←  South Africa v. Israel

International Court of Justice · General List No. 192

South Africa v. Israel

TLDR Case Flow

Where it standsWritten arguments. South Africa answers Israel’s defense by November 22, 2027, and Israel answers that by May 22, 2029. Hearings and a single judgment come after that, and the judgment answers every question below the first.

  1. Right after South Africa filed · 2024

    Only about what happens while the case goes on

    Should the court order Israel to do anything before the case is decided?

    Yes, three times · Jan, Mar and May 2024

    A genocide case at this court takes years, so South Africa asked the judges for emergency orders right away, while the main question waits. The most it asked for was that Israel stop its military operations in Gaza. The test for these orders is a lot lower than proof. The court only asks if the rights South Africa wants protected are plausible, and if they’re at risk of harm that couldn’t be undone before the end of the case.

    The court said yes three times in 2024. In January it ordered Israel to prevent genocide, let aid in, punish public calls for genocide and keep evidence. In March, with famine setting in, it ordered aid in at scale. In May it ordered Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah, in words the judges themselves read in different ways. It never ordered a general ceasefire.

    None of that decides the case. The orders are binding, but the court has no police of its own. South Africa told the court in August 2026 that Israel isn’t complying, and Israel says it has kept to its obligations. Either way, the case carries on to the questions below.

    Either way

  2. Israel’s objections · March 2026

    The case is here

    Decided in the same judgment as everything else

    Can the court hear the case at all?

    Undecided

    This one is about jurisdiction, which just means the court’s power to hear a case. This court can only take a case the countries involved have agreed to send it. Here the only agreement is Article IX of the Genocide Convention, which both countries joined without holding that clause back. It covers disputes about the treaty, so the court only has power over this case if it really is a dispute about genocide.

    In January 2024 Israel argued there wasn’t a real dispute yet when South Africa filed, because South Africa never took up its offer to talk. It also said nothing it had done could fall under the treaty. The court found enough to give its emergency orders, but it said that was only a prima facie look and not its final answer.

    Israel raised objections again in its answer of March 2026, on the court’s power and on whether the case should be heard at all. What they say isn’t public yet. Because Israel put them in its main answer instead of filing them early, the court will rule on them in its final judgment, along with everything else.

    If no

    Outcome

    No power over the case

    Then

    The case ends without an answer

    If the court decides it doesn’t have power here, the case is over and the court never says whether genocide happened. That wouldn’t clear Israel of anything. It would mean this court isn’t the one that gets to decide.

    The emergency orders from 2024 would end with that judgment too. This is the outcome Israel asked for in January 2024, when it asked the court to remove the case from its list.

    If yes

  3. What the whole case comes down to

    The main question

    Did Israel commit genocide in Gaza?

    Disputed

    This is the question people mean when they talk about the case. This court judges countries and not people, so the question is whether Israel as a state is responsible for genocide, through what its army and its officials did. That’s called state responsibility, and it’s a different thing from putting a person on trial.

    The court has said in earlier cases that an accusation this serious has to be proved by evidence that is “fully conclusive.” Under the treaty genocide takes two things, and they’re the two cards inside this one. Both are needed. South Africa says both are there. Israel says neither is.

    Who must prove itSouth Africa. At this court the country that makes an accusation has to prove it.

    Both are needed

    Part one · The acts

    Were acts on the treaty’s list done to Palestinians in Gaza?

    Disputed

    The treaty lists five acts, and the ones at the center of this case are killing members of the group, seriously harming them, and putting them in conditions of life meant to destroy them. South Africa adds measures to prevent births. These are the listed acts, and on their own they aren’t genocide yet.

    South Africa says the killing, the siege, the destruction of hospitals and homes, and the hunger all fit the list. Israel says the deaths and damage come from a war against Hamas fought in crowded cities where Hamas hides among civilians, and that harm to civilians in a war isn’t one of these acts. It says the right rules for that are the law of war, which this case isn’t about.

