Israel faces a legal process at The Hague over a genocide complaint filed by South Africa with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial body. The case was launched after Israel’s military offensive in Gaza in response to Hamas actions. At the current stage, the ICJ will determine preliminary matters, including whether it has jurisdiction and whether urgent precautionary measures should be issued to protect Palestinians. The immediate question is whether Israel must halt its attacks to prevent potential genocide, a result that would carry significant consequences even if not coercively enforced. Israel denies all genocide allegations.
South Africa’s genocide indictment argues that Israel violated the Genocide Convention of 1948, which was created to prevent repeats of atrocities against the Jewish people. The 84-page filing asserts that Israeli actions in Gaza amount to genocide, aiming to destroy Palestinians as a national, racial, and ethnic group. Allegations include mass casualties among Palestinians, the forced displacement of large populations, destruction of homes, and the withholding of food, water, and medicine, which could lead to famine and a degraded healthcare system. The submission frames these actions as a sustained attack that creates living conditions designed to erase a people. The case also cites statements from Israeli political leaders, including its president and prime minister, as evidence of intent.
The court’s first objective is to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the dispute and whether there is a risk of irreparable harm to civilians in Gaza. If both criteria are satisfied, the ICJ could order measures that compel Israel to cease hostilities. While such measures would be non-coercive in practice, they would carry serious legal and political weight. Israel has consistently rejected the genocide accusations and argues that its actions are acts of self-defense against Hamas’ October 7 attacks, not genocide.
South African Genocide Indictment
The complaint asserts that Israel breached its legal obligations under the Genocide Convention by targeting Palestinian civilians and by creating conditions intended to destroy a population group. The document describes scenarios of mass harm, including deliberate deprivation of essential resources and services, and argues that the humanitarian situation in Gaza reflects a calculated effort to displace and degrade Palestinian communities. The filing also notes statements reportedly made by Israeli leaders that raise concerns about intent and whether the actions amount to genocide according to international law.
The seriousness of the allegations has prompted close attention from international legal scholars, diplomats, and policymakers. The case will hinge on complex questions of intent, foreseeability, and the ability of a state to prevent or respond to mass atrocities in a densely populated area.
Israel’s reaction
Israel rejects the genocide charge and characterizes its campaign as self-defense aimed at neutralizing Hamas after the group’s attacks. The U.S. government has criticized the South Africa filing as a mischaracterization of the conflict, while other nations have urged careful consideration of the legal questions before making judgments. Israel’s government signaled that it would participate in The Hague proceedings, marking a notable shift for a state that has historically engaged with the ICJ selectively. In defending its actions, Israel argues that measures were taken to minimize civilian harm, while placing responsibility for casualties on Hamas and its use of civilians as shields.
Diplomatic communications published by media outlets report that Israel’s foreign ministry has urged ambassadors to publicly dispute the allegations, calling the charges scandalous and unfounded. The broader diplomatic context includes evolving positions among allies and concerns about how the ICJ process might influence wider regional dynamics.
Judges and lawyers of the parties
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected for nine-year terms to serve impartially on a planet-spanning bench. The court’s membership reflects a wide geographic representation, with judges from Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and Oceania. The court’s presidency is held by a United States judge, with other leading figures from varied jurisdictions serving in key roles. Each side may appoint judges to join the panel, and the composition is designed to ensure balance and fairness.
Israel has nominated a judge with a background in national supreme courts and a history as a Holocaust survivor, while South Africa has named a former top judge who previously held the country’s second-highest judicial office. The teams of lawyers include international figures known for expertise in public international law, with prominent scholars and practitioners guiding each side’s arguments.
In the courtroom, Israel’s defense is supported by experienced international-law advocates, and the prosecution includes respected legal scholars from public international law, known for analyzing conflicts of this scale and complexity.
Precautions and deadlines
Given Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, provisional measures hold immediate importance. The ICJ would first determine whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and whether there is a likelihood of irreparable harm. If both grounds are met, the court could order a cessation of hostilities in Gaza and impose a legal obligation on Israel to comply. Precedents in similar cases, such as actions brought by Ukraine against Russia and the Rohingya cases against Myanmar, suggest that the court’s decisions can take time, but emergency orders may be issued within weeks or months depending on the circumstances.
Experts caution that establishing whether genocide occurred could take years of analysis and adjudication. The path from interim orders to final judgments often stretches as the parties present evidence, assess jurisdiction, and explore admissibility and remedies. The complexity of the case means it will likely be a long-running legal process with substantial international attention and debate.
What happens if Israel ignores an injunction to stop its attack?
The ICJ cannot enforce its rulings with direct coercive power. Other states may respond through diplomatic means, sanctions, or political pressure, and some countries could exercise veto power in forums like the United Nations Security Council. In practice, enforcement can be challenging if powerful states disagree with the court’s order. If the court’s decision is ignored, South Africa and other parties could pursue further international remedies, potentially affecting Israel’s standing in international forums and triggering additional responses from member states.
There is the possibility that the issue could escalate to wider discussions in the General Assembly or other UN bodies, and the international community may consider additional measures. The political and legal landscape surrounding such a decision would shape subsequent actions and the prospects for accountability on a global stage.