa's claim lacked merit. That the orders were handed down by a US judge, and were concurred in by German and French judges, scotches any claims of bias against the Jewish state.

The court's preliminary orders — which called on Israel to prevent genocide, put an end to genocidal acts, punish incitement to genocide, provide urgent aid to Gaza and preserve evidence — underscores the urgency and gravity of the situation. Israeli and US spin doctors have tried to downplay the ruling by emphasising that the court did not order a ceasefire, However, the Genocide Convention addresses only genocide, not the broader crime of aggression. Tellingly, Israel is required to report back to the court within a month on the measures it has taken to comply with the orders.

The orders are binding on Israel, but the Jewish state will probably ignore most of them. In the short term, it is unlikely Western governments that support Israel will change course. In the aftermath of the order, several Western countries gave credence to the Israeli narrative that UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) workers were complicit in the October 7 attacks and stopped funding the agency.

It is not lost on the global south that the governments of countries responsible for the greatest genocides in history have not shed their racist political DNA. They take a stand against people of colour and continue to support genocidal practices against them.

Genocide is recognised as the crime of crimes. The international obligation regarding genocide mandates states not to commit or support genocide. The court’s finding that there is a prima facie case against Israel places the US, the UK, Germany, France, Canada, and the many states in the EU who arm and blindly support Israel on notice that they are also potentially complicit in genocide. The ICJ orders deepen the perception that Western states are hypocritical, in that they shield their allies from accountability for human rights violations.

Genocide is recognised as the crime of crimes

The ruling against Israel strengthens the momentum of progressives and civil society groups putting pressure on governments to take action against Israel. On the same day the ICJ delivered its order, a federal court in California heard legal arguments and testimony against US President Joe Biden, secretary of state Anthony Blinken and secretary of defence Lloyd Austin concerning the US officials’ complicity in and failure to prevent the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza. The court ruled that Israel’s actions plausibly constituted genocide and implored the US government to reconsider its unwavering support for the siege. The court did not grant the plaintiffs the remedy they sought because US constitutional law precludes courts from ruling on matters of foreign policy. A similar legal action is being contemplated in the UK.

Israel and its supporters are unlikely to change course without citizen pushback in the West and economic sanctions. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement has gained traction in the past few months, resulting in severe financial losses for Starbucks and McDonald's. Puma has announced the end of its support for the Israeli soccer team. Members of civil society must increase their activism and put pressure on the international community to take action against Israel and countries and corporations that support the Zionist project.

Opinion polls indicate that the majority of citizens in many Western countries disapprove of their governments’ blind support for Israel. Leveraging power at the ballot box is another powerful tool. The upcoming US presidential election may serve as a litmus test. President Biden has been dubbed “Genocide Joe”, and this may influence the outcome of the poll.

South Africa’s courageous stand is a clarion call for global action against Israeli genocide. The orders against Israel are a vital step towards raising citizen consciousness and global awareness about Israeli atrocities, and they will also challenge Western leaders to confront their alternative reality that denies facts, logic and truth. As with apartheid South Africa, civil society must pressure the international community to change course and adopt enforcement measures against Israel and entities that support it, ensuring justice prevails. As South Africa aptly puts it, aluta continua — the struggle continues.

• Motala is a professor of law at Howard University School of Law in Washington DC