The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is today delivering an interim ruling in the case that claims Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
South Africa filed the case, arguing Israel is breaching the UN convention on genocide by “killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction”.
Israel has described the lawsuit as a “despicable and contemptuous exploitation” of the court.
However, today’s ruling will not centre on the accusation of genocide – but instead, the court will make a decision on whether emergency measures suggested by South Africa should be implemented.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:45
Sky News explains: What is genocide?
What does genocide mean?
The term genocide was adopted by the UN soon after it was established in 1945, with a specific convention adopted on it in 1948.
According to the charter, genocide “means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
Examples include:
• Killing members of a group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
It was set up in wake of the Holocaust, in which the Nazis killed approximately six million Jewish people between 1941 and 1945, as part of the international community’s commitment to “never again”.
Since its inception there have only been three proven cases of genocide under the UN definition: the Khmer Rouge killing of Cambodian minority groups in the 1970s; the Srebrenica Massacre of Muslims in Bosnia in 1995; and the killing of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
What is South Africa claiming – and why?
An 84-page court document set out South Africa’s case, which states that Israel’s “acts… in the wake of the attacks on 7 October 2023… are genocidal in character”.
It claims this is because they are “intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, that being the part of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip”.
South Africa says Israel is “failing to prevent genocide and is committing genocide” in its war with Hamas.
In the court documents, lodged on 29 December, it also acknowledged “direct targeting of Israeli civilians and other nationals and hostage-taking by Hamas” on and after 7 October, which may breach international law.
As both South Africa and Israel are signatories to the 1948 convention, it argues the court has jurisdiction to stop Israel’s military offensive killing Palestinians in Gaza.
It also compares Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to its own Apartheid period.
Image: Nelson Mandela and former PLO leader Yasser Arafat in 1990
South Africa has a longstanding affinity with the Palestinian people.
After Nelson Mandela was freed from prison and became South African president, he said: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”, and later wore a traditional keffiyeh to a pan-African event in Algeria in 1990.
Current South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has condemned Israel’s offensive in Gaza from the start.
Why do some in South Africa stand with Palestine?
Most South Africans recognise Israel’s complicity in their own oppression, according to Professor Salim Vally, the director for the centre for education rights and transformation at the University of Johannesburg.
“For example, Israel was an important arms supplier to apartheid South Africa, despite the international arms embargo,” he says.
“As late as 1980, 35% of Israel’s arms exports were destined for our country.
“When the global anti-apartheid movement forced countries to impose sanctions on the apartheid regime, Israel imported South African goods and re-exported them to the world as a form of inter-racist solidarity,” he adds.
“Israel was loyal to the apartheid state and clung to this friendship when almost all other relationships dissolved.”
How has Israel responded?
Historically, Israel has refused to engage with international tribunals, but sent a legal team to defend itself at The Hague this time.
It described South Africa as “hypocritical” and the lawsuit as a “blood libel” – a term used for antisemitic false allegations against Jewish people that originates from the Middle Ages.
Image: The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on Rafah, Gaza
What have Israel and Hamas said about the war?
Hamas fighters and other militant Palestinian groups killed 1,200 Israelis on 7 October, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) say. Some 240 were abducted and taken into Gaza, with 132 still missing.
The Israeli military says more than 200 of its soldiers have died fighting in Gaza so far.
According to the Hamas-run Palestinian health ministry, 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since the conflict started.
Nearly all of the 2.3 million population of Gaza have been displaced by heavy bombing.
In its founding charter in 1988, Hamas declared there is “no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad”, adding: “The day of judgement will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them”.
But in 2017 it changed the charter to reflect that “its conflict is with the Zionist project, not with the Jews because of their religion”.
Individual Hamas leaders however, such as Mahmoud Zahar, have claimed the killing of Israeli children has been “legitimised” by the killing of Palestinian infants by Israel.
At the beginning of the conflict, an Israeli military official declared: “We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said “Hamas must be destroyed” – but has not referenced Palestinians or the people of Gaza.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:32
Israel: Progress in the war in Gaza could mean the end is in sight
What power does the ICJ have?
The ICJ has the power to issue “provisional measures” – legally-binding court orders – that would last for the duration of the case.
South Africa wants it to use them to “immediately suspend military operations in and against Gaza”.
Although they are legally binding, they are not always adhered to.
For example, a joint case against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 resulted in provisional measures for Moscow to withdraw troops, but these were ignored by the Kremlin.
Like others before it, the case is likely to last for years, as proving “intent” to commit genocidal acts is a difficult and lengthy process.
Alexander Horne, a barrister and visiting law professor at Durham University, who is also a dual British-Israeli national, said Israel will be “determined to demonstrate its armed forces have acted both morally and proportionately following the horrendous events of 7 October”.
He added that its choice of supreme court judge Aharon Barak as its representative suggests it is taking the case “very seriously”.
If the court does impose provisional measures it would be “hugely problematic” for the Israeli offensive, which it has vowed will continue until all hostages are returned, he said.
The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
European leaders sit down with Trump for talks
The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.
Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russiawould have a problem with it.
Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putinhad agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:50
Trump: No US troops on ground in Ukraine
Russia gives two fingers to the president
And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.
“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.
Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.
It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:02
Europe ‘undermining’ Ukraine talks
The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.
Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.
It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.
NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.
European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”
The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:57
Sky’s Mark Stone takes you inside Zelenskyy-Trump 2.0
Would Trump threaten force?
The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.
The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iranisn’t a nuclear power.
Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.
Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.
A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.
Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.
He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.
Image: Pic: Truth Social
That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.
The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.
At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.
Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.
Image: Pics: AP
Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.
Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.
Who are FARC, and are they still active?
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.
It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.
It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.
According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.
Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.
It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.
The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday