South Africa filed a new dossier with the International Court of Justice in late August, adding to its genocide case against Israel even as analysts say the government’s continued coal sales to Israel undercut the legal effort.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation submitted the evidence to the ICJ’s monitoring committee, the body that oversees compliance with three legally binding provisional measures orders issued against Israel. Those orders were designed to protect Palestinians under the Genocide Convention after the court concluded there existed “a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice would be caused to the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide.”
The dossier documents the scale of casualties and suffering in Gaza since October 7, 2023. According to Dirco, at least 73,407 Palestinians have been killed and 174,335 injured as of August 2026, representing over 10 percent of Gaza’s Palestinian population. Some 46,000 surviving Palestinians live with severe conflict-related injuries, including amputations and traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. Since the announced ceasefire, the government stated that on average one Palestinian child has been killed daily by the Israeli military. Miscarriage rates among Palestinians in Gaza have increased more than threefold during 2026, while the surviving population faces deprivation of water, adequate healthcare, medicine, and other essential resources.
Dirco argues that Israel has failed to comply with the ICJ’s provisional orders. Amnesty International echoed that assessment, stating that Israel’s non-compliance “undermines their protective function and entails further destruction of the Palestinian group.” The organization stressed that the provisional measures protect not only Palestinian rights but also the legitimacy of the ICJ itself, ensuring that protected rights are not destroyed before the court renders its final judgment.
Professor Steven Friedman of the University of Johannesburg explained that the current submissions differ from South Africa’s original genocide case. The original case argued that Israel is committing genocide; the new dossiers request expanded provisional orders and address questions of illegal occupation in both the West Bank and Gaza. The ICJ has since confirmed that Israel’s occupation of both territories is illegal.
Friedman identified enforcement, not proof, as the central problem. “No serious scholar of genocide hasn’t concluded that Israel is committing genocide,” he said. “While proving genocide needs proof of intent, this isn’t difficult in this case because there are tonnes of statements by Israeli cabinet ministers saying precisely what they intended to do.” The ICJ’s rulings, he added, carry political rather than punitive weight. Only the UN Security Council can impose sanctions for non-compliance, and the United States would veto any such resolution. The real purpose of court rulings, in his view, is to increase international pressure and shape global public opinion.
Meanwhile, Middle East analyst Na’eem Jeenah of the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection argued that the additional dossiers strengthen South Africa’s original case by establishing a foundation for arguing that Israel is in “gross violation and repeated violations of international law.” He predicted that mounting international pressure, including settler violence in the West Bank and legislative bans on Israeli settlement products by the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands, could eventually lead to UN action.
Both analysts drew parallels to international pressure on apartheid South Africa. Western governments initially backed the apartheid regime despite domestic pressure to change course. The US State Department only removed Nelson Mandela from its terrorist list in 2008, while UK governments supported South Africa until domestic backlash became overwhelming.
By contrast, both Friedman and Jeenah were sharply critical of what they described as a fundamental contradiction in South Africa’s own position. While pursuing Israel at the ICJ for genocide, South Africa remains Israel’s largest coal supplier. Friedman argued that if the government believes genocide is occurring, supplying coal to Israel violates the Genocide Convention itself, which obligates all signatories to prevent genocide.
Jeenah was more pointed. Coal, he noted, fuels Israel’s military operations, powers illegal settlements in the West Bank, and supports the artificial intelligence systems targeting civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. “Claiming that the sale of coal is a private sector issue which has nothing to do with the government is ludicrous,” he said. Though South African coal represents only a small percentage of the country’s overall coal exports, it constitutes a major portion of Israel’s coal imports.
Whether South Africa moves to restrict those exports, or continues to treat them as a commercial matter separate from its ICJ case, may ultimately determine how seriously the international community takes Pretoria’s legal campaign.