In bringing a genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa has dared, as FP’s Sasha Polakow-Suransky writes, “to take on a radioactive global issue, discussion of which is virtually verboten in Washington.”
In bringing a genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa has dared, as FP’s Sasha Polakow-Suransky writes, “to take on a radioactive global issue, discussion of which is virtually verboten in Washington.”
Although the court’s ruling on genocide could take years, it has already ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. But in some ways, Polakow-Suransky argues, the outcome is less important than Pretoria’s decision to launch the case, which has “made it acceptable to accuse Israel of grave crimes in a major formal international setting.”
This edition of Flash Points examines the case and its global implications, from its potential impact on the war in Gaza to what it might mean for Washington’s global leadership.
What South Africa Really Won at the ICJ
For much of the world, Pretoria has restored its reputation as a moral beacon—at America’s expense, FP’s Sasha Polakow-Suransky writes.
South Africa’s ICJ Case Was Too Narrow
By omitting Hamas and limiting its case to the crime of genocide, Pretoria lost an opportunity to halt the fighting, Chile Eboe-Osuji writes.
China’s Problem With the Genocide Case Against Israel
Beijing backs the Palestinians in Gaza but faces its own genocide accusations at home, Aaron Glasserman writes.
Algeria Seeks U.N. Action Following ICJ Decision on Gaza
After the court ordered Israel to take provisional measures to prevent genocide, some countries are seeking to enforce the ruling, FP’s Nosmot Gbadamosi writes.
What Does Latin America Think About the Israel-Hamas War?
Many countries are spurning Israel. But the region’s Middle East stance has always been nuanced, Patricia Garip writes.