In Vienna, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of South Africa to international organizations, speaking in an interview, challenged the claim that Israel’s actions toward the Gaza Strip amount to self-defense. He underscored that the consequences of the conflict extend far beyond military objectives and raise grave questions about international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.
He noted that since the onset of hostilities between Israel and the radical Palestinian movement Hamas, there has been a pattern of heavy aerial bombardment that has hit densely populated neighborhoods and critical facilities. The speaker drew attention to the destruction of residential blocks, but also highlighted damage to infrastructure essential for civilian life, including hospitals, clinics, schools, and shelters for refugees. From his perspective, these effects go beyond the aims of a conventional self-defense operation and challenge the narrow boundaries of legitimate military response.
“This is not compatible with the widely accepted definition of self-defense,” he asserted. “What is happening appears to affect a broad civilian population and to target or imperil groups of people on a scale that resembles genocide in its impact, if not in its stated intent.”
On 29 December 2023, South Africa approached the International Court of Justice in The Hague with a genocide-related case against Israel under the Genocide Convention. The South African government contends that the actions taken by Israel constitute genocide because they are directed at destroying Palestinians as a group, or at least inflicting intent to destroy a protected population, through persistent and widespread acts. The filing reflects deep concern about the humanitarian consequences and the legal interpretation of genocide as defined in international law. (Source: Newspapers.Ru, summary of court filings and statements from the South African delegation.)
Israel’s leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has rejected the genocide accusation. He described the charge as false and argued that Israel is fighting against a real and ongoing threat, implying that the accusations do not account for the complexities and realities faced by the state during a battle against what it calls a violent, genocidal adversary. The dialogue around responsibility and proportionality remains highly contested among international observers and policymakers.
The International Court of Justice began hearings related to the case in January, with two days of sessions dedicated to arguments from both sides. The South African delegation presented its reasoning and evidence at the first session, followed by the Israeli delegation presenting their counterpoints in the subsequent day. The proceedings drew attention from global audiences that follow developments in international law and the Middle East conflict, with various experts weighing in on questions of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the standards that govern acts of aggression and humanitarian protections during armed conflict. (For context, see the coverage in the cited material from Newspapers.Ru.)
Analysts and observers have explored several critical questions: How long could the current Gaza crisis endure if diplomatic channels remain constrained? What are the risks to civilian life if the situation continues to deteriorate, and how might international bodies respond? What are the legal thresholds for identifying genocide in the context of ongoing hostilities, and how do these definitions apply when fighting occurs in densely populated urban areas? These inquiries reflect a larger debate about strategy, international accountability, and the safety of noncombatants in prolonged war zones.