By A.L.A. Azeez

With regard to the Order delivered by the International Court of Justice indicating Provisional Measures against Israel in the case brought by South Africa under the provisions of the UN Genocide Convention, questions galore on different aspects addressed. A particular question pertains to why the ICJ has not indicated a specific provisional measure ordering Israel to “Cease-Fire”.

It is important to refer to Article 51 of the UN Charter for guidance in this context.

Article 51 states:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

This makes it clear that every UN member state has an inherent right to self-defense, which cannot be ‘restricted’ under International Law except as may be decided by the Security Council in terms of the above-cited Charter provisions.

There is, of course, an array of International Humanitarian Law instruments which regulate the conduct of a war. Nevertheless, these instruments do not  provide for “ceasefire” directly in relation to any war.  It is because their provisions become applicable only when a war has begun and is active. Accordingly there is no clear humanitarian law obligation upon a party to a war to ‘cease fire’ during a war situation. Any “ceasefire” observed by a party to a war is considered as part of a military practice, not as a matter of legal obligation.

Violations of humanitarian law committed by a party during the conduct of an armed conflict, however, is quite a different matter, which should be dealt with according to the International Humanitarian Law, and in the case of parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), according to the provisions of the Rome Statute.

It may be noted that the case before the International Court of Justice is not about violations of the International Humanitarian Law per se, even as it cites such violations in its support. It is specifically about the violation of the provisions of the Genocide Convention to which both Israel and South Africa are parties.

In exercising its ‘Provisional Measures’ power, the ICJ has decided not to indicate any measure which could perceivably violate the right of a state provided for in the UN Charter (Article 51). Israel’s right to self-defense is therefore not ‘impaired’ by this decision.

What is deducible from all this?

The ICJ appears to have made it clear that  theoretically (& legally) speaking you have your right to self-defense, but it cannot be exercised in such a way that violates Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention, or its other provisions which specify what and what  would amount to “genocide”.

Maybe the ICJ Order in this instance is a middle ground reached within its ranks where different opinions may have existed on the whole gamut of issues brought before it. It is perhaps the reason that the Order has granted most provisional measures sought by South Africa except ‘immediate ceasefire’, and has gone on to add one more to the list, ordering Hamas to release all hostages in its captivity (Israel, of course, had demanded, while making its defense at the ICJ, that it is Hamas which should be made responsible for acts of genocide against Israeli people and that Hamas should release all hostages in its captivity forthwith).

In short, by its order on provisional measures,  the Court appears to have accepted the basic premise of the South African case, that there is a probable risk of acts of genocide being committed by Israel, although the actual determination on merit as to whether acts of genocide were indeed committed would be made in its final judgement, which is several years away.

It is interesting that, in order to arrive at the opinion that there is a probable risk of the commission of acts of genocide, the Court has extensively quoted the UN Secretary General and heads of other international organizations and agencies. This includes in particular the letters addressed by the Secretary General to the UN Security Council drawing its urgent attention to the situation in Gaza and the worsening humanitarian conditions there, especially highlighting the gradual collapse of the healthcare system (hospitals) in Gaza.

The moral implications of the ICJ Order, in my considered view, are especially on the Security Council. It implies that the Security Council was warned by the Secretary General of the emerging humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza from time to time. A possible reading of this observation is that the Security Council had all the information required for it to act in prevention of a humanitarian disaster (read: in prevention of alleged acts of genocide) from occurring, in exercising its power to maintain “international peace and security” but it has not done so decisively. But the reality is that the Security Council has not “acted” decisively due to the US veto.

It may be unrealistic to expect, but it needs to be stressed, nevertheless, that the onus of demonstrating to the world that it has not failed miserably in its duty now falls squarely back on the Security Council. With the ICJ Order staring in its face, whether the Security Council would still choose to go in the same direction it used to in relation to the violation of the rights of Palestinians under occupation, remains open.

 [IDN-InDepthNews]

Whatever one's opinion on the merits of the genocide charge, the interim ruling issued by the International Court of Justice yesterday against Israel constitutes, also from an objective standpoint, a "disaster" for Tel Aviv.

In this context, today's Independent editorial commented that from now on, every time an Israeli minister, spokesperson or diplomat appears in public, or in a private meeting with their counterparts, they will have to confront the blatant charge of genocide.

In addition, the charge was not made casually by an “extremist” Islamic faction or an anti-Semitic Western politician, but by the highest court in the international community, and was presented in sober and considered terms citing relevant evidence that cannot be easily dismissed.

The British newspaper believes that the words of the President of the World Court, Judge Joan Donghue, will weaken the desire of Israel's allies to support it and alienate those countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan and Egypt, with which Israel is trying to establish and maintain normal relations.

Israel has lost more of its moral cause in a war it considers existential. America in particular will be dismayed and disappointed, as is likely to be expected from the court's ruling.

Compliance with international law

If Israel wants to live in peace and stability - according to the Independent's opinion - it must maintain the support of its near and distant allies, and it must remain within the framework of international law. This is why what the ICJ says is important.

The newspaper added that although the ruling was only temporary, Israel should not have found itself in potential violation of the 1946 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and now finds itself in contempt of the most sacred international agreements.

The Independent continued that if Benjamin Netanyahu's government had responded to the warnings of its friends and allies weeks ago regarding stopping the escalation of the war on Gaza and the subsequent killing of more than 25,000, the wounding of 63,000, and the displacement of 1.7 million people, South Africa's case would have been much weaker, and the Court of Justice might have rejected this. Accusations.

It is not wise now for Israel to attack the UN court and challenge the “temporary measures” it demanded, because its rulings are legally binding, and deliberately ignoring them will make Israel’s position worse, according to the newspaper.

Israel should therefore refrain from disparaging the Court of Justice or South Africa, and must comply with the Court's instructions on the protection of civilians and the prevention of genocide. This effectively means ending the war, allowing a humanitarian ceasefire for a longer period, and not calling the Palestinians with inhumane names such as “human animals.”

The Independent concluded its editorial by saying that there is a need for a radical change in Israel's strategy, and Netanyahu must not be stubborn about complying with international law.

Source: Independent +Aljazeera

An article on the American "Hale" website stated that the International Court of Justice's ruling that it was "reasonable" that Israel had engaged in genocide in Gaza confirms the need to review the current American policy regarding handing over to Israel American weapons used in its attacks on Gaza.

The site's writers, Laura Lumby and William de Hartung, said that the court's ruling should mean abandoning giving Israel special treatment when it comes to enforcing current US human rights laws regarding arms transfers.

They explained that “Israeli exceptionalism” in US military aid has always been an open secret, as for decades violations of human rights standards and American laws by Israel were not taken into account, partly due to the feeling that the allocation of annual “Camp David” aid to Israel -Now $3.3 billion annually- cannot be canceled under any circumstances.

They noted that this may be about to change in light of the International Court of Justice's decision.

like never before

They stated that something unprecedented happened last week, which is that the US Senate requested further scrutiny by the State Department regarding the military aid paid by American taxpayers to Israel.

The writers called for the need for Israel to adhere to the same standards as other countries receiving American weapons, saying that the US Departments of State and Defense have repeatedly violated laws passed by Congress in an attempt to ensure that American taxpayers are not involved in serious human rights violations by recipient countries.

A prime example, say William and Laura, is that Israel's de facto exemption from the Leahy Laws, named after their author, former Senator Patrick Leahy, requires the Departments of State and Defense to halt U.S. transfers of military aid to "any unit of the security forces of a country foreigner if the Secretary of State has reliable information that this unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

Despite the crimes

The article goes on to state that despite numerous “alleged” murders in the West Bank by Israeli security forces, including the killing of a Palestinian-American journalist, the US government has never found a single flagrant violation of the operation of the law.

The article drew attention to the fact that the British newspaper "The Guardian" explained that the US State Department had established a special operation for Israel to circumvent the "Leahy Law", unlike other countries, where a credible allegation of a violation by a unit of the army, police, or other national security forces is sufficient to prevent That unit will provide American assistance until the matter is decided.

He said that the text on this exceptional situation was recorded in a 2021 agreement signed by a senior official in the US State Department and the Israeli ambassador to the United States. By referring to Israel's "strong, independent, and effective legal system, including its military justice system," the agreement appears to grant Israel an exemption when it comes to applying the Leahy Law.

where is the problem?

The leading Israeli human rights organization "B'Tselem" confirmed that the problem is that Israel uses the military law enforcement system as a whitewashing mechanism aimed at preventing any criticism of its policies and the actions of its army in the West Bank, adding that the percentage of soldiers' convictions is close to zero, even for the most serious violations. .

The article demanded that the US Senate openly discuss Israel's use of US weapons in Gaza, and the possibility of enforcing relevant US laws, adding that failure to do so threatens to make both Congress and the State Department irrelevant to foreign policy, even as doing so erodes... American democracy.

Source: Hill + Aljazeera

The Wall Street Journal quoted Egyptian officials as saying that Cairo had warned Tel Aviv against any attacks on the Philadelphia axis and any waves of displacement of Palestinians.

The American newspaper pointed out on Saturday that Egyptian leaders are always keen to show their full support for the Palestinians and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, in addition to Cairo’s constant warning against displacing the Palestinians from their land.

The newspaper reported that Cairo seriously considered withdrawing its ambassador from Tel Aviv, and that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi rejected several attempts by Netanyahu to talk to him.

It also stated that Egyptian-Israeli relations are at their lowest levels in two decades.

The newspaper said that the Gaza war imposes a reckoning on the sensitive Egyptian-Israeli relations, explaining that Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize Israel in 1979.

Relations between the two parties were rarely cordial. Civilians from both countries rarely meet far from the Red Sea resorts.

The American New York Times newspaper reported today, Saturday, that senior American, Israeli, and Arab officials are seeking to formulate three parallel but interconnected paths that would end the war in Gaza, put the final touches on its status in the post-war phase, and, most ambitiously, determine Commitments to establish a Palestinian state.

The newspaper said, senior officials from at least 10 different administrations are trying to formulate a set of interesting deals to end the Gaza war and answer the contentious question of how the region will be governed after the fighting stops.

It added: “The narrowest scope of the main discussions focuses on reaching a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. This will include the exchange of more than 100 Israeli hostages held by Hamas in exchange for a ceasefire and thousands of Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons.”

The second track focuses on restructuring the Palestinian Authority, the semi-independent body that administers parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. American and Arab officials are discussing reforming the PA leadership and assuming control of Gaza after the end of the war and handing over power from Israel and Hamas.

In the third track, American and Saudi officials are pressuring Israel to agree to the conditions for establishing a Palestinian state in exchange for Saudi Arabia establishing official relations with Israel for the first time ever.

It noted that the demands and outcomes discussed in all three processes are linked to each other, and the talks are often viewed as long-term snapshots. Israeli officials said the war began with a Hamas attack on October 7 that killed about 1,200 people. The Israeli counterattack led to the deaths of more than 26,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to officials in the Ministry of Health there. President Biden has given Israel full support for the war.

It continued: “Significant obstacles must be overcome in each set of negotiations. Most important, the Israeli government says it will not allow full Palestinian sovereignty, which raises doubts about whether progress can be made on key fronts.”

The Israeli military campaign has not succeeded in destroying Hamas, so it is unclear how Hamas can be persuaded to step down while it still controls part of Gaza.

And the United States is the power that is trying to tie it all together. A senior State Department official said Brett McGurk, the White House's top official for the Middle East, was in the region last week, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with him several times by phone during a trip in Africa. The Biden administration wants to ensure that a senior US official speaks face-to-face at all times with Israeli and Arab leaders.

Officials are discussing many ideas, most of which are temporary, long-term, or strongly opposed by some parties. Several controversial proposals are:

1. Transferring power within the Palestinian Authority from the current president, Mahmoud Abbas, to a new prime minister, while allowing Mr. Abbas to retain a ceremonial role.

2. Sending an Arab peacekeeping force to Gaza to support the new Palestinian administration there.

3. Pass a resolution in the United Nations Security Council, with the support of the United States, that would recognize the Palestinians’ right to establish their own state.

Below is a roadmap for the three tracks, based on interviews with more than a dozen diplomats and other officials involved in the talks, all of whom spoke anonymously in order to discuss them more freely.

1. Hostages and ceasefire

The Americans believe that ending the war is the first thing the parties must achieve. These talks coincide with negotiations for the release of more than 100 hostages who were taken during the attack that occurred on October 7 and held by Hamas and its allies. Hamas has said it will not release the hostages until Israel agrees to a permanent ceasefire, a position that conflicts with Israel's stated goal of fighting until Hamas is pushed out of Gaza.

