The ICJ delivers a stinging rebuke to Israel over the war In Gaza

But as the court has not ordered a ceasefire, its ruling is largely symbolic

[The Economist
Middle East and Africa
Jan 26th, 2024]

There was no hiding the fury behind the nearly unanimous rulings of the 17 ‘International Court Justice’ judges in the Hague (the Netherlands). On January 26th they ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts of genocide by its forces in Gaza, to prevent and punish incitement to genocide and to ensure that more aid reaches the strip. Yet because the court pointedly declined to order Israel to halt its military operations against Hamas, its ruling is largely symbolic. It is a rebuke to how Israel has waged the war – and perhaps more importantly to the conduct of Binyamin Netanyahu’s government – but one that is unlikely to constraint significantly its ability to keep fighting Hamas. Though in ordering Israel to report in a month on the steps it has taken, the court appears to be reserving the right to take further steps.

The order, in a case brought by South Africa under the Genocide Convention of 194, makes it clear that the court has not found that Israel is committing acts of genocide (?). The ICJ will only decide whether this is the case after a full trial that could last years. And the bar for it to reach such a conclusion is high: South Africa would have to prove that Israel set out to kill or harm Palestinians with the deliberate intention of destroying them as a group. That seems improbable. But, at this stage of the proceedings, the court merely had to decide whether it was ‘plausible’ that acts of genocide could be occurring. This was a much lower threshold for South Africa to cross. That it was able to do so underlines how Mr Netanyahu has mismanaged a war that was sparked after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, killing some 1,200 people, most of them civilians, raping and torturing many and kidnapping about 240.

Summary of The Economist article on the ICJ ruling on Israel’s war in Gaza:

Key points:

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a harsh criticism of Israel’s actions in the Gaza war but did not order a ceasefire.
• The court believes Israel’s actions raise concerns about potential genocide but hasn’t officially labeled them as such.
• The ruling is symbolic and unlikely to significantly impact the fighting.
• South Africa brought the case against Israel under the Genocide Convention.
• The court requires a high bar for finding genocide; South Africa must prove intent to destroy Palestinians as a group.
• The low threshold for “plausibility” allowed South Africa to bring the case, highlighting Israel’s mishandling of the war.

Additional notes:

• The war was sparked by Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023.
• The article criticizes Binyamin Netanyahu’s government and the high civilian casualties resulting from the war.
• The court may take further action if unsatisfied with Israel’s response within a month.

The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza does not definitively conclude that acts of genocide have occurred. The court has ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide, punish incitement to genocide, and ensure aid reaches Gaza. However, as the court did not order a ceasefire, the impact is largely symbolic. The ICJ will only determine if acts of genocide have taken place after a full trial, which could extend over several years. At this stage, the court has assessed the plausibility of such acts, highlighting concerns about Israel’s conduct in the conflict. It’s noteworthy that the ruling does not imply a definitive finding of genocide but raises questions about the ongoing situation.