The two-day public hearing in the genocide case taken by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began yesterday.
Irish lawyer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh outlined the South African government’s case against Israel, seeking measures to protect those in Gaza from “Israel’s violations of the Genocide Convention”.
Israel’s assaults on Gaza have cost over 23,000 lives, including 10,000 children. It is significant that South Africa’s case is not merely a matter of making common cause with another country: it is asking the ICJ to take action to protect those living in Gaza. Israel’s response has been predictably volcanic, describing the accusations as a “blood libel”, with its president, Isaac Herzog, saying his country will mount an argument of self-defence.
As often happens with institutions drawing their membership from a variety of countries, the ICJ is not without its flaws. Some of its 15 judges have adhered to the political direction of their home countries in past cases, for instance. Still, the hearing is a formidable indictment of Israel’s actions, as well as a marker of the journey taken by South Africa itself. Forty years ago, Irish Dunnes Stores workers launched their famous boycott against South Africa, then international pariahs; now it has become something of a world conscience.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said Ireland does not plan to support the South African case, outlining his unease with using the term “genocide” given the context of the Holocaust. Green Party leader Eamon Ryan, however, says South Africa has made “irrefutable” points in its case against Israel, while the main opposition parties have called on Ireland to support South Africa’s case.
Surely only the most blinkered supporter of Israel could make the case that killing over 23,000 people constitutes self-defence.
Does that death toll — or Israel’s actions in Gaza generally — come under the legal definition of genocide? A full examination of whether what is happening in Gaza is genocide is certainly needed, and the ICJ hearing gives us that examination. On that basis, Ireland should support South Africa.
An impression of sluggishness in the commercial property market has hardened into reality with the recent report released by estate agency Lisney Sotheby’s.
The report shows office markets in Dublin and Cork are seeing growing vacancy rates and “significantly lower levels” of take-up than the longer-term average; in Dublin less than half of the 10-year annual average of office space was taken up in 2023. The challenge is to identify the nature of the phenomenon. Is it a temporary issue which will be absorbed into the long-term picture or an initial harbinger of broad and irreversible change?
For instance, the recent chill in the tech sector was bound to have a short-term impact on rates of occupation, but the work-from-home boom which began during the pandemic continues and may have to be factored into long-term plans.
Discussions of the pros and cons of working from home fuel many an opinion column, but a more pertinent investigation would puzzle out whether the apparent collapse in Dublin commercial occupancy is linked to workers who left the capital to live outside the M50 during covid and who have no interest in returning.
Clearly, the time lag between planning, applying for permission, approval, and constructing large-scale building projects means many of the office blocks now coming on stream were conceived before covid-19 showed there was an alternative to sitting in an office cubicle. Whether all those cubicles will still be needed on a full-time basis is still a matter of some debate, but there are more immediate consequences to be considered.
For instance, the Lisney Sotheby’s report stated: “There is over 140,000sq m of office space with planning permission but has not yet commenced across Cork. Unless pre-lets
are secured, it is very unlikely any of this will progress speculatively in the short-term.”
It is to be hoped that the demand for office space recovers in the short- to medium-term. In the longer term, we may need to examine our focus on creating quite so much of it.
Readers may be aware that two African princesses have appealed directly to President Michael D Higgins for help in getting a 150-year-old family heirloom looted from their ancestor returned to South Africa.
In the 19th century, Xhosa leader Maqoma’s sacred warrior stick was taken to Ireland after his death on Robben Island by Captain French MacDermott; the stick had been in storage in the National Museum of Ireland since 1880, unknown to his descendants.
The chief’s stick has huge cultural, spiritual, and historical significance for the Xhosa nation as a whole, and Princess Royals Ncedisa Maqoma and Mamtshawe Zukiswa Kona saw it in a private viewing at the Museum last Tuesday. They have appealed directly to President Higgins to assist in getting their family heirloom back to South Africa.
It’s a cornerstone of the Irish self-image that we benefit hugely from our lack of a colonial past, which enables us to shake our heads at the arrogance of Britain in retaining the Elgin Marbles, for instance.
The situation with the Xhosa stick undercuts that self-image somewhat. It certainly would if we don’t do the decent thing and offer it to the two princesses to bring back home. After 150 years. it’s the least we can do.