Officials from the United States, Israel, Egypt and Qatar are discussing an agreement that would halt the fighting for up to two months. In November, the parties agreed to a short truce that led to Hamas releasing more than 100 hostages.

In one proposal, the hostages would be released in stages over a pause of up to 60 days in exchange for the release of Palestinians detained by Israel. Some officials suggested releasing Israeli civilians first, in exchange for the release of Palestinian women and minors held by Israel. The captured Israeli soldiers will then be exchanged for Palestinian activist leaders serving long-term sentences.

Diplomats from various parties say they hope that more detailed discussions can be held during the truce period about a permanent truce that could include the withdrawal of most or all Israeli forces, the departure of Hamas leaders from the Strip and the transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority. . Currently, both Israel and Hamas have rejected some of these conditions.

To try to move these negotiations forward, William Burns, Director of the CIA, intends to meet in Europe in the coming days with his Israeli, Egyptian and Qatari counterparts.

Some observers hope that the international court's call on Friday for Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention will give momentum and political cover to Israeli officials pushing internally to end the war.

2. Reform of the Palestinian Authority

The Palestinian Authority briefly took control of Gaza after Israeli forces left in 2005, but Hamas forced it from power two years later. Now, some want power to return to Gaza and play a role in post-war governance. To make this idea more attractive to Israel, which opposes it, there is a push by the United States, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to reform the authority and change its leadership.

Under its current president, Mahmoud Abbas (88 years old), the authority is widely viewed as corrupt and authoritarian. The mediators are encouraging him to take a more ceremonial role and cede executive power to a new prime minister who can oversee the reconstruction of Gaza and reduce corruption. American officials say the goal is to make the administrative authority more acceptable to a future Palestinian state. Israeli officials also stress that the authority needs to change its education system, which they say does not promote peace, and end welfare payments to those convicted of violence against Israelis.

Some of Abbas's critics want him to be replaced by Salam Fayyad, the Princeton University professor who is credited with modernizing the authority during his prime ministership a decade ago, or Nasser al-Qidwa, the former Palestinian envoy to the United Nations who broke with Abbas three years ago. But diplomats say Abbas is pushing for a candidate with greater influence over him, such as Mohamed Mustafa, his longtime economic adviser.

Some officials have suggested forming an Arab peacekeeping force to help the new Palestinian leader maintain order in Gaza after the war. Israeli officials reject this idea, but they have proposed the idea of establishing a multinational force under Israel's supervision in the Strip. American diplomats told the Israelis this month that Arab leaders opposed their idea.

3. Saudi normalization with Israel

In the most ambitious set of talks, the Biden administration has revived discussions with Saudi Arabia to get the Saudis to agree to establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel.

The tripartite agreement was under discussion before the October 7 attacks, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman appeared ready for it because the Biden administration was offering a US-Saudi defense treaty, cooperation on a civilian nuclear program and more arms sales. US officials say that under this arrangement, the Saudis would have accepted relatively minor Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue in exchange for Saudi recognition.

This recognition will be an important political victory for American and Israeli leaders because of Saudi Arabia’s status as a leading Arab and Islamic country.

But since the war began, Saudi Arabia and the United States have raised the price for Israel, and are now insisting that Israel commit to a process that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state and includes Palestinian rule in Gaza. US officials also told the Israelis that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries would not agree to provide money for Gaza's reconstruction unless Israeli leaders committed to a path leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

These new terms were expressed publicly for the first time by Mr. Blinken after he met with Prince Mohammed at a desert camp in Saudi Arabia this month. He handed it over to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after he traveled from there to Tel Aviv. He repeated it again in a public talk in Davos, Switzerland, as did Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser.

Mr. Netanyahu has publicly rejected this proposal, and recently pledged to maintain Israeli military control over the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many Israelis support this, although some American officials question whether this is an opening negotiating position on Mr. Netanyahu's part.

In order to reassure the Saudis and Palestinians, some officials proposed a United Nations Security Council resolution, with the support of the United States, that would enshrine the Palestinians’ right to sovereignty. But the idea has not yet gained momentum.

There is also the question of whether the Biden administration is able to deliver the Senate-approved mutual defense treaty to Prince Mohammed. Some Democratic senators have already raised concerns about this. It is expected that the chances of Republican senators opposing this decision will increase as the US presidential elections approach in November.

The number of Palestinian detainees in the West Bank has risen to 6,305 since last October 7, after the Israeli army arrested 20 citizens on Friday and Saturday.

The Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners' Affairs Authority and the Palestinian Prisoners' Club said in a joint statement that the total number of arrests after October 7 rose "to about 6,305, including those who were arrested from homes, through military checkpoints, those who were forced to surrender themselves under pressure, and those who were held hostage."

The authority and the club added, “The Israeli occupation forces arrested at least (20) citizens from the West Bank from yesterday morning until Saturday morning, including former prisoners.”

The arrests were distributed among the governorates of Jenin, Nablus (north), Ramallah, Jerusalem, Jericho (centre), and Hebron (south).

Since the start of its devastating war on the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, the Israeli army has intensified its operations in the West Bank and expanded its incursions and raids into Palestinian cities, villages and camps.

Today, Saturday, Italy, Canada and Australia announced the suspension of their funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) after the United States took the same step, following Israeli allegations of the participation of some of the agency’s employees in the Al-Aqsa Flood operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance.

While the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) condemned what it described as "the Israeli campaign of incitement against international institutions."

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tayani wrote on the “X” platform that the Italian government suspended funding for UNRWA after what he described as a “brutal attack” on Israel last October 7, indicating that some of Rome’s allies had already taken the same decision.

In turn, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed "deep concern" about the accusations leveled against UNRWA, and wrote on the X platform, "We are communicating with our partners, and we will temporarily suspend the payment of funds."

It added, "We applaud UNRWA's immediate response, including terminating contracts (with employees), as well as announcing an investigation into the accusations against the organization."

For his part, Canadian Minister of International Development Ahmed Hussein said yesterday, Friday, that “Canada has temporarily suspended any additional funding for UNRWA while it conducts an in-depth investigation into these accusations.”

“Canada takes these accusations very seriously, and is closely engaging with UNRWA and other donors on this issue,” he wrote on the X platform.

Yesterday, Friday, the United States announced a “temporary suspension” of all future funding to this UN agency, which is at the heart of distributing aid to civilians in Gaza amid the raging war waged by the Israeli army on the Strip.

Hamas condemns

On the other hand, the Hamas movement said - in a statement - that it strongly condemns the Israeli campaign of incitement against UN institutions, which contributes to “relief for our people who are subjected to genocide,” as it put it.

It added that the latest incitement campaign was “the hollow accusation against the World Health Organization, of what they called collusion with the Hamas movement, by repeating the false claim about the movement’s use of hospitals in military operations.”

It added that the incitement against UNRWA comes "with the aim of cutting off its funding and depriving the Palestinian people of their right to the services of these international agencies."

Yesterday, the World Health Organization denied the accusations leveled against it by Israel of “collusion” with Hamas during the aggression on the Gaza Strip.

In the same context, Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz said - today - that his country will seek to prevent UNRWA from working in the Gaza Strip after the end of the war, after Tel Aviv accused employees of the UN agency of participating in the attack on October 7, 2023.

Katz wrote on the X platform that the Foreign Ministry aims to ensure that “UNRWA is not part of the stage” that follows the war, adding that he will seek to mobilize support from the United States, the European Union, and other major donors.

In light of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, which continues for the 113th day, heavy rains have increased the suffering of the Palestinian residents displaced from their homes, who are residing in tents they set up in different areas.

Shelter centers and areas where tents were set up in several governorates in Gaza witnessed a rise in rain levels, causing the tents to be submerged in water, and some of them to be blown away and torn.

In a camp in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip, families are making attempts to remove the water that has largely infiltrated their tents, using a small bucket, but to no avail.

Some pictures and videos spread on social media showing tents flying and drowning as a result of water leakage, which exacerbated the suffering faced by the displaced in their camps.

Akram Haboush (47 years old), who was displaced from the Al-Rimal neighborhood in Gaza City and set up his tent in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip, told Xinhua News Agency, “The heavy rains flooded my tent and the tents of the displaced with water, causing us to drown and to drown our bedding and clothes.”

Haboush, who supports two children, and whose son was martyred in the war, added, "There are many tents that are not fit to shelter the displaced, who were exposed to rainwater accumulations throughout the last night, without any shelter to provide them with protection from the cold and rain."

He pointed out, "The rains are continuing, and we are making serious efforts to protect ourselves from rainwater by placing some additional nylon bags on the tent, but to no avail, as the water is leaking greatly."

He added: "There is no safe place, no shelter that we can resort to for protection from the water. We are in a tragic situation in every sense of the word. We hope that the war will end soon, and we can return to our homes."

For his part, the spokesman for the Civil Defense Service in Gaza, Mahmoud Basal, said in a statement, “The heavy rains in the Gaza Strip caused the drowning of large numbers of displaced people’s tents in various areas in the Strip.”

He added: "We warn of sewage leaking into citizens' homes and shelter centers due to weather conditions, heavy rains, and the lack of hours for pumping sewage due to occupation practices."

Basal warned of major floods in many low-lying areas and tents, after receiving more than a thousand drowning signals in various governorates.

The Civil Defense spokesman called for "the need to provide more fuel to operate the treatment and sewage pumps."

In the governorates of the Gaza Strip, tens of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their areas of residence reside in tents made of nylon and mattresses.

The city of Rafah in the south of the Gaza Strip, which the Israeli army called on the residents of the Strip to go to, is witnessing the establishment of the largest camp for the displaced near the border with Egypt.

The United Nations said that 100,000 Palestinians were forced by the Israeli bombing of the central regions and Khan Yunis to head to the Rafah area, near the Egyptian-Palestinian border.

Today (Saturday), the Ministry of Health in Gaza announced that the death toll of Palestinians in Gaza had risen to 26,257.

The Health Ministry said in a statement, “The Israeli occupation committed 18 massacres against families in the Gaza Strip, claiming 174 dead and 310 wounded during the past 24 hours.”

It pointed out that "the toll of the Israeli aggression has risen to 26,257 dead and 64,797 wounded since the seventh of last October."

Yesterday afternoon, Friday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued its decisions and opinions regarding a lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel for committing a genocidal war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The court acknowledged that it has the authority to rule on emergency measures requested by South Africa in the complaint submitted against Israel’s crimes. Noting that it will not reject the lawsuit as Israel requested, the court may take a historic decision condemning Israel for committing genocidal massacres, but that will take a long time that may extend to months or years.
Yesterday, the court issued a preliminary ruling and emergency measures against Israel, accusing it of violating the United Nations Convention on Genocide. The court decided:
- Take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocide
-Ensuring that the Israeli army does not carry out any acts of genocide
-Prevent and punish any public statements or comments that could incite the commission of genocide in Gaza
- Take all measures to ensure the arrival of humanitarian aid
- Not getting rid of any evidence that could be used in the case against Israel.
- Submit a report to the court within a month on the extent of its implementation of these measures and provisions.
These decisions, as described by Sami Abu Zuhri, head of the Hamas political department, in press statements to Reuters, “express an important development that contributes to isolating Israel and exposing its crimes in Gaza, with a call to oblige it to implement court decisions.” Or what Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said that Palestine welcomes the temporary measures. Which the court ordered, and that the court’s judges evaluated the facts and ruled in favor of humanity and international law, and that no state is above the law.
Among the measures requested by South Africa is an immediate halt to the Israeli military operation and its aggression, which destroyed large areas of the Gaza Strip, causing the death of more than 26,000 citizens, wounding nearly 70,000, and displacing hundreds of thousands from their homes amidst stories of suffering, starvation, and everything related to the humanitarian catastrophe that the Gaza Strip is experiencing.
It is true that the court recognized the right of the Palestinian people to international protection, that the Palestinians constitute a national ethnic group protected under the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, and that more than 93% of the population of the Gaza Strip are unable to access food, expressing its concern about the fall of more victims in Gaza, criticizing the Israeli statements like the Israeli Army Minister and the Israeli President called for cutting off water and electricity, denying medicine and food to the citizens of Gaza, and considering them as “human animals,” and a number of other sharp criticisms of the Israeli violations. 

