Briefly, the United Nations’ principal court declared on Friday (Jan 26) that it would not demand a ceasefire in Gaza in a lawsuit accusing Israel of genocide in the small coastal enclave. However, the court did require that Israel attempt to minimize the deaths and damage caused by its military offensive there.
South Africa initiated the case, which goes to the core of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, and had asked the court to instruct Israel to stop its operation.
Though the ruling did not go that far, it still amounted to a strong criticism of Israel’s wartime conduct and contributes to the increasing global pressure to stop the offensive which has resulted in the deaths of over 26,000 Palestinians, extensive damage to Gaza, and displacement of nearly 85% of its 2.3 million residents.
The International Court of Justice decided not to dismiss the case and ordered six provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza in a highly-anticipated decision made by a panel of 17 judges.
Many of the measures were approved by an overwhelming majority of the judges, with an Israeli judge voting in favor of two of the six.
Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the president of the court, expressed concern for the human suffering in the region while Israel’s compliance with the legally binding provisional measures is uncertain.
Following the ruling, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the genocide claims as “outrageous” and pledged to continue with the war.
Friday’s decision is only an interim one; it could take years for the full case brought by South Africa to be considered, given Israel’s denial of the genocide accusation.
While the case proceeds through the court, South Africa has asked the judges to impose provisional measures “as a matter of extreme urgency.”
At the top of South Africa’s list was a request for the court to instruct Israel to “immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza” which was denied by the court.
Meanwhile, South Africa also sought “reasonable measures” to prevent genocide and allow access for much-needed aid, to which the court ruled that Israel must refrain from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them and that it urgently needs to get basic aid to people in Gaza. It also ruled that Israel should prevent and punish any incitement to genocide, among other measures.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyadh Maliki welcomed “the significant order,” contrasting with Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy’s Thursday statement anticipating the court to throw out the charges.
Israel often avoids international tribunals and UN investigations, calling them unfair and biased, but took the unusual step of sending a high-level legal team this time, underscoring the seriousness with which it views the case and likely the concern that any court order to cease operations would damage its international standing.
An Israeli official said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials discussed “all scenarios” in anticipation of the ruling, highlighting the gravity of the situation following the launch of Israel’s massive assault on Gaza in response to Hamas fighters’ actions on Oct 7 that resulted in the killing of around 1,200 people, primarily civilians, and the abduction of another 250.
The offensive has displaced nearly 85% of Gaza’s 2.3 million people and the Health Ministry in the enclave reported that more than 26,000 Palestinians have been killed on Friday. The Israeli military insists that about 9,000 of those killed are Hamas fighters, with UN officials expressing concerns about disease and starvation affecting a large part of the population. The stance of the United States, Israel’s key ally, towards any order will be important, considering its veto power at the UN Security Council.
The United States has acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defense, while also emphasizing the need for the protection of civilians in Gaza and allowing more aid to reach them.
The genocide case fundamentally challenges Israel’s national identity, founded as a Jewish state in the aftermath of the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews in World War II. The case was brought by South Africa which has drawn parallels between Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank and its own history under the apartheid regime, describing the similarities to its experience with white minority rule and ending in 1994. – AP
