Gaza genocide: Where does impunity end?
Gaza genocide: Where does impunity end?
In 1945, at the closing session of the historical conference held in San Francisco with the aim of establishing the United Nations, US President Harry Truman declared: "By their own example the strong nations of the world should lead the way to international justice.
That principle of justice is the foundation stone of this Charter. That principle is the guiding spirit by which it must be carried out, not by words alone but by continued concrete acts of goodwill."
How faithful have the founding fathers been to this stated commitment?
Eighty years later, as the United Nations General Assembly convenes once more, the world must confront the erosion of that founding principle.
The question before us is not abstract. It is urgent, visceral and global: Where does impunity end?
Should we stand back and remain silent when innocent civilians are killed or starved before our eyes? Should we accept a world where human beings are dehumanised and indiscriminately killed?
Not just in Gaza, but in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and in other conflicts across the world.
A shared duty
What does our silence imply? Do we find the daily killing of journalists, healthcare workers and children, as well as the systematic violation of international law, including international humanitarian law, acceptable?
Do we not believe that preventing genocide is a shared duty?
South Africa does. And we have chosen to act.
South Africa comes from a lived history of tyranny and oppression. It is the UN and many of its agencies which declared apartheid and white minority domination as "a crime against humanity", an "affront to human dignity" and "a threat to international peace and security".
Our commitment to end impunity when genocide and crimes against humanity are being committed is, in part, born out of this abomination of apartheid and the scourges suffered by many of our people.
But we also stand for certain values and principles, not in the least the commitment to uphold and defend international law and international humanitarian law.
Our government has taken a principled stance, rooted in our stated and ensconced constitutional values and our obligations. We have done so not to provoke, but to protect. Not to isolate, but to illuminate.
We have brought our case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) not only to preserve life in Gaza, but to safeguard the integrity of international law itself.
Complicity not neutrality
We are anti-war and pro-peace in our international doctrines. Inaction in the face of atrocity is not neutrality, it is complicity. And complicity corrodes the very institutions meant to uphold our shared humanity.
The ICJ case brought by South Africa is not an indictment of a people, but of a policy, a policy of destruction, displacement, disregard and impunity. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, has now corroborated what we feared.
If the ICJ’s rulings are ignored, if the UN’s findings are dismissed, if the world’s conscience is numbed then what becomes of accountability in other conflicts?
The commission stated that Israel has flagrantly disregarded the ICJ’s provisional measures and persisted in a campaign of devastation against the Palestinian people.
The commission found that Israeli authorities had no intention to change course. On the contrary, they have continued what can only be described as a "genocidal campaign" in Gaza for nearly two years.
The destruction is not incidental, it is systematic. It includes the annihilation of homes, agricultural
lands and infrastructure essential to Palestinian life. It is consistent, instructive statements of the Israeli leaders to destroy a people.
This is not conjecture. It is documented. It is deliberate.
We submitted to the ICJ a litany of statements that reflect this intent. Among them, the words of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who declared in the wake of the heinous 7 October attacks: "It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians who were not aware and not involved. It is absolutely not true."
Or the chilling exhortation of Ezra Yachin, a 95-year-old Israeli army veteran, who told Israeli army soldiers: "Be triumphant and finish them off and don't leave anyone behind. Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers, and children. These animals can no longer live."
These are not isolated utterances. They are part of a pattern, a pattern that we argue meets the threshold of genocidal intent under the Genocide Convention.
As per the independent commission's report, the question now is not whether genocide is occurring. The question is whether the world will allow it to continue.
Gaza: The litmus test
South Africa’s intervention is not limited to Gaza. We have committed ourselves to acting within the institutions of global governance to protect the right to life in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and anywhere conflict threatens human dignity.
But Gaza is a litmus test.
It is where the credibility of international law is on trial. If the ICJ’s rulings are ignored, if the UN’s findings are dismissed, if the world’s conscience is numbed, then what becomes of accountability in other conflicts? What becomes of the multilateral system itself?
We are not naive. Our stance has come at a cost. In the corridors of power, we have been labelled anti-Israel, pro-Hamas. But these labels are distractions. They obscure the real issue: the equal application of international law.
South Africa still believes in a two-state solution. We still believe in peace. But peace cannot be built on the rubble of impunity.
The 80th United Nations General Assembly, under the theme Better Together, must decide whether to vindicate Truman’s vision or betray it. Will it reaffirm the charter’s foundation stone of justice, or will it allow that stone to be buried beneath the weight of political expediency?
The long overdue recognition of the State of Palestine by an increasing number of states could be a testament to this determination.
South Africa has chosen to lead by example as we chose to co-chair The Hague Group to vindicate international law and, to this end, we are encouraged by the establishment of the Madrid Group, which aligns with the need to address impunity.
We have acted not with words alone, but with concrete acts of goodwill. We have stood up not only for the Palestinians, but for the principle that no people anywhere should be erased. Impunity ends when the world helps the UN to fulfil its obligations.
Let it be here. Let it be now.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
