Political analysts believe that Tel Aviv will not implement the orders of the International Court of Justice calling for an immediate halt to the war on Rafah, and they expect that Israel will not deal with these decisions, according to Tel Aviv’s many precedents with international law.
According to Cristino Marinello, professor of international law at the University of Liverpool, Tel Aviv will not implement the orders of the International Court of Justice to stop the war on Rafah, and he believes that member states have no choice but to explore all legal means to stop the invasion of Rafah and facilitate the entry of humanitarian goods into the Gaza Strip.
The writer specializing in Israeli affairs, Ihab Jabarin, supported Marinello’s point of view that Israel will not deal with the court’s decisions and will not give it legitimacy by dictating decisions, because Tel Aviv has multiple precedents in this regard.
Dr. Liqa Makki, senior researcher at Tel Aviv Tribune Center for Studies, also agreed with the two guests that Tel Aviv will not implement this decision and will accuse the court of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism.
Marnello considered – within the political analysis segment on Tel Aviv Tribune – the court’s decision as one of the most important decisions taken by the court’s judges, as it represents a strong position because it clearly imposes a ceasefire.
A member of the legal team for victims of the war in Gaza before the International Criminal Court expected that the member states of the court would impose immediate sanctions on Israel, similar to what it did with Russia, and that the UN Security Council would hold an emergency meeting to discuss ways to implement the court’s decision.
He said that it is difficult to predict America’s position within the Security Council if it were to obstruct its work by using its veto power, and he expressed his regret that the International Court of Justice does not have legal powers to oblige Israel to implement its decisions, explaining that the responsibility for implementing its decisions lies with all member states. .
Marinello explained that the ball is now in the court of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, in addition to the responsibility of individual countries to impose a complete ban on the transfer of weapons to Israel.
seriously
But Jabareen pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for an urgent meeting indicates that Israel takes these decisions seriously.
Jabareen did not rule out that Israeli diplomacy would seek to circumvent the decision in several ways, including going to the negotiating table in accordance with what War Council member Minister Benny Gantz intended in one way or another.
The writer specializing in Israeli affairs pointed out that the court’s decisions could increase pressure on the Tel Aviv government if two of the three difficulties that Netanyahu has succeeded in confronting using the “divide and rule” plan – so far – unite, which are the protests, the opposition, and the security services.
Increased pressures
According to Dr. Makki, the importance of the International Court of Justice lies in that it is an international human rights organization affiliated with the United Nations, and its decisions are binding according to international law.
Makki explained that Israel’s political losses during this war had not occurred since the Nakba of 1948, citing Netanyahu’s words, “The Battle of Rafah is the battle that saves Israel, which will end the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), resolve the battle, and save the hostages.” He said that Netanyahu has not succeeded so far. Rather, Battles renewed in other areas.
Makki also believes that the decision has increased strong pressure on Israel, and that its moral impact must bear fruit. He expects that the decision will force Israel to make concessions at the negotiating table that were not on the table since the beginning of the war.