The ICJ once again chooses political gesture above justice
20 July 2024
The South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) rejects and condemns the advisory opinion issued today by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This opinion, proffered by a United Nations court, is merely another explicitly political gesture from a partisan institution, deeply flawed on both legal and moral grounds.
Initiated in 2022 through a Palestinian-led resolution at the UN General Assembly, this advisory opinion is separate from the ongoing case where South Africa falsely accuses Israel of committing genocide. These accusations are a transparent attempt to delegitimise Israel’s right of self-defence and to deflect attention from Hamas's actions.
Notably, countries that voted against these advisory proceedings include some of South Africa's largest trading partners, including the United States, which is currently reviewing its bilateral relations with South Africa due to Pretoria’s anti-Western foreign policy. The South African government's support for these proceedings exemplifies a foreign policy trajectory that risks severe economic repercussions, as evidenced by Minister Parks Tau's upcoming shuttle diplomacy in the US to protect South Africa’s preferential trade access under AGOA.
It is crucial to note that the ICJ's opinion is non-binding. Nevertheless, it will likely embolden a South African government that persistently uses the ICJ as a propaganda tool. This stance is unfortunate. South Africa has chosen not to support Israel's rights as a sovereign democratic nation and a safe haven for the Jewish people, placing it on the wrong side of history.
Only a directly negotiated agreement with the Palestinians, which Israel has sought for decades, will lead to a resolution of the conflict. A solution cannot be forced upon Israel.
The ICJ's finding on the legal consequences of Israel's presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem once again infringes upon Israel's international right to defend itself from terrorist organisations that continually threaten Israeli citizens. The opinion demands that Israel end its rule in these areas, dismantle Jewish communities and cease all new activities, and provide restitution and reparations to Palestinians. Such a move would inevitably result in the areas suffering the same fate as Gaza after Israel's 2005 withdrawal: a breeding ground for violent acts of terror and rocket attacks threatening Israel’s existence.
Following Israel's exit from Gaza, Hamas took power and spent two decades developing an extensive network of tunnels and weapons, allowing fighters to live undetected and wage war against Israel. Hence, Israel cannot unilaterally withdraw from all territories.
The ICJ's opinion also distorts geographical history and disregards the pain and death faced by many Israelis. It oversimplifies the complexities that necessitate Israel's presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel has unequivocal historical, legal, and indigenous rights to these areas, which are also essential for Israel's security.
Moreover, the partisan and politically-motivated ICJ judge, Nawaf Salam, repeatedly expressed anti-Israel opinions during his tenure as Lebanon's UN ambassador, where he consistently voted against Israel. Salam’s clear bias against Israel should have led to his recusal from the case. His failure to uphold judicial independence principles undermines the credibility of the ICJ and global justice.
Issued by Rolene Marks on behalf of SAZF, 20 July 2024
