Updated April 18, 2025 at 7:40 p.m.
-Analysis-
CAIRO — Nicaragua surprised everyone this month by withdrawing from the case filed by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice, only to rejoin it several days later.
The small Central American country had been the first to officially join South Africa on the case, and it even filed another significant case against Germany, accusing it of aiding the occupation army — thus opening an important path for tracking supporters of genocide.
Amid the weak voice of official media in Managua and its limited influence under the leadership of a closed, leftist totalitarian government led jointly by Daniel Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo, the government announced on the evening April 10, the resumption of proceedings and its return to supporting South Africa.
However, at the time of writing, it remains unclear how this will be done legally and administratively.
Nicaragua has a notable legacy of resisting American imperialism. In 1986, it won a historic ruling in which the International Court of Justice condemned the United States for supporting terrorist attacks carried out by the right-wing Contra militia, helping them lay mines and then refusing to reveal their locations and encouraging Contra leaders to commit inhumane acts. The ruling required the U.S. to pay financial compensation for violating the bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation.
It’s part of a legacy centered around military resistance to Washington, victory over its affiliated militias and then humiliating it in the highest forum of international law, followed by obtaining a General Assembly resolution obliging the U.S. to comply with the ruling (opposed only by Israel and El Salvador). This history makes Nicaragua’s withdrawal and subsequent return all the more puzzling, especially in terms of timing, as the deadline for the Israeli government to respond to the accusations expires in July.
Consequences
While the withdrawal itself has no legal impact on the case, it certainly gives Zionists an opportunity to fish in troubled waters and exploit the move for propaganda against South Africa, claiming that supporters of Palestine are retreating or acknowledging that the accusations are “unjust or exaggerated” — as claimed by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar in response to the withdrawal.
This is pressure and blackmail aimed at sowing division, but the real significance lies in the alarm it sounds to the countries involved in or sympathetic to the case, warning them of the consequences of American and Israeli attempts to undermine the coalition of states that have taken it upon themselves to fight through legal means for Palestinian rights since the onset of the current aggression — along with those who initiated or supported cutting or freezing diplomatic ties.
This coalition primarily includes the nine Hague Group countries that, at the end of January, declared their support for the International Criminal Court against Zionist-American threats. These are: South Africa, Malaysia, Colombia, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Namibia, Senegal and Belize. Other countries have also joined the genocide case, including Mexico, Chile, Ireland, Spain, Turkey, Libya and the Maldives — alongside others active in boycott measures and economic sanctions against the occupation, such as Norway, Brazil and Venezuela.
There is clear evidence of coordinated movements against these efforts. In September, the U.S. website Axios published a report on a broad Israeli campaign to reach out to U.S. Congress members to pressure South Africa to withdraw its case, warning of “serious consequences” for those participating.
Other Israeli and American media outlets have spent the past 10 months attacking most of the aforementioned countries, attempting to link the leftist leanings of some of their leaders to Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance and accusing them of racist behavior toward Jewish communities in their countries.
The Israeli magazine, The Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, even went as far as calling for “monitoring the situation of Jews in Chile, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.” Meanwhile, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism claimed that Iran and Qatar are providing South Africa and other countries with financial and technical support to pursue legal action against the occupation.
American pressure increased after Nicaragua’s statement of severing ties with Israel
As for Nicaragua specifically, this year has seen escalated diplomatic and media pressure against it, coinciding with the announcement of a constitutional amendment that consolidates full executive powers for the ruling couple.
Under pressure
Then, a UN human rights expert committee issued a report condemning the government’s policies against the opposition and restrictions on political and media freedoms, identifying for the first time a list of 54 officials accused of repression and violations. The Human Rights Council then extended the expert group’s mission for two more years, sending a clear message regarding “the government’s brutal campaigns and its attempts at isolation in search of impunity, as shown in its withdrawal from some international institutions.”
Can this escalation, accompanied by U.S. statements, be considered part of the broad pressure campaign on Palestine’s supporters?
This cannot be definitively concluded, given the ongoing abuses by the Sandinista regime led by Ortega and Murillo, especially since other Palestine-supporting countries, such as Brazil, Chile and Colombia, also voted to continue investigating internal violations. But American pressure increased after Nicaragua’s statement of severing ties with Israel — like investigations launched by President Joe Biden’s administration into Russian espionage centers in Nicaragua and allegations of labor crimes.
A living example of these dynamics is also reflected in the reason cited by Nicaragua’s foreign ministry in its withdrawal statement: financial burdens of litigation procedures — a seemingly odd and exaggerated reason, especially given the swift reversal of the decision.
Legal repositioning
There’s another possibility: that Nicaragua’s move was a form of maneuvering under pressure, or perhaps a legal repositioning in the case.
Nicaragua had initially joined South Africa’s case against Israel under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute, which governs intervention by states that have “an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case” — a criterion applicable only to Palestine.
Other states that joined the case did so under Article 63, which allows a state that is not party to the dispute to intervene “if the construction of a convention to which it is a party is in question” — a condition that applies to all signatories of the Genocide Convention.
Thus, theoretically, Nicaragua can submit a new application for intervention, this time under Article 63. The Court is expected to begin holding successive sessions within short intervals, leading to a ruling. In her last weekly media appearance on April 10, Co-President Murillo exclaimed, “Long live Nicaragua, long live Palestine — two beacons of freedom and progressiveness.”
Testimony to academic advancement
But Nicaragua’s stance is not the true essence of the justice struggle for Palestine — it is a key to rebutting those who believe legal action is merely theoretical, unproductive and destined for failure amid a crumbling international system with no mechanisms for enforcing international court rulings or ensuring their respect.
“And every brother owes his brother victory… no?”
Such critics ignore the fact that the legal battle is a catalyst for extensive work in favor of the cause. It is by no means detached from politics — even if the leading countries are geographically distant from Palestine. In fact, it is a key arena where the balance of power is reflected at a given moment and where the political, diplomatic and economic activities of various concerned states converge.
So if we don’t act today… when will we?
The legal struggle also reflects the level of advancement in academic research within states, and the ability of their legal and diplomatic elites, in particular, to respond to political developments and use their theoretical expertise to open new avenues for relieving the suffering of the Palestinian people. Issuing rulings that entrench international legitimacy and raise the ceiling of global resistance helps to counter Zionist thuggery and American excess.
Arab states’ role
Egypt and the rest of the Arab states “concerned with the cause” could have — and still can — use this arena to offer financial, economic and legal support to The Hague Group and the states involved in South Africa’s case, most of which are developing or poor nations. Of course, they can also use this arena to directly support South Africa’s case through intervention requests before July, or to file a new request within the same case or a separate case seeking new provisional measures to halt the escalating genocide and comprehensive destruction aimed at forcibly displacing Gaza residents and fully altering the sector’s demographics. This would help redistribute roles and responsibilities in a way that eases pressure on The Hague Group.
“The coward thinks cowardice is prudence”… But in the presence of resolve and willpower, no one will impress us with nihilistic interpretations of the legal battle — a battle the enemy itself is keen on and applies pressure in every way to avoid its consequences.
Egypt in particular now has an even more urgent reason to participate — Israel’s intent to eliminate all prospects for humanitarian aid entry, especially after destroying Palestinian Rafah and turning it into a buffer zone. This poses an unprecedented threat to the safety of Egypt’s eastern borders, not to mention Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim from the Oval Office that he didn’t besiege Gaza — a blatant lie and an implicit accusation against Cairo.
So if we don’t act today… when will we? For what red line is left that the Zionists haven’t already crossed?
