17 Fall 2026 committed and is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza within the meaning of Article II of the Convention – which defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. South Africa further alleged violations of Articles III (conspiracy, direct and public incitement, and complicity in genocide) and IV (the obligation to punish perpetrators regardless of official status), and of the overarching duty under Article I to prevent and punish genocide. Simultaneously with its application, South Africa filed a request for provisional measures – emergency orders the ICJ may issue to preserve the rights of parties pending a final judgment. South Africa also filed for additional provisional measures in the months that followed. South Africa’s principal aim was to obtain an order requiring Israel to cease military operations in Gaza entirely. To demonstrate the requisite urgency, South Africa relied heavily on public statements by senior Israeli officials (including ministers and members of the Knesset), UN and media reports on the humanitarian situation, and social media postings by Israeli soldiers depicting alleged misconduct in Gaza. Israel chose to participate in the proceedings – as it was effectively required to do, given that both Israel and South Africa are parties to the Genocide Convention and the ICJ’s jurisdiction derives from Article IX thereof.3 Israel dispatched a team of senior external counsel and legal officials to appear in oral proceedings in January 2024 and again in May 2024. Israel also appointed an ad hoc judge, as permitted under the ICJ Statute: initially former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, and subsequently Professor Ron Shapira. Israel’s defense rested on several pillars: that the scale and pattern of civilian harm reflect the grim realities of intensive, large-scale urban warfare against an enemy that systematically embeds within the civilian population, uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes, and deliberately maximizes civilian exposure to harm; that Hamas’s conduct is the principal cause of civilian casualties and damage; that Israel adheres to the law of armed conflict and maintains a robust domestic legal system with independent military and civilian oversight; and that the public statements relied upon by South Africa were either misinterpreted, taken out of context, or made by individuals without decision-making authority over military operations.4 South Africa did not obtain the provisional measures it sought. Critically, the ICJ did not order Israel to cease military operations. The orders the ICJ did issue – on January 26, March 28, and May 24, 2024 – directed Israel to prevent acts falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention, to prevent and punish incitement to genocide, to ensure unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance, and (in the May order) to halt its military offensive in Rafah to the extent it could bring about conditions of physical destruction.5 South Africa filed additional requests for provisional measures; the ICJ’s subsequent orders focused primarily on the humanitarian situation rather than on operational matters. The written proceedings have progressed slowly. South Africa filed its memorial in October 2024. Israel’s countermemorial was filed on March 12, 2026. In its counter-memorial, which has not been made public, Israel also raised objections to the ICJ’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application. Following consultations between the President of the ICJ and the parties on April 29, 2026, the ICJ on May 21, 2026 directed a second round of written pleadings: South Africa is to file its Reply by November 22, 2027, and Israel its Rejoinder by May 22, 2029. After the written phase concludes, the ICJ may schedule oral hearings, order additional submissions, or proceed to deliberation. A final judgment on the merits is not expected before 2029 at the earliest. 2. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (S. Afr. v. Isr.), Application Instituting Proceedings (Dec. 29, 2023), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277. 4. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (S. Afr. v. Isr.), Verbatim Record, 2024 I.C.J. CR 2024/2 (Jan. 12), available at https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/caserelated/192/192-20240112-ora-01-00-bi.pdf 5. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (S. Afr. v. Isr.), Provisional Measures, Orders of Jan. 26, 2024, March 28, 2024, and May 24, 2024, available at https://www. icj-cij.org/case/192/provisional-measures
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=