Brazil to join South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ
South Africa filed a case in 2023 asking the ICJ to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case argues that in its war against Hamas militants, Israel's military actions go beyond targeting Hamas alone by attacking civilians, with strikes on schools, hospitals, camps and shelters.
Other countries — including Spain, Turkey and Colombia — have also sought to join the case against Israel.
In its statement, the Brazilian government accused Israel of violations of international law, 'such as the annexation of territories by force', and it expressed 'deep indignation' at violence suffered by the civilian population.
Israel denies deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, saying its sole interest is to annihilate Hamas. Lawyers for Israel have dismissed South Africa's case as an abuse of the genocide convention.
The Israeli embassy in Brasilia said the Brazilian statement used 'harsh words that do not fully portray the reality of what is happening in Gaza,' while Brazil also 'completely ignored' the role of Hamas within Gaza's reality.
Brazil's National Israeli association CONIB said in a statement in response to Wednesday's decision: 'The breaking of Brazil's long-standing friendship and partnership with Israel is a misguided move that proves the extremism of our foreign policy'.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has long been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Wednesday's decision carries added significance amid heightened tensions between Brazil and Israel ally the US. The Trump administration announced 50% tariffs on all Brazilian goods this month.
A diplomat familiar with the thinking of the Lula administration told Reuters that Brazil does not believe its decision to join South Africa's case will affect its relationship with Washington.
The US has opposed South Africa's genocide case under both Democratic former President Joe Biden and Trump, a Republican. In February, Trump signed an executive order to cut US financial assistance to South Africa, citing in part its ICJ case.
Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
an hour ago
- The Herald
What do you think of Zondo's outburst about his ‘pain' swearing in ministers ‘linked' to state capture?
Former chief justice Raymond Zondo's recent scathing rebuke of President Cyril Ramaphosa has sparked a debate. Speaking to the Sunday Times, Zondo said it pained him to swear in ministers who had serious state capture allegations against them. 'It was like the president was saying, 'I don't care what you have found about the people. I think they are good enough to be promoted',' Zondo said. 'The recommendations made in the state capture report were based on evidence that was led transparently when the entire nation was watching. We are defending the report because we believe it is sound. But I had to swear them in, remembering what I found against them.' The four-year inquiry has yielded few results, and some ANC top brass have contested it in court. Several ANC ministers have been embroiled in corruption allegations, including human settlements minister Thembi Simelane, police minister Senzo Mchunu who was recently placed on special leave, and Nobuhle Nkabane, who was dismissed as higher education minister. Zondo said Ramaphosa had been 'inconsistent' in disciplining cabinet ministers implicated in wrongdoing. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya dismissed Zondo's concerns, saying he has had access to the president whenever there were matters of concern to be discussed.
The Herald
an hour ago
- The Herald
US diplomats asked if non-whites qualify for Trump refugee programme for South Africans
The internal back-and-forth between the embassy and the state department, which hasn't been previously reported, illustrates the confusion about how to implement a policy designed to help white Afrikaners in a racially diverse country that includes mixed-race people who speak Afrikaans and whites who speak English. To date the state department has resettled 88 South Africans under the programme, including the initial group of 59 who arrived in May. Another 15 are expected to arrive by the end of August, one source said. Trump, a Republican who recaptured the White House pledging a wide-ranging immigration crackdown, placed an indefinite freeze on refugee admissions from around the world after taking office, saying the US would only admit refugees who 'can fully and appropriately assimilate'. Weeks later he issued an executive order that called for the US to resettle Afrikaners, describing them as victims of 'violence against racially disfavoured landowners', allegations that echoed far-right claims which have been contested by government. Since the executive order, US diplomats working to implement the programme have been deliberating internally about which racial groups could be considered eligible, one source said. In the July 8 cable, Greene laid out a summary of the different ethnic and racial groups in the country before seeking guidance on eligibility. In addition to Afrikaners and mixed-race South Africans, Greene mentioned indigenous South Africans known as the Khoisan people. He said members of the Jewish community had also expressed interest, but in South Africa they are considered a religious minority and not a racial group. 'In the absence of other guidance, [the US embassy] intends to give consideration to well-founded claims of persecution based on race for other racial minorities,' Greene wrote. At least one family identified as coloured has travelled to the US as refugees, two people familiar with the matter said. The cable forced the administration to clarify its position on whether the policy is for whites only, and if it does include other aggrieved minorities, who would qualify, two people familiar with the matter said. Chretien, a conservative who wrote op-eds promoting the Heritage Foundation's 'Project 2025" plan to overhaul the federal government, is the senior official at the state department's bureau of population, refugees, and migration.