    The court has described the deaths, the displacement and the famine in its orders. It hasn’t decided this question.

    and

    Part two · The intent

    Were they done to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group?

    Disputed

    This is where most of the case will be fought. Even if the acts happened, they’re only genocide if they were done with intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part, because of who they are. The court said in 2024 that Palestinians in Gaza are a substantial part of the Palestinian people, so that piece of the test is met, at least at first sight.

    South Africa points to what Israeli leaders said, like a “complete siege” with “no food” and “human animals,” and to the pattern of what happened on the ground. Israel says those were random quotes that go against its actual policy, and that warning civilians to leave and letting aid in are the opposite of an intent to destroy.

    When there’s no written plan, the court has only accepted intent before when it was the only reasonable inference from what was done. That test is strict, and it’s being argued over in this case. The United States asked the court to keep it. Namibia argued that intent can be read from the sheer scale of what was done.

    If yes

    Outcome

    Israel is responsible for genocide

    Then

    The court says what Israel owes

    The court would declare that Israel broke the treaty and is responsible for genocide. It can order Israel to stop, to punish the people responsible, and to make up for the harm, which the law calls reparation.

    What it can’t do is enforce that itself. If Israel didn’t comply, South Africa could go to the UN Security Council, where any of the five permanent members can block action. The judgment would still be final, and there is no appeal from it.

    If no

  4. Even if the answer above is no

    The treaty’s other duties

    Did Israel break any of the treaty’s other duties?

    Disputed

    The treaty doesn’t only forbid committing genocide. It also makes every member prevent it and punish it, and punish people who publicly call for it. So a country can lose on these even if the court finds it didn’t commit genocide itself.

    That has happened at this court before. In 2007 it found that Serbia hadn’t committed the genocide at Srebrenica, but that it broke the treaty by failing to prevent it. The two cards inside this one are the duties South Africa says Israel failed in, and either one is enough.

    A yes on either one is enough

    Duty one · To prevent

    Did it fail to prevent genocide?

    Disputed

    Every member has a duty to prevent genocide from the moment it knows, or should know, that there’s a serious risk of one. South Africa says Israel knew at the latest when the court gave its first order in January 2024, and did too little after that.

    There’s a catch the court set in the Serbia case. A country only breaks this duty if a genocide actually happens. So this route only works if the court finds a genocide took place, even if not at the hands of people whose acts count as Israel’s own.

    or

    Duty two · To punish incitement

    Did it fail to punish public calls for genocide?

    Disputed

    Direct and public incitement means openly urging people to commit genocide. Unlike the others it breaks the treaty on its own, even if no genocide follows. The court ordered Israel in January 2024 to prevent and punish it, by sixteen votes to one, and Israel’s own judge voted for that order.

    South Africa says Israeli officials made statements like that and nobody was punished. Israel told the court in January 2024 that its attorney general had warned that calls to harm civilians may be a crime, and that several cases were being looked at. Whether anyone has been charged since isn’t in the court’s public record.

    If yes

    Outcome

    Israel broke the treaty

    Then

    A finding short of genocide

    The court would find Israel responsible for failing in that duty, without finding that it committed genocide. That’s where Serbia ended up in 2007.

    The court can order Israel to put it right, and the same limits on enforcement apply as on the question above.

    If no

    Outcome

    Israel didn’t break the treaty

    Then

    The case ends in Israel’s favor

    The court would find that Israel didn’t break the Genocide Convention, and its emergency orders from 2024 would end with that judgment.

    That still wouldn’t be a ruling that the war was lawful. Whether Israel broke the law of war is a separate question that this case can’t answer.

Back to the case

Notes

How this was made, and what it leaves out

Source

Built from the court’s own public record of the case: South Africa’s application, the three orders of 2024 and every judge’s opinion on them, the verbatim records of the four hearings, the written requests and answers the court has published, its press releases, and its orders since. Every characterization of a side comes from that side’s own words in court or in a published filing, and every finding is quoted from the order it’s in.

