Why did Arab countries hesitate in the case of South Africa against Israel in the "International Court of Justice"?
By: Firas Abu Hilal
The International Court of Justice recently concluded the first hearing in the case of South Africa against Israel, where Pretoria accused Tel Aviv of intending to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. This case sparked controversy in the Arab world regarding the reasons for Arab countries not joining South Africa in court, or not filing a similar case in the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.
According to the statute of the International Court of Justice, all United Nations member states can file cases against any country. Therefore, any Arab country could have filed a lawsuit against Israel before South Africa officially submitted its case on December 29.
South Africa, in its case documents, pointed out that its membership in the Genocide Convention and Israel's membership in the same convention enhance its eligibility to file a lawsuit against Israel.
As such, all Arab countries could have lodged a complaint with the International Court of Justice, especially the 19 Arab countries party to the Genocide Convention. This includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, the UAE, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, and the Palestinian Authority.
So, why did the Arab countries not take action?
Challenge from the United States Many Arab countries may claim to have a "reasonable" explanation to avoid such a strong move. Some may argue that they are small countries with weak economies that cannot bear the consequences. Others, like Tunisia, may claim that they cannot sue Tel Aviv because they do not recognize the state of Israel, despite the Tunisian president stating opposition to a proposed law criminalizing "normalization" with Israel.
However, these justifications do not apply to economically stronger and more influential countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which have reasonable qualifications to act against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
The first reason explaining the Egyptian and Saudi positions is the fear of possible consequences from the United States. Most Arab countries believe they cannot challenge the American stance on issues related to Israel.
Although Saudi Arabia and Egypt challenged the United States in recent years on issues such as oil production in OPEC and relations with China and Russia, they are not willing to do so on matters related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because they believe it would be a "red line" from the American perspective. This explains their behavior and the behavior of most Arab countries towards the occupying state.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took all possible steps to strengthen relations with Israel, believing that Tel Aviv, alongside Saudi Arabia and the UAE, played a significant role in convincing the Obama administration not to object to the 2013 coup, as reported by New York Times correspondent David D. Kirkpatrick in his book.
As for Saudi Arabia, it was negotiating a deal with Israel to normalize relations in exchange for a special American defense agreement.
Black record in human rights issues The terrible human rights records of most Arab countries provide another explanation for their reluctance to join South Africa in its case against Israel. These countries fear that confronting Israel in the International Court of Justice could expose them to retaliation, either through dragging them before the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court by Israel or its allies.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and most Arab countries can be accused of various human rights violations. Egypt imprisons thousands of political activists on fabricated charges by a corrupt legal system. Many activists and human rights organizations accused the Egyptian authorities of murder, arrest, and forced displacement of Sinai residents after demolishing hundreds of homes under the pretext of combating terrorism.
Similarly, Saudi Arabia conducted a suppression campaign against activists, reformers, and opponents, with thousands arbitrarily detained without proper trials. Some were sentenced to death for merely writing tweets displeasing to the authorities. Riyadh was also accused of committing serious war crimes in Yemen.
Given their serious violations of international human rights law, Arab governments will not face Israel or any other state before the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court to avoid facing similar cases in these international courts.
Lack of genuine support for Palestinians The third explanation for the Arab countries' stance on the South Africa case against Israel is simply that they are not ready to show genuine support for Palestinians in Gaza.
All Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, issued statements condemning Israeli aggression on Gaza but took no further action. The Arab League waited over a month after the attack on Gaza to hold a summit in Riyadh to discuss the issue.
The summit decided to break the blockade, but Arab countries did not translate this decision into reality. In contrast, Egypt complied with Israeli orders and refused to allow the transfer of injured civilians for treatment outside Gaza unless Israel approved their names.
Media and eyewitnesses confirmed that Egyptian mediators forced Palestinians in Gaza to pay up to $10,000 in bribes to officials to exit through the Rafah crossing. Egypt also agreed to send all aid trucks for inspection by Israeli security at the Karam Abu Salem commercial crossing, causing delays in the arrival of aid and complicating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Egypt justified its position by claiming it risked airstrikes on trucks by the Israeli air force if they were not sent through the Israeli inspection point. While this argument may have been acceptable in the past, it fell apart after an Israeli lawyer claimed before the International Court of Justice that Egypt was responsible for the Rafah crossing and prevented aid trucks from entering Gaza. Although Israel previously threatened to attack any aid entering Gaza without its permission, Egypt's only response to Israel's accusations in court can be effective by opening the borders for the exit of the injured and sick and the entry of aid and commercial trucks, proving Israel's responsibility for the catastrophe.
Arabic 21