South Africa has taken on the role of advocate for Gaza at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

I have argued for years that justice needs adequate advocacy.

“The LORD said to Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Gen 4:9. There are too many people wiping their hands of their responsibilities.

The South African case asked the ICJ to rule that Israel should desist from military operations by claiming that Israel was commiting genocide in Gaza. It seemed to rely upon “proof by assertion” using contentious definitions. It was not a good example of advocacy. Crimes against humanity were not distinguished from genocide and no notice was taken of Hamas and its failed control of Gaza. The Israeli response easily demonstrated that the South African application was procedurally inept and premature and that it did not prove genocidal action by Israel.

Leadership or grandstanding?

Why did South Africa bring this case? Possibly, having suffered under apartheid, they felt obliged to speak up for the oppressed, although its argument was that all signatories to the Genocide Convention are similarly obliged. So why did South Africa step forward when other state parties did not?

Possibly it felt obliged to do so because South Africa is a supporter of Hamas. Possibly it saw an opportunity to step forward as a champion for the arab world in support of Palestinians. Saddam Hussein also aggrandised himself as the champion of the arab world. Others have tried to promote themselves as global arab leaders, however, the arab world and the world in general needs better leaders.

Although the ICJ will not enter into the merits of the case at this preliminary stage, it is worth reminding ourselves that Hamas uses civilians in Gaza as human shields. Such unconscionable forms of conflict were abandoned many years ago in the civilized world, and it is classified and forbidden as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions. This recent Hamas initiative has been interpreted as its attempt to take over leadership of the Palestinian cause from Mahmood Abbas of the Palestinian Authority in order to jeopardize the Abraham Accords and Saudi Arabian rapprochement with Israel.  Instead of following such leadership, arab leaders should be repudiating it.

Stopping warfare

If this case should begin the process of preventing wars in the future, then it is welcome. However, the case itself is being used to promote protests in major cities around the world, inflamming tensions instead of alleviating them. This is not my idea of promoting peace and reducing wars. 

What is missing in resolving international conflicts is a mediator. Legal proceedings are important, but they are not enough.

Legal judgments may change opinions, attitudes and judgments, but they do not change hearts and minds. Changing hearts and minds requires much more, and the most significant change of heart is accomplished by Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

The Bible has long predicted the time when wars will cease through the Prince of peace the Lord Jesus Christ, but politicians ignore Him and His message. 

Jesus Christ gives quite a different peace from what politicians have offered so far.

“My peace I give unto you. Not as the world gives, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

The Lord Jesus Christ, John’s Gospel, Chapter 14 verse 27.

Links:

11 Jan 2023: The South African presentation to the ICJ. The BBC report.

12 Jan 2023: The Israeli defence to the ICJ. The BBC report.

16 Jan 2023: it seems that other countries feel the need to comment, possibly as South Africa has drawn attention to the responsibility of state parties to oppose genocide. Those states who agree that genocide has been or is being committed may feel a responsibility to say so, while those who do not think so feel no obligation. This necessarily creates a “declaration bias” among party states, and it almost negates the role of the ICJ if each party state adjudicates upon the submission. Germany has intervened in the past in the cases of Ukraine against Russia and The Gambia against Myanmar and has now supported Israel in this current case. On the other hand, Namibia has supported the South African case and accused Germany of ignoring the killing of 23,000 Palestinians in Gaza, against the background of the 2015-2021 acknowledgement of German genocide against Namibia’s indigenous people between 1904 and 1908, but without adequate reparations and inadequate apologies from the relevant people to the relevant victims. This international discussion demonstrates how the language of genocide is being demeaned and justifies the Israeli case and the German intervention that the ICJ is being weaponized. Let the ICJ make its determination and then let states decide what to think and do. My hope is that the international community will learn 1. to define and use terms more accurately, 2. that verbal warfare stirs up passions just as physical warfare does, and 3. the need for Christian mediators to bring peace to bear upon these intractable conflicts through reconciliation and peace processes rather like the 1994 Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the 1996 Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, but with more relevant Christian input.

26 Jan 2024: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave its verdict today. It decided that there is a case to answer, asserting that it had jurisdiction to order provisional measures upon Israel. These provisions are mainly to do what Israel claims it is already doing, but in addition it is to report back to the Court after one month with evidence that it is doing so. In one brief concluding sentence the verdict referred to the hostages held “by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release”. As the casus belli and as the basis of the continuation of hostilities, one might have expected more than this solitary mention of Hamas outside of its other necessary quotations. The verdict confined itself to the Palestinians as a protected group under the terms of the Genocide Convention. South Africa’s request for Israel to stop all military action in Gaza was not granted, although the Court recalled that it has power to order measures “other than those requested” and that these “need not be identical to those requested”. In other words, the ICJ tidied up the case that South Africa failed to do. The ICJ modified South Africa’s application to make it more suitable to the matter in hand. The verdict did not call for an immediate cease-fire as South Africa requested. On the ICJ’s right to determine the case, the Court simply bypassed South Africa’s poor presentation of its case, and Israel’s highlighting South Africa’s lack of proper legal procedure, and substituted its own determination that there was a clear disagreement to be determined. The wider accusation of genocide will rumble on before the ICJ for a few years until the ICJ finds time to resolve it, and meanwhile Israel’s offensive in Gaza will continue with more care taken over the public utterances of its official spokesmen, some of which were characterized as “dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials”.

27 Jan 2024: today is Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) and a Palestinian demonstration in my local town has put fear into an 81-year-old Hungarian Holocaust survivor. A local HMD meeting reminded us that there are ten stages of Genocide and number 5 (Organization) trains killers. Currently Iran supports and funds killers – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran joined the United Nations in 1945 as one of the original 50 founding members. In 1950 the UN opened in Tehran one of the very first UN Information Centres worldwide. Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains an active member of the UN, but in Nov 2023 the UN adopted its 70th Resolution judging Iran guilty of human rights violations, but what about Genocide? Iran alone, among 193 UN members, opposed a Holocaust Denial Resolution in Jan 2022. Iran did the same in 2007.

7 Feb 2024: the Ugandan judge on the ICJ who supported Israel in every vote, even when the Israeli judge did not, has been promoted to be Vice-President of the ICJ. The current members are here.