Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/45



1. The circumstances of this case are heartbreaking. On 7 October 2023, persons associated with Hamas attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip. They committed atrocities during which more than 1,000 Israelis were killed and over 200 were taken hostage. Rockets continue to be fired into Israel. Israel has responded with a military operation in the Gaza Strip, as a result of which thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed and wounded, a large majority of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip have been displaced, and a large percentage of all buildings for a population of some 2 million people have been destroyed (see paragraph 13 of the Order). This apocalyptic situation arises from a very complicated political and historical context. Many people around the world hold widely divergent views about who is responsible for the current situation, about various aspects of the larger conflict, and what needs to be done to resolve them.

2. The Court can play only a limited role in the present proceedings. South Africa has brought its Application against Israel based on the Genocide Convention alone. This means that the case concerns, first, only alleged violations of the Genocide Convention and, second, only alleged violations by Israel of that Convention. Thus, the case does not concern possible violations of other rules of international law, such as war crimes, and it does not concern possible violations of the Genocide Convention by persons associated with Hamas. While these limitations may be unsatisfactory, the Court is bound to respect them. I would like to recall, however, that persons associated with Hamas remain responsible for any acts of genocide that they may have committed. Also, both Israel and persons associated with Hamas remain legally responsible for any possible breaches by them of other rules of international law, including international humanitarian law. Any such responsibility can and should be determined through other legal procedures.

3. The Genocide Convention of 1948 is a very special treaty. It was concluded in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany against the Jewish people in Europe. In its preamble, the Convention recognizes that “genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world”, and it expresses the commitment of humanity “to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge”. For this purpose, Article II of the Convention legally defines the crime of genocide as specific acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. I can understand that Israel, which was established in 1948 as a homeland offering protection to the Jewish people, including against another genocide, strongly rejects allegations that it has now violated the Genocide Convention.

4. However, the Court cannot dismiss South Africa’s Application on this ground. By acceding to the Genocide Convention, Israel has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court under Article IX thereof in “[d]isputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III”.