However, the court’s failure to indicate the necessity of allowing the citizens of Gaza to return to their homes, in addition to not demanding that Israel stop its immediate aggression, detracts from it the value of practical and actual decisions that will expose Gaza to more obstacles and suffering and will keep it under bombardment and destruction. This is what was indicated by the Israeli Prime Minister, who defied the court’s decision, saying: Israel will continue the war until the end.
Despite all of the above, it can be said that the resolutions expressed a clear condemnation of Israel and that it will not be able to escape the culture of crime on which it is based, and that justice will apply to everyone, noting that the decisive vote of 15 votes to two and 16 votes to one indicates an international consensus on Israel’s intentions towards genocide.
All greetings and appreciation to South Africa, the country to which we raise our hats in respect and gratitude for its courageous and bold step. Ultimately, we declare that our people are fighting for their human and legitimate rights, and the occupation must recognize these rights, no matter how extreme its aggression and crimes against a living people who will not die.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice was a legal victory for South Africa and the Palestinians, but it will not halt the slaughter.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) refused to implement the most crucial demand made by South African jurists: “the State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.” But at the same time, it delivered a devastating blow to the foundational myth of Israel. Israel, which paints itself as eternally persecuted, has been credibly accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians are the victims, not the perpetrators, of the “crime of crimes.” A people, once in need of protection from genocide, are now potentially committing it. The court’s ruling questions the very raison d'être of the “Jewish State” and challenges the impunity Israel has enjoyed since its founding 75 years ago.  

The ICJ ordered Israel to take six provisional measures to prevent acts of genocide, measures that will be very difficult if not impossible to fulfill if Israel continues its saturation bombing of Gaza and wholesale targeting of vital infrastructure. 

The court called on Israel “to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide.” It demanded Israel “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.” It ordered Israel to protect Palestinian civilians. It called on Israel to protect the some 50,000 women giving birth in Gaza. It ordered Israel to take “effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.” 

The court ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent the crimes which amount to genocide such as “killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

Israel was ordered to report back in one month to explain what it had done to implement the provisional measures.

Gaza was pounded with bombs, missiles and artillery shells as the ruling was read in The Hague — at least 183 Palestinians have been killed in the last 24 hours. Since Oct. 7, more than 26,000 Palestinians have been killed. Almost 65,000 have been wounded, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Thousands more are missing. The carnage continues. This is the cold reality. 

Translated into the vernacular, the court is saying Israel must feed and provide medical care for the victims, cease public statements advocating genocide, preserve evidence of genocide and stop killing Palestinian civilians. Come back and report in a month. 

It is hard to see how these provisional measures can be achieved if the carnage in Gaza continues.

“Without a ceasefire, the order doesn’t actually work,” Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s minister of international relations, stated bluntly after the ruling. 

Time is not on the side of the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians will die within a month. Palestinians in Gaza make up 80 percent of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the United Nations. The entire population of Gaza by early February is projected to lack sufficient food, with half a million people suffering from starvation, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, drawing on data from U.N. agencies and NGOs. The famine is engineered by Israel. 

At best, the court — while it will not rule for a few years on whether Israel is committing genocide — has given legal license to use the word “genocide” to describe what Israel is doing in Gaza. This is very significant, but it is not enough, given the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. 

Israel has dropped almost 30,000 bombs and shells on Gaza — eight times more bombs than the U.S. dropped on Iraq during six years of war. It has used hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs to obliterate densely populated areas, including refugee camps. These “bunker buster” bombs have a kill radius of a thousand feet. The Israeli aerial assault is unlike anything seen since Vietnam. Gaza, only 20 miles long and five miles wide, is rapidly becoming, by design, uninhabitable.

Israel will no doubt continue its assault arguing that it is not in violation of the court’s directives. In addition, the Biden administration will undoubtedly veto the resolution at the Security Council demanding Israel implement the provisional measures. The General Assembly, if the Security Council does not endorse the measures, can vote again calling for a ceasefire, but has no power to enforce it. 

Defense for Children International - Palestine v. Biden was filed in November by the Center for Constitutional Rights against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. The case challenges the U.S. government’s failure to prevent complicity in Israel’s unfolding genocide of the Palestinian people. It asks the court to order the Biden administration to cease diplomatic and military support and comply with its legal obligations under international and federal law. 

The only active resistance to halt the Gaza genocide is provided by Yemen’s Red Sea blockade. Yemen, which was under siege for eight years by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Britain and the U.S., experienced over 400,000 deaths from starvation, lack of health care, infectious diseases and the deliberate bombing of schools, hospitals, infrastructure, residential areas, markets, funerals and weddings. Yemenis know too well — since at least 2017 multiple U.N. agencies have described Yemen as experiencing “the largest humanitarian crisis in the world” — what the Palestinians are enduring. 

Yemen’s resistance — when the history of this genocide is written — will set it apart from nearly every other nation. The rest of the world, including the Arab world, retreats into toothless rhetorical condemnations or actively supports Israel’s obliteration of Gaza and its 2.3 million inhabitants.

The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the U.S. has sent 230 cargo planes and 20 ships filled with artillery shells, armored vehicles and combat equipment to Israel since the attacks of Oct. 7, in which some 1,200 Israelis were killed. U.S. weapons and military equipment are being shipped to Israel — which is running out of munitions — from the British base RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, according to the U.K. investigative website Declassified UK. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that more than 40 U.S. and 20 British transport aircraft, along with seven heavy-lift helicopters, have flown into RAF Akrotiri, a 40-minute flight from Tel Aviv. Germany reportedly plans to provide 10,000 rounds of 120mm precision ammunition to Israel. If the court rules against Israel, these countries will be recognized by the world’s most important international court as accomplices to genocide.

The ruling was dismissed by Israeli leaders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seeking to paint the decision not to demand a ceasefire as a victory for Israel, said “Like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself. The vile attempt to deny Israel this fundamental right is blatant discrimination against the Jewish state, and it was justly rejected. The charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it.”

“The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people,” National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said. “They were silent during the Holocaust and today they continue the hypocrisy and take it another step further.”

The ICJ was founded in 1945 following the Nazi Holocaust. The first case it heard was submitted to the court in 1947.

“Decisions that endanger the continued existence of the State of Israel must not be listened to,” Ben-Gvir added. “We must continue defeating the enemy until complete victory.”

The court, which rejected Israel’s arguments to dismiss the case, acknowledged “that the military operation being conducted by Israel following the attack of 7 October 2023 has resulted, inter alia, in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale.” 

The ruling included a statement made by the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths, who on Jan. 5, called Gaza “a place of death and despair.” The court document went on:

. . . Families are sleeping in the open as temperatures plummet. Areas where civilians were told to relocate for their safety have come under bombardment. Medical facilities are under relentless attack. The few hospitals that are partially functional are overwhelmed with trauma cases, critically short of all supplies, and inundated by desperate people seeking safety.

A public health disaster is unfolding. Infectious diseases are spreading in overcrowded shelters as sewers spill over. Some 180 Palestinian women are giving birth daily amidst this chaos. People are facing the highest levels of food insecurity ever recorded. Famine is around the corner.

For children in particular, the past 12 weeks have been traumatic: No food. No water. No school. Nothing but the terrifying sounds of war, day in and day out.

Gaza has simply become uninhabitable. Its people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence — while the world watches on.

The court acknowledged that “an unprecedented 93% of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger, with insufficient food and high levels of malnutrition. At least 1 in 4 households are facing ‘catastrophic conditions’: experiencing an extreme lack of food and starvation and having resorted to selling off their possessions and other extreme measures to afford a simple meal. Starvation, destitution and death are evident.” 

The ruling, quoting Philippe Lazzarini, the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), continued:

Overcrowded and unsanitary UNRWA shelters have now become ‘home’ to more than 1.4 million people,” the ruling read. “They lack everything, from food to hygiene to privacy. People live in inhumane conditions, where diseases are spreading, including among children. They live through the unlivable, with the clock ticking fast towards famine.

The plight of children in Gaza is especially heartbreaking. An entire generation of children is traumatized and will take years to heal. Thousands have been killed, maimed, and orphaned. Hundreds of thousands are deprived of education. Their future is in jeopardy, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.

The court also referred pointedly to comments made by multiple senior Israeli government officials advocating genocide, including the president and minister of defense. Statements made by government and other officials form a crucial element of the “intent” component when seeking to establish the crime of genocide.

It quoted Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant who declared — two days after the Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7 — that he ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza City with “no electricity, no food, no fuel” being permitted. 

“I have released all restraints . . . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza,” Gallant told Israeli troops massing around Gaza the following day. “This is what we are fighting against…Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”

The ICJ quoted Israel’s President Isaac Herzog as saying, “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It is absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’état. But we are at war. We are at war. We are defending our homes.” Herzog continued “We are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we’ll break their backbone.”

Today’s decision was read out by the ICJ’s current president, Judge Joan Donoghue, an American lawyer who used to work at the U.S. State Department and the Department of the Treasury before she joined the World Court in 2010.

“In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible,” it read. “This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.”

It is clear from the ruling that the court is fully aware of the magnitude of Israel’s crimes. This makes the decision not to call for the immediate suspension of Israeli military activity in and against Gaza all the more distressing.  

But the court did deliver a devastating blow to the mystique Israel has used since its founding to carry out its settler colonial project against the indigenous inhabitants of historic Palestine. It made the word genocide, when applied to Israel, credible.

The Israeli public is convinced the world is against it.

By Simon Frankel Pratt,

As the civilian cost of Israel’s war in Gaza continues to mount, advocates have waged massive information campaigns to give Palestinian suffering and victimhood due attention. The view that Israel is actively perpetuating a genocide is increasingly prevalent, held by groups ranging from governments to growing numbers of American Jews to experts on genocide and atrocity crimes. Allegations of Israeli wrongdoing range from well-evidenced accounts of indiscriminate force, failure to respect the flag of surrender, and prisoner abuse, to alarming but less well-evidenced claims of mass executions or even of organ harvesting. In response to a case brought by South Africa, the International Court of Justice has made an interim ruling that Israel must take measures to prevent acts of possible genocide while the case continues.

But maintaining an appropriate sense of skepticism, without dismissing real atrocities, is important whoever the perpetrators are. Allegations should be investigated, but care should be taken to distinguish between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims. Defenders of Palestinians’ rights to the protections accorded civilians in war may not think this skepticism is important when it comes to Israeli military actions. Substantial evidence already suggests the operations of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) could violate the laws of war, and one way to hold Israel accountable is to believe Palestinians when they testify that crimes have occurred.

Yet while eschewing all skepticism in favor of horror at the carnage is understandable, it does not link up to the diplomatic and domestic levers that could cause Israel to change the intensity of its military action, improve humanitarian aid flows, and restrain its soldiers. Israelis have become dangerously convinced that the world is deeply biased against their country. Spreading unsubstantiated allegations contributes to that belief—and allows Israelis to dismiss foreign criticism too easily. This is a serious problem, as Israeli public support will be crucial for pressuring the Israeli government to further reduce the intensity of its military action and develop solutions to the humanitarian crisis the war has now produced.

Disinformation has been a consistent and serious problem in this war. From the outset, footage of atrocities and violence from other conflicts has been shared as though it was depicting Israeli and Palestinian victims. Some pro-Israel commentators have claimed that genuine images and videos of dead Palestinian children are in fact hoaxes, products of an imagined “Pallywood” industry producing fake victims, while even major media outlets repeat unsubstantiated claims made by the Israeli government, ranging from a now-disputed guard rosters in underground facilities to the discovery of alleged Hamas suicide vests for children.

Others, including journalists and academics, have denied or dismissed the sexual torture and rape committed by Hamas attackers on Oct. 7 or claimed that large portions of Israel’s civilian dead were killed by Israel’s own security forces. Many expert commentators have discussed how difficult it is for members of the public to know what is happening when falsehoods circulate and every claim of victimhood is contested.

Much of the Israeli public has been conditioned by its politicians and media, for decades, to view foreign critics as implacably hostile, prejudiced, and uninterested in their right to safety. Audiences refusing to accept claims of Hamas atrocities, perhaps jaded by Israel’s own unconfirmed allegations, and willing to accept thinly evidenced claims of monstrous behavior by the IDF affirm this perception and make Israel less likely to deescalate. Put simply, if foreign critics deny Israeli suffering and believe Israel guilty of every alleged wrongdoing, they alienate everyone in Israel, including those otherwise sympathetic to calls for restraint.

