US defends Israel in new ICJ intervention in South Africa genocide case

United States of America has filed a declaration of intervention in South Africa Genocide case against israel The International Court of Justice (ICJ) clearly rejected the allegation that the country is committing genocide in Gaza.

The filing was made on Thursday with separate interventions by Namibia, Hungary and Fiji, according to a Press release Released by the court on Friday.

All four states submitted declarations under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, which allows states that are parties to the treaty in dispute to intervene to present their interpretation of the treaty.

On Thursday, Iceland and the Netherlands also filed declarations under Article 63.

South Africa filed the case in December 2023, accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention through its military operation in Gaza following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7 that year.

Pretoria argues that Israel's conduct – including mass killings, destruction of infrastructure and imposing living conditions that threaten the survival of Palestinians in Gaza – amounts to genocide.

Israel denies the accusation and claims its war is justified by self-defense considerations.

Thursday's U.S. presentation stands out among most interventions made by South Africa to directly defend Israel against the allegations. Taking sides in a case under Article 63 submissions is highly unconventional.

In its announcement, Washington argues that allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza are “false” and urges the court to apply a strict legal threshold when determining genocidal intent.

It states that genocide can only be established where there is clear evidence of a specific intention to destroy a protected group.

It states that that intention should only be inferred if it is the only reasonable explanation for the conduct in question.

The submission argues that the ICJ must be fully convinced before considering an act as genocide due to the extraordinary gravity of the crime. It also states that civilian casualties and destruction during armed conflict do not in themselves prove genocidal intent.

“The United States believes that the Court should maintain its standard for inferring intent. Lowering the standard risks broadening the application of the term 'genocide' so that it no longer carries its original weight and meaning, and invites efforts to abuse the Genocide Convention as a gateway to bring incompatible disputes before the Court,” the US said.

While Article 63 interventions are formally limited to questions of treaty interpretation, the US declaration explicitly disputes South Africa's allegations against Israel.

Hungary's and Fiji's arguments similarly put forward legal arguments that closely align with Israel's position in the case.

The Hungarian declaration calls for a narrow interpretation of genocide and emphasizes that civilian casualties and destruction during armed conflict do not in themselves demonstrate genocidal intent.

Fiji's intervention similarly urges the court to apply an extremely high evidentiary threshold for genocide, and cautions against relying too heavily on reports from international organizations or non-governmental groups when assessing charges.

In contrast, Namibia's declaration focuses on a broad interpretation of the Genocide Convention and emphasizes how genocidal intent can be inferred from patterns of conduct and cumulative evidence.

Namibia argues that denial of humanitarian assistance, repeated displacement and deprivation of basic necessities may fall within the Convention's prohibition on deliberately inflicting conditions of life designed to bring about the destruction of a protected group.

Its submission also emphasizes that genocide can be committed through omission, including the refusal to allow or facilitate life-saving humanitarian assistance to civilians under state control.

third state intervention

The new filing joins a rapidly growing list of states seeking to intervene in the proceedings.

From April 2024, similar interventions have been submitted by Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, Turkey, Chile, Maldives, Bolivia, Ireland, Cuba, Belize, Brazil, Comoros, Belgium and Paraguay.

Palestine and Belize have also sought to intervene under Article 62 of the court's statute, which allows states to apply to participate in the proceedings if they believe they have a legitimate interest that could be affected by the court's decision.

Under Article 63, intervening states do not become parties to the dispute. Instead, they are allowed to present their own interpretation of the treaty at issue – in this case the 1948 Genocide Convention.

The interpretation adopted by the Court in its final decision will also be binding on those states.

Hague ambassador says Palestine will continue to seek justice against Israel at ICC and ICJ

Read more ”

The case has become one of the most closely watched disputes ever heard by the ICJ and has featured an unusually large number of third state interventions, reaching 22.

The court has already ordered Israel to take steps to stop committing acts that violate the Genocide Convention and to take legally binding provisional measures to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Israel has repeatedly ignored the orders.

A final decision on whether Israel has violated the convention is expected in 2028. But it may take more time depending on the length of the hearing and adherence to deadlines by both parties.

Israel was due on Thursday to submit its counterclaim or arguments in response to South Africa's allegations, after the court extended several deadlines.

However, the court has not yet announced that Israel has filed its evidence.

During its devastating attack, Israel has so far killed more than 70,000 Palestinians In Gaza, most of them are women and children. It has also destroyed most of the enclave's homes, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure, making it largely uninhabitable for its 2.3 million citizens.

A United Nations Commission of Inquiry It concluded last September that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza from 7 October 2023.

The authors of the UN report, including legal experts Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti, told Middle East Eye that the report used evidence and the same methodology in its analysis that would be used by the ICJ.