South Africa's Lawsuit Against the Entity: An Unprecedented Legal Course

03 Dec 2024 The historic memorandum submitted by South Africa to demonstrate the occurrence of genocide could set a significant precedent in international law. This approach would not only focus on individual crimes but also hold the Entire entity, Including its government and institutions, accountable for the destruction of a people under occupation.
The Israeli entity has until July of next year to respond to the evidence, comprising 750 pages of notes and 4,000 annexes. This represents a critical moment for the case, with trials anticipated to commence by 2026. A ruling against the Israeli entity could set a significant precedent, potentially holding states accountable for coordinating acts of genocide, which may reshape the understanding of international law regarding state responsibility for major crimes. This would convey a powerful message that collective responsibility for such crimes will not remain beyond the reach of justice.
For us and advocates of justice worldwide, this case represents a collective call to affirm that the struggle for dignity and rights can also be sought through the courts, where history is shaped judgment by judgment. However, it is important to note that a case of this scale against an adversary lacking moral constraints necessitates substantial funding to cover the costs of investigation and trial. Thus, it is crucial to initiate an organized fundraising campaign by establishing a legal entity to collect donations and manage resources to support the case, demonstrating our commitment and underscoring the importance of collective participation in the pursuit of justice.
It is well known that both South Africa and the Israeli entity are signatories to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which grants the International Court of Justice the authority to adjudicate disputes arising from the treaty. This convention requires all signatory states to refrain from committing genocide and to take measures to prevent and punish it. The significant irony lies in the fact that the court, which was established after the Holocaust with the involvement of the United States and the Israeli entity, is now confronted with a case accusing one of its founding members of genocide.
It is also widely recognized that the Israeli entity seeks support from the United States, acutely aware that a potential ruling could affect its alliances, particularly in light of the changing global public opinion regarding the occupation. Should the court find the accusations valid, the ongoing American support could be undermined and render political and diplomatic backing of the Entity more precarious. Are we approaching a new era of international accountability?