International Court of Justice rules Israel must prevent genocide, issues no demand for ceasefire
In a Friday ruling, the International Court of Justice in the Hague ordered Israel to ‘take all measures’ to prevent genocide in Gaza.
Internation Court of Justice
However, the court did not order that a ceasefire be implemented.
The ruling by the court was agreed upon by a 15 to 2 vote.
Additionally, Israel was ordered to report back to the court in one month.
Among diplomats, the provisional order against Israel is considered a diplomatic blow and is a step towards ruling in favour of South Africa’s genocide claim.
However, the ruling, while legally binding, is difficult to enforce.
Commenting on the ruling, Israel Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir said, “The decision of the anti-Semitic court in The Hague proves what was known in advance: this court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of the Jewish people. They were silent during the Holocaust and today they continue hypocritically and take another step. The Hague, Shamag! Decisions that endanger the continued existence of the State of Israel must not be listened to. And we must continue defeating the enemy until complete victory.”
At the beginning of the hearing, President of the International Court of Justice Judge Joan E. Donoghue announced that the court had rejected Israel’s motion to declare the court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
“In the court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the genocide convention. In light of the following, the court concludes it has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain the case on the basis of Article 9 of the Genocide Convention…..The court cannot accede to Israel’s request that it not entertain the application,” said Donoghue.
In the court’s ruling, Donoghue noted comments made by Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, then-Energy Minister Yisrael Katz and President Isaac Herzog, which she claimed could be read as seeking to kill civilians in Gaza.
“The aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some rights of the Palestinians to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts in Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, and the rights of South Africa to seek protection of these rights,” said Donoghue.
Experts noted that the court’s move gives legitimacy to South Africa’s claim that the Palestinians need to be protected from genocide by Israel under the terms of the Genocide Convention.
The court, however, did not rule that Israel must end its war in Gaza.The court restricted itself to only ordering provisional emergency restrictions on Israel’s military activities in the Strip, which was requested by South Africa during hearings on January 11 and 12.
The 17-judge panel’s ruling was only about ordering provisional emergency restrictions on Israel’s military activities in the Strip, as requested by South Africa during hearings on January 11 and 12. A final ruling on the merits of South Africa’s arguments — that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians — is expected to take years.
Israel asked the court to reject the case outright.
At least 1,200 people were killed in Hamas’s attacks on Israeli communities near the Gaza border on October 7. Around 250 Israelis and foreigners were taken to Gaza as hostages. The number of men, women, children and soldiers held captive is now believed to be 136.
During the mid-January hearings, South Africa argued that Israel’s military campaign was intended to cause “the destruction of the population” of the Gaza Strip.
Israeli representatives led by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak rejected the claims, arguing that Israel has a right to defend itself, respects international law, and that Palestinian casualties were the result of Hamas embedding its tunnels and military infrastructure in civilian areas.
Israel, which is not a member of the ICJ, also argued that the court has no jurisdiction to issue a ruling.
The ICJ describes itself as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.” Any ruling issued by the court would have to be enforced by the UN Security Council. The council’s five permanent members, the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France, have veto power over any measures.
Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, remarked: “Today marks a dark day in the pursuit of justice as we express our deep disappointment and lament the decision of the International Court of Justice to grant provisional measures in response to South Africa’s false allegation that Israel is carrying out acts of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. We stress our certainty that, on the merits, the court will find that Israel is not violating the Genocide Convention in its final ruling.
We applaud Israel’s steadfast commitment to follow the laws of war and protect the civilians of Gaza. This is in stark contrast to Hamas, a terrorist organisation that has consistently shown little to no concern for the well-being of the Palestinians in Gaza.
South Africa’s misuse of the International Court of Justice for political gains against Israel is not only a victory for terrorists but also deals a significant blow to law-abiding nations exercising their inherent right to self-defence.
We call on South Africa and other countries to change course and redirect their focus to advocate for the unconditional release of hostages and hold Hamas accountable for its heinous crimes on and since October 7th.
The World Jewish Congress reaffirms our solidarity with the South African Jewish community. Now, more than ever, it is imperative to guarantee their sense of security and belonging in South Africa.”
ZFA President Jeremy Leibler said, “It is reassuring to witness the failure of South Africa’s egregious and cynical attempt to exploit the Genocide Convention in order to halt Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and prevent Hamas’ capacity from pursuing its stated genocidal objectives against the State of Israel and the Jewish people”.
Had South Africa’s efforts prevailed, it would have not only empowered Hamas but also set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other terrorist organisations globally to follow suit, thereby eroding the foundational principle of self-defence under international law”.
We welcomed Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s statement that she does not accept the premise of the South African case. We strongly believe that, in order to uphold the international rules-based order, Australia should make a third-party intervention in this case, urging the ICJ to dismiss these allegations. We call on the Government to do so.”
ZFA CEO Alon Cassuto said, “While we applaud the ICJ’s demand for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli hostages in Gaza, we entirely reject the ICJ’s suggestion that there is a ‘plausible’ accusation against Israel. This acknowledgement overlooks the substantial and transparent counterarguments presented by Israeli representatives, which clearly outline Israel’s strict adherence to minimising civilian casualties and the deceptive and illegal strategies employed by Hamas, including the use of human shields”.
AIJAC Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein said, “We are pleased that South Africa’s cynical and outrageous attempt to abuse the Genocide Convention to prevent Israel pursuing its war of self-defence against the Hamas terrorists has failed.
