The South African presidency confirmed on March 15, 2026, that it had received Israel’s defense memorandum filed with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This filing follows two extensions granted to the Hebrew state, which pushed back the initial deadline from July 2025 to March 12, 2026. Pretoria’s legal services are now conducting a thorough evaluation of this document.
The strategic question revolves around a procedural option: submitting an additional written reply to refute the opposing arguments, or requesting the immediate opening of the oral pleadings phase. This choice, which belongs exclusively to South Africa as the plaintiff, will have direct implications on the procedural timeline.
As a reminder, the lawsuit initiated by South Africa in late December 2023 is based on allegations of violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Pretoria’s legal argumentation argues that the military operations in Gaza violate Israel’s international obligations. This lengthy procedure aims to establish state responsibility, beyond the emergency measures already discussed, based on comprehensive documentation of actions taken on the ground and their presumed intentionality.
South Africa is not alone in this matter. Several African states, including Algeria, have filed statements of intervention or expressed their support for Pretoria’s legal action. This continental mobilization illustrates a shared African consciousness, partly inherited from a long experience of colonial and segregationist policies that South Africa itself endured under apartheid. The Palestinian cause resonates as a direct echo of these historical struggles for the dignity of peoples.
Since the beginning of the dispute, the ICJ has issued three provisional orders with binding effect. These measures required Israel to prevent any genocidal acts and ensure unimpeded humanitarian access to the civilian population. However, Pretoria’s position remains firm: these injunctions have not been effectively respected. South Africa points to a disconnect between the Court’s requirements and the reality on the ground, characterized by the persistence of strikes and severe logistical restrictions.
The legal debate takes place in a context of critical deterioration of humanitarian indicators in Gaza, described as “catastrophic” by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Chronic food shortages and limited access to basic healthcare are central pieces of evidence that South Africa intends to present in the upcoming stages of the procedure. The decision to use or not a written reply will be crucial for the speed with which the Court can rule on the substance of this historic case – and for the entire African continent, attentive to this emerging jurisprudence.
