More disinformation spread as SA accuses Israel of defying ICJ order
It is disingenuous to confuse the plausibility of a right with whether a breach of the right has in fact taken place
The proliferation of myths concerning the outcome of the ruling obtained by SA at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on January 26 appears to be the next step in the SA government’s use of lawfare to advance its campaign to delegitimise Israel. Nobody could be that far off in misconstruing a ruling without a motive to spread disinformation. This started outside The Hague immediately after the ICJ issued its ruling, when the SA delegation danced and sang in a public celebration of their distorted perception of victory over Israel. This was hauntingly reminiscent of Hamas’ own exuberant public celebration of its massacre and kidnapping of Israeli civilians on October 7.
Shortly thereafter, President Cyril Ramaphosa and international relations & co-operation minister Naledi Pandor began using their public platforms to mischaracterise the order. Ramaphosa wrongly said during his public address after the ICJ ruling that Israel was ordered to “prevent any further acts of genocide in Gaza” and “desist from such acts”.
This falsely implied that the ICJ found Israel to have already committed genocidal acts. This was echoed by Pandor in a media release, where the ruling was incorrectly portrayed as containing a finding that Israel’s acts were “plausibly genocidal”.
It is therefore not surprising that some SA media perpetuate these incorrect phrases in their publications. Just last week News24 published an article under the headline “SA accuses Israel of openly defying ICJ’s orders”, quoting international relations & co-operation director-general Zane Dangor stating that the court “effectively granted a ceasefire”. Daily Maverick repeated this, relying on Pandor’s accusation that “Israel is ignoring ICJ order to stop killings” under the similar headline, “Pandor accuses Israel of ignoring ICJ order”.
The use of a public podium to influence the media in this manner is not merely reprehensible, it is also strategic. It is calculated to use the ruling against Israel, irrespective of its wording, to cause the maximum damage to Israel.
SA’s main goal at the ICJ has always been for an order against Israel to immediately and unilaterally suspend its military operations in Gaza. The intended consequence was to render Israel defenceless against any further attack. But the ICJ did not make this ruling against Israel, despite it having made a ruling in March 2022 against Russia “to immediately suspend its military operations” against Ukraine.
UNPERSUADED
Though SA sought an order identical to that made against Russia, it is noteworthy that the ICJ refused to treat the Israel-Hamas war in the same way. Even though SA’s allegations of genocide against Israel spanned Israel’s entire existence since 1948, the ICJ was unpersuaded to grant an order that Israel suspend its military operations, thus legitimising Israel’s continuation of the war.
The idea that the ICJ would, in the first instance, order a sovereign member state to unilaterally suspend its military operation against a genocidal, internationally proscribed terrorist organisation, leaving it defenceless, is an absurdity. To imply that it would do so without saying so expressly, thus rendering the order open to interpretation by politicians, is out of touch with judicial process.
Statements saying that the ICJ ordered Israel to desist from genocidal acts or that its acts were found to be plausibly genocidal are similarly misconceived. The ICJ could not, and did not, make a finding on whether Israel’s acts constitute genocide or were “plausibly genocidal”. These statements add words to the order that are not there. The order that Israel take measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide as defined under the Genocide Convention (to which it is already a signatory) is not based on any finding that Israel has breached the convention. ICJ president Joan Donoghue made it clear that the court was not called on as part of the interim measures “to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention ” , and it made no finding to that effect.
The ICJ’s findings were limited only to whether the rights claimed by SA were plausible. Donoghue found that “at least some of the rights claimed by SA” were plausible, such as “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide”. It is disingenuous to confuse the plausibility of a right to protection under the Genocide Convention with whether a breach of the right has in fact taken place.
These misrepresentations of the order are not benign. Imposing obligations on Israel that are not part of the order enables politicians to create the impression that Israel is not complying with the order.
PROPAGANDA WAR
The SA government, through its connections with Hamas, has more power than most to have had a pivotal role in ending the war against Israel, but has tragically chosen instead to spearhead the propaganda war against it.
Only 10 days after the October 7 massacre, Pandor herself was contacted by Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas leader and negotiator, to assist with getting humanitarian aid into Gaza. She confirmed that in a media release. One can only speculate what assistance Haniyeh sought from Pandor that could not be obtained through the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, an organisation that has been charged with getting humanitarian aid into Gaza for decades.
Yet this call was not used by Pandor to play any role at all in initiating a process calling for Hamas to end its attack on Israel and release the hostages it is still holding. This would have gone a long way towards ending the war and saving the thousands of Palestinian lives it can no longer save.
Instead, Pandor extended her support and solidarity with the Palestinian people to the leader of the very organisation perpetuating the war against Israel and in whose power the release of the hostages still lies.