International Court Rules Israel Genocide Claim "Plausible", Orders Israel to End Violence & Allow Hmanitarian Aid to Enter Gaza
The ICJ issued a preliminary ruling on South Africa’s case accusing Israel of commiting genocide in Gaza. Judges stopped short of calling for a ceasefire, but ordered Israel to end violence.
In a groundbreaking development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a historic order on Friday, Jan. 26, directing the State of Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention and take immediate measures to prevent further acts of violence against Palestinians in Gaza.
In their ruling, the ICJ denied Israel’s effort to dismiss the case, advancing South Africa’s charges that Israel may be committing genocide. The 17 Judges presiding over the case called for the release of hostages and voted almost unanimously on six separate orders to protect Palestinians from “irreparable” damage:
The following lists how the court’s Judges ruled on each of the six orders:
-15-2 Israel to take all measures in its power to prevent all acts violating the Geneva Convention;
- 15-2 Israel shall ensure that its military does not commit any acts of genocide;
- 16-1: Israel must punish all incitements to commit genocide;
- 16-1 Israel must take immediate and effective steps to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza;
- 15-2: Israel shall take effective measures to avoid destruction and preserve evidence of actions in relation to the Geneva Convention;
- 15-2 Israel must report to the court within one month on all measures taken in line with these orders;
Despite the court's ruling, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has vowed that the war will continue, calling the case “a disgrace that will not be erased for generations.” Additionally, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby has called the case “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis whatsoever.”
The ICJ's order specifies that Israel must adhere to its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The directive emphasizes the prevention of acts outlined in Article II of the Convention, particularly the killing of Palestinians in Gaza.
South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor, speaking from The Hague, expressed satisfaction with the ruling but voiced a desire for the ICJ to call for a ceasefire explicitly. Pandor highlighted that the only way Israel could comply with the court's order effectively would be through a permanent ceasefire.
Professor Francis Boyle, an international law expert at the University of Illinois College of Law, lauded the ICJ's decision as a "massive, overwhelming legal victory for the Republic of South Africa against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians."
Boyle suggested that the United Nations General Assembly now possesses the authority to suspend Israel's participation in its activities, similar to actions previously taken against South Africa and Yugoslavia for perpetrating similar atrocities. He further proposed the admission of Palestine as a full UN member and the establishment of a tribunal to prosecute top Israeli officials, both civilian and military.
Craig Mokhiber, an international human rights lawyer and former Director of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasized the significance of the ICJ's ruling on provisional measures in the Genocide case against Israel. Mokhiber clarified that the order demands an immediate halt to killing, harming, destruction, and other actions listed in South Africa’s case.
Mokhiber said that while the ruling does not explicitly call for a ceasefire, the court's directive calls for Israel to “stop the acts that were complained about in the application [such as] killing, harming, destruction, etc.” He continued saying, “This may be less than ideal because Israel will likely continue while claiming military necessity and lawful intent.”
However, he highlighted the crucial role of the mandated report due next month and the court's subsequent response. The ruling, according to Mokhiber, is already a pivotal victory, as the court deems South Africa's genocide claim as "plausible" and orders Israel to cease related acts while allowing relief to the people of Gaza.
The news release from the "International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine" welcomed the ICJ's order, urging its swift implementation. The coalition called for an escalation of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, drawing parallels with activism against apartheid in South Africa.
Activist Ali Abunimah underscored the ICJ's ruling, stating that it recognized the credibility of the genocide accusation against Israel. Abunimah emphasized that the order demands an immediate end to all genocidal acts, not just a ceasefire, echoing the urgency conveyed by the court.
As legal battles unfold, the Center for Constitutional Rights' genocide case against the Biden administration for enabling Israel is set to proceed. This case highlights the intersection of international law and domestic politics, raising questions about accountability for nations supporting actions deemed genocidal.
The potential suspension of Israel from UN activities, admission of Palestine as a full member, and the establishment of a tribunal could reshape the geopolitical landscape. However, the question remains whether Israel, accustomed to impunity, will comply with the ICJ's order.
The ICJ's order against Israel marks a significant legal victory, triggering debates about accountability, international law, and diplomatic consequences. While the ruling falls short of explicitly calling for a ceasefire, it demands an immediate stop to violence, setting the stage for ongoing monitoring and potential further actions by the international community.