One political scientist has referred to this as a “Masada complex,” in which the Israeli public imagines itself to be a besieged people facing death, with no option but resistance even to the point of suicide. Indeed, Israeli youth for generations went on pilgrimages to Masada, as part of the country’s collective memory of Jewish historical resistance. Generational Holocaust trauma and victimhood are socialized and collectivized in Israel. Perpetual sensitivity to the possibility of Jewish genocide has led to a militaristic society in which the IDF and the political elite are intertwined. For Israelis, statecraft is a redemptive project as much as it is an institutional one, aimed at restoring agency and political self-awareness to the Jewish people, while geopolitics carry a perpetual awareness of the apocalypse. The upshot of all this is a “security concept” fixated on overwhelming military power and anxious about the very survival of the Jewish people.

Israelis believe foreign audiences have dismissed the genocidal threat posed by Hamas while unreasonably inflating the destruction the IDF has inflicted. Lampooned in sketches by Israel’s famous comedy show Eretz Nehederet, Israelis believe foreign media is quick to believe the worst about Israel in any dispute over a mass death event during war while treating Hamas as legitimate and reasonable representatives rather than monstrous terrorists.

When observers deny the rape of Israeli women on Oct. 7, Israeli audiences view this as a denial of Hamas’s genocidal desire or intent, because Hamas’s massacre as similar to the Holocaust or earlier pogroms—a perception shared by Jews elsewhere as well. Indeed, for Israeli audiences, refusal to admit the true violence of Hamas’s attack may itself be an attempt to provide cover for genocide or indicate the desire to see one carried out without interference. When observers accept without hesitation that Israel is carrying out unlimited violence in Gaza, some Israelis even see this as a resurrection of the blood libel, analogous to Christian propaganda about Jewish ritual sacrifices and clandestine killings of gentile children. These reactions are the product of long-standing cultural trauma and memory—an underappreciated commonality Israelis share with Palestinians. The result is that Israelis, a majority of whom strongly support their war on Hamas as a security necessity in the face of a genocidal adversary, are insensitive to foreign horror and outrage over the conduct and effects of their military operation.

Scholars of international relations would identify this as a matter of “ontological security.” Nearly 20 years ago, pathbreaking research used psychoanalytic methods to identify the ways that anxiety, identity, and cultural commitments can lead countries and communities to pursue policies that make them less safe from violence or more isolated internationally. The insight of scholars such as Jennifer Mitzen and Brent Steele was that “security of the self” requires remaining true to one’s worldview, even when this involves painful material sacrifices. Israel’s fortress mentality, tendency for apocalyptic anxiety, and hyperawareness of past genocide have all contributed to a tendency to see any concession as total rather than limited. To concede anything is to concede everything.

By David Kaye

With one eye on the law and the other on its power, the International Court of Justice at The Hague has issued a preliminary ruling in favor of South Africa’s claim that Israel’s military assault on Gaza may plausibly be characterized as genocide. In a nearly unanimous vote, the court’s international panel of 17 judges ordered that Israel must do everything it can to prevent acts of genocide, clamp down on domestic incitement to genocide, and ensure immediate and effective humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza.

Some may read the ICJ’s order as a limited legal intervention that refuses South Africa’s principal request for a ruling that would end Israel’s devastating campaign. The judges even offered an olive branch to the Israeli government, pointedly emphasizing that all parties to the conflict in Gaza “are bound by international humanitarian law” and calling for the “immediate and unconditional release” of the more than 100 Israeli hostages that remain in the custody of Hamas and other groups in Gaza. 

But the court’s ruling also contains a hidden ambition: it challenges all states—and especially the United States—to take international law seriously at a time of increasing violence and conflict and decreasing respect for the authority of international legal institutions. Indeed, at a time when the Biden administration’s efforts to limit the war’s harm to civilians seem to be flailing, the court threw it a lifeline, a path to a new policy toward the conflict that is rooted in international norms. The White House should embrace the court’s ruling, deploying it as a new diplomatic tool to end Israel’s military operation and force Hamas to release the hostages it still cruelly and unconscionably holds in Gaza. 

A MOMENTOUS MIDDLE GROUND

The January 26 ruling marks only the beginning of the ICJ case. South Africa’s claim against Israel will likely involve years of litigation over jurisdiction and the ultimate merits of the claim of genocide—litigation that the court has now authorized to go forward. In the meantime, how the United States and Europe respond to the court’s ruling is more important than the decision itself. If Washington and other Western powers simply circle around the Israeli flag, they risk doing further damage to international law and the so-called rules-based international order that they have embraced in previous ICJ cases, such as Ukraine’s 2022 claim against Russia’s aggression and the Gambia’s 2019 genocide claim against Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya. They also risk further alienating a large number of governments around the world, including much of the global South, that have supported the court in the past and that broadly back the South African case. Indeed, a rhetorical attack on the court’s ruling would have domestic political consequences for U.S. President Joe Biden as he begins a difficult election campaign, given the widespread disillusionment of the Arab-American community that has already resulted from the administration’s seemingly unconditional embrace of Israel since Hamas’s October 7 attack. 

The stakes are particularly high considering the relative restraint of the ICJ ruling and the middle ground it takes. A more aggressive order would have badly complicated a U.S. response. For instance, had the court acceded to South Africa’s request that it order an end to Israel’s military operation, Israel and the United States would have almost certainly dismissed the court and the measures it adopted. Although ICJ President Joan Donoghue’s careful reading of the judgment reflected the gravity of the situation in Gaza, she did so in tempered language, avoiding some of the vivid evocation of destruction and death that South Africa employed in its 84-page claim and in its three hours of oral argument before the court in mid-January. Alternatively, the court could have dismissed South Africa’s claim and adopted Israel’s moral outrage that it even had to answer to the claim of genocidal intent following Hamas’s atrocities—an approach that would have flown in the face of overwhelming world concern for the extraordinary loss of life in Gaza. 

Instead, as most close observers expected, the court rested its order on the cold black letters of its own law. It carefully located its own jurisprudence in the context of recent ICJ cases dealing with claims of genocide and issued six so-called preliminary measures—the courts version of injunctive relief—that broke no new legal ground and, in effect, restated Israel’s obligations under international law. On each of the major threshold questions the court followed its own rules closely. Drawing on the template of similar past cases, the judges agreed that South Africa had met the low burden of showing that the court would likely have jurisdiction to entertain a genocide claim against Israel while emphasizing that this finding did not mean that the court has established that any violations of the Genocide Convention have in fact occurred. 

More explosively, and yet equally rooted in ICJ jurisprudence, the court walked through a series of UN findings about the devastation in Gaza after more than three months of Israel’s campaign, finding that the “rights claimed by South Africa, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible”—the low bar South Africa had to cross for the court to issue provisional measures. In reading the judgment, Donoghue also noted statements by “senior Israeli officials”—including Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israeli President Isaac Herzog—that South Africa and others characterized as dehumanizing if not genocidal. The court responded to South Africa’s claim of urgency, another threshold requirement in the jurisprudence, with perhaps its most serious statement: “In these circumstances, the court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment.”  

The court’s order is, despite its apparent moderation, damning. It has allowed litigation to move forward on South Africa’s claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, placing a virtual sword of Damocles over not only Israel in its future conduct in Gaza, but also those, such as the United States, that have given it such strong support. It has found plausible South Africa’s assertion that Palestinian rights must be protected against genocidal acts. Even Israel's appointee to the court, Judge Aharon Barak, joined the demands that Israel must prevent public and direct incitement to genocide and take “immediate and effective measures” to enable humanitarian assistance. These are very serious outcomes that reflect global legal concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. 

At the same time, the power of the court’s ruling lies in the judges’ careful efforts to isolate it from the language of politics or advocacy and anchor it in legal precedent. And the court’s substantive decision not to seek what it genuinely has no power to enforce without UN Security Council backing—an end to Israel’s military operation—gives the measures it has called for all the more importance. The orders are binding on the parties, as the court notes. But what the court is demanding, in effect, is for Israel to uphold what many already recognize as its existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. 

WHAT WASHINGTON MUST DO

In the weeks before the court’s January 26 ruling, the United States joined Israel in characterizing the South African case as without merit. The United States could make that argument in court, if it so decides, as an intervenor in the case as it moves forward. But the issue raised by the ICJ’s preliminary ruling is different. The Biden administration now faces an acute dilemma that cannot be resolved with superficial statements about the need for humanitarian access to Gaza. The court’s challenge to the United States is that geopolitics alone cannot be the means by which the conflict is wound down. International law must play a crucial role, and legal obligations have meaning. Failure by the United States to uphold these almost universally acknowledged legal standards, moreover, would seriously undercut its own legitimacy as a leader of the rules-based global order. 

The court has given the United States and Europe a new tool to demand that Israel change its approach in Gaza. The ruling offers the Biden administration an opportunity to emphasize its strong displeasure, backed by international law, with the dehumanizing rhetoric that has come from members of Israel’s right-wing cabinet. And it provides Washington with an opportunity to press Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do more than merely restate Israel’s aims to “eradicate” Hamas and to hold accountable those in his coalition and in the military who use the language of destruction of Gaza and its Palestinian population.

But more than that, the United States should respond to the decision by acknowledging the foundational point that Israel has an obligation to prevent acts that can be characterized as genocidal. The administration need not share South Africa’s view that Israeli acts are in fact genocidal—a view that the ICJ itself has not and ultimately may not uphold. But it does need to wrestle with the fact that the court, in a ruling backed by an overwhelming majority, has expressed serious legal concern with Israeli actions. Even as it supports Israel’s right to self-defense, the United States can bolster the court’s demands for concrete Israeli steps to prevent and punish violence against civilians in Gaza and the rampant destruction of the infrastructure that makes Gaza livable. 

The United States is no mere bystander, either to Israeli military action or to the enforcement of international law. Indeed, Washington has deployed the power of the ICJ’s authority in the past, launching the modern era’s use of the court for real-time international justice when it brought an ICJ claim against Iran in 1979, demanding that it release the American hostages held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The court has given the United States an opportunity to reaffirm that historic commitment, and the Biden administration should take it.

The White House has brushed aside the ICJ's demand for Israel to cease its genocidal acts and reiterated its support for Israel

The White House has brushed aside the ICJ ruling that Israel must prevent genocidal acts against Gaza and will continue to double down on its unconditional support for Israel's war in Gaza, Friday's White House press briefing revealed.  

US national security spokesperson John Kirby reiterated Israel's "right to defend itself" despite the ICJ's same-day interim decision accusing Israel of genocidal acts in Gaza. 

In response to a question from the press on whether the Biden administration "stands by the words characterising those allegations (South Africa's genocide case against Israel) as meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis and fact whatsoever", Kirby replied "Yes."

The spokesperson then revealed the White House's complete disregard for the ICJ's interim ruling, stating that "it has not been found that they are committing genocide, we have no indication that that is going on, that they are deliberately exterminating the people of Gaza".

A member of the press then pointed out that over 100 countries are calling for a ceasefire, as well as a majority of the American public, according to recent polling. The reporter then asked whether the ICJ ruling has not presented further evidence that the Biden administration's policy on Israel's war in Gaza is "out of touch with what Americans and the world demands of US leadership". Kirby replied that "the president believes that the people of Gaza deserve to live in peace and security" but that a general ceasefire is "not the best approach". 

"We will continue to give Israel the support it needs", he reiterated.

Kirby declared that while "the right number of civilian casualities is zero", he added that there is "no indication that validates a claim of genocidal intent or action by the IDF".

Israel's bombing campaign and ground invasion after the 7 October Hamas-led attack has claimed over 26,000 lives in three months. On 9 October, Israel's defence minister Yoav Gallant described Palestinians as "human animals" and vowed to "act accordingly". 

Since then, genocidal phrases such as "erase Gaza", "the monsters in Gaza" and "wiping out the enclave" have made the rounds among Israeli politicians. 

The ICJ ruling

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an interim ruling calling on Israel to refrain from impeding the delivery of aid into Gaza and improve the humanitarian situation. 

It also ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide in the besieged enclave and prevent and punish incitement to genocide.

However, it did not order Israel to halt military operations in Gaza, one of South Africa's key demands in the case it brought to The Hague earlier this month.

“The court recalls that its orders on provisional measures have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed," the court said on Friday, adding that Israel would be obliged to report to the court within a month on what it was doing to uphold the measures.

It also called for the release of the remaining captives taken by Hamas during its 7 October attack in southern Israel. More than 100 people remain in captivity while over 200 were initially taken, but some were released in an exchange deal.

While the court is not expected for some time to rule on whether Israel is committing genocide in its war on the besieged enclave, it ruled on Friday on several of the nine interim measures South Africa requested.

