The Financial Times published a report prepared by James Shooter in which he questioned the importance of the call submitted by South Africa to the International Court of Justice against Israel. He said that the International Court of Justice heard legal arguments in important cases, but the case presented by South Africa was the most important because it accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

A decision on the lawsuit, whose allegations Israel denies, will not be issued until years later. However, the court, with its 17 judges, will decide, in the coming days, whether it will accept the South African demand, which includes measures meant to limit the Israeli attack against Gaza.

  Even before the judges issued their decision, a country, which the writer says is democratic and supported by the West, was accused before the highest international crimes court, which led to global attention.

For Israel and its allies, the claim is baseless and arouses discontent.

For the Palestinians and their supporters, especially in the Global South, the situation is a test of the international system, which they see as always working against them.

“Few conflicts around the world have caused shocks like this,” says Dalia Scheindlin, a pollster in Tel Aviv. And all over the world, people have positions on it,” he said, so “I imagine that any decision from the court will ignite both parties, one way or another.”

In Israel, which the writer says was subjected to a Hamas attack on October 7, South Africa’s decision to bring it to court is incomprehensible and angering, especially since the 1948 Genocide Law, against which South Africa filed its lawsuit, appeared after the Nazi crimes against the Jews. During World War II.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that a terrorist group committed the worst crime against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and one party is defending it, and in the name of the Holocaust? “What insolent bitterness.” He described the South African lawsuit as “a cry of hypocrisy that reaches the heavens.”

But the Palestinians see the situation in a different way: they hope that the international community will put pressure on Israel and stop its devastating attack on Israel, which has so far killed more than 25,000 Palestinians and displaced more than one million of the 2.3 million people in the Gaza Strip. It is also an opportunity to hold Israel responsible for the oppression and oppression it has carried out against the Palestinians over the past 75 years. The Palestinian Ambassador to Britain, Hossam Zomlot, says: “This is the first serious international effort to end the horrific situation and demand accountability, after 75 years of denial of basic, equal rights for all people.” He said: “This is an important moment, and if the International Justice Organization adheres to its legal mandate and succeeds in its governance, it will succeed for itself and for the law-based international system.” If it fails, it will have failed itself, its mandate, and the entire international system based on law.”

In order to make a decision, the court's judges must decide whether Israel's actions are covered by the Genocide Charter and whether urgent measures are necessary to protect the rights of Palestinian citizens of Gaza, a lower threshold than that required to support the case presented by South Africa.

  If the court decided that the South African request was compatible with the provisions of the Genocide Charter, it might decide to approve all demands, from a ceasefire to preventing it from incitement to commit genocide or an act chosen by Israel. The decision will have a clear impact on the Gaza war.

  Legal analysts doubt the court’s decision is binding on Israel, as they say that Hamas is not covered by the case, and is still holding 130 hostages. The result may have been a compromise in terms of increasing humanitarian aid and opening the way for independent investigations.

Analysts say that if Israel decides to ignore the court's decision, any reprehensible decision will affect the way countries deal with Israel, such as not selling weapons to it, or preparing to impose sanctions on it.

Others believe that the decision will have an impact on other cases submitted to the Criminal Court, which deals with cases against individuals, not states. “The Genocide Charter is the Summit Charter, it is the crime of crimes,” says Sheila Bellan, an expert in international law and human rights. “So this is an explosive moment,” but there is a lot at stake, as there are many cases that have been paralyzed by the UN Security Council. States are willing to resort to the Court against other countries, and it carries opportunities and risks for the International Court of Justice, and may ultimately strengthen it and its influence, but there are also risks of dragging it into situations that expose it to accusation and politicization.