Washington- American circles were surprised by the decision of the International Court of Justice, affiliated with the United Nations, ordering Israel to stop its attack in Rafah immediately, and its reference to a “tremendous danger” to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have taken refuge in the southern Gaza Strip.
The court called on Israel to “immediately stop its military attack, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, that may impose living conditions on the Palestinian population of Gaza that could lead to its complete or partial physical destruction.”
Reports from international and human rights organizations, led by the United Nations, have previously confirmed that Israel has not left any safe haven for more than 1.2 million Palestinians who were displaced to Rafah during the past eight months since the start of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip.
The court’s decision puts the administration of US President Joe Biden in a difficult position, even though it repeated on numerous occasions the court’s findings and called on Israel to back down from its plans to launch a large-scale operation in the city of Rafah. The White House has repeatedly said that Israel did not provide it with an integrated plan to confront the consequences of storming the city, which is densely populated and displaced.
Heidi Matthews, a professor of international law at York University School of Law in Canada, who previously worked with the International Court of Justice in the Sierra Leone trial, said: “By issuing its orders, the court has effectively decided that it is not possible, under the current circumstances in Gaza, for Israel to launch a military attack.” on Rafah in a manner consistent with international humanitarian law.”
She explained in an interview with Tel Aviv Tribune Net that the court “decisively rejected Israel’s claim that it had taken sufficient measures to reduce the harm to the civilian population and provide the necessities of life in Gaza.”
Political commentator and international affairs expert Asal Rad agreed with the previous proposal, and told Tel Aviv Tribune Net, “I believe that the International Court of Justice’s decision fits with the chorus of global voices that warned against Israel’s invasion of Rafah as it is the last refuge for the Palestinians in Gaza.”
Biden’s difficult position
Heidi Matthews said that given that Biden had previously indicated that the United States does not support a large-scale attack in Rafah, the court order puts the administration in a very difficult position. In order to assess the humanitarian impact of the war on the Palestinian population in Gaza, Matthews adds, the court rejected Israel’s claim that its attack on Rafah was not widespread, but rather specific, limited, and local.
It is likely, according to Matthews, that Biden will now have to choose whether to maintain his previous position against a large-scale Rafah attack by not vetoing any Security Council resolution that might be put forward to implement the International Court of Justice order.
While Bruce Fine, former Assistant to the US Deputy Attorney General and legal expert, believed that the International Court of Justice’s decision does not have a significant impact on the ground. This