Isn't Peace Enough? South Africa is Dragging Israel Back to the Court of World Justice

The legal battle between South Africa and Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to continue, even after the recent implementation of a Gaza ceasefire. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has unequivocally stated that the cessation of hostilities will have "no bearing" on the ongoing genocide proceedings, signaling a firm commitment to long-term accountability.

Why the Ceasefire Won't Stop the Case

The decision to press ahead underscores the fundamental difference between a temporary political agreement and a lengthy international legal process. The ICJ case, formally known as Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), is not primarily focused on forcing a cessation of immediate fighting, but on judging past and alleged ongoing actions to determine if they constitute violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Speaking to Parliament this week, President Ramaphosa emphasized that "True peace requires justice, recognition, and reparations."

The current stage of the proceedings is the case on the merits, where South Africa must prove that Israel acted with "genocidal intent" to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, in whole or in part. A ceasefire, while welcomed, does not erase the evidence or the need for a final legal ruling on this core allegation.

The ICJ process is notoriously slow. South Africa submitted its comprehensive legal brief (the Memorial) in October 2024, detailing evidence of mass killings, infrastructure destruction, and obstruction of aid. Israel's response is reportedly due in January 2026, with oral hearings not expected until 2027 and a final judgment potentially as late as 2028. The military status on the ground does not alter this judicial calendar.

The ICJ's Previous Orders

The Hague court has already intervened three times on the matter of provisional measures (emergency orders), finding it plausible that Israel's acts could infringe on the rights of the Palestinian people protected by the Genocide Convention.

South Africa maintains that a ceasefire, while appreciated, does not negate the need for a final judgment on accountability for the alleged atrocities committed before the truce took effect.

International Political Momentum

South Africa’s sustained legal action is gaining significant international backing, placing increasing diplomatic pressure on Israel.

Several nations have either joined or declared their intent to formally intervene in the case, including Spain, Ireland, Turkey, and Colombia. These interventions underscore a growing global bloc committed to ensuring international law is upheld and applied universally.

For South Africa, a nation whose foreign policy is deeply shaped by its own anti-apartheid history, the ICJ case is seen as a moral imperative and a crucial test for the global governance system. As President Ramaphosa stated, "South Africa will always stand where justice and humanity demand."