Sooner than later, Israel’s expectation that Gaza will not only be completely free of Palestinians, but also fully occupied by Israelis will be accomplished. In the same vein, sooner than later, the war of manoeuvre and attrition between the Israelis and the Palestinians will teach the world leaders how not to engage in politics of dishonesty in the application of international criminal law in the conduct and management of global peace and security. International politics of Israel’s genocidal crimes are complicates the problem because of the backing by Western allies and their double standard.
On the one hand, Israel is most often internationally condemned for always and consciously abusing international humanitarian and criminal laws. On the other hand, the same Israel is given sophisticated military assistance with which to continue to sustain the criminal abuse. Thus, Western allies apparently speak from both sides of their mouths. This is to suggest that Israel’s military objective in its war against the Palestinian Arabs is not simply to secure the release of the Israeli hostages, but to also wipe out anything Palestinian Hamas in Gaza and then occupy the strip contrarily to the provisions of international law. The big powers only complain but do nothing concrete to stop the Israeli genocide.
At the level of Africa, and particularly Nigeria, the policy attitude is about not being the friend of Israel and the enemy of the State of Palestine still in the making. The vice versa is also true. Most African countries support the United Nations prescription of a two-state solution which calls for the coexistence of Israel and Palestine as two independent and sovereign nation-states. Israel is generally opposed to the UN solution. Nigeria, whose 1999 Constitution stipulates that one of the foreign policy objectives shall be to ‘respect’ international law and treaty obligations, has not publicly spoken against the acts of genocide by Israel. The Academy of International Affairs, chaired by Sir (Professor) Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi, has also kept mute on this important issue of Israel’s genocidal crimes.
Advertisement
To order your copy, send a WhatsApp message to +1 317 665 2180
Gaza without Palestinians: the War Crimes
And perhaps on a more serious note, the acts of genocide are one side of the story. The more serious side is the purpose of the acts of genocide which is: why the acts of genocide? Initially, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave the whole world the impression on January 10, 2024 that he was not interested in attacking the internationally-protected people or interested in any military occupation of the Gaza. He made it clear that his ultimate objective was to fight the terrorists to standstill and secure the release of the Israelis held in hostage by the HAMAS. However, the behavioural truth as of today is that Israel has actually been interested the more in neutralising the Gazans, killing them indiscriminately, occupying gradually their whole territory, and seeking to acquire it as part of Israel’s national territory.
It is important to differentiate between genocidal crime on the one hand and other crimes against humanity or war crimes, persecution, extermination or ethnic cleansing. For example, war crimes include mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, sexual or gender-based violence, murder, hostage-taking, pillaging, deliberate population displacement, etc. As regards crimes against humanity, the offences also include murder, extermination, enslavement, torture, deportation and sexual or gender-based violence. Genocide is more encompassing than others. Genocide includes murder and actions that may not lead to immediate death but with the potential to result in disappearance of a group. Essentially, they are acts that are intentional and aimed at destroying immediately or eventually. Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948, provides that ‘the Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish (for more details and clarifications, vide the travaux préparatoires of the 1948 Genocide convention and those of the 1998 Rome Statute). Also considered as punishable genocidal offences are conspiracies to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, as well as complicity in genocide. These are some of the provisions to which the signatories to the genocide convention have committed themselves to uphold. Most unfortunately, the major powers have been playing politics with it. It is thanks to South Africa who has upheld the sanctity of the Genocide convention by taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the 29th December, 2023. The complaint of South Africa was about Israel’s misconduct in the Gaza. South Africa accused Israel of committing genocidal acts against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in violation of the Genocide Convention and has described the genocidal acts as ‘Israels’s 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year blockade of the strip.’ It was against this background that South Africa sought the provisional measures of protection for the Palestinians and the suspension of Israeli operations in the Gaza. Without doubt, the ICJ held two days of hearing on the case and admitted that it was possible that Israel’s acts could constitute an act of genocide, and therefore ruled to issue provisional measures. The ICJ described the situation in Gaza as ‘catastrophic.’ In the face of Israel’s policy of blocking humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, the ICJ, in response to requests for fresh measures, ordered new emergency measures, demanding Israel to facilitate the delivery of basic food supplies in Gaza. Even though the ICJ, by 13 votes against 2, ordered Israel, on 24 May, 2024 to stop immediately its offensive operations in Rafah, Israel never listened nor complied. Israel’s defiance partly influenced the decision of the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Mauro Viera, to announce that Brazil would officially join South Africa in its ICJ case against Israel. And true, on Wednesday, 23rd July, 2025 Brazil’s formal entry into the case brought by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ was officially announced. In the words of Brazil, ‘the international community cannot remain inert in the face of ongoing atrocities. Brazil believes there is no longer room for moral ambiguity or political omission. Impunity undermines international legality and compromises the credibility of the multilateral system.’ One diplomat was quoted as saying that Israel’s ‘repeated attacks on civilians not only in the Gaza Strip but also in the West Bank were the “last straw” that accelerated Brazil’s decision to officially endorse the case.’ (folha.uol.com.br of July 24 2025). This quotation is noteworthy for various reasons. First, Brazil apparently did not strongly believe in South Africa’s decision to take Israel to the ICJ. It was only when the genocidal crimes became a truism that the souls of Brazilians were pricked to the extent of intolerance. Countries like France and Malta have similarly decided to recognise the State of Palestine in protest against Israeli acts of genocide. The question again here is this: did the countries that have decided to recognise the State of Palestine not know that Israel had been flagrantly disobeying the obligations created by international law? Have they not been singing the songs of 2-state solution? Yes, they do know. Since they do know, why have they not recognised the State of Palestine in order to compel Israel to behave in a more civilised manner? Have they not all been selling weapons to Israel to deal with the Palestinians under the pretext of attacking the terrorists?
Wikipedia.org has reported that France, Malta, and Australia had announced their plans to recognise Palestine as a State at the forthcoming September 2025 General Assembly. The same is true of the United Kingdom and Canada but subject to some caveats that have not been made known to the public. As much as these planned recognitions will enable Palestine to enter into international relations, they are yet to address the more complex ordeal with which Palestine will be confronted. This is the issue of Gaza without the Gazans who legitimately are the owners of the land. Israel, under the pretext of fighting Hamas terrorists, have been displacing everyone with the ultimate objective of resettling Israelis there and rebuilding the destroyed Gaza with the support of the United States and other allies. In this regard, to what extent will this be possible? With some of the allies breaking the joint western solidarity in fighting the so-called enemies of Israel, with a re-definition of the belief that Israel is fighting and protecting their western values, what will be the position of the Western allies in the event of a Gaza without the Gazans? And perhaps more disturbingly, will Israel go to the extent of making Gaza a new terra nullius with the possibility of making Israel the new owner-occupier? These questions necessarily bring us to the discussion of the aspects of international law, the politics of Israeli genocidal crimes and what Nigeria’s attitudinal behaviour should be.
International Law, Politics, and Nigeria
International law of genocide explains genocide as an intentional act of destroying in part or in whole any national, ethnic, racial or religious group by causing bodily harm. As defined in Article 6 of the July 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court, genocide is ‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1) killing members of the group; 2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm; 3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part; 4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and 5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Additionally, the Geneva Convention on Genocide that was done on 9 December 1948 (GA Resolution 260 A [III] and entered into force in 1951 is applicable to Member States of the international community that are yet to adhere to the Convention.
In the context of the ICC definition, does the Hamas in Gaza rightly fall under this definitional category? The answer can be yes and no. If focus is placed on the immediate causal factors of the Israelo-Hamas war, the answer will be ‘yes’ simply because Israel has the right to legitimate self-defence. Israel was a victim of the Hamas undeclared war of October 7, 2023. Israel does not need to seek the permission of anyone before self-defence measures. However, the application of the principle of legitimate self-defence under the United Nations Charter subjects the application to collective use or defence, especially when an aggression is not provoked (Vide Chapter VII of the UN Charter).
