The Guardian writes the allegations of genocide against Israel, in its second day at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, needs to be heard. "The civilian death toll and human suffering in Gaza and the words of Israeli ministers are unconscionable.The urgency of this case is obvious. But its broader importance is to reinforce that the genocide convention is a matter for everyone. States have a responsibility not just to refrain from genocide, but to prevent it."
South African media and commentators, though, are conflating the urgency of the case with inappropriate national pride, jingoism even, rather than a sober consideration of what it means for Gaza, and the genocide convention. They're reframing it as the moral rectitude of South Africa, which really means the ANC government, rather than as the merits of the case. Daily Maverick's Ferial Haffajee: "Amid the horror of Gaza, South Africa’s act of ubuntu raises the bar of justice for all"; Vrye Max du Preez: "SA regains the moral high ground" and "Mandela would have been proud". Groundup chose a different tack, "If the ICJ dismisses SA's case, it effectively means the judges are not independent" and under the control of their countries.
Gambia's lawsuit against Myanmar at the ICJ set the precedent for SA's, the second genocide case, so SA's case is not new. Groundup - editor Nathan Geffen wrote an op-ed against Israel's action - impugned the court before the hearing even began despite its finding in similar circumstances for Gambia. Du Preez's evocation of Mandela is hackneyed, and despite its ICJ action, it is difficult for SA to achieve the moral standing it had under Mandela after 30 years of ANC misgovernance and criminality.
Given the seriousness of the matter, these immature retorts of one-upmanship are appropriate for a sporting contest, not a case where, not counting the Israelis murdered and raped by Hamas, over 23,000 Palestinians have been killed and most of Gaza razed and unlivable after constant Israeli bombardment. These commentators, present or former supporters of the ANC, see South Africa in this instance as separate from the ANC government that made the decision to bring the case and, like others (except perhaps Israel), are not looking closely at their motives. They ignore that any virtuous cause the ANC adopts will be judged against the close relationships, and support for, they have with Hamas and other dubious figures.
The ICJ complaint follows three months of increasingly strident posturing against Israel by the ANC government and party (while offering to mediate). Foreign minister Naledi Pandor visited Iran, and the they hosted a delegation of Hamas leaders, both late October. The government withdrew SA's ambassador to Israel and the ANC protested outside the Israeli embassy, calling for its closure. If the ANC and SA were any other country, Norway or Ireland perhaps, and were consistent in criticism of Israel's policies, their action would be as purported: noble, an act of Ubuntu and humanitarianism for its own sake.
But Iran is a sponsor of terrorist organisations in the region including Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, and according to the West, wants to destabilise the region. Even if by the most lenient standards Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, the actions of its fighters on October 7 has placed it in the worst category. Yet the ANC government and party has close, friendly relations with both Iran and Hamas and has never criticised either for their actions, calling 7 October's attack "understandable".
So it's not a stretch the ANC government brought suit against Israel after consultation with Hamas and Israel, neither able to do it because Gaza/Palestine is not a recognised state and unsurprisingly Iran as a member of the UN is not signatory to the genocide convention. Also, their international reputation is so poor, and both terrorist states, to make credible applicants at the World Court. Despite its hypocrisy, Israel may be correct in describing SA a proxy for Hamas.
This case at the ICJ ought to have been brought but I think the ANC government's motives are cynical, opportunistic and with an eye on SA's diminished global reputation particularly in the West and to catapult its BRICS standing, a club not famous for its humanitarian and democratic credentials. And to distract SA's population from their chronic failures and criminality before this year's election, which if the favourable comments about the case is an example, they're succeeding.
The ANC is no friend of oppressed peoples. Note their silence about political conditions in certain African countries, Zimbabwe for example, and further afield and their close friendships with authoritarian leaders. Note the dismal conditions the majority of South Africans suffer. Note their dismissal of the ICC - Omar al-Bashir and Putin - in two cases and their stated intention of leaving it. But suddenly, hypocritically, they've had a revelation about the World Court's importance, on behalf of Gazans. UN
In short, the ANC is using Gaza for realpolitik purposes, or being used - I think a duped, unwitting pawn - in a dangerous geopolitical struggle, Iran and its proxies against the US (West) and its proxy Israel.
Last, let me ask, though, what the Guardian January 11 asks, where is the outrage for the "horrific sexual violence Israeli women and girls suffered from Hamas"? Israel is exacting revenge, not only on Hamas but all Palestinians, but where is the justice at the UN, ICJ, ICC, in global media for Hamas' victims? The catalyst for the tragedy in Gaza is almost forgotten.
Updated: see here and here for analyses of international and internal SA impacts of the case. See here for the merits and analysis of SA's and Israel's arguments at the court.
Comments
Post a Comment