The Republic of South Africa has announced that the Israeli regime has violated the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with its actions in Gaza since October 7. This country filed a complaint in the International Court of Justice and requested the issuance of a temporary order. Such a measure by the Republic of South Africa was supported by the Palestinian government, which described it as the first real step to make the Zionist regime accountable. Meanwhile, the Israeli regime has rejected the accusations in response to this reaction.

Reza Nasri, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations about the dimensions and political and legal consequences of South Africa’s lawsuit against the Zionist regime in the International Court of Justice, considered this action “very important and significant” and stated: First, the charge of “genocide” in its official form – by appealing to the highest judicial authority in the international system – has been addressed to the Israeli regime. Previously, the charge of genocide was raised only within the context of the media and, at most, in political statements, which the Israeli regime would also counter by using its vast propaganda machine. Second, the process initiated by the South African government at the International Court of Justice allows all member states of the “1948 Genocide Convention” to intervene and thus can become a broad international movement against the Israeli regime.

The lawyer considered the third reason for the importance of South Africa’s complaint against the Israeli regime in that country’s request to issue a temporary order in the first step and said: One of the most important benefits of issuing the “temporary order” is that it will make it very difficult and expensive for the United States and other permanent members of the Security Council to use the “veto” power in favor of the Israeli regime. In other words, if, based on the temporary order of the court, a draft resolution is prepared and approved by the UN Security Council against the Israeli regime, a veto of that resolution by the United States will not only cause heavy political damage to the US administration but also from the legal point of view, will put it in gross violation of the “Genocide Convention” – one of the pillars of which is the “prevention” of genocide. The fourth reason is that the mere initiation of this process – and the possible intervention of other governments in it – will also give freedom of action to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take action against the leaders of the Israeli regime. In this regard, the “national” courts will also have more robust support in prosecuting the heads of the Israeli regime and issuing their arrest warrants.

He further noted that the benefits of this brave action of South Africa are not only limited to “legal” benefits, but in terms of politics, dignity, and legitimacy, will also cause irreparable damage to the Israeli regime.

The lawyer clarified: First, this legal case was established by a government that – due to its experience of fighting with “apartheid” –has a high legitimacy and prestige in terms of “morality” in the eyes of the public opinion of the world. For this reason, destroying the image of South Africa and attributing its initiative to “anti-Semitism” and “supporting terrorism” – which are the two main propaganda tactics of the Israeli regime – will not be an easy task for the Tel Aviv regime. Second, the Israeli regime has based its “legitimacy” on the public opinion of the West based on a specific narrative of history and the “image of oppression” it has presented. In this regard, South Africa’s legal action – which is based on the accusation of violation of the “Genocide Convention” – has the potential to completely destroy this created image by means of an internationally valid document and hence has officially shaken the basis of the legitimacy and justification of the Israeli regime and its policies. It can be argued that in the long run, the destruction of this narrative and image by the highest international judicial authority is even more harmful to the Israeli regime than the damage that can be seen from heavy military operations.

He continued: Third, being accused of “genocide” – and possibly getting a conviction in this regard – also destroys the Israeli regime’s “security building” power. This means that from now on, the hands of the Israeli regime in creating a global consensus against its rivals – including Iran – and “threatening” them will be much more closed than before. In other words, someone who himself has a case of violating the “Genocide Convention” in the International Court of Justice cannot easily accuse others of threatening world peace and security! Fourthly, the mere accusation of genocide in the International Court of Justice will result in irreparable domestic political costs for the current cabinet of the Israeli regime.

In response to the question of how he would evaluate the passivity of the Arab world and the activity of countries like South Africa, he stated: Arab countries have so far taken a position with complacency and with a partial view of their future role in the aftermath of the Gaza war. For this reason, they have avoided direct conflict with the Israeli regime as much as possible and have often limited themselves to adopting a position based on the “humanitarian consequences” of the Israeli regime’s actions and instead of defining themselves as a “party to the dispute,” they have appeared in the guise of a “mediator.” After South Africa’s action, the Arab countries supported South Africa’s initiative within the framework of a statement from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and have somehow shown their satisfaction. Now, it remains to be seen whether those countries will continue to issue supporting statements or actively intervene in the case proceedings per Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

Regarding Iran’s approach to this issue, he noted that Iran – as a member of the “Genocide Convention” – is expected not only to intervene in the proceedings of this case officially but also to encourage countries in the region to participate. In any case, the issue of the “Israeli regime” is related to the history and relations of our region, and it is not appropriate for the countries of the region to be absent from this scene.

Nasri, in response to the question of whether such actions can be even more effective than the UN Security Council in stopping the crimes of the Zionist regime and making those anti-human actions known to the world, he said: This measure is new and exceptional, both legally and politically, that the US administration cannot influence in its process with its legal tools, such as the “veto power” it has in the Security Council. At the same time, it can provide a platform for further actions – including in other international institutions.