South Africa's genocide case is purely political and Canada should intervene against it

As South Africa’s case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza comes before the International Court of Justice, many nations have joined the fray. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Morocco have voiced support for the charges, as have Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, The Maldives, Namibia, Pakistan, Colombia and Brazil. Some nations, like Ireland, say the case is “far from clear cut” but hope that the court will order a ceasefire. Opponents include the U.S., Australia and the U.K., which has called the case “completely unjustified and wrong.” China and Russia have been relatively quiet.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

And Canada? We took the weasel word position. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that “Canada has always supported the international rules-based order and the structures around international law, including and especially the International Court of Justice,” adding “at the same time, our support for the ICJ and its processes does not mean that we accept the premise of the case brought forward by South Africa and we are watching carefully as all the steps unfold.”

Some genius in the PMO figured that “we support the process, not the premise” would be sufficiently vague to allow everyone to hear what they wanted to hear. Muslim Canadian organizations had called for Canada to “support an impartial investigation into possible war crimes committed in Gaza,” and recognize the court’s “jurisdiction on this issue.” Supporting “the process” would fulfil that request, without committing to a side in the debate.

But Trudeau’s line about not accepting “the premise” led pro-Israel advocates, including Liberal MPs like Anthony Housefather, to understand that Canada opposed the case on its merits. Cue the fury on the other side. So this week, Trudeau sounded off again, accusing the media of misinterpreting his words. The PM said that Canada would respect the decision of the court but declined to comment on what would happen if the ICJ found against Israel. “I’m not going to comment on what could be an eventual finding by a process that we support as it unfolds.”

This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

What is the correct position to take? Well, Trudeau has it right on the process part. In our democracy, we respect a clear separation between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government. If the state wants to weigh in on a case, it doesn’t chirp from the sidelines because that would constitute political interference. It seeks intervenor status and sends its lawyers to make representations.

As of Jan. 15, five nations have taken the proper legal approach to South Africa’s case, seeking intervenor status. This includes Germany, whose spokesperson Steffen Hebestriet declared “This accusation has no basis whatsoever… In view of Germany’s history, crimes against humanity, and Shoah (catastrophe in English), the government is particularly committed to the UN Genocide Convention.”

Canada has sought intervenor status in four other genocide cases at the ICJ, including two in the last year. In June, it joined 31 other countries granted intervenor status in Ukraine’s genocide against Russia, including Australia and every European Union member nation except Hungary. (The U.S. also applied but was rejected on a technicality.) In November, Canada joined five other countries seeking intervenor status in a case of genocide brought by Gambia against Myanmar.

So why not when it comes to Israel? In a word, politics. Taking a position on the case is seen as taking a position on the war, something the government has tried desperately to avoid, because it doesn’t want to lose political points with either the Muslim or Jewish community at home.

What the government fails to realize, however, is that taking a stand in this case is about far more than supporting our ally in a particular conflict. It’s about standing with all our allies in a rapidly shifting world order — one that threatens democracy here and throughout the West.

South Africa’s case against Israel is not about standing up for the Palestinians, but a proxy for the interests of Russia and China. Both nations love the chaos the Israel-Hamas war is sowing for Israel’s allies, namely, the United States. And both countries have South Africa in their pocket. South Africa’s ruling party is indebted to Russian mining interests who have given it millions of dollars. Last year, South Africa participated in joint naval exercises with China and Russia. Small wonder South Africa has refused to join in international condemnation of either China or Russia at the United Nations.

Due to its history of apartheid, South Africa is the perfect flagbearer for this legal case. And due to Canada’s history championing freedom in South Africa, Trudeau may be loathe to intervene against it. But if he wants to do the right thing, he will seek intervenor status and call out these bogus charges for what they are: an attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and by extension, all those who stand with her against autocracy.

National Post

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

From functionality to affordability, we’ve rounded up 7 of the best cast iron pans on the market

The eyes are leading the charge, with glitz and glamour on the horizon

Staples, Our Place and ALDO, to name a few

Samsung unveils new Galaxy S24 smartphones, powered by AI, at its Unpacked event

Don't let winter get in the way of an out-of-town getaway

QOSHE - Tasha Kheiriddin: If Trudeau really cared about the ICJ, he'd join Israel's side in court - Tasha Kheiriddin
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Tasha Kheiriddin: If Trudeau really cared about the ICJ, he'd join Israel's side in court

6 0
19.01.2024

South Africa's genocide case is purely political and Canada should intervene against it

As South Africa’s case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza comes before the International Court of Justice, many nations have joined the fray. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Morocco have voiced support for the charges, as have Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, The Maldives, Namibia, Pakistan, Colombia and Brazil. Some nations, like Ireland, say the case is “far from clear cut” but hope that the court will order a ceasefire. Opponents include the U.S., Australia and the U.K., which has called the case “completely unjustified and wrong.” China and Russia have been relatively quiet.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

And Canada? We took the weasel word position. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that “Canada has always supported the international rules-based order and the structures around international law, including and especially the International Court of Justice,” adding “at the same time, our support for the ICJ and its processes does not mean that we accept the premise of the case brought forward by South Africa and we are watching carefully as all the steps unfold.”

Some genius in the PMO figured that “we support the process, not the premise” would be sufficiently vague to allow everyone to hear what they wanted to hear. Muslim Canadian organizations had called for Canada to “support an impartial investigation into possible war........

© National Post


Get it on Google Play