AhlulBayt News Agency: South African attorney Ziyaad Patel, involved in the ICJ case against Israel, stated that the proposed legislation includes measures such as sanctions, divestment, anti-military cooperation protocols, and bans on supporting institutions complicit in the confiscation of Palestinian property.
Patel explained that South Africa’s complaint is grounded in the obligations of states under the Genocide Convention. “The case was filed based on the responsibility to prevent genocide,” he said, “and the ICJ, through its provisional measures, emphasized the urgent need to open humanitarian corridors and deliver large-scale aid to Gaza.”
He stressed that the heart of the case centers on crimes—particularly the duty to prevent genocide. “As a signatory to the Genocide Convention, South Africa felt compelled to bring this issue to the international stage.”
Patel noted that before the ICJ proceedings, the matter had also been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which primarily investigates war crimes and crimes against humanity. The genocide dimension was then pursued through the ICJ.
Reflecting on South Africa’s anti-apartheid legacy, Patel said, “Our country’s history of anti-colonial and anti-oppression resistance shaped this stance. Since the advent of democracy and under leaders like Nelson Mandela, South Africa has supported the Palestinian right to self-determination. This moral and historical background compels us not to remain silent in the face of blatant human rights violations.”
When asked about the case’s impact on Palestinian children and families, Patel emphasized that the goal is to protect war victims, especially children. “The ICJ, as the UN’s highest judicial body, plays a symbolic role. Its provisional measures—including recognition of genocide risk—exert political and moral pressure on relevant states. Numerous reports confirm a growing pattern of atrocities in Gaza.”
He highlighted one of the ICJ ruling’s key outcomes: the call to open humanitarian corridors and deliver aid to Gaza. “In practice, however, the absence of a ceasefire and political obstruction have severely hindered aid delivery. A clear example is the opposition of powerful UN Security Council members to urgent ceasefire resolutions, which blocked early humanitarian intervention.”
Patel also referenced past maritime aid missions, noting that efforts to break the blockade were met with force—ships intercepted in international waters, activists detained, and aid confiscated. “These examples show that realizing human rights in practice requires the independent will and action of committed nations.”
He then discussed the importance of national legislation and enforcement mechanisms, reiterating the significance of the proposed Palestine Solidarity Law. “This initiative includes tools such as sanctions, divestment, anti-military cooperation protocols, and legal prohibitions against supporting entities complicit in property seizures.”
Patel emphasized the need to reinforce international rulings through domestic law and executive action. “Resistance against occupation must be understood within the framework of international law. The right to resist colonialism and occupation is recognized, but all actions must comply with the laws of war and be grounded in legitimate principles.”
He clarified that support for resistance should not mean ignoring international humanitarian law. “Confronting financial structures and institutions that enable occupation and land confiscation is essential.”
Patel also pointed to the role of funds and organizations involved in purchasing and transferring Palestinian land, describing this as part of the illegal settlement expansion condemned by UN resolutions, including Resolution 2334.
In conclusion, he stressed that implementing ICJ rulings requires political will and broad international cooperation. “We must not underestimate the role of conferences and civil movements. History has shown that grassroots activism and national legislation can drive real change.”
He called on nations to adopt sanctions and divestment mechanisms as peaceful, legitimate tools and to take meaningful steps toward restoring the rights of the Palestinian people.
/129
Your Comment