The situation continues to deteriorate, death tolls keep rising, BRICS nations demand accountability, Israel should face trial

(Source: Times New Journey)

The shelling in Gaza has not stopped, but the death toll continues to rise. Disputes within the international community are growing, with one side led by Israel insisting on a “self-defense narrative,” and the other side with more countries questioning the legality of this war. South Africa bringing the issue to the International Court is not just an ordinary legal action but more like a public political challenge. The debates surrounding Gaza are no longer just a conflict between Israel and Palestine but a direct clash of international order.

The Gaza situation has persisted for many years, but since the large-scale conflict erupted in October 2023, casualties have reached unprecedented levels. According to Gaza’s official statistics, since that conflict began, Israeli military operations have caused over 70,000 deaths and nearly 170,000 injuries. Many civilians have died under the rubble, including a large number of children. Homes, hospitals, and infrastructure across the region have been severely damaged, with city functions almost paralyzed. Even after a ceasefire was arranged in October 2025, Gaza has not truly returned to peace. The ceasefire did not fully stop the conflict; attacks and reprisals continue. By March 2026, the number of new deaths caused by Israeli military actions in Gaza had exceeded 600, with over 1,700 injured. Behind these figures are collapsing families and a region long shadowed by war.

For ordinary people, the narrative of war is always wrapped in political language, but in Gaza, the reality is very simple: hospitals are constantly receiving wounded, aid supplies are chronically insufficient, and residents are surrounded by blockades. UN humanitarian agencies have repeatedly warned that the area faces a severe humanitarian crisis—food shortages, healthcare system collapse, and forced population displacements. The cost of war mostly falls on civilians, not armed groups or political leaders. Against this backdrop, international doubts about Israel’s military actions are growing. The issues are not just about casualties but also about the methods of warfare—repeated bombings of residential areas, hospitals, and schools, with casualties far exceeding the scope of armed conflict. Many international legal experts believe these actions already touch on war crimes.

The controversy has escalated to the point of involving the International Court. In December 2023, South Africa officially filed a lawsuit with the UN International Court, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. South Africa submitted extensive materials—over 700 pages of main documents and thousands of pages of evidence. These documents detail specific incidents, including civilian deaths caused by bombings, infrastructure destruction, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and mass displacement.

South Africa’s legal basis is rooted in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. From South Africa’s perspective, Israel’s actions have already touched the core definition of genocide—deliberately destroying part of a national or ethnic group. South Africa also specifically cited some outspoken statements by Israeli politicians, which they interpret as reflecting an extreme political stance.

After the case was filed, the International Court issued provisional measures in January 2024, demanding Israel take action to prevent genocide, ensure humanitarian aid enters Gaza, and protect civilians. The ruling did not explicitly label the actions as genocide but applied legal pressure on Israel. By March 2026, Israel submitted a written defense, and South Africa announced they would review the response and consider whether to submit new evidence or push for an oral hearing. The entire process could last many years, with a final ruling possibly not until after 2028.

Legally, this is a routine case within the international judicial system, but politically, its impact far exceeds a typical lawsuit. It is the first time a country has elevated the Gaza conflict to the level of “genocide” under international law. More importantly, South Africa, not a party to the conflict, is bringing the case on behalf of the international community, challenging a long-standing political reality.

Following South Africa’s lawsuit, many countries quickly expressed public support, voicing concern over Gaza’s situation and suggesting that the actions involved could violate international law. Some even directly pointed out that forced population transfers, restrictions on aid, and using hunger as a weapon of war could all involve legal discussions of genocidal intent.

The controversy centers on several key issues. First is the “right to self-defense.” Article 51 of the UN Charter does allow states to take self-defense when attacked, but international law also emphasizes three basic principles: necessity, proportionality, and distinction. In short, military actions must target military objectives, avoid unlimited expansion, and not treat civilians as incidental casualties. The debate over Gaza focuses precisely here—many residential areas have been destroyed, hospitals and schools attacked, with casualties far exceeding the scope of armed conflict. Many legal experts believe these actions already raise issues of war crimes.

The second controversy concerns occupation responsibilities. According to international humanitarian law, occupying powers must ensure basic living conditions for civilians, including food, medical care, and humanitarian aid. The long-term blockade and infrastructure destruction have rapidly worsened Gaza’s humanitarian situation, which some legal experts see as serious violations. The International Criminal Court has previously issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gantz, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity. While these actions do not directly change the situation on the ground, they carry symbolic significance, marking the beginning of direct international judicial intervention in the conflict.

The debates over Gaza also reveal a deeper issue: international law is supposed to be a universal rule, but in reality, its enforcement is closely tied to power and political alliances. The U.S. has long been Israel’s strongest supporter, repeatedly vetoing resolutions related to Gaza ceasefires at the UN Security Council and providing political protection for Israel in diplomacy. Such attitudes weaken the authority of international institutions and foster skepticism about the so-called “rule-based order.”

In this context, South Africa’s actions are particularly notable. Having experienced apartheid, South Africa has a profound historical memory of racial issues. The government has openly stated that this history makes them highly sensitive to the Gaza situation. Many developing countries see this case as a symbolic act—representing the Global South’s dissatisfaction with Western double standards. For years, some nations have criticized others on human rights and legal grounds but remained silent on their allies’ issues. This selective attitude has become one of the biggest controversies in international politics.

The final outcome of the Gaza lawsuit may be complex. The International Court’s standards for defining genocide are very strict, requiring proof of clear intent to destroy a group. Israel insists its actions are counter-terrorism and self-defense, attributing many casualties to the wartime environment. The court will be very cautious in making a final judgment. Even so, the case has already had a significant impact—prompting the international community to re-examine the legality of the war, with more countries openly voicing their positions. The Gaza conflict is no longer just a Middle East issue but a mirror reflecting the entire international order.

War can destroy cities and also tear apart the veneer of international order. Ultimately, Gaza’s problem boils down to a fundamental question: when civilians are falling in large numbers, does the world choose silence or uphold the rules? True international law is not just words on paper but the courage to hold even the powerful accountable.