Talal
Abu-Ghazaleh

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?