Although Israel was forewarned by the International Court of Justice not to commit acts of genocidal violence against the Palestinian people, the case may take years to resolve.
Israel was charged by South Africa with breaking the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide less than a month ago. Israel requested that the International Court of Justice dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it has been correctly responding to Hamas’ attack on October 7. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered a decision on Friday that will not appease parties to the lawsuit but will put Israel’s claims that it is working to stop civilian casualties under closer scrutiny.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered a decision on Friday that will not appease parties to the lawsuit but will put Israel’s claims that it is working to stop civilian casualties under closer scrutiny.
According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, Israel’s nearly four-month-long war against Hamas has killed an estimated 26,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. South Africa asked the court to order an immediate cease-fire. Israel requested that the case be dismissed by the court for lack of subject matter. Neither did the ICJ. Rather, it demanded that Israel take action to stop its soldiers from carrying out acts of genocide against Palestinians. In addition, the court ordered Israel to punish anyone encouraging crimes of genocide, increase the amount of aid going to Gaza, and report back to the World Court on its progress within 30 days.
Comprising fifteen judges from throughout the globe, each elected to a nine-year term, the ICJ is a rarely reported court. These 15 judges are joined in hearing the case by an ad hoc judge from each of the disputing nations. All United Nations members are bound by the verdicts of the International Criminal Court (ICJ), unlike the latter, whose jurisdiction is rejected by a number of prominent nations and which was established in 1999. The only disputes that the ICJ considers are those that arise between its member nations, especially those that involve claims of treaty infringement. The court can impose interim orders, which are basically injunctions, while it considers its options, which might take years.
According to South Africa’s complaint to the International Court of Justice, the Israeli government “is engaging in and risks further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza” and “has failed to prevent genocide and has failed to prosecute the direct and public incitement to genocide.” In light of this, it requested that the court grant Israel temporary injunctions to “cease killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinian people in Gaza… to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and to rescind related policies and practices, including regarding the restriction on aid and the issuing of evacuation directives.”
The main points of contention for South Africa were the enormous death toll in Gaza, the difficulty of humanitarian aid reaching people, and the many provocative remarks made by Israeli politicians dehumanizing Palestinians and implying that an ethnic cleansing is taking place. The Israeli government maintains that it has taken all reasonable precautions to safeguard civilians and has refuted claims that its military campaign against Hamas amounts to genocide. Additionally, it has stated that it is acting in accordance with international law in self-defense in the wake of the October 7 attacks, in which militants from Hamas killed over 1,000 Israelis. Israel presented the court with declassified papers that it claimed demonstrated how its military leadership and war cabinet had taken action to stop civilian casualties and make it possible for help to be delivered.
ICJ President Joan Donoghue, an American who formerly worked as a senior legal counsel to the State Department, heard arguments from both sides before issuing the court’s interim decision on Friday from the bench. Donoghue’s court determined that the charges “appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of” the Genocide Convention and refused to dismiss the case as Israel had requested, in contrast to her former colleagues in the State Department who had labeled South Africa’s case as “meritless.”
It’s not a bad decision, even though it probably disappoints many who had hoped for a thorough endorsement of South Africa’s claims.
It’s important to note that the six ICJ measures all received at least 15 votes in favor. With the exception of the clause permitting humanitarian help and penalizing public incitement to commit genocide, Israel’s ad hoc court voted against all of them. Furthermore, even though Hamas is a nonstate entity and is not bound by the ruling, the court did order the release of all hostages.
It’s not a bad decision, even though it probably disappoints many who had hoped for a thorough endorsement of South Africa’s claims. It is highly possible that the ICJ’s request for a cease-fire would have been disregarded. Premier Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the idea that Israel will suspend its offensive this month, saying, “No one will stop us, not The Hague, not the axis of evil and not anyone else.” In a statement, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right minister of security, claimed that Friday’s ruling “proves what was known in advance: this court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of the Jewish people.” (He shared “Hague Schmague” on X as well.)
The U.N. Security Council is responsible for carrying out the ICJ’s decisions. However, the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China—the five permanent members—have the right to veto any meaningful resolution. For example, when the court ordered Russia to stop invading Ukraine in 2022, there was little likelihood Moscow would permit any resolution attempting to uphold that decision to be approved. It is also improbable that the United States, which has historically utilized its veto power to protect Israel, would have backed an imaginary cease-fire decreed by the International Court of Justice.
For those who had hoped for a prompt decision about the validity of Israel’s claims of genocide, that was never going to occur. A lawsuit against Yugoslavia was brought in 1993, during the Balkan War, by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The final decision was not rendered until 2007, and although though Serbia was found not to be the cause of the Srenica genocide, it was found that the country had not done enough to stop it or bring those guilty to justice. By then, Serbia and Montenegro, which had divided into two countries previously, had rebuilt as Yugoslavia, and the former was no longer even a nation.
However, the amount of work Israel has put into the International Court of Justice (ICJ) defense shows how important the matter is to the nation. Despite all of its rhetoric, Netanyahu’s administration still want to be thought of as seriously considering South Africa’s charges and standing by their war as legitimate. It follows that Israel’s attorneys will probably abide by the decision and submit a report on their efforts to stop a Palestinian genocide in a month. The main uncertainty, though, is whether there will be a comparable decline in civilian deaths that satisfies the International Court of Justice’s requirements for compliance with the Genocide Convention.
