South Africa says Israel's campaign in Gaza amounts to genocide; What can the UN do about it?
The Hague (Netherlands) (AP): Israel will defend itself in the United Nations' highest court starting Thursday against allegations that its military campaign in Gaza amounts to genocide.
South Africa asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider Israel's actions in light of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust.
The convention defines genocide as acts such as killings "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
The case will likely drag on for years.
Here are some details on the case and its ramifications.
WHAT IS SOUTH AFRICA'S ARGUMENT?
South Africa's 84-page filing says Israel's actions "are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part" of the Palestinians in Gaza.
It asks the ICJ for a series of legally binding rulings. It wants the court to declare that Israel "has breached and continues to breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention," and to order Israel to cease hostilities in Gaza that could amount to breaches of the convention, to offer reparations, and to provide for reconstruction of what it has destroyed in Gaza.
The filing argues that genocidal acts include killing Palestinians, causing serious mental and bodily harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions meant to "bring about their physical destruction as a group." And it says Israeli officials have expressed genocidal intent.
South Africa argues that the court has jurisdiction because both countries are signatories of the genocide convention, whose ninth article says such disputes can be submitted to the International Court of Justice.
Many South Africans, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, compare Israel's policies regarding Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with South Africa's past apartheid regime of racial segregation. Israel rejects such allegations.
WHAT WAS ISRAEL'S RESPONSE?
Israel's government swiftly denounced the genocide claim. The Foreign Ministry said South Africa's case lacked a legal foundation and constitutes a "despicable and contemptuous exploitation" of the court.
Eylon Levy, an official in the Israeli prime minister's office, accused South Africa of "giving political and legal cover" to the October 7 attack by Hamas that triggered Israel's campaign, and said Israel would send a legal team to the Hague "to dispel South Africa's absurd blood libel."
An Israeli official said the country, which has a history of ignoring international tribunals, decided to defend itself for several reasons. Among them are Israel's role in promoting the original genocide convention after the Holocaust and the nation's belief that it has "a strong case." He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes deliberations.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to press ahead with the war until Hamas is crushed and the hostages still held by the Hamas group in Gaza are freed. He's said that could take several more months.
HOW DID ISRAEL REACT TO EARLIER COURT PROCEEDINGS?
Israel did not attend hearings in 2004 when the ICJ discussed an advisory opinion requested by the UN into the legality of Israel's barrier wall. The court ruled in a non-binding opinion that the wall was "contrary to international law." Israel sent a written statement to the court before the ruling saying it did not consider it to have jurisdiction and should not respond to the UN request for the advisory opinion.
Israel also has in the past refused to cooperate with an investigation after the 2008-09 Gaza war, a UN investigation into the 2014 Gaza war, and the ongoing Human Rights Council investigation into alleged abuses against Palestinians.
Israel is not a member of another Hague-based court, the International Criminal Court. Other countries that are not ICC members include major global powers the United States, China and Russia.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
South Africa's filing includes a request for the court to urgently issue legally binding interim orders for Israel to "immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza."
Such orders, known as provisional measures, would remain while the case progresses. They're legally binding but not always followed. In 2022, in a genocide case filed by Ukraine against Russia, the court ordered Moscow to immediately suspend its invasion, but the order was ignored.
The court is the highest judicial body of the United Nations but it does not have a police force to implement its rulings. If a nation believes another member has failed to comply with an ICJ order, it can report that to the Security Council.
The 15-member council is the UN's most powerful body, charged with maintaining international peace and security. Its tools range from sanctions to authorising military action, but all actions require support from at least nine council nations and no veto by a permanent member the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.
The court is holding public hearings Thursday and Friday, and lawyers representing South Africa and Israel can make arguments. A panel of 15 judges drawn from around the world, and one each nominated by Israel and South Africa, could take days or weeks to issue a decision on preliminary measures.
The court will then enter a lengthy process of considering the full case.
Israel could challenge the jurisdiction and seek to have the case thrown out before lawyers start arguing. Other countries that have signed the genocide convention could also apply to make submissions.
IS THE COURT HEARING SIMILAR CASES?
Two other genocide cases are on the court's docket. The case filed by Ukraine shortly after Russia's invasion accuses Moscow of launching the military operation based on trumped-up claims of genocide and accuses Russia of planning acts of genocide in Ukraine.
