What The ICJ Rulings In The 'South Africa v Israel' Case Exposed About The Western World

The International Court of Justice ruled four times (26th of January, 16th of February, 28th of March and the 24th of May) on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip. The rulings, even though not explicitly condemning the State of Israel, does leave open the possibility of legal incrimination of Israel for the excess on civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip during the ongoing Hamas-Israel War. 

And that is where the problem - at least, it is a problem for the Western World - lies: the probability of legal incrimination of Israel. The International Court of Justice, since its first case on the 22nd of May 1947, has engaged in 191 cases (including the case discussed in this blog). As a successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice, or World Court, the institution has been vital in safeguarding international law. 

As the judicial branch of the United States, the International Court of Justice aims to apply the law to all member states of the United Nations without any respect of persons. However, as an anthropologist, it is interesting to point out that the United Nations (successor of the League of Nations) come forth from a desire to mediate between empires and nation-states to prevent military escalation. The League of Nations (1920-1946), initiated by the British Empire, came to being after the First World War (1914-1918) which was mainly a Western conflict between Western/European alliances that affected the rest of the world.

At the time of the founding of the League of Nations, a big portion of the current Global South were colonies of Western European nations (Britain, The Netherlands, France, Belgium, etc.). Western Europe, and to some extend the United States of America, operated as the 'decision-makers' for the current Global South. The only (maritime) rival for Western hegemony was the Empire of Japan  (1865-1947). Over time, after the Second World War, which included the fall of Nazi-Germany, and the fall of the Empire of Japan, the now United Nations welcomed post-colonial states that obtained their independence from Western empires.

However, the decolonisation of South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa did not automatically end Western hegemony. The Balfour Declaration (1926) and Statute of Westminster (1931) increased the autonomy of the British dominions and the London Declaration of 1949 formally replaced the British Empire with a (British) Commonwealth of Nations. Around that same time, the military and political relevance of the United States of America superseded the declining influence of Britain. Western Europe established the EEC, which later turned into the current European Union, and the United States and much of Western Europe established NATO (which now also included members in Eastern Europe).

Decolonisation, however, went hand-in-hand with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 which ended Mandatory Palestine (1920-1948) in which the British Empire took over the government of Palestine from the then Ottoman Empire in after the First World War. Mandatory Palestine was the result of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which Britain sought, without consulting with the Arab inhabitants of Palestine who were the majority there, to establish a homeland for the Jews in which the rights of the natives wouldn't be infringed upon. Remember, this was even before Nazi-Germany and the horrors of the Second World War!

1948, the same year the State of Israel was established, is also the year that the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, also known as the Genocide Convention, to prevent and counter genocide worldwide. 1948 is also the year of Nakba, when over 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced by Israeli forces. Even till this day, there are illegal Israeli settlement on the West Bank (which is Palestinian territory according to the Oslo Accords and the borders agreed in 1967). 

The Genocide Convention is the same international treaty that is now used in a court case against the State of Israel. Is it not off... that in 1948 ethnic cleaning of Palestinians from their homeland occurred, and to some extent, is still ongoing today, but for seventy-six  years no action was undertaken against the State of Israel to stop the oppression of the Palestinian people? 

How come no Western (or European) nation ever initiated a court case against the State of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians after 1948? The Republic of South Africa is a post-colonial state, shaped by both the Dutch Empire and later the British Empire. The State of Israel came into being after colonisation by the British Empire during Mandatory Palestine. In this sense, both South Africa and the State of Israel can be seen as political entities that came forth out of British colonisation. So, what is the difference? The State of Israel and its Jewish Israeli population are perceived by many as Europeans, and therefore 'white' (with Ashkenazi Jews migrating from Central Europe, Ashkenazi is also an ancestor of the Germanic tribes). 

It is no wonder that the United States and Britain (and many other former Western colonial powers) are allies of the State of Israel and many do not recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign nation. When the Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Ukraine in 2022, there was a strong condemnation coming from the West towards Russian aggression in Ukraine which also led to civilian casualties. However, when the State of Israel killed excessive amounts of civilians in its war against Hamas, those same Western nations were ambivalent or even silent about the matter.  

How come it had to be a post-colonial state that decided to hold the State of Israel accountable for its loose way of dealing with civilian life in the Gaza Strip? When the International Criminal Court even hinted at issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu there were politicians from the United States that threatened with sanctions on the International Criminal Court (of which both the USA and Israel are not under its jurisdiction). 

The image appears now that international law seems to only work as a one-way street: from the rest towards the West. However, when it is the West that acts out political violence or (war) crime against the rest (non-West) there seems to always be a ''good reason'' or ''excuse'' for the mistreatment. The move of the Republic of South Africa in their genocide case against the State of Israel shows a declining tolerance for Western hypocrisy and racist policies.

The good news is that there are many Westerners who also side with the attitude of South Africa and who even demand divestments from Israel for its crimes against the civilians of the Gaza Strip.  The Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Armenia, and the Republic of Ireland all recently (within the last three months) recognised the State of Palestine. 

Josep Borrell Fontelles, the EU Chief of Foreign Affairs, admitted ''The era of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended''. Further, the EU politicians referred to a possible tension between ''The West'' and ''the rest''. 

The situation is not a duality: The West on one side and the non-West on the other. Both inside the West and outside of the West there is growing resistance against the double standards in international law which are displayed in the responses against Israeli aggression against Palestinian civilians (the majority being women and children!). Even among Israelis and Jews worldwide there is growing resistance against Israeli aggression and the lack of repercussions from its allies against its genocidal violence. 

For now, it is sufficient to say that the 'South Africa v Israel' case has exposed the fairytale of white supremacy that many pro-Israel camps are part of. If 'nobody is above the law' and 'all countries must obey international law' then how can it be that the lives of Palestinian children seem the matter less than the lives of, for example, Ukrainian children who have been victimised by the Russian aggression on Ukraine? How come when Ukrainian flags appeared in various places, in 2022, there was almost a welcoming praise... but when Palestinian flags appeared at many protests it was considered a 'security threat'? It seems that only 'European' states associated with 'being white' are allowed to campaign for their right to exist and the right of their civilians to be safeguarded from military aggression from outsiders who appear to be European or allied with European interests. 

The 'South Africa v Israel' case damaged the reputation of both Israel and the Western World as a whole. The cultural impact of the 26th of January 2024 will be studied by future anthropologist, sociologist, historians, and political scholars for decades. The Genocide Case against Israel might be - time will tell if my prediction is correct - the beginning of a culture in international relations where the West is frowned upon (due to loss of all credibility) and bypassed politically by regional and intergovernmental collaborations such as BRICS. 

Time will tell, time will tell...

Image: Remko de Waal, AFP. Link: ICJ orders Israel to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza (france24.com)