The good amid the spin and cynicism

In understanding Friday’s judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on SA’s case against Israel, it is important to distinguish between what the court actually ruled and the spin from the ANC and the government.

The latter have hailed their victory in bringing genocide charges against Israel for its attacks on Hamas and Palestinians in Gaza. But it was a tempered victory in a nuanced judgment.

The court delivered a welcome and crucial rebuke to Israel for its conduct in Gaza. It put in place some welcome safeguards against further excesses, instructing Israel to prevent and punish any genocidal behaviour by its troops or incitement to this. It also instructed Israel to allow humanitarian aid to flow to prevent further suffering in Gaza.

The court attempted to hold Israel to account, requiring it to report back within a month on its actions to implement the ruling. And by letting the case go ahead, it has put Israel on notice that its actions are being closely monitored and that it will be held accountable. This is to be welcomed.

However, the court neither made a finding on genocide, nor was it asked to do so in this judgment, which was about whether there was sufficient cause to impose interim measures. The main charge of genocide is likely to be in the court for many years to come.

Notably, the court declined to order the ceasefire SA had requested — which did not prevent international relations minister Naledi Pandor from suggesting that was what the court really meant.

Notably too, the ICJ called on Hamas and other armed groups to release Israeli hostages immediately and without conditions, saying it was “gravely concerned” about the fate of the hostages. The ruling also recognised Israel’s right to defend its citizens, which is also to be welcomed.

There can be no question that the court’s ruling is a big geopolitical moment. It puts in the spotlight the international rules on how war may be waged — and how not. It is inherently asymmetrical, holding Israel to account but not Hamas, demanding that Israel comply with international law, and report transparently on the efforts it is making to prevent and punish deeds or words that could amount to genocide, the gravest crime against humanity.

But that is the burden Israel does — and must — bear for being a liberal democracy, albeit one led by a woeful leader in Bibi Netanyahu and in a region where liberal democracies are few and far between.

Netanyahu’s instinct will be to reject the ruling. But Israel now has an opportunity to show the world that it is acting in compliance with international law. It should seize that opportunity. Its supporters, the US, UK, Germany and others, should encourage it to do so. Their stance will be important with the ruling now set to go to the UN Security Council, where the US has a veto should it choose to use it.

The SA government has also made it clear it will not use the ICJ ruling as a platform to support investigations now under way by the International Criminal Court’s prosecutors, who have the power to prosecute individuals for war crimes. That is a neat irony given that SA not only showed a complete lack of respect for the ICC’s rulings on war criminals such as Sudan’s Omar alBashir in the past, but also that it was intending to pull out of the ICC only last year.

SA’s newfound respect for international law and the institutions tasked with upholding the international rule of law is one of the big positives of its case at the ICJ. It would be nice if President Cyril Ramaphosa and his administration rolled out their newfound moral compass to other theatres of war where horrifying acts against civilians are being perpetrated — Ukraine and Sudan among them.

It is hard not to be cynical about the ANC government’s motives for bringing the ICJ case. It has provided plenty of distraction from SA’s domestic woes ahead of a tough general election. It has put SA back on the international stage and — as many see it — on the moral high ground.

Cynicism aside, however, there can be no doubt that the court’s ruling has the potential to do some real good, or at least prevent further harm. If it helps to end the suffering of the people of the region, and to bring reason and compliance with international norms to a horrific conflict, SA can rightly claim credit.

IT PUTS IN THE SPOTLIGHT THE INTERNATIONAL RULES ON HOW WAR MAY BE WAGED