Another involves Gambia, on behalf of Muslim nations, accusing Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority.
In a past case brought by Bosnia, the court in 2007 ruled that Serbia "violated the obligation to prevent genocide in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995." The court declined to order Serbia to pay compensation. Croatia also sued Serbia in 2015, but the world court ruled that Serbia didn't breach the convention in that case.
ICJ OR ICC?
The Hague calls itself the international city of peace and justice. It is home not only to the ICJ, but also the International Criminal Court (ICC), just a few miles away, near the North Sea coastline.
The two courts have different mandates.
The ICJ, which first sat in 1946 as the world emerged from the carnage of WWII, adjudicates cases between nations. They're often land and maritime border disputes, as well as disagreements over the interpretation of international treaties.
The ICC is much younger. It started work in 2002 with the lofty goal of ending global impunity for atrocities. Unlike the ICJ, it seeks to hold individuals criminally responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The ICC has an ongoing investigation into the Israel-Palestinian conflict, dating back to the last war in Gaza. So far, it has not issued any arrest warrants. Israel says the ICC has no jurisdiction because Palestinians do not belong to an independent sovereign state.
ICC prosecutor Karim Khan said last month that an investigation into possible crimes by Hamas groups and Israeli forces "is a priority for my office."
During a visit to The Hague in October, Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister Riyad al-Maliki said the Palestinian Authority would not interfere with an ICC investigation into Hamas' October 7 attacks. "We cannot say Investigate here, don't investigate there,'" al-Maliki said.
The ICC was established to prosecute senior figures accused of involvement in crimes. That means it could charge Israeli political and military leaders.
The ICC last year issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin accusing him of personal responsibility for abductions of children from Ukraine.
WHAT ABOUT PAST UN CASES?
Two now-defunct UN tribunals also held landmark genocide trials.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia convicted a series of high-ranking Bosnian Serbs, including former President Radovan Karadzic and his military chief Gen Ratko Mladic, for their roles in the July 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 men and boys in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica.
Karadzic and Mladic were given life sentences.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted a string of leaders involved in the African nation's 1994 genocide when some 8,00,000 people, mainly ethnic Tutsis, were slaughtered.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sanjay Raut demands re-election, alleges irregularities in EVMs during Maharashtra polls
Mumbai, Nov 25: Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Monday demanded a re-election in Maharashtra using ballot papers, claiming there were irregularities with the electronic voting machines (EVMs).
Talking to reporters, Raut alleged several complaints about EVMs malfunctioning and questioned the integrity of the recently held elections.
The BJP-led Mahayuti won 230 out of 288 seats in the assembly elections, while the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi managed 46 seats, with Shiv Sena (UBT) winning just 20 out of 95 seats it contested.
"We have received nearly 450 complaints regarding EVMs. Despite raising objections repeatedly, no action has been taken on these issues. How can we say these elections were conducted fairly? Hence, I demand that the results be set aside and elections be held again using ballot papers," Raut said.
Citing some instances, he said a candidate in Nashik reportedly received only four votes despite having 65 votes from his family, while in Dombivli, discrepancies were found in EVM tallies, and election officials refused to acknowledge the objections.
The Sena (UBT) leader also questioned the credibility of the landslide victories of some candidates, saying, "What revolutionary work have they done to receive more than 1.5 lakh votes? Even leaders who recently switched parties have become MLAs. This raises suspicions. For the first time, a senior leader like Sharad Pawar has expressed doubts about EVMs, which cannot be ignored."
Asked about the MVA's poor performance in the elections, Raut rejected the idea of blaming a single individual.
"We fought as a united MVA. Even a leader like Sharad Pawar, who commands immense respect in Maharashtra, faced defeat. This shows that we need to analyse the reasons behind the failure. One of the reasons is EVM irregularities and the misuse of the system, unconstitutional practices, and even judicial decisions left unresolved by Justice Chandrachud," he said.
Raut stressed that though internal differences might have existed within the MVA, the failure was collective.
He also accused the Mahayuti of conducting the elections in an unfair manner.
"I cannot call the elections fair given the numerous reports of discrepancies in EVMs, mismatched numbers, and vote irregularities across the state," Raut said.
