Israel, accustomed to impunity for its misdeeds since 1948, is today on the dock at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Accused of genocide by South Africa, this accusation is linked to a war that bloodied the Gaza Strip for more than a hundred days.

Israel's moral decay in its conflict with Gaza does not require much evidence, as the civilian casualty toll is the heaviest of the 21st century: more than 24,000 civilians have perished under tons of Israeli bombs, two-thirds of whom were children and women. Eighty-five percent of the population of the Gaza Strip, or 2.3 million people, have been forced into repeated displacements, trapped in a thin strip of land in Rafah, in the south of the territory.

According to United Nations data, more than half of the homes have been reduced to ruins, and a large part of the remaining ones is now uninhabitable due to devastation. In addition, there are total cuts of water, food, and electricity, as well as a deliberate impediment to the delivery of humanitarian aid. This critical situation led the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, to sound the alarm about the uninhabitability of the Gaza Strip, while specialized agencies warn of the proliferation of diseases related to famine, lack of drinking water, and the spread of infectious diseases.

Despite these atrocities, U.S. President Joe Biden believes it is not yet time to call for an immediate ceasefire, fully adopting the Israeli version of the October 7 attack by Hamas at the Gaza border. The United States has consistently blocked Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire.

Although some European countries are now distancing themselves from the American position by calling for an immediate ceasefire, these nations do not have the leverage that America has to curb Israeli madness and prevent it from continuing the persecution of the inhabitants of Gaza.

Faced with this general indifference of the international community, South Africa took the initiative last month by filing a complaint for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice, considered the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Thus, the ruling party, the African National Congress, confirms its commitment to its late leader Nelson Mandela, who once stated that "South Africa's liberation would not be complete without the liberation of the Palestinian people."

And the mere fact that a state dares to file a complaint for genocide against Israel constitutes a major moral blow to its leaders, who have launched a defamation campaign against South Africa, described by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "upsetting the world." The racism of Israeli officials has reached the point of declaring that it is not legitimate for a court including Arab judges to judge the Jewish State, referring to Lebanese judge Nawaf Salam, Somali judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, and Moroccan judge Mohamed Benouna.

During a historic session held over two days on January 11 and 12, the Court examined the facts, the content of the complaint, and the Israeli response. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, genocide is defined as "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."

The complaint argues that Israel neglected to provide food, water, medicine, fuel, and humanitarian aid to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip during the ongoing war with Hamas for three months. It also highlights the continuous bombing campaign that destroyed a large part of the territory, forcing about 1.9 million Palestinians to relocate and causing the death of 23,000 people (according to statistics on the day the complaint was filed) as per health officials in Gaza.

The complaint asserts that "all these actions are attributed to Israel, which has failed to prevent the genocide and commits it in violation of the Genocide Convention," adding that Israel has neglected to prevent its officials from inciting genocide, which contravenes what the Convention stipulates. The complaint asks the International Court of Justice to take urgent measures to end the violations committed by Israel.

South Africa's request to the Court to mention interim measures to protect the Palestinians of Gaza is a first step in a case that will take several years to conclude. Interim measures refer to restraining orders aimed at preventing the worsening of the conflict while the Court examines the case as a whole.

South Africa has asked the Court to order Israel to urgently suspend its military operations in Gaza, to stop any act of genocide or to take reasonable measures to prevent genocide, and to regularly submit reports to the International Court of Justice on such measures.

It is anticipated that the decision on interim measures will be made in the weeks following the hearings. However, the thorny issue lies in the role that the United States might play in hindering the issuance of a Court decision on interim measures ordering Israel to suspend its military operations. The Court, composed of 15 judges, usually makes its decisions by a majority, and it is currently presided over by the American Joan Donoghue. The question arises as to whether the American judge will be able to make a decision independent of her country's policy, based on unconditional support for Israel and unrestricted military and diplomatic assistance. The previous positions of Donoghue are not encouraging, if one examines the details of the case brought by Mauritius against Britain.

What is the Mauritius case?

The Mauritius case refers to a complex legal controversy centered around the isolated island in the Indian Ocean. As a former British colony, the Chagos Archipelago was separated from Mauritius in 1965, leading to the displacement of thousands of inhabitants to facilitate the establishment of a joint military base with the United States on Diego Garcia island. When Mauritius gained independence in 1968, the Chagos were excluded from this transition.

Mauritius contends that Britain acted illegitimately by "dismembering" its territory and has pursued legal action, a move initiated as early as 1975, aiming to recover the Chagos. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Mauritius, stating that Britain should end its administration of the Chagos, deeming the detachment of the archipelago after independence illegal.

Britain's rejection of this decision, justified by the need to protect its defense facilities in the Indian Ocean, raised questions about the political independence of judges, particularly Judge Donoghue, who was the only one to support the British position.

Concurrently, South Africa's complaint against Israel is causing diplomatic tensions. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has labeled it groundless, accusing it of hindering resolution efforts for Gaza.

The decisions of the International Court, though supposed to be independent, are often influenced by political considerations. The Chagos experience raises concerns about the Court's ability to act impartially in sensitive cases, such as the South African request against Israel.