The nine interim measures requested by South Africa included an immediate cessation of military operations in Gaza, preventing forcible displacement of Palestinians, ceasing any restrictions on humanitarian aid entering the enclave, refraining from committing genocide and inciting it, and preventing the destruction of evidence of alleged crimes in Gaza. 

The ICJ only has jurisdiction over states and can therefore give orders to Israel, but not to Hamas, a non-state entity. 

Friday's ruling by the ICJ is legally binding. However, there is little The Hague-based court can do to enforce compliance. States could potentially call on the UN Security Council to implement separate sanctions on Israel if it failed to comply with the ICJ's orders. 

The Israeli government has previously said that not even The Hague could stop it from restoring “security to both the south and the north” of the country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the ICJ ruling on Friday in a video message.   He said that the ruling amounted to "discrimination" as Israel was fighting a “just war like no other” and would continue to “defend itself".

By Areeb Ullah and Nader Durgham

The ruling ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians and to allow aid, but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire

The International Court of Justice on Friday ruled that Israel must prevent civilian harm in Gaza and ensure no acts of genocide take place in the besieged enclave.

In the interim ruling, the ICJ called on Israel to facilitate the delivery of aid into Gaza and prevent and punish incitement to genocide.

This ruling falls short of South Africa's request for measures that would have called for a halt to all military operations in Gaza by Israel.

“The court recalls that its orders on provisional measures have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed," the court said on Friday.

It added that Israel would be obliged to report to the court within a month on what it was doing to uphold the measures.

The court also called on Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release all the hostages they are holding.

Speaking outside the Hague, South Africa's Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor said she was not "disappointed" by the world court's measures, and said provisions put forward by the ICJ would need a ceasefire to work. 

But what does Friday's interim ruling mean now for the war in Gaza, and will Israel adhere to it?

No mechanism to enforce compliance

While rulings from the ICJ are legally binding, the court cannot enforce them, as no mechanism can be used to force compliance. 

In the short term, states can ask the UN Security Council to act and implement separate sanctions aimed at forcing a noncompliant state to follow the court’s orders.

In the genocide case against Israel, should the latter refuse to comply, there would still be a risk of the US vetoing any Security Council decisions aimed at enforcing ICJ rulings.

The Israeli government has previously said that not even The Hague could stop it from restoring “security to both the south and the north” of the country.

Since 7 October, following a surprise Hamas-led attack on southern Israeli towns, the Israeli air and ground offensive has destroyed much of the densely populated Gaza Strip and killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, the majority of them women and children.

Israel has previously refused to comply with ICJ rulings that labelled its separation barrier with the occupied West Bank as illegal under international law. 

What broader effect could the ruling have?

Even if not enforced, a favourable ruling on some or all of South Africa’s provisional measures could apply pressure on Israel and allied governments.

“At this stage, it means only that South Africa has established that there is a plausible risk of genocide, not that there is genocide,” Juliette McIntyre, lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, told Middle East Eye. 

“It may have ripple effects for other states; it is an internationally wrongful act to aid or assist in the commission of other wrongful acts, such as genocide.

“States may withdraw military or other support for Israel in order to avoid this. States also have a duty to prevent genocide, which they may take more seriously once the Court has established that it’s a plausible risk.”

How will Israel's allies react?

It remains unclear how Israel's key allies, namely the United States and European allies, will react to the ICJ ruling. 

Martin Konecny, who runs the European Middle East Project, said in previous cases, like the ICJ's ruling against Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, "western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented. 

"Western government responses to the ICJ order should be measured against [previous] precedents," Konecny said on X. 

"I have little doubt that countries like Belgium, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia will be consistent with their previous positions. Far less clear about the US, UK, Germany and others." 

The European Union said it expected Israel and Hamas to fully comply with the rulings of the International Court of Justice.

If Israel continues to delay aid and target Palestinian civilians, pressure will mount on the UK and US to start air dropping food into the territory

Friday’s ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) drives something bigger and more powerful than a D9 bulldozer through the western position supporting Israel’s blitzkrieg on Gaza, which has continued for nearly four months.

The ruling establishes that what is going on in Gaza is not a war aimed at disabling an enemy militant group, but an operation aimed at disabling a people, and a nation. There can be no more momentous legal judgement in the history of the conflict, certainly in the current century. 

This judgement reestablishes the morality, impartiality and standing of international law, and will show the impunity that Israel has been granted by its major arms suppliers and backers for what it is: a license to kill.

There can be no bigger hole knocked through the position of a US administration that bogusly claimed “diplomacy is back”, and then went on to to defend and furnish the most murderous bombardment in the recent history of this conflict.

Israel is now in the dock on a charge of genocide and will be obliged to report back to the court in a month, for its accuser South Africa to review, on the measures it has taken to prevent incitement to genocide and genocide itself and to allow more aid into Gaza.

Yes, there will be disappointment that the ICJ stopped short of demanding an immediate ceasefire. The court did this on the legal grounds that only one side in this war is recognised as a state. 

Palestinians don’t need a court judgment validating their suffering. They were expecting a measure that would end this genocide, rather than putting the ball in Israel’s court to act in a way that everybody knows it will not. But Israel had already signalled its intention to ignore any ruling of the ICJ, so it is not to Israel that anyone should look to change this situation.

The ICJ ruling’s only power is to change western policy allowing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to wring his hands as if Washington is impotent to stop the daily slaughter. It plainly is not. 

Clear urgency

A judgment such as this also provides much-needed force to several court actions around the world involving lesser, but equally important, charges of war crimes. If the designation of apartheid was a huge blow to Israel’s attempts to establish itself as a normal, western democracy, the genocide label surely nails the lid on the coffin.

Clearly, the court did not believe Israel’s defence, and in delivering the judgement, ICJ president Joan Donoghue made ample use of South Africa’s evidence. The South African team is right to claim victory.

The urgency of this ruling is plain for all to see. More than 750,000 people are facing “catastrophic hunger” in Gaza, according to the United Nations. The lack of clean water is leading to a spike in waterborne diseases, such as diarrhea, which is a major child killer.

There are already 158,000 cases, and the UN has warned that many thousands of children could die of diarrhea before they starve to death.

Only 15 of 97 bakeries are functioning in Gaza after three-and-a-half months of Israeli bombardment. In central Gaza, the shortage of wheat is so acute that people are mixing bird feed and animal fodder into the dough. 

Meanwhile, army bulldozers are hard at work ploughing up Gaza’s most fertile orchards and fields. The immediate aim is to establish a security zone, but the strategic aim is to ensure that the territory will never again be able to feed itself.

While David Cameron, the British foreign secretary, films himself pushing pallets of British aid onto a plane in Doha bound for Egypt, the Israelis at the other end of the supply chain are doing everything in their power to turn the flood of aid into a trickle.

The siege, which permits Israel to regulate the degree of pain it inflicts upon every living soul in Gaza, is the most precious and diabolical weapon in its armory

There is a several-week wait for trucks to get into Gaza. Trucks can be unloaded and loaded multiple times. If forbidden items are found in the load, the lorry goes to the back of the queue and the whole process starts all over. Israel has reportedly rejected such items as feminine hygiene products, water testing kits and hand sanitisers.

Where emergency aid does get through, hungry people are targeted by tanks and snipers. There have now been so many recorded instances of this, it can no longer be seen as accidental. 

“People queue up in the area to get hold of the items since there are no teams to help with the distributions. There are large numbers of people there… so when Israeli forces attack the area there are dozens of deaths,” said a correspondent for Middle East Eye in Gaza.

Queues of civilians at Dawaar al-Kuwait near the Salah al-Din area were recently attacked by Israeli forces, killing eight and wounding dozens. On Thursday, Israeli forces killed at least 20 Palestinians and wounded 180 others who were waiting for humanitarian relief in Gaza City.

Laughing and shooting

Little of this is accidental, or the result of the fog of war. It has been calculated and thought through. It is happening by design. 

Faced with Egypt’s refusal to allow a mass exodus of Palestinians into Sinai, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tasked Ron Dermer, his minister for strategic affairs, to devise a plan to “thin out” the population of Gaza by enabling a “mass escape” of Palestinians to Europe and Africa by sea.

The plan, first revealed by Israel Hayom, was being tightly circulated due “to its obvious explosiveness”. The plan argues that if millions of Syrians, Libyans and Tunisians can take to the boats to flee civil war and poverty, why can’t the same apply to Palestinians?

Despite months of behind-the-scenes arm-twisting from US President Joe Biden, there is no indication that either Netanyahu or the army is deviating from the plan to make Gaza permanently unlivable. 

The two have different objectives. Netanyahu wants continuous war in the knowledge that as soon as it stops, his extreme right-wing coalition breaks up, and he is in big trouble, having to answer for the massive security lapse that allowed Hamas to rampage across southern Israel in October. Only a substantial exodus of Palestinians from Gaza will satisfy the extreme right.

The army's high command cares little for a permanent occupation of Gaza and is resisting orders to reoccupy the Philadelphi Corridor around the Rafah crossing with Egypt. It wants to restore lost honour and reestablish deterrence with Hamas. 

But for the moment, the two are working in tandem. There is no indication that Israel is giving up on a strategic plan to empty Gaza of a substantial part of its population. Soldiers film themselves gloating as they raze whole areas of the territory. 

That’s the mood in Israel. Soldiers have long since stopped “crying and shooting”; today, they are laughing and shooting.

The imminent prospect of tens of thousands more deaths in Gaza from famine and disease throws a harsh light on the refusal of the international community to do anything to alleviate this mass man-made suffering, which openly flouts the Geneva Conventions and all the rules of war, and amounts to genocide - whether or not the ICJ eventually rules as such.

Netanyahu is openly disregarding the US, UK and EU demands that there should be no re-occupation of Gaza, no security corridors along the existing border with Israel and no collective punishment of the civilian population, and that food and water should get through. Israel continues to face no sanctions for this behaviour.

Make-believe policy

As for Cameron, there is a distinct whiff of nostalgia about his attempt to reframe the US artillery shells and smart bombs being supplied to Israel through the RAF base at Akrotiri in Cyprus as a caring, sharing, people-loving venture.

No-one should forget his personal contribution to the disaster of military intervention in the Middle East, which was the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and the civil war to which it led. But even if his audience has had a sudden attack of amnesia, his policy on Gaza is make-believe.

Speaking over the sound of jet engines revving up at al-Udeid air base in Qatar, Cameron said that none of the aid destined for Gaza would work properly unless there was an “immediate pause to the fighting”.

Remind me, for how many weeks after 7 October did Britain resist calls for an immediate ceasefire on the grounds that Israel had the right to defend itself?

  Cameron then said that a pause in the fighting had to be turned into a sustainable permanent ceasefire. Has he been listening to what Netanyahu has been saying? “Nobody will stop us - not The Hague, not the [Iranian-led] axis of evil and not anybody else,” the prime minister’s office noted earlier this month on Twitter/X. 

Does Cameron not understand that the moment Netanyahu deviates from that line, he loses his government, and possibly also his liberty over impending court cases for corruption?

Cameron goes on to prescribe what Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist organisation in the UK, should do: “We’d have to see the Hamas leadership come out of Gaza.” It will never do this.

“We’d have to see Hamas’s mechanisms of being able to launch rockets and terrorist attacks on Israel be dismantled.” Did the Irish Republican Army decommission before or after the Good Friday Agreement was negotiated? When has an insurgency ever given up its arms before a peace agreement was hammered out?

Whatever happens, Israel will not want to lose its monopoly on enforcing the siege on Gaza that it has maintained for more than 16 years

“We’d have to see a new Palestinian Authority that is capable of providing the government and services not just in the West Bank, but in Gaza too.” The PA is currently incapable of governing Nablus and Jenin, let alone Gaza. 

“And crucially, we’d have to have a political horizon so that the Palestinian people and the Arab states in this region could see that there’s a pathway from where we are now to a Palestinian state.” This is what Netanyahu now boasts his life mission was set to prevent.

Cameron should well have said from the busy tarmac of al-Udeid that nothing less than regime change in Tel Aviv is needed for such a plan to come about. And he should come clean about his responsibility for this carnage. 

It was the serial inaction over a Palestinian state by Cameron, along with his predecessors and successors - with the government of which he is now a member still not recognising Palestine as a state - that created the political deadlock that led to the renewed insurgency we see today, not just in Gaza but all over the occupied West Bank.

The case for air drops

If Israel does not comply with the ICJ ruling and continues to delay aid at the border and target civilians queuing up for food, as I fully expect it to do, pressure will mount on the UK and US to start air drops of food into Gaza itself.