If we direct attention to the originating profound causal factors, the aggression by Hamas can also be seen as legitimate self-defence, bearing in mind the fact of Israel’s mainmise of the Palestinian Hamas by Israel in Gaza. Israel made the political governance of Gaza inhumane to the extent of pushing the Hamas to launching aggressive missiles against the Israelis in 2023. Since the 6-day war in 1967 and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has refused to stop the strengthening of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. And more notably and disturbingly, hundreds of children, non-combatants, hospitals, in fact, thousands of internationally-protected people have been killed by Israeli targetted missiles.
The world has been horrified prompting not only the Israelis to be divided on the extent of usefulness of the Israeli acts of genocide but also compelling the allies of Israel to begin for the first time to think objectively. For instance, as noted above, some countries like France, have opted to recognise Palestine as a state in international relations, meaning their preparedness to enter into diplomatic relations with Palestine. Without doubt, the State of Palestine already exists by virtue of having a territory, population and a government, three criteria required for the existence of a sovereign state in international relations. The fourth condition of act of recognition is only important in the sense that a state that exists but cannot enter into relationships or establish diplomatic relationships with others cannot but end up being an object of ridicule. This is why several scholars have added recognition as a fourth criterion for a State not simply to exist but to also enter into international relations.
But how should the eventual acts of recognition be interpreted and understood? To what extent are they meaningful in the context of international politics? Our considered opinion is that they are, at best, meaningless. True, the recognitions will enable the State of Palestine to establish diplomatic ties with the recognising states. However, it is important to recall that France is the first chief advocate of the democratisation fever in Africa as a result of the 2000 Franco-African Summit at the coastal resort city of La Baule where President François Mitterrand made democratisation a conditionality for the grant of development aid to Africa. In other words, democratise and be recognised for development assistance. Remain dictatorial and forget partnership and development aid. In the same vein, Canada’s foreign policy underscores democracy. Consequently, their coming out almost at the same time to recognise the State of Palestine can have the strategic objective of firstly ensuring that the State of Palestine is made secure with their support and then allowing Israel to do whatever is deemed fit for the security of the sub-region under the control of Israel. A secured Israel with an installed government favourable to Israel will enable both a change in continuity and a change and continuity. In other words, change in continuity is at the level of Israel and the Western allies still acting together and sustaining their political hegemonic control of the Middle East, using Israel as the nodal point. The change and continuity concerns the Palestinians: change of their leadership and installation of structure of succession that will make very difficult for anti-Israel or anti-Western allies to come to power in the State of Palestine. Continuity concerns the maintenance of Western attitude towards Palestine. Secondly, having a recognised State of Palestine does not appear to have a brighter future without the Hamas that are being presented as terrorists. Currently, efforts are being made to side-track the Hamas in the quest for permanent peace in the neighbourhood of Israel. This cannot but be most unfortunate because the likelihood of compelling the Hamas to silence is quite remote. In spite of the massive Israeli bombing missile attacks, they have not succeeded in securing the rest of the Israelis held in hostage. This is even with the massive support of France, United Kingdom and the United States to Israel. If the Hamas has been able to resist the attacks of the most powerful countries, the same Hamas cannot but be expected to challenge the would-be leaders of the State of Palestine. The Hamas are Palestinians like others. Trying to label them as terrorists and not as Palestinians engaging in the liberation of Palestine has the potential to be strategically miscalculated conscious error and which should be cautiously avoided.
In terms of what attitudinal behaviour Nigeria should adopt vis-a-vis Israel’s acts of genocide, Nigeria should continue to stand on her existing policy posture that accepts the UN recommendations: that Israel should return to the 1967 pre-six-day war boundaries, support the two-state solution, and openly condemn Israel’s alleged genocidal crimes. Nigeria should truly speak for Africa. If Brazil could join South Africa at the ICJ to compel Israel to be more civilised in her engagement in the use of force for self-defence, Nigeria should not be found wanting in the quest for enduring peace in the Middle East. More importantly, Nigeria is currently struggling to acquire the status of strategic autonomy in which reliance on other development partners will be reduced and specially re-defined. It is therefore important for Nigeria to always present herself on the basis of her attitudinal values.