Mail & Guardian
6 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Response to Chrispin Phiri's open letter
After two decades reporting from front lines I've learned that truth in conflict is rarely clean. Photo: Said Khatib/AFP When a government spokesperson devotes an On 21 July 2025, department of international relations and cooperation spokesperson Chrispin Phiri published an open letter accusing me of promoting 'clickbait', 'unsubstantiated hogwash' and undermining the integrity of South African media. His response was directed at a In that blog, I raised a set of concerns based on documents shared with me by a source, Justin Lewis. These included allegations that certain South African officials may have had foreknowledge of the 7 October Hamas attacks and played a role in enabling legal access to international courts on Hamas's behalf. I never claimed that the allegations were confirmed, only that they deserve to be taken seriously and properly looked into. As a journalist, it is not my role to suppress serious allegations simply because they are unproven — it is my responsibility to bring them to light when they raise legitimate public interest concerns. In doing so, I make clear what is allegation and what is fact, and I seek responses from all relevant parties. That is how scrutiny, accountability, and responsible journalism work. Which is why two days later I Phiri's letter acknowledged that clarification — only to dismiss it as 'damage control'. Instead of presenting factual rebuttals, he delivered a lecture peppered with sarcasm and insults, calling my work reckless and unethical, and accusing me of misleading the public. This exchange, at its core, comes down to a clear line of argument on both sides. My position is that journalists have a duty to raise serious allegations — especially when they involve governments, foreign policy or international law. Not because all allegations are true, but because the public deserves to know what questions are being asked, and what answers are being avoided. Phiri's position, on the other hand, is that because Justin Lewis has made exaggerated and questionable claims elsewhere, the allegations I raised should never have been aired. But journalism doesn't work that way. Bad people can stumble onto important truths. Flawed sources can raise valid concerns. A journalist's job is not to vouch for a source's biography — it's to follow a story where it leads, verify what can be verified, and disclose what can't. That's what I did. Within 48 hours, I published a follow-up. I clarified the context not because the allegations were proven or disproven, but because responsible journalism requires transparency when new information comes to light. What Phiri offered in response was not a factual correction, but a character attack against both the source and me. After two decades reporting from front lines in Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Israel and beyond I've learned that truth in conflict is rarely clean. Sources sometimes collapse under scrutiny. When that happens, you take responsibility, correct, and move forward. That is exactly what I did. What I did not do was present fiction as fact. I reported on allegations. I clarified their status. I acknowledged the problems. And I continued asking questions. If the government believes those questions are baseless, it should present evidence to the contrary. It should clarify timelines, communications and diplomatic steps taken before and after 7 October. Instead, it has chosen to mock the person raising them. The department's refusal to engage with the core concern, South Africa's foreign policy conduct and the credibility of its international alliances, is telling. Their silence on substance, and volume on character, only fuels public doubt. And for the record: I do not claim South Africa collaborated with Hamas. I do not claim the allegations are proven. I do claim they are serious enough to merit scrutiny. That scrutiny should not be met with institutional outrage. Phiri's letter suggests that by platforming concerns, I violated the principles of journalism. But journalism is not built on silence. It's built on inquiry. You follow leads. You evaluate sources. You clarify what cannot be confirmed. That's what I did. That's what I will continue to do. South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice is not what I was writing about. My focus was narrower: what was said, shared or supported before the events of 7 October? Were there missteps or blind spots in our diplomatic positioning? And if so, shouldn't we want to know? In his closing, Phiri quotes Nelson Mandela: 'Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.' I would add this: our democracy is incomplete without the freedom to question our own government especially when the stakes involve war, ideology and lives. I'll continue to ask hard questions, report without fear, and correct when needed — not because it's popular, but because journalism demands it. A free press doesn't need permission to investigate — and it certainly doesn't answer to the government it is questioning. Paula Slier is a South African-born war correspondent and journalist.