War is no barrier to this. It was done in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Bosnia; why can’t it be done in Gaza? Jordan and France have led the way with limited air drops to support a Jordanian field hospital. What stops Britain and the US from doing the same?

Obviously, the answer is Israel. Let’s be clear about what is at stake here. Whatever happens, Israel will not want to lose its monopoly on enforcing the siege on Gaza that it has maintained for more than 16 years.

The siege, which permits Israel to regulate the degree of pain it inflicts upon every living soul in Gaza, is the most precious and diabolical weapon in its armoury. If it loses that, it loses the war.

This is what is at stake in the ICJ judgement - and why this is such a watershed moment.

Middle East Eye 

They indulged the Israeli leader hoping – wrongly, as it turns out – that he would agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state

Embarrassment. Dismay. Mortification. Fury. I hope these are some of the emotions being experienced by the western leaders who have given Israel such unequivocal support in its campaign in Gaza after the horrific attacks of October 7. They could not let up, no, not one bit, from standing by “the only democracy in the Middle East” as it fights on behalf of the “free world … to save western civilisation”, as Israeli President Isaac Herzog has put it.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just made crystal clear that for months he has been taking those leaders for the ride of their lives.

Forget about planning for the day after, involving the Palestinian Authority, or forging an international coalition that can help build an independent Palestine after the war ends. Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t want a two-state solution at all. Ever. And this time he has made it as plain as could be.

After speaking with US President Joe Biden last Friday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office issued a statement on Saturday: “In his conversation with President Biden, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated his policy that after Hamas is destroyed Israel must retain security control over Gaza to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel, a requirement that contradicts the demand for Palestinian sovereignty.”

For those who needed any clarification, Mr. Netanyahu doubled down with a statement on X. “I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of the Jordan River – and this is irreconcilable with a Palestinian state.”

This is also contrary to the position taken by the staunchest of Mr. Netanyahu’s defenders, such as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer. The Israeli leader’s statement was “unacceptable and wrong”, Mr. Starmer said. “Palestinian statehood is not in the gift of a neighbour. It is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people.”

Shapps described Netanyahu’s opposition to a Palestinian state as 'disappointing'. The word is inadequate. When I order a steak rare and it comes medium, that is disappointing

But for all the indignation displayed by Mr. Starmer and his ilk, they shouldn’t have been surprised. Mr. Netanyahu has never hidden his opposition to a two-state solution. At a news conference in Tel Aviv last month, he said: “You and your journalist friends have been blaming me for almost 30 years for putting the brakes on the Oslo Accords and preventing the Palestinian state. That is true.

“I’m proud that I prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state because today everybody understands what that Palestine state could have been, now that we’ve seen the little Palestinian state in Gaza.”

Last September, he held up a map of “the New Middle East” at the UN General Assembly in which “Israel” included all of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, as far back as 1977 he was talking openly of his belief that Israel should just take the Palestinians’ land.

The historian and newspaper editor Max Hastings was writing a biography of Mr. Netanyahu’s brother Yoni, a hero of the 1976 Entebbe raid, and recorded the future premier saying: “In the next war if we do it right, we’ll have a chance to get all the Arabs out. We can clear the West Bank, sort out Jerusalem.”

But Mr. Netanyahu’s western backers chose to ignore all this, just as they ignored statements made by Israeli officials that are carefully detailed in South Africa’s case on genocide at the International Court of Justice. They repeated ad nauseam that Israel had the right to defend itself – which of course it does – but while troubled by the escalating death toll, could never quite bring themselves to call for a ceasefire.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in November that “too many Palestinians have been killed”, and early this month added that “there’s been far too much loss of life” – still doing nothing to put an end to it. (I wish someone would ask him what the right amount of “loss of life” would be. What would be the “Goldilocks” figure, neither too small nor too high, that the Biden administration would approve as appropriate vengeance, never mind that the majority of the dead would be women and children?)

For underlying it all was the assumption that the Israeli leadership would come round in the end. Mr. Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak were insistent: there had to be a two-state solution.

Well, Mr. Netanyahu has just defied the US and all his supporters who laboured under that illusion. Only now is there some pushback, although the US Senate recently rejected a measure that would have made military aid to Israel conditional on it upholding human rights and international accords.

Now the man they have been supporting is unambiguously in view – a man who would like to solve the Palestinian problem by erasing Palestine. This is his aim: no two state-solution, no state of Palestine, and quite possibly no Palestinians in their historic lands either; and it is for this that the cheerleaders of Mr. Netanyahu’s government have allowed it to visit death on 25,000 in Gaza and biblical scenes of destruction on the Strip.

UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps described Mr. Netanyahu’s implacable opposition to a Palestinian state as “disappointing”. The word is utterly inadequate. When I order a steak rare and it comes medium, that is disappointing. The adjective Mr. Shapps is reaching for is “catastrophic”.

All along, the US, UK and others have refused to step in and stop the killing on the grounds that they had to let Mr. Netanyahu and his allies do what they wanted because, ultimately, they would be amenable to a reasonable solution, namely two states. Remember when we were told, by White House officials, that it would be “repugnant” and “disgraceful” to call for a ceasefire?

And all along, they have been played for fools by a man who cannot be described as concealing his true intentions – as they have always been in plain sight, for those with eyes to see.

Source: The National News

Yesterday, Friday, a federal court in Oakland, California, held a hearing to consider a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in the United States, accusing President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin of “complicity” in the genocide crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Judge Jeffrey White described the case as the most difficult to come before the court.

During the session - which was held in the presence of lawyers representing Biden, Blinken, Austin and the Center for Constitutional Rights - the court listened to the testimonies of lawyers, activists and doctors from Gaza regarding the killing and destruction that Palestinians have been exposed to in the Strip since last October 7, when the death toll exceeded 29 thousand. The injured are 64 thousand.

Al Jazeera English correspondent Rob Reynolds - who was in court - said that the lawyers for the lawsuit point out that the current US administration is violating the 1948 Genocide Convention by supplying weapons to Israel, indicating that the defendants’ lawyers believe that the court does not have the authority to decide on this matter. The matter, and they present arguments, including the issue of separation of powers in the United States.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in the United States filed this civil lawsuit against the president and the two foreign ministers last November on behalf of Palestinian organizations, Palestinians in Gaza, and American citizens with relatives in the Strip.

Case details

The lawsuit stated that the three defendants not only failed to implement their obligations to prevent genocide in Gaza, but also created the conditions for it to occur by providing unconditional military and political support to Israel.

The indictment also stated that one of the Biden administration's responsibilities is to prevent genocide in accordance with international laws and norms.

According to the lawsuit, the president and the secretaries of state and defense repeatedly refused to use their clear and significant influence to set conditions or limits on Israeli bombing of Gaza despite mounting evidence of Israeli policies directed toward mass harm to the Palestinian population of Gaza.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in the United States - which deals with civil liberties - says that the prolonged Israeli occupation of Palestine, the siege imposed on Gaza, and the support provided by the United States created conditions conducive to genocide committed by Israel.

It is noteworthy that despite the huge numbers of civilian casualties in Gaza, the administration of US President Joe Biden still rejects a ceasefire, and it has also used its veto in the UN Security Council against draft resolutions calling for an end to the war on the Strip.

Source: Al Jazeera

Arab, Islamic and Western countries and international and Arab organizations welcomed the decision of the International Court of Justice that Israel, the occupying power, must take all measures to prevent acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, and take measures to ensure the immediate provision of the urgent humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip, and that Israel must prevent incitement to genocide in the Gaza Strip, punish all who incite it, and take measures to prevent the destruction and preservation of evidence relating to the commission of genocide.

The European Union expects "immediate" implementation of the International Court of Justice's decision

The European Union stressed that it expects a "full and immediate" implementation of the International Court of Justice's decision in which it ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

A joint statement by European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell and the European Commission said that the decisions of the “International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must abide by them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation welcomes the interim measures ordered by the International Court of Justice

On Friday, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation welcomed the temporary measures ordered by the International Court of Justice to prevent further acts of genocide committed by Israel, the occupying power, against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

The organization called on all states parties to ensure that Israel, the occupying power, fully and immediately complies with the court’s order, stressing the need for the international community to assume its responsibilities towards achieving justice for the Palestinian people, providing them with international protection, and putting an end to the acts of genocide to which they are subjected.

Arab League Chief calls for the full and immediate implementation of the "International Justice" decision

The Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, welcomed the judicial order issued by the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s commission of genocide in Gaza, stressing that “the initial ruling represents a victory for human values and a resolution of the controversy over the blatant violation of international law and international humanitarian law that the Gaza war represents.” .

The Secretary-General stressed “the necessity of implementing the decisions included in the ruling fully and immediately,” adding that “the court’s initial ruling opens the way for intense diplomatic and legal action, at the Arab and global levels, in order to stop the barbaric Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.”

Gulf Cooperation Council: The “International Justice” decision against the Israeli occupation confirms its brutal crimes in Gaza

The Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jassem Al-Budaiwi, said that the decision of the International Court of Justice against the Israeli occupation confirms its brutal crimes against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

This came in a statement issued by the General Secretariat of the Gulf Cooperation Council after the decision of the International Court of Justice, which came with an overwhelming majority against Israel, the occupying power, based on the lawsuit filed by South Africa against the occupation’s violations of the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide in its war on the Gaza Strip.

Saudi Arabia welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia welcomed the preliminary decision issued by the International Court of Justice, aiming to stop any practices and statements aimed at genocide against the Palestinian people in the besieged Gaza Strip, while refusing to reject the lawsuit submitted by South Africa.

The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed "the Kingdom's support for what was issued by the International Court of Justice," affirming its "categorical rejection of the practices of the Israeli occupation and violations of the United Nations Convention on Genocide."

The Spanish government welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice

Spain welcomed the decision of the International Court of Justice, which ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide in Gaza.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said in a post on the X platform, “We welcome the decision of the International Court of Justice and request the implementation of the interim measures it issued.”

He stressed that his country will continue to defend peace, work to end the war, access humanitarian aid, and establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel, where the two countries coexist in peace and security.

The South African Foreign Minister appreciates the International Justice Department's decision calling for the protection of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip

South African Foreign Minister Naledi Bendor appreciated the decision of the International Court of Justice, which called on Israel to take immediate steps to protect Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.

Bandour said in a press conference following the court session: “We thank the judges of the International Court of Justice for dealing with this case quickly, given the emergency situation that requires protecting innocent civilians in Palestine, ensuring that the harm caused to them stops, that people’s lives are saved, and that lives are saved.” It must be ensured that civilians are protected and that their killing and harm are prevented.”

She added: "Israel is an occupying state and manages the affairs of Palestine. It should provide the basic services that the West Bank and Gaza Strip need, and this forces UN and international bodies to take what is necessary to protect everyone."

She pointed out that "all members of the United Nations have legal tools that they can use to protect civilians, and in this case, where people's lives are threatened, South Africa should have done what was possible to protect hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and not stand by and watch, but rather should do what is possible." "Everything possible to protect hundreds and tens of thousands of Palestinians."

Jordan welcomes the "historic decision" of the International Court of Justice

The Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs welcomed the historic decision issued by the International Court of Justice in the case brought by the Republic of South Africa against Israel on charges of committing the crime of genocide against the brotherly Palestinian people in Gaza and violating its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

The Ministry’s official spokesman, Ambassador Sufyan Al-Qudah, stressed the importance of this court’s decision considering Israel’s commission of the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and approving immediate procedural measures that include stopping Israel from committing crimes of killing Palestinians, inflicting physical or moral harm on them, subjecting them to living conditions aimed at their physical destruction, and providing Human needs.

Egypt welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice

The Arab Republic of Egypt welcomed the decision of the International Court of Justice to have primary jurisdiction to look into Israel’s commission of the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and to demand the implementation of a number of immediate temporary measures aimed at providing protection for the Palestinians, the most important of which is that Israel stop committing the crimes of killing Palestinians and inflicting physical or moral harm on them. Or subject them to living conditions aimed at their physical destruction, in addition to the court demanding that Israel ensure the immediate provision of urgent humanitarian needs in the Gaza Strip.

The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that it was looking forward to asking the International Court of Justice to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, as the court ruled in similar cases, as it is the main guarantee for the implementation of the necessary and emergency measures it approved to protect Palestinian civilians in the Strip.

Qatar: The “International Justice” decision is a victory for humanity and the rule of law and international justice

The State of Qatar welcomed the temporary measures ordered by the International Court of Justice, especially Israel taking all measures to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention in its war on the Gaza Strip, and considered it “a victory for humanity and the rule of international law and justice.”

The Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that “the issuance of the court’s order by an overwhelming majority reflects the magnitude of the threat of genocide facing our Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip, which requires ensuring the implementation of temporary measures.”

Kuwait: The International Justice Department’s decision is an important step towards putting an end to the practices of the Israeli occupation

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed the State of Kuwait's welcome of the decision of the International Court of Justice issued today, Friday, requiring the Israeli occupation to take all measures stipulated in the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide against the Palestinian People.

The Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry confirmed that the court’s decision, although it does not meet the demand for a ceasefire and aggression within the temporary measures announced by the court, represents an important step towards putting an end to the practices of the Israeli occupation that destroyed all aspects of the lives and facilities of the Palestinian people, and stresses the importance of The occupying entity must comply with this resolution and respect all principles of international law, international humanitarian law, and international resolutions issued by the United Nations, which have called, since the beginning of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, to force the occupier to stop the aggression.

Algeria: The “International Justice” decision announces the beginning of the end of the era of impunity

Algeria confirmed that the ruling issued by the International Court of Justice announces the beginning of the end of the era of impunity, which the Israeli occupation has long exploited to unleash itself to persecute the Palestinian people and suppress all their legitimate rights.

The Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it followed with interest the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding the lawsuit filed by the State of South Africa related to the crime of genocide in Gaza.

It requested a meeting of the Security Council with the aim of giving binding force to the court's decision.

Tunisia expresses its "satisfaction with the great and just decision" of international justice

Tunisia expressed “great satisfaction with the fair and just decision” issued by the International Court of Justice regarding the interim measures to be taken in the context of the lawsuit brought before it by the Republic of South Africa.

In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Immigration, and Tunisians Abroad, Tunisia considered this “historic decision a very important step on the path to condemning the grave crimes committed and continues to be committed by the occupying Israeli entity against the Palestinian people, and a victory for justice, lofty human values, the principles of international law and the UN Charter, and an elevation of the voice of The truth and the strength of the argument against policies of double standards.”

Oman calls on the international community to oblige Israel to stop the genocide against our people

The Sultanate of Oman welcomed the decisions of the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued today regarding the lawsuit filed by the Republic of South Africa against the Israeli occupying state regarding Israel’s clear, deliberate and widespread violation of its legal and humanitarian obligations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

In a statement by the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it stressed adherence to these decisions and the necessity of immediately stopping all forms of Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories and lifting the siege imposed on them in a way that guarantees safe entry for all types of humanitarian needs.

The Turkish President welcomes the decision of the International Court of Justice

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the International Court of Justice's decision ordering Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

Erdogan wrote on the “X” platform, “I consider the decision of the temporary injunction taken by the International Court of Justice regarding the inhumane attacks in Gaza to be a valuable decision and I welcome it.”

He added: "We hope that Israel's attacks on women, children and the elderly will end," stressing that his country will continue "to follow the (judicial) process to ensure that war crimes committed against innocent Palestinian civilians do not go unpunished."

Pakistani President: International Justice’s decision is “the best decision”

The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Arif Alvi, welcomed the decision of the International Court of Justice, considering it the best decision, and that Israel must immediately stop the genocide and bloodshed of innocent civilians in Gaza.

He continued: "The ruling revealed the inhumane and brutal acts committed by Israel, which exceeded all limits of humanity by targeting women, children, and hospitals, and did not exclude those queuing for food."

He stressed the international community and other United Nations bodies, especially the Security Council, to take steps for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and prevent Israel from shedding more blood in Palestine.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry welcomes the decision of international justice

The Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its welcome of the decision of the International Court of Justice.

The Ministry reiterated its emphasis on the importance of stopping hostile military operations that prevent the arrival of humanitarian aid and threaten the lives of Palestinian civilians.

Medical sources reported that the Israeli forces committed 18 massacres against families in the Gaza Strip, killing 174 citizens and 310 wounded, during the past 24 hours.

The same sources explained that the number of killed and wounded since the start of the aggression on the Gaza Strip on the seventh of last October rose to 26,257 dead and 64,797 wounded.

It pointed out that a number of victims are still under the rubble and on the roads, and ambulance and civil defense crews are unable to reach them.

By Trita Parsi

A different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented this from happening in the first place

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) just ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The Court imposes several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law.

A final ruling will still take more time, but this ruling will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.

This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimize Israel internationally. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel's legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.

Just as much as Israel's political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide. As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the U.S. under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too.

The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling. Instead, the matter will go to the United Nations Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”

So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect the ICJ's decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.

The double standards of U.S. foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling. It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.

It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct. Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.

Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel's conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.

This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around.

As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.

This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation. What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the U.S. and UK’s military action against the Houthis?

The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The U.S. is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not.

International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.

One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct. Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application. If so, it shows that the Court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.

While they praised the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding the war on the Gaza Strip, experts in international law and political analysts believe that this decision put Israel under the microscope, supervision and monitoring, and they stressed the importance of having international political and diplomatic action to pressure to stop the war in Gaza.

On Friday, the International Court of Justice issued its decision to accept the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel on charges of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, and ordered Israel to take the necessary measures to prevent direct incitement to genocide. It also stressed that its ruling imposes international legal obligations on Israel.

Lawyer and expert in international law, Dr. Saad Jabbar, described the International Court of Justice’s decision as a “real and historic gain,” because it is the first time that Israel has stood in the dock, and it is also a historic decision because there is a consensus among the judges with the exception of one judge.

He considered that not declaring a ceasefire in Gaza by the court is “a very realistic decision, because the one in charge of this matter is the UN Security Council or the major powers,” which is what happened in the case of Kosovo, where NATO intervened and put pressure on the Serbs. .

From the lawyer’s point of view, Israel will not adhere, as usual, to the demands of the International Court of Justice, but it has been placed under the microscope, supervision and monitoring, and the international community must unite its ranks politically and diplomatically in order to put pressure on the United States to put pressure on Israel in turn or stop supplying it with weapons to force it to stop the war in Gaza.

Regarding the Israeli position, Dr. Muhannad Mustafa, an expert on Israeli affairs, believed that the International Court of Justice’s decision undermined the Israeli narrative regarding the war on the Gaza Strip, which explains the intense Israeli anger at the court.

While Israel claims that it is exercising the "right of self-defense" in its war on Gaza, the International Court of Justice said that Israel has exceeded the idea of the right of self-defense.

Israel also tried to link its war on Gaza with the "Jewish catastrophe," but the International Court of Justice torpedoed this narrative, according to what the expert on Israeli affairs explained.

Source: Al Jazeera

Israeli estimates are unanimous that the International Court of Justice accepting the lawsuit submitted by South Africa regarding the war on Gaza, and rejecting Israel’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, is tantamount to an international red card in the face of Tel Aviv, and will have negative repercussions on Israel in various international forums.

The readings of Israeli analysts and specialists agree that although the court did not issue a decision obligating Israel to stop the war on Gaza, the measures and instructions issued by it put pressure on Israel and restrict it, and also put the Israeli army and its military operations under the watchful eye of international law.

The analyzes were consistent with each other regarding the court’s decisions obligating Israel to take measures to prevent genocide, prevent incitement to it, and bring humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. The decision was considered a setback for the Israeli narrative and support for the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian narrative, which constitutes a prelude to putting more pressure on Israel for a ceasefire.

A New stage

Although it did not issue a decision obligating Israel to stop the war, retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Hanan Melzer said, “The Hague Court’s decision is a red card in the face of Israel, and it is a decision that will accompany it for many years, and will have many repercussions on Israel and its political and military leaders.”

Melzer explained, during an interview with him on Israeli Channel 12, that the decision means that Israel must be careful in the future in everything related to dealing with the Palestinians, pointing out that its essence means that Israel cannot do what it wants in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank or continue War and violent fighting.

The Israeli judiciary believes that the decision, although it is not binding on Israel to stop the war, puts the Israeli army before the test and microscope of international law, and establishes a serious and new phase in international dealings with Israel in everything related to the conflict with the Palestinians.

Melzer believes that the International Tribunal's quoting of statements by Israeli leaders during the course of the war on Gaza, calling for genocide and destruction and the prevention of humanitarian aid, and describing the residents of Gaza and the armed men as human animals, will make it difficult for Israel in future judicial deliberations.

He pointed out that the position of the Israeli delegate, retired judge Aharon Barak, which is consistent with the court’s position against genocide, and which demands that Israel refrain from doing so and avoid targeting civilians, practically constituted a lifeline, protection, and prevented the issuance of more stringent decisions and measures against Israel.

Initial decision

International law expert, lawyer Ilan Baumbach, agrees with Judge Melzer’s proposal, but believes that the initial decision of the Hague Court indicates the defeat and setback of the Israeli narrative regarding the war and the acceptance and victory of the Palestinian narrative.

He pointed out that the court "did not address what Hamas did during the surprise attack on the 'Gaza envelope' on October 7, 2023, while it touched on the kidnapped Israelis in Gaza in passing, as if it were a marginal file" As he says.

The expert in international law warned that the procedures in the International Court have not ended and the decision issued is the beginning. This means that Israel is facing a different and new phase with everything related to the procedures and dealings with the Palestinians and military operations in the West Bank or in the event of continued fighting in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli loss

According to the decision and observations of the International Court of Justice, lawyer Baumbach said, speaking to Israeli Channel 12, “Israel will be required, if the fighting continues, to submit a monthly report to the court regarding the measures it has taken to prevent genocide in the Gaza Strip, avoid targeting civilians, as well as allow the entry of all humanitarian relief shipments.” If it does not comply, it is not unlikely that precautionary decisions will be issued against it.”

Baumbach stressed that Israel has lost international legal and judicial forums, so that it must prove that it is not committing any war crimes, and that its military measures in the Gaza Strip do not violate international law, and stigmatizing Israel on suspicion of genocide will accompany it for a long time, and put it before tests in light of the continuation of the war. 

The international expert pointed out that from the beginning it was clear that the International Supreme Court would not issue a decision obligating Israel to stop the war, but accepting South Africa’s lawsuit and rejecting the Israeli request to dismiss the lawsuit establishes a new phase in everything related to future legal and judicial dealings at the international level with Israel and its political and military leadership. .

Dangerous indicator

In an attempt not to provoke the International Court of Justice and not to implicate Israel in more files, cases and lawsuits, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued instructions to ministers not to respond or comment on the decision of the Hague Court.

Netanyahu's instructions come out of fear that these statements will be used in any future deliberations or procedures that the court may announce regarding everything related to the war on Gaza or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to what the political affairs correspondent for the Israeli Channel 13, Moria Volberg, reported.

The correspondent does not rule out that the Hague Court’s decision will have repercussions on Israel in international forums, at various levels and fields, whether military cooperation, arms deals, academic cooperation and scientific research, and commercial and economic cooperation. She said, "Experience proves that many countries and institutions around the world refrain from dealing with any entity, even if it is accused of genocide."

She pointed out that the International Court’s adoption of quotes by Israeli leaders during the course of the war related to genocide is a dangerous indicator, and this will be documented by history and will have negative repercussions, even personally, on political and military leaders who may find themselves facing lawsuits at the International Criminal Court in the future.

Observer's Eye

On the legal side, the judicial affairs correspondent for the Walla website, Benny Ashkenazi, believes that although the court’s decision does not oblige Israel to stop the war, it does place the Israeli army under the scrutiny of the law and international forums, which will not hesitate in the future to take judicial measures against Israel in case it violates international law.

Ashkenazi explained that there are those in Israel who are trying to mitigate the severity and repercussions of the decision in the future, and he expresses “happiness” that the court did not issue an order obligating Israel to stop the war, or to make more severe decisions against the Israeli army, and this promotion may be based on personal considerations and political motives.

But regardless of this fact, the Israeli journalist says, “There is something to worry about. The court is monitoring Israel, obliging it to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, act against incitement to genocide, punish the instigators, and submit a report to the court on all measures taken by Israel within a month from today.” ".

Source: Al Jazeera

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, said that the trial of Israel in the International Court of Justice on charges of committing a war of genocide in the Gaza Strip opens a new era in the relationship between the countries of the Global South and the Global North, and sheds light on wars of genocide that have not yet been recognized.

In a lengthy interview with the Israeli website "972+", Albanese said that the arguments presented by the South African prosecution in court were strong in their effort to prove the existence of a premeditated Israeli intention to commit genocide in Gaza, and that legal experts from South Africa and Ireland came forward to defend a people who are still being exposed to Settler colonialism and the apartheid system that previously afflicted South Africa were very influential.

