Pretoria informed the world’s highest court on Tuesday that Israel is enforcing an even worse form of apartheid in the Palestinian territories than existed in South Africa prior to 1994.
“We as South Africans sense, see, hear and feel to our core the inhumane discriminatory policies and practices of the Israeli regime as an even more extreme form of the apartheid that was institutionalised against black people in my country,” said Vusimuzi Madonsela, South Africa’s ambassador to the Netherlands, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is based.
An unprecedented 52 countries are taking the stand at the ICJ, which has been asked to provide a non-binding “advisory opinion” on the legal implications of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
“It is clear that Israel’s illegal occupation is also being administered in breach of the crime of apartheid… It is indistinguishable from settler colonialism. Israel’s apartheid must end,” said Madonsela.
He said South Africa had a “special obligation” to call out apartheid wherever it occurs and ensure it is “brought to an immediate end”.
This case is distinct from a well-known one that Pretoria filed accusing Israel of committing genocide in the course of its ongoing Gaza offensive.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that Israel had to take all necessary steps to stop acts of genocide in Gaza and to permit the entry of humanitarian aid.
Palestinian officials spoke for three hours on Monday, the first day of the proceedings, accusing the Israeli invaders of implementing a system of “colonialism and apartheid”.
The justices were asked to demand an end to the occupation “immediately, totally, and unconditionally” by Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki.
The ICJ rules in disputes between states. However, it can also be asked to provide a legal opinion on a topic of international law.
The United Nations asked it in December 2022 to provide guidance on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.
When the ICJ rules in contentious cases between states, its judgement is binding but it has little means of enforcement. It ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example.
An advisory opinion, on the other hand, is entirely non-binding but would probably increase the increasing international pressure on Israel regarding its Gaza offensive.
The affair will likely be decided “urgently” by the end of the year by the court.
Israel sent a written contribution characterizing the court’s queries as “prejudicial” and “tendentious,” but it did not participate in the oral sessions.
Negotiations should be used to end the problem, according to a statement from the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
It said the case that opened on Monday was “aimed at harming Israel’s rights to defend itself from existential threats”.
