South Africa’s historic filing against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may be remembered as more than just a legal case—it’s shaping up to be a test of the Genocide Convention itself. 

Established in the wake of World War II, the Genocide Convention was designed to ensure that atrocities like the Holocaust would “never again” be tolerated. Now, South Africa is putting it to the test, bringing allegations against Israel over its actions in Gaza. This isn’t just another court filing—it’s a challenge that could push the Genocide Convention to its limits and potentially reshape how the world defines and responds to genocide in modern warfare.

What’s in the “memorial”?

On Monday, South Africa submitted a nearly 5,000-page memorial to the ICJ, alleging that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide.This memorial, containing over 750 pages of legal arguments and around 4,000 pages of evidence, is a formal legal filing that’s the starting point of a case before the ICJ. 

Since the start of the conflict on 7 October 2023, an estimated 43,061 Palestinians have been killed and 101,223 injured. South Africa alleges that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza isn’t just violent but amounts to an organised attempt to destroy the Palestinian people. In a statement from President Cyril Ramaphosa, he highlights South Africa’s determination to bring these issues to light, stating that the document “contains evidence which shows how the government of Israel has violated the genocide convention by promoting the destruction of Palestinians living in Gaza”. 

So, what exactly does the memorial include? South Africa has provided a vast collection of evidence and documents backing up their claims. These range from official statements by Israeli leaders to records of military actions that South Africa says point to a larger plan to force Palestinians out of Gaza. The document details how military attacks, restrictions on essential resources, and displacement are creating conditions that make it nearly impossible for Palestinians to survive.

Why the genocide argument is a big deal

To prove genocide, it’s not enough to show that people are being harmed or even killed. The Genocide Convention sets a high bar: South Africa has to prove that Israel has a specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people as a group. 

Historically, proving genocide has often required a visible, undeniable “smoking gun.” This legal benchmark has been applied in cases like Rwanda in 1994, where the Hutu militia’s intent to exterminate the Tutsi population was explicitly documented. In Gaza, the lines are blurrier: Israel frames its actions as self-defence in response to rocket attacks and other security threats. By contrast, South Africa argues that regardless of the reason, the long-term impact and intent behind these actions reveal a pattern aimed at weakening and displacing the Palestinian population.

South Africa’s case against Israel now challenges the ICJ to define how flexible the convention is (or should be) in covering situations that may differ from the more clear-cut cases of the past.

What happens next?

This filing kicks off what could be a long, drawn-out process. Israel has until July 2025 to respond with its own counterarguments. After that, the ICJ will hold hearings, and it’s likely this case could stretch into 2026 or beyond.

South Africa’s Director-General of International Relations, Zane Dangor, called this a “textbook case of genocide,” arguing that the evidence clearly shows intent and planning. Still, some legal experts have pointed out the difficulty in proving intent, especially when geopolitical factors come into play.

Why this case could change the game

What makes South Africa’s filing particularly groundbreaking is that it’s the first genocide case being pursued at the ICJ while the alleged atrocities are ongoing. Typically, genocide cases are brought to international courts years, if not decades, after the events in question have concluded. But now, South Africa is asking the ICJ to examine events that are still unfolding in Gaza.

This real-time aspect adds a unique urgency to the proceedings. By filing while the situation is active, South Africa’s case brings a new dimension to international law: it challenges the ICJ to act as a proactive body capable of intervening during, rather than only after, pushing the court beyond its typical role as a retrospective judicial body.

If the ICJ accepts South Africa’s case, it could redefine what genocide means today. Historically, genocide has been linked to mass killings, but South Africa’s filing suggests that depriving people of essential resources and forcibly displacing them can also meet that standard. If the ICJ rules in favour of South Africa, it might expand the definition of genocide to include these indirect yet devastating methods of destruction.

South Africa’s decision to take this case to the ICJ is also a statement on the global stage. President Ramaphosa reiterated his support for Palestinian rights at the recent BRICS summit, framing the case as both a legal duty and a moral stand. “The world cannot stand by and watch the slaughtering of innocent people continue,” he said.

This move isn’t just about Israel and Palestine—it’s a call to the international community. South Africa is pushing other nations to confront hard questions about accountability, even when it involves allies or countries with political leverage.

Testing the boundaries of accountability

At its core, this case is more than a legal battle; it’s a test for the Genocide Convention itself. Can the international legal system keep pace with modern conflicts and protect civilians caught in political crossfire? South Africa’s filing is essentially asking the ICJ to redefine what genocide means in today’s world. But also challenges how the international community should respond to active conflicts and demand accountability in real time.