On 29th December 2023, South Africa championed the Palestinian cause by instituting proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice for violations on the part of Israel of its international duties as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. South Africa accused Israel of perpetrating genocidal acts within the Gaza Strip with its immediate operation as well as its historical actions for the last 75 years.
Israel and its allies denied these charges and declared that their actions were legal under international law. With two public hearings, the ICJ announced its initial verdict since the case is far from its conclusion and is likely to proceed for years to come. The ICJ declared its jurisdiction, recognized the position of South Africa as an appropriate party and certified the definition of genocide within international law.
The ICJ further declared Palestinians as a distinct nation, and thus recognized them as a protected group within international law, legally putting an end to the repeated assertions by Israeli sympathizers that Palestinians are not a true nation. The ICJ also recognized the horrors in Gaza and noted that they are being committed by members of Israeli forces, as well as the dehumanizing and genocidal tone taken by Israeli officials against the people of Palestine.
The Court recognized these acts to be within the definition of ‘genocide,’ however stopped short of declaring the violations by the Israeli occupation forces within Gaza and the Israeli officials themselves to be state sponsored acts of genocide, which is in disconnection from its recognition of the fact that Israeli officials are repeatedly endorsing and condoning genocidal acts in Gaza. The ICJ noted the immediate situation in Gaza will create “irreparable prejudice” against the rights of the Palestinian people and thus immediate intermediation as necessary.
Despite these laudable provisional measures, the ICJ ruling is weak and questionable. Apart from the fact that the ICJ has refused to recognize the acts of genocide that it has recorded in its judgment to be state sponsored, despite the recognized severity of the situation, the ICJ refused to order a ceasefire in the conflict.
With this judgment, the Court announced immediate measures that Israel must undertake which included Israel ensuring that no more actions that fall within the definition of genocide take place and must make sure that its military operations in Gaza do not incur any actions that could be construed as genocide, nor destroy any evidence that genocide has taken place. The Court further held that Israel must also allow humanitarian aid to enter into Gaza and reminded Israel that its orders are legally binding and that they must submit a report on the situation within one month.
Despite these laudable provisional measures, the ICJ ruling is weak and questionable. Apart from the fact that the ICJ has refused to recognize the acts of genocide that it has recorded in its judgment to be state sponsored, despite the recognized severity of the situation, the ICJ refused to order a ceasefire in the conflict. This is surprising since the ICJ recognized that Israeli state officials are using dehumanizing language regarding Palestinians and Gaza, mentioning said language within the judgment itself and further recognized that the military operations by the Israeli occupation have acted in the same manner, yet the ICJ refused to adjudge on the most basic, required and immediate provisional measure of an immediate ceasefire, effectively allowing Israel to continue its extremely repugnant acts within Palestine.
As for Israel, it will do what it has done, which is to continue its military aggression in Gaza and ignore the ICJ, which will thus prove that it is not only a rogue state, but a genocidal state, diminishing its standing in the global community as it expends all its diplomatic currency in this foolish endeavor.
By not answering this question, it recognized Israel’s military operations in Gaza as legally valid as long as they didn’t breach the articles of the Genocide Convention.
Another question that the ICJ refused to recognize in its judgment was the presence of Israeli occupying forces within Gaza, an act that is clearly against international law, especially when the ICJ has recognized said territory as Palestinian in its advisory opinions. This lack of acknowledgement will once again have a deteriorating impact on global security, as it will cement a precedent that states can invade and occupy territories of other states providing any probable cause.
This recognition of invasion and occupation promises to degrade international law, as nations will look to mount military operations, strikes, invasions and occupations under the vague excuse of national security. This intentional oversight must be corrected by the ICJ, as well as the global community; after all, why is this military engagement kosher, yet other military engagements around the world are not? Many nations will notice this omission as a recognition and apply it to themselves.
The ICJ also recognized that Israel has put Gaza under siege, which it must immediately lift, and stated that so far Israeli steps in curbing its genocidal actions have been insufficient. All these recognitions by the ICJ have placed Israel and its allies in a dilemma.
However, despite this weak ruling, there are many positives to take away from this situation as well, since the judgment does state that genocide is taking place in Gaza and it is being conducted by the Israeli military, which is a major source of embarrassment not only for Israel, but particularly for its allies in the Western world. The judgment also recognized the rights of the Palestinian people and reminded Israel that it was breaking international law, thus effectively delivering a fatal blow to the narrative propagated by Israel and its allies that Israeli actions are completely in compliance with International doctrines and that the Palestinian people neither form a nation, nor have a national territory.
The ICJ also recognized that Israel has put Gaza under siege, which it must immediately lift, and stated that so far Israeli steps in curbing its genocidal actions have been insufficient. All these recognitions by the ICJ have placed Israel and its allies in a dilemma. Israel’s allies can either recognize the ICJ’s provisional measures and condemn Israeli actions or ignore the ICJ and declare support for Israel, effectively going rogue and proving the repeated assertions by Israel’s critics that the Western world cares little for law, resulting in the weakening of their own influence and deterioration of security in a divided world.
As for Israel, it will do what it has done, which is to continue its military aggression in Gaza and ignore the ICJ, which will thus prove that it is not only a rogue state, but a genocidal state, diminishing its standing in the global community as it expends all its diplomatic currency in this foolish endeavor.
The judgment by the ICJ will not end the Palestinian conflict, especially considering its weak nature, but this step by South Africa is commendable as Israel and its allies must be told that their illegal and brutal actions are being condemned and declared illegal. Even if minimal, a message has been sent that brutal occupations will lead to states and individuals condemning it. Somebody has to stand and save this degradation of international law from continuing further.