Since the start of the genocide perpetrated by Israel in Gaza in October 2023, the world has witnessed an unprecedented humanitarian tragedy: more than 57,000 Palestinians have been killed, and thousands more remain buried under the rubble.

RELATED:

Gaza’s Health System on the Brink: Over 100 Premature Babies at Risk as Fuel Runs Out

Social media has been flooded with harrowing images of people seeking humanitarian aid only to be attacked in those very spaces. In this context, the XVII BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro has taken on crucial relevance, positioning this bloc as a key actor in denouncing and seeking solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

What is BRICS and Why Does It Matter in Gaza?

BRICS is an international association of emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. In 2024, the bloc expanded to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, and Indonesia, consolidating itself as BRICS+.

Its mission is to strengthen economic, political, and social cooperation among its members, challenge the unipolar world order, and promote a multipolar world where emerging powers have greater representation in international institutions.

Among its key objectives are:

• Fostering global development and stability.
• Reducing dependence on the US dollar.
• Promoting cooperation in science, technology, education, and culture.
• Increasing geopolitical and economic influence.

https://videos.telesurenglish.net/en/category/8/Featured/Featured

The XVII BRICS Summit and the Crisis in Gaza

The summit, held on July 6 and 7, 2025, in Rio de Janeiro, addressed key issues such as trade protectionism, climate change, and, centrally, the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Leaders from Brazil, Iran, and other member states condemned the violence in Gaza.

Although the final declaration avoided the term “genocide,” the bloc expressed deep concern over Israel’s ongoing attacks and obstruction of humanitarian aid.

Why Was “Genocide” Not Mentioned in the Final Declaration?

Despite several leaders describing the situation in Gaza as genocide in their speeches, the final declaration opted for more diplomatic language.

This reflects the need for consensus in an increasingly diverse bloc, where some countries maintain political, economic, and military ties with Israel and its Western allies, such as the United States.

Additionally, the term “genocide” carries specific legal implications under international law, leading to caution in its formal use in multilateral documents.

Context of the Conflict in Gaza

The current phase of the conflict in Gaza is the result of decades of occupation, blockades, and violence. Since 2007, following Hamas’ takeover of the Strip, Israel, with Egypt’s support, imposed a strict land, sea, and air blockade, turning Gaza into an “open-air prison.”

This blockade has devastated the local economy and restricted access to basic services such as water, electricity, and healthcare.

Cycles of violence, such as Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009), have left thousands of dead, including hundreds of children. The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has increased settler violence, often with the complicity of the Israeli military.

Before October 2023, Israeli forces intensified raids in the West Bank, resulting in deadly clashes. Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 2023 triggered the most devastating offensive against Gaza, with bombings, sieges, and ground attacks creating an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.

The Legal Perspective on Genocide

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts include:

• Killing members of the group.
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm.
• Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.
• Imposing measures to prevent births.
• Forcibly transferring children to another group.

The mere occurrence of these acts is not enough; there must be a deliberate intent to destroy the protected group, distinguishing genocide from other international crimes.

Evidence and International Accusations

Numerous human rights organizations, media outlets, and the UN have accused Israel of genocide. Statements by Israeli leaders, such as orders for a total siege on Gaza and the dehumanization of Palestinians, have been cited as evidence of this intent.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and over 250 organizations have documented war crimes, extermination, and acts of genocide.

In December 2023, South Africa filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention and requesting provisional measures to halt military operations.

Other countries, including Colombia, Nicaragua, and Turkey, have expressed support for this case.

Humanitarian Impact in Gaza

The scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is staggering:

• Over 57,000 dead, a third of them children.
• More than 130,000 injured, many with severe and disabling wounds.
• 75% of the population displaced, living in precarious conditions without access to basic services.
• Over 60% of buildings destroyed, including hospitals and schools.
• Estimated material losses of $18.5 billion, equivalent to 97% of the West Bank and Gaza’s GDP in 2022.
• Acute food insecurity and widespread famine.
• Collapse of the healthcare system and extreme shortages of medicine and clean water.

The BRICS Final Declaration on Gaza

The XVII BRICS Summit’s final declaration included key demands:

• Immediate, permanent, and unconditional ceasefire.
• Full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and other occupied territories.
• Release of hostages and detainees held in violation of international law.
• Support for a two-state solution, with an independent Palestinian state and East Jerusalem as its capital.
• Opposition to forced displacement and demographic changes in Gaza.
• Unification of the West Bank and Gaza under the Palestinian Authority.
• Condemnation of using starvation as a weapon of war and obstruction of humanitarian aid.

The Role and Limits of BRICS Pressure

While BRICS represents a significant portion of the global population and economy, its ability to directly influence Israeli policy is limited.

Israel relies heavily on military, diplomatic, and economic support from the United States, reducing the effectiveness of international pressure from other actors.

The bloc lacks direct and unified mechanisms to impose significant sanctions. Its influence is primarily exercised through diplomacy, amplifying the Global South’s narrative, and supporting initiatives in international forums like the ICJ and UN.

However, BRICS’ explicit endorsement of the two-state solution and compliance with international law strengthens the legitimacy of legal actions, such as South Africa’s case at the ICJ.

International Reaction

The BRICS declaration has been seen as a strong statement from the Global South, advocating for a more multipolar world order and challenging Western powers’ narrative. It has garnered support in the developing world and increased diplomatic pressure on Israel and its allies, though reactions in the West have been more cautious and nuanced.

The Role of the International Court of Justice

The ICJ has played an active role following South Africa’s case, issuing provisional measures to halt potential acts of genocide and ensure humanitarian aid reaches Gaza.

While the ICJ has not yet issued a final ruling on genocide, its decisions have added legal and diplomatic pressure on Israel, aligning with BRICS’ political and humanitarian demands.

The Moral and Political Relevance of the Case and BRICS’ Role

The call to stop the genocide in Gaza is not just a legal imperative but a moral and political demand for humanity.

The crisis in Gaza represents one of the greatest ethical challenges of our time, where international indifference perpetuates the suffering of millions.

In this scenario, BRICS emerges as a crucial actor, amplifying the Global South’s voice and demanding respect for international law and human rights.

Though its direct leverage over Israel is limited, the bloc contributes to the legitimacy and visibility of the Palestinian cause, promoting legal and diplomatic actions that could lead to Israel’s growing international isolation.

The convergence of BRICS’ political pressure and the ICJ’s legal orders reinforces the urgency of stopping the genocide and advancing toward a just and lasting solution for Palestine.

History will judge the international community’s ability to respond to this call. BRICS’ demand to stop the genocide in Gaza is, above all, a call to global conscience and collective responsibility, to end impunity and restore dignity and justice for the Palestinian people.

IN THIS ARTICLE