A week since the ceasefire in Gaza came into effect, tens of thousands of Palestinians are returning to the flattened rubble of the places they once called home. As they return, there is worry among prominent voices in South Africa – one of Palestine’s fiercest supporters – that the agreement may not lead to a meaningful and permanent peace.
It was just months into the war on Gaza in 2023, when South Africa made history by becoming the first country to take Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide. That move reflected the hopes of thousands of Palestine supporters in South Africa and across the continent, as two million people suffered under bombardment in Gaza.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Last week, after more than two years of war, which killed at least 67,967 Palestinians, relief spread in Gaza and around the world as United States President Donald Trump’s peace plan was agreed to by Israel and Hamas. But in South Africa, the government and its supporters have promised to continue pressuring Israel for accountability over crimes inflicted on Palestinians.
There is a need to scrutinise the US’s peace plan, Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s former foreign minister under whom the ICJ case was filed in December 2023, told Al Jazeera, as it is important to make sure Israel answers in court for the Gaza war, and several other violations.
“The ceasefire is a welcome step because, of course, we want to end the killing,” Pandor said. “But I’m concerned because the struggle of the people of Palestine is about much more than the war that has been under way, [and] this genocide of the past [two years].”
Palestinians are “striving for self-determination, freedom, and justice”, she said, speaking in a personal capacity after retiring from government service last year. “I don’t think the ceasefire addresses the core issues relevant to the struggle of the Palestinian people,” she added.
“I believe the [ICJ] case must continue,” Pandor continued, highlighting the examples of past genocides. “We should, as we acted with Rwanda and Bosnia, ensure that perpetrators of war crimes are held to account. That is what we owe those who lost their lives in Gaza and other parts of Palestine.”
Pandor’s words echo the official South African stance. President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking to politicians in Cape Town on Tuesday, stressed his government’s determination to bring the legal case to a proper close, one he said would bring “healing” for the Palestinians.
“The peace deal that has been struck, which we welcome, will have no bearing on the case that is before the International Court of Justice,” Ramaphosa said.
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
When some of South Africa’s most renowned scholars arrived in The Hague to represent Palestine at the proceedings that began in January 2024, thousands of supporters stood outside the ICJ, holding up Palestinian flags. At the time, Western countries like the United Kingdom and France stood firmly by Israel, citing its right to defend itself. Both countries have since adjusted their stance by challenging Israel’s attacks on Gaza and even recognising the state of Palestine in September.
South Africa’s “dream team,” as the legal representatives at the ICJ were nicknamed by their supporters, included globally recognised law professor and apartheid critic John Dugard, senior counsel Max du Plessis, and barrister Adila Hassim, among others. In a lengthy presentation, they accused Israel of “genocidal acts” in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention but also of a “75-year apartheid, a 56-year-occupation, and a 16-year blockade” of Palestinian territories.
Israel’s team, led by British lawyer and experienced international court expert Malcolm Shaw and Australian-Israeli lawyer Tal Becker, argued that Israel had a right to defend itself and that South Africa’s genocide claims could not be substantiated.
In its ruling in January 2024, the court found it “plausible” that Israel was violating the Genocide Convention, and ordered Israel to “take all measures to prevent” genocide. Later, in March 2024, following more prompting by South Africa, the ICJ ordered Israel to ensure that food entered Gaza in the face of famine. Finally, in May 2024, the court issued a third order requiring Israel to halt attacks on Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were sheltering at the time.
Israel did not comply with the rulings in all three instances, rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found. Still, the case had some ramifications for Israel, with Belgium’s Wallonia regional government immediately suspending some weapon exports to the country, citing the court’s interim rulings and deteriorating conditions in Gaza. Japanese trading firm Itochu also cut ties with Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence contractor, following the court’s orders for Israel to halt the Rafah offensive.
Experts say the most challenging task for the South African team will be to prove that Israel intended to commit genocide in Gaza, a requirement that Pandor, who was also at The Hague last January, said the South African team has met. South Africa submitted a 500-page document detailing the evidence in October 2024. Israel’s counterarguments are due on January 12, 2026. Oral hearings will be held in 2027, and a final judgement could be pronounced by late 2027 or early 2028, analysts say.
