Is Israel becoming like ‘South Africa’

The war is ongoing in Gaza. In the meantime, Israel seems to be moving day by day towards international isolation. This has raised the question: is Israel’s situation then becoming like that of ‘South Africa’? Just as combined political pressure, economic, sporting and cultural boycotts once forced Pretoria to abandon apartheid, will Israel in the same way be cornered? Or will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government be able to weather this diplomatic storm without permanently damaging the country’s international standing, so that he may achieve his objectives over Gaza and the occupied West Bank? At the United Nations, Britain, France, Australia, Belgium and Canada, along with several other countries, have already announced that next week they plan to recognise Palestine as a state. The Gulf states expressed anger last Tuesday in Qatar over Israeli attacks on Hamas leaders and reacted strongly. These countries are holding a meeting in Doha to coordinate a joint response. They have also appealed to countries maintaining relations with Israel to reconsider. A new UN report has levelled genocide charges against Israel. This genocide, ongoing for nearly two years, has further strengthened international consensus. The violence unleashed by Israel in Gaza was extreme. Israel’s first assault on Gaza was the most destructive in modern times. Many believe that because of the brutality of the war, civilian casualties have been especially high.

At the end of 2023, experts accused Israel of genocide. In January 2024, even after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) identified genocide in Gaza, many were reluctant to acknowledge it, shocked at Israel’s actions. Omar Bartov, an American-Israeli historian of Jewish genocide, said that this was a “deeply painful conclusion and one I resisted as long as possible. But now that there is broad international consensus about genocide in Gaza, what can we say about those who still disagree? Genocide is a legal term, though defined quite simply in the Genocide Convention. The ICJ’s rulings have complicated its interpretation. Some observers still raise technical objections about its legal application. But most of those who disagree over Gaza’s genocide are not actually troubled by technicalities. Those who once said, ‘I am concerned about what Israel is doing but I am not sure this is genocide’, now agree that it is genocide. At the very least they can rely on historians rather than debate the matter. Now, most politicians and commentators who still dispute the genocide in Gaza should not be surprised at Israel’s actions. It is fairly easy to test whether such disagreements are truly technical—or whether they amount to denying the atrocities described. If an honest observer has assessed Israel’s actions over the past two years, they should easily agree that this constitutes major crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

A genocide denier may deny the horrors of war. But as a genocidal method, starving Gazans to death, deliberate attacks and killings of civilians, persecution and other inhuman acts cannot be denied before the International Criminal Court (ICC). This could provoke outrage over the ICC’s charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Denying genocide in Gaza now is equivalent to denying the full horror of Israel’s atrocities. There seems no reason to deny the genocide allegations over Gaza. Israel’s crimes will only accumulate further. Everyone will be forced to see its overall policy. This is why Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin first argued that the world needed a crime like genocide. When issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, the ICC said that the listed separate crimes were part of a “widespread and systematic attack against civilians”. Looking at Israel’s actions in this way, we see the picture of brutality in Gaza. The UN’s new report shows that in Gaza, major crimes have been committed to destroy Palestinian society, which is part of Israel’s deliberate policy. Recognition of Israel’s genocide brings with it a universal obligation. The 153 states party to the Genocide Convention bear a moral obligation to prevent and punish Israel’s crimes. Yet so far, states opposing Israel’s campaign have taken little forceful action to stop the war.

Although South Africa deserves credit for its case at the ICJ. In 2024, the ICJ judges issued three orders requiring Israel to allow the free entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Yet despite the court’s orders, Israel did not comply. Most Western governments dispute the characterisation of genocide, even though they criticise Israel belatedly. But dissent is not a virtue. If they cannot take serious action to end Israel’s violence in Gaza, then what is the point of such disagreement? These states maintain alliances with Israel. They silently support Israel. In this way, by tacit approval, the leaders of those states risk facing charges of complicity and even conspiracy in Gaza’s genocide. The United Kingdom in particular exposes the moral void of Western dissent. Israel’s actions are clear. Earlier this month, the UK’s Labour government said that Western states had not yet reached the conclusion that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. Such confusion is now plain to all. While some continue to deny Gaza’s genocide, those who deny it will not acknowledge Israel’s genocide, yet nor will they dare deny it outright. Instead, they seek to avoid reaching any conclusion. They claim this is a matter for international courts. They even mock the idea that signatory states should build resistance against Gaza’s genocide. In reality, ministers understand the legal implications very well.

In 2024, Justice Secretary David Lammy, who had signed a statement, was later embarrassed by his remarks. Attorney General Richard Hermer, who presents himself as a supporter of international law, claimed that the government’s policy of arms supply to Israel was entirely dependent on law. But even 20 months after the ICJ warned of genocide in Gaza, no effective decision has been reached to prevent it. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who 11 years ago was involved in another genocide case at the ICJ, understands the Gaza genocide case very well. That is why, although disagreeing with the genocide charges, he has never offered any explanation. The cities of Gaza have been completely destroyed. Survivors are being taken to concentration camps and are facing displacement. Supporters and opponents of genocide alike have disappeared. Even after two years, those who disagree with Israel’s genocide charges are no less complicit in Israel’s brutality. Across the world, people are protesting their injustice daily, raising their voices against mass killings. Humanity is restless in its yearning to restore the rights of Gazans. Yet this message remains meaningless to him. But why? What is the mystery behind this? Where does his strength lie? The answer is no mystery at all. The barbarian’s only partner and companion in war is another deranged leader, President Donald Trump. And so the world’s conscience asks—what is the real purpose of unleashing such unimaginable catastrophe? Is it only religious hatred, or an unbridled urge to display power and dominance?

Rayhan Ahmed Tapader: Researcher and columnist.