Each citation opens the court’s own document, at the page where one is given. The court’s website sometimes checks a browser before it hands over a file, so a link can take a moment.

ICJ, case 192

What isn’t public

Most of the case. The full written arguments, South Africa’s memorial of October 2024 and Israel’s counter-memorial of March 2026, are confidential under the court’s rules until it decides to publish them, which usually happens when the hearings on them open. So are the reports Israel has filed on how it’s carrying out the orders, and the evidence South Africa sent the court in August 2026 about whether it is.

South Africa has said its memorial runs to more than 750 pages, with more than 4,000 pages of evidence behind it. Israel has said its answer shows the court has no power over the case. Beyond that, these pages can’t say what either one argues, and the Side by Side View quotes each side from what it said in court in 2024.

DIRCO, Oct 28, 2024 · Order of May 21, 2026

Names and numbers

Numbers here come with whose numbers they are. The court’s first order used United Nations figures that came from the health authorities in Gaza and said they “cannot be independently verified”: 25,700 Palestinians killed by January 24, 2024. The same authorities’ count passed 73,000 by August 2026, which is the number South Africa gave the court that month. For October 7, 2023, the court’s figures are more than 1,200 people killed in Israel and some 240 taken hostage.

People are named here when they spoke in court, wrote an opinion, or were quoted by the court. The statements by Israeli officials quoted on these pages are the ones the court itself quoted in January 2024.

Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 13, 46, 52 · DIRCO, Aug 28, 2026

What this is not

Not legal advice, not a finding, and not a verdict. The court has not decided whether genocide happened. Its 2024 orders found that the rights South Africa wanted protected were plausible, which is a much lower test. Joan Donoghue, who was president of the court when it gave the first order, said afterward that “the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”

Other bodies have looked at the war in Gaza in other ways: the International Criminal Court, which tries people, the same court’s advisory opinions, and a United Nations commission of inquiry. None of that is part of this case, and where these pages mention it they say so. Where the record doesn’t reach, these pages say so and stop.

Order of Jan 26, 2024 ¶¶ 30, 54 · BBC HARDtalk, Apr 25, 2024

Tell me what I got wrong

If something here is missed, misrepresented or unfairly portrayed, let me know. Point me at a filing or record and I will verify it on my end. I actively look to correct, improve and remain unbiased.

Type of issue

No account, no name, no email. The submission stores what you typed, your address and your browser string, to make abuse traceable and for nothing else.

Record reviewed through October 14, 2026. Nothing filed after that date is reflected here.

Terms

Plain English

Words these pages use because the court uses them. A few are special to this court, which judges countries and not people, and to the treaty the case is about.

The court

International Court of Justice
The United Nations’ own court, in The Hague. It settles disputes between countries, not cases against people. It has 15 judges elected by the UN for nine years at a time, and it’s sometimes called the World Court.
Genocide Convention
The 1948 treaty that defines genocide and makes the countries that join it promise to prevent it and punish it. Israel joined in 1950 and South Africa in 1998.
Article IX
The clause of the Genocide Convention that lets one member take another to this court over a dispute about the treaty. It’s the only reason this court has the case.
Judge ad hoc
A judge a country picks for one case when no judge of its nationality is on the court. They sit and vote with the other judges.
President of the court
The judge the others elect to run the court and chair its hearings, for three years at a time.
Registrar
The head of the court’s staff. Keeps the record, sits with the judges at hearings, and reads out the French text of a ruling.
Agent
The official who speaks for a country in a case at this court, usually a diplomat or a government lawyer. A country can have co-agents who share the job.
Intervention
Another country asking to take part. Any member of the treaty can come in to argue how the treaty should be read, and is then bound by how the court reads it. It doesn’t become a party to the case.

The paperwork

General List
The court’s numbered list of its cases. This one is No. 192.
Application
The document that starts a case at this court. South Africa’s runs to 84 pages.
Memorial
The full written case of the country that sued, with its evidence. South Africa filed its in October 2024.
Counter-memorial
The full written answer of the country being sued. Israel filed its in March 2026.
Reply and rejoinder
A second round of writing. The country that sued answers the counter-memorial, and the other side answers that.
Confidential pleadings
The court’s rules keep the written arguments out of public view until the court decides to publish them, usually when the hearings on them open.
Verbatim record
The court’s word-for-word record of a hearing, numbered like CR 2024/1. Cited here by page.
Order
A written decision of the court on one step in a case. It isn’t the final judgment.

How a case moves

Provisional measures
Emergency orders the court can give while a case goes on, to stop harm that couldn’t be undone before the final ruling. They’re binding, but the court has no way of its own to enforce them.
Plausible
The test for emergency orders. The court asks if the rights a country wants protected plausibly exist and could be at risk. It isn’t a finding that the accusation is true.
Prima facie
At first sight. Before giving emergency orders the court only has to see, at first sight, that it may have power over the case.
Jurisdiction
The court’s power to hear a case at all. Here it comes only from Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
Dispute
A real disagreement between the two countries about the treaty. It has to exist when the case is filed. Israel argued in 2024 that there wasn’t one yet.
Admissibility
Whether a case the court has power over is still one it should hear, for example because of how it was brought.
Preliminary objections
A challenge to jurisdiction or admissibility filed early and decided on its own, before the main case. Israel didn’t file one. It put its objections in its counter-memorial instead, so they’re decided with everything else.
Standing
The right to bring a case. Every member of the Genocide Convention has a stake in it being kept, so any member can sue another without having been harmed itself.
Merits
The main question in a case, as opposed to steps along the way. Here, whether Israel broke the Genocide Convention.
Judgment
The court’s final decision. It’s binding on the two countries and there is no appeal.
Opinions and declarations
What a judge writes alongside a decision to explain a vote or add a point. A dissent explains a vote against. None of them changes the result.
Monitoring committee
Three judges the court set up in 2023 to follow whether its emergency orders are being carried out and suggest to the court what it could do.

The stamp on a ruling

Granted
The court said yes to the request on this card, whichever country made it.
Granted in part
The court ordered some of what was asked for and not the rest. It words its own orders, so they can differ from what either country asked for.
Denied
The court said no to the request on this card and ordered nothing new.

What the treaty says

Genocide
Under the treaty, any of five acts done with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such: killing its members, seriously harming them, imposing conditions of life meant to destroy it, preventing births, or taking its children.
The listed acts
The five acts in Article II of the treaty. On their own they aren’t genocide. They become genocide when an intent to destroy the group is behind them.
Specific intent
The intent to destroy the group as such, also called dolus specialis. It has to be there on top of the intent to do the act itself, and it’s what sets genocide apart from other crimes.
Only reasonable inference
The court’s test from its earlier genocide cases. Where no plan is proved, intent can be read from a pattern of conduct only if it’s the only conclusion that could reasonably be drawn from it.
Substantial part
The part of the group targeted has to be big enough to matter to the group as a whole. The court said in 2024 that Palestinians in Gaza, over 2 million people, are.
Direct and public incitement
Openly urging people to commit genocide. It breaks the treaty on its own, whether or not a genocide follows.
Duty to prevent
Each member has to do what it reasonably can to stop a genocide once it knows, or should know, of a serious risk of one. It’s only broken if a genocide actually happens.
State responsibility
This court judges countries, not people. It can find a state responsible for breaking the treaty. Putting individuals on trial is for criminal courts.
Law of war
The rules for fighting a war, also called international humanitarian law. They allow some harm to civilians but forbid targeting them or causing harm out of proportion to the military aim. This case isn’t about those rules.
Self-defense
A country’s right to use force when it’s attacked. Israel says its war in Gaza is self-defense. South Africa says self-defense can never excuse genocide.
Famine
The worst level on the hunger scale UN agencies and aid groups use, called the IPC. It means extreme lack of food, acute malnutrition and deaths from it, each past a set line.