The website “Mondoweiss” published a report on the case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The report indicates that while the case has not changed the situation on the ground, it represents a symbolic victory for the Palestinian cause and international law.
“Mondoweiss” noted in its report, translated by “Arabi21,” that it has been a year since South Africa lodged the genocide charges against Israel at the International Court of Justice. South Africa argued that Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, a violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide.
The website mentioned that the immediate jubilant reaction from the Palestine solidarity movement was not surprising, and despite the limited capacity of the world to enforce international law, there was hope that the symbolic case brought by South Africa would materially impact the Palestinians in Gaza.
The site emphasized the need to confront the reality that South Africa’s case against Israel, a year later, has not stopped its attacks on Gaza. The latest development in the case was South Africa’s submission of evidence on October 28, with Israel given until July 28, 2025, to respond. While interest in the case has waned, Gaza continues to face aggression.
The site added that the alleged actions in the case have continued unabated, with symbolic and material support from major powers, particularly the United States. This raises questions about the efficacy of the case and its limited impact on Palestinians in Gaza amidst ongoing atrocities that have persisted for more than 12 months in full view of the world.
To answer these questions, one must consider the deeper historical context of the case, why it was celebrated as a victory by many in the Palestine solidarity movement, and what it represents for the future.
Limited Victory for the Movement
“Mondoweiss” explained that a year after considering South Africa’s case against Israel, it appears to have a mixed legacy. Although it has not changed the situation in Gaza, it represents a real, albeit limited, victory for a decades-long project in which Palestinians and their allies have sought to build international legitimacy for the Palestinian cause and affirm the ongoing Nakba committed against the Palestinian people.
Since the emergence of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in 2005, activists have achieved significant success in the struggle for Palestinian freedom, altering perceptions about the Israeli occupation and paving the way for a shift in support for the Palestinian struggle. In this context, South Africa’s case against Israel can be seen as a genuine victory, thanks to the international legitimacy it lends to the accusations. However, the limits of this approach and its role in serving the selfish motives of some Western activists to maintain their moral authority must be acknowledged.
The site reported that another charge included in South Africa’s case against Israel, overshadowed by the focus on Israel’s violations in Gaza, is that Israel practices apartheid. The boycott movement itself harks back to boycott campaigns against apartheid in South Africa and has always been based on likening Israel’s policies to apartheid. This analogy serves as a moral condemnation of Israel’s policies and also as evidence of its violation of international law. By incorporating this argument, South Africa has enhanced the rhetorical aspect of the analogy between Israel’s racist policies towards Palestinians and South Africa’s racist policies towards its Black majority, calling for Israel to be condemned for committing the crime of apartheid. If Israel is condemned, its allies and the international community are obliged to intervene.
The site noted a rhetorical dynamic, where defenders of Israel oppose using the term “genocide” to describe its actions in Gaza, although they are prepared to acknowledge some of its unethical occupations and excesses. This phenomenon reveals the importance of insisting on using correct terminology and pressuring “the international community” to fulfill its obligations towards Palestinians, with emphasis in the West that our governments violate their own laws without accountability.
International Law at Stake
After a year of deliberations in the case, it has become clear that the United States completely rejects the jurisdiction of international law, including its response to arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The Biden administration’s contempt for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court is proof that America cannot be subjected to international law or held accountable, as is the case with Netanyahu’s government.
The site emphasized that the discrepancy between “the international community” and U.S. policies has become apparent to the world, as the case of South Africa against Israel has shown that major powers do not consider themselves bound by the same standards they impose on others, raising questions about the legitimacy of international law and the global civil society as a whole. What is at stake in the case is the concept of international consensus upon which the Palestine solidarity movement relies. As it turns out, international law does not have power in itself and depends on the actions of those who have signed treaties.
While the South Africa case against Israel represents a narrative victory for the Palestine solidarity movement, it is fundamentally a victory for global civil society and the legitimacy of the Rome Statute and the International Court of Justice. It is important for allies of the Palestinian cause to ask themselves whether moments of celebration align with real victories for Palestinians, or whether they merely defended their institutions from their governments’ excesses.
The site concluded its report by stating that participants in Palestine solidarity movements in the West need to reconsider their habit of celebrating symbolic victories while Israel continues its genocide campaign in Gaza. By following the court’s proceedings and scrutinizing the charges, we realize that the international court’s chances of stopping the destruction of Gaza were slim. While efforts continue, we must build on narrative victories, but without them replacing real material progress.