Discussion of accountability absent
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) in August declared the Gaza war a genocide. It also noted that Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, which led to the death of about 1,100 people and the capture of about 200 others, constituted “international” crimes.
Melanie O’Brien, president of the IAGS, told Al Jazeera that South Africa had “accurately” represented the Gaza case to the court. Legal proceedings like the ICJ case and an ongoing case against Israeli leaders at the International Criminal Court (ICC) are particularly important now, in light of the peace deal, she said.
“Accountability is crucial, and the discussion of accountability is very noticeably wholly absent from the ceasefire and peace talks and plan, which is shocking,” O’Brien said.
“What is being presented is a situation where there will supposedly be a ceasefire, and perhaps peace, but there is not even discussion, let alone mechanisms presented, about holding perpetrators of horrific crimes accountable,” she added. “And we know very well from history that if there is no accountability, there will be no reconciliation, and the cycle of violence will simply continue.”
Meanwhile, the ceasefire itself, experts say, would have no impact on the ICJ’s schedule, but it could help Israel’s defence.
“It may have an impact on the substantive arguments in the sense that Israel can seek to use these developments as evidence that it has not been acting with genocide intent,” Mike Becker, a law professor at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, told Al Jazeera.
South Africa faces US backlash for ICJ case
This year, South Africa has been in the crosshairs of Israel’s biggest ally – the US – largely for its legal action against Israel.
Relations between Washington and Pretoria have deteriorated to the lowest point in decades, analysts say, because of the ICJ case against Israel, as well as South Africa’s close relationship with China and Russia – both US rivals – and false claims by President Trump that a “genocide” against white people is taking place in South Africa. Trump’s administration has offered asylum to dozens of white South Africans, a move analysts have called discriminatory as the US cracks down on other migrants.
Trump imposed steep 30 percent tariffs on South Africa from August, specifically citing the ICJ case against Israel as one reason. South African manufacturers used to enjoy tariff-free exports to US markets under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) framework, but are now in precarious positions, with some 30,000 jobs at risk, according to analysis from Liechtenstein-based Geopolitical Intelligence Services (GIS). Some 9 percent of South African exports, ranging from precious metals to vehicles to fruits, go to the US every year, the intelligence firm found.
Still, Pandor said South Africa’s own history of apartheid meant that it had the “moral obligation” to stand up for Palestinians in Gaza, despite the risk of upsetting others.
“In pursuing our own struggle against apartheid South Africa, we were assisted by many different nations as well as organisations in civil society, so we regard the bonds of international solidarity as extremely important and we take international law seriously,” Pandor said.
“We believed and continue to believe that great harm was under way, and that crimes against humanity and war crimes were being committed by the apartheid state of Israel. And that the people of Palestine and of Gaza at the time were in serious danger of elimination, and we felt that we could not be silent.”
Apartheid in South Africa began collapsing in 1990 when political prisoner Nelson Mandela was freed, and ended in 1994 when the Black majority was allowed to vote for the first time. The late Mandela and late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat were especially close, with Arafat welcoming the South African leader when he was freed from his 27-year imprisonment. In December 1997, while addressing foreign dignitaries in South Africa, Mandela declared the rallying cry that has since become a blueprint for the African National Congress-led government, saying: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Nearly two years after taking its first legal action against Israel, South Africa’s most pressing goal at the time – to urgently end the killings in Gaza – has been achieved, although it took “many months and many lives”, Pandor noted.
The task now, she said, is to deliver what she called the core demands of Palestinians: self-determination, sovereignty, and justice.
“I know that the Palestinian people are hoping for much more than what appears on paper,” Pandor said. “The world has somewhat lost its moral authority, and I think it’s necessary to restore it. And I’m actually proud that my country and our cabinet had the courage to stand up and actually take a stand in terms of international law and respect for human rights.”
