The International Court of Justice has been set ablaze with fiery statements from the State of South Africa regarding the legal consequences of the occupation in the West Bank and occupied East Al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Vusimuzi Madonsela, the South African representative, declared that Israeli violence and attacks in Gaza are a violation of international law, comparing them to the apartheid regime.

Drawing on their own history with apartheid, Madonsela emphasized the importance of holding perpetrators of Israeli crimes accountable and allowing Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination.

He criticized the Israeli occupation, describing it as trapping Palestinians behind an apartheid wall and leading to illegal detentions.

The second day of hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague saw representatives from 52 countries condemning the Israeli occupation and its impact on the Palestinian people.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki called for an end to the occupation, labeling it a violation of international laws.

This session was prompted by a request from the United Nations General Assembly in response to escalating Israeli aggression in Gaza, where nearly 30,000 Palestinians have been killed in ongoing war.

Countries such as the United States, China, Russia, South Africa, and Egypt sent written notes to the court expressing their concerns.

The court's review of occupation, settlement, and annexation in the occupied territories is expected to address discriminatory practices and legislation adopted by Israeli authorities, impacting the legal status of occupation and its consequences.

While previous rulings have called for the dismantling of the separation wall in the West Bank, compliance has not been met.

Separately, South Africa has brought forth a case against ‘Israel’ for violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza.

Despite the International Court of Justice's order to prevent genocide in Gaza, ‘Israel’ has failed to comply.

The advisory opinions issued by the court may not be legally binding, but they hold significant legal weight and moral authority.