Justice microscope

Albanese - an international lawyer who took over her current job in 2022 to be the first woman appointed to the position that documents violations against Palestinians - added that what shocked her was Israel’s use of the terms of international humanitarian law itself to justify its attacks on civilians, but Israel struggled - according to her - to provide a convincing explanation for its war on civilians. Civilians, in fact, seemed to be suffering while under the microscope of justice and the media.

Albanese says that the trial went beyond the issue of the genocide taking place in Gaza to the symbolism of opposition to colonialism as a whole, and she believes that the silence of European countries on the issue of genocide is natural given the European mentality that is still trapped in the residues and repercussions of the colonial period, and this makes Western countries in general take a clear side when they express their positions on the issue of genocide. But the trial shed light - according to it - on wars of extermination that are still being denied, such as those committed by Germany in Namibia a few decades before the Holocaust in Europe.

A glimmer of hope

Although any decision regarding the genocide charge itself may not be made for many years, the prosecutions against Israel in the Court of Justice would give a glimmer of hope to those living in the south whose lives are hanging on the brink of the abyss, as Albanese put it.

She pointed to several relevant examples taken by the Court in the past, for example the case between Russia and Ukraine, where the ICJ had already made it clear in its interim proceedings that Russia “must immediately cease” the military operations that began on 24 February 2022 in Ukrainian territory. . However, Russia objected to this directive, filing “preliminary objections” challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the request.

Gambia also filed a case with the International Court of Justice in 2019, alleging that Myanmar had failed to fulfill its obligations under the Genocide Convention with regard to the Rohingya in Rakhine State. The International Court of Justice issued an interim measures order in 2020, directing Myanmar to “take all measures within its authority” to prevent acts specified in the Genocide Convention, including ensuring that its military forces and any irregular armed units refrain from committing such acts.

In addition, the court mandated Myanmar “to take effective measures to prevent destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence” related to ICJ proceedings, and to submit regular reports detailing the measures taken to comply with the order.

It is noteworthy that the trial of Israel on charges of genocide in the International Court of Justice - one of the six United Nations bodies - is separate from another legal effort in The Hague as well, where the UN General Assembly last month asked the court to express an advisory opinion on the legality of the occupation of Palestinian territories, which is not binding opinion, unlike the temporary decisions issued by the Commission in cases of wars of extermination.

Source: Israeli press + Aljazeera

The International Court of Justice published the text of its decision issued today, Friday, which imposes temporary measures on Israel to “prevent genocide” in Gaza, where most of the provisions were approved with the approval of 15 members of the committee of 17 judges.

Notable was the vote of Ugandan Judge Julia Sibutende, who opposed all six temporary measures imposed by the court, including two measures that were approved by her Israeli colleague, Judge Aharon Barak.

Today, the International Court of Justice announced its acceptance of South Africa’s lawsuit accusing Israel of genocide, and ruled that conditions are available to impose temporary measures on Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and provide urgent humanitarian needs immediately, but these measures did not include ordering a ceasefire. This is the main demand of Pretoria.

According to the text of the decision published by the court, Israel must adhere to six temporary measures, including refraining from killing, assaulting and destroying the residents of Gaza and ensuring the immediate provision of urgent humanitarian needs in the Strip.

Voting results

4 of these measures were approved with the approval of 15 of the 17 judges, while the Israeli judge and the Ugandan judge opposed them.

Ugandan Judge Sibutende was the only one to oppose two measures, despite the approval of the rest of the committee members, including the Israeli member. These measures were related to demanding that Israel work immediately to ensure the arrival of humanitarian aid to Gaza, prevent direct incitement to exterminate Palestinians in the Strip, and punish the instigators.

It is noteworthy that Sibutinde is the first African woman to be elected among the judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The International Court of Justice - which is the main judicial body of the United Nations - consists of 15 judges, and they are joined for the purposes of this case by two judges representing South Africa and Israel.

In its current form - headed by American Joan Donoghue - the court includes judges from Morocco, Lebanon, Somalia, Uganda, Russia, China, Japan, India, Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Slovakia and Jamaica.

Source: Al Jazeera

The UN Security Council will meet on Wednesday evening to consider the decision of the International Court of Justice, which called on Israel on Friday to prevent any possible act of “genocide” in the Gaza Strip, according to what the French presidency of the Council announced.

This meeting, which is being held at the request of Algeria, comes “in order to give binding force to the ruling of the International Court of Justice regarding the temporary measures imposed on the Israeli occupation,” according to the Algerian Foreign Ministry.

The spokesman for the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Stephane Dujarric, said yesterday, Friday, that the Secretary-General, António Guterres, will immediately refer the notification of the interim measures of the International Court of Justice to the UN Security Council.

Dujarric added in a press conference that Guterres affirms that the decisions of the International Court of Justice are binding, and he is confident that all parties will abide by them in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the system under which the court was established.

He also clarified that the position of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is clear regarding the independence of the International Court of Justice, and he had called for a ceasefire for humanitarian purposes and respect for international humanitarian law. He also called for the release of the hostages.

The International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide in the Gaza Strip and direct incitement to it, and also rejected the Israeli request to dismiss the lawsuit brought by South Africa.

A large majority of members of the court's 17-judge panel voted in favor of taking urgent measures that meet most of what South Africa requested, except for directing an order to stop the war on Gaza.

Right to protection

The court said in the text read by the judges that Israel must take “all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention.”

The court stated that it recognizes the right of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide, stressing that the conditions are available to impose temporary measures on Israel.

It added that Israel must commit to avoiding everything related to killing, assault and destruction against the residents of Gaza, and to ensure the immediate provision of urgent humanitarian needs in the Strip.

Also under the ruling, Israel must submit a report to the court within a month on all interim measures.

Source: Agencies

Activists shared on social media a painful picture of two Palestinian brothers who were killed by an Israeli sniper while they were trying to check the way to evacuate their family in the city of Khan Yunis, south of the Gaza Strip.

According to what the activists reported, the child Adel Barbakh (13 years old) went out to inspect the road to evacuate his family, raising a white flag, and was hit by an Israeli sniper’s bullets. When his brother Ramez (20 years old) rushed to pull him out, he was also hit by bullets, and fell dead over his brother’s body.

This photo angered many social media users, who circulated it widely, denouncing the occupation army’s execution of the two Barbakh brothers even though they raised the white flag.

The occupation army's attacks are focused on Khan Yunis, where dozens of residents are killed every day as a result of Israeli bombing, while the death toll in the Gaza Strip reached about 26,000 thousand people.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres affirmed that the interim measures decision taken by the International Court of Justice in the “genocide” case brought by South Africa against Israel is binding on all parties.

In a statement to the United Nations Information Office on Friday, Guterres referred to international justice resolutions that stipulate that “Israel must refrain from any action related to killing, attacking and destruction against the people of Gaza and take all measures to prevent genocide,” and “Israel must stop its operations.” military forces in Gaza immediately.”

The statement stated: “The Secretary-General indicates that the court’s decisions are binding on all parties in accordance with the court’s charter, and he is confident that all parties will abide by the court’s decisions.”

The statement stressed that the Secretary-General of the United Nations “is confident that all parties will duly comply with the court’s order.”

He pointed out that the Secretary-General, based on the Statute of the Court, will refer the interim measures decision issued by the International Justice Committee regarding Israel to the Security Council.

Earlier Friday, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide against the Palestinians and improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, but the decision did not include a “ceasefire” text.

On January 11 and 12, the International Court of Justice in The Hague held two public hearings, as part of the start of consideration of the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel on charges of committing “genocide crimes” against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The European Union confirmed on Friday that it expects a “full and immediate” implementation of the International Court of Justice’s decision in which it asked Israel to “do everything in its power to prevent any acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip.”

A joint statement by EU Foreign Policy Commissioner Josep Borrell and the European Commission said that the decisions of the "International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must abide by them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation."

On Friday, the International Court of Justice called on Israel to take all measures to prevent “genocide” in Gaza.

During the session devoted to deciding on interim measures regarding the genocide lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel, she confirmed that Israel’s request to dismiss the lawsuit filed by South Africa could not be accepted. The International Court of Justice also imposed temporary measures on Israel.

The South African government also announced its welcome of the temporary measures imposed by international justice on Israel in the framework of the lawsuit it filed in The Hague.

American officials revealed that President Joe Biden, last week, pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reduce what Washington and Tel Aviv describe as the Israeli military operation in Gaza, stressing that he would not participate in it for a year of war, according to what the Axios website reported.

Biden's comments during the call, which took place last Friday, reportedly reflect growing American concern about the continuation of the war and Biden's desire to see it end long before the November elections.

A Biden adviser said the White House is deeply concerned about losing young voters, many of whom oppose the president's policy on the Gaza war.

A source close to the White House said that Biden cannot tolerate war and the rising death toll to continue to dominate the news cycle as the election approaches.

A US official revealed that at least a third of Biden's 40-minute call with Netanyahu on January 19 focused on the Israeli timetable for transitioning to low-intensity operations across the Gaza Strip and Israel's war strategy as a whole.

Netanyahu had said the previous day that the war would continue “for many more months.” Speaking with Netanyahu about the comment, Biden urged Netanyahu to move more quickly toward low-intensity operations that would reduce civilian casualties, two US officials said.

US officials said that Biden asked Netanyahu several times about his plan and strategy in Gaza, and said that he did not understand the “final status” that Netanyahu envisions for the Strip.

The officials added that Netanyahu told Biden that the transition to low-intensity fighting had occurred in northern Gaza and would occur in the south, but that Israel needed more time than it initially thought.

Netanyahu also claimed that Hamas would return if Israeli forces left Gaza now.

During the call, Biden asked Netanyahu to allow a UN mission to go to northern Gaza to assess conditions for the future return of Palestinian civilians, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

He also requested that flour be transported through the Israeli port of Ashdod (the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948) to Gaza, and that Israel help facilitate the delivery of aid from Jordan through the “Kerem Shalom” border crossing between Israel and the southern part of the Gaza Strip.

The source said that Netanyahu agreed to the three requests. But it is unclear when Israel might act on it.

A source familiar with the call said that a large part of the call between Netanyahu and Biden focused on the ongoing talks with the aim of reaching an agreement to secure the release of more than 130 hostages still being held in Gaza. .

US officials acknowledged that reaching a new agreement on the hostages may be the only way that could lead to a ceasefire in Gaza.

Brett McGurk, Biden's senior Middle East adviser, visited Egypt and Qatar this week to discuss hostage negotiations.

Biden has reportedly become increasingly frustrated with Netanyahu in recent weeks.

The White House announced on Friday evening that the United States is working to facilitate reaching another agreement on a prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas, without suggesting that there will be any "imminent developments."

"We should not expect any imminent developments," White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

In this context, the US President, Joe Biden, telephoned the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, where they discussed the latest developments in the war on Gaza and the efforts made to conclude a prisoner exchange deal and bring aid into the Strip.

A statement by the Qatari Emiri Diwan said, "Prince Tamim stressed the necessity of strengthening regional and international cooperation in order to achieve an immediate ceasefire, spare the blood of civilians in Gaza, and protect them."

He also stressed the necessity of "continuing to open the crossings for the sustainable entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip in order to enhance peace and stability in the Middle East region."

According to the Egyptian presidency, the call between Sisi and Biden discussed ways to strengthen bilateral relations and confirm the strategic partnership between the two countries. The regional situation in the Middle East, especially the war in the Gaza Strip, was also discussed.

The two presidents discussed developments in the ongoing efforts to reach a humanitarian ceasefire with the aim of protecting civilians, exchanging detainees, hostages and prisoners, and implementing humanitarian aid, in a way that pushes towards reducing tension and ending the current situation. According to what was stated by the Egyptian presidency.

It added that Sisi "was keen to review Egyptian initiatives and efforts to communicate with the parties concerned with the aim of reaching an immediate ceasefire, pointing to the extraordinary efforts Egypt has made over the past months to bring in humanitarian aid, and the challenges and difficulties that this process faces that must be overcome."

He stressed that "Egypt will continue its efforts to provide support to the people of the Gaza Strip to alleviate the burden of the ongoing humanitarian tragedy on them, and stressed the need for the international community to assume its responsibilities towards achieving these goals."

The two presidents affirmed their countries' firm position of rejecting any attempts to displace the Palestinians outside their lands, while agreeing on the two-state solution as the basis for supporting security and stability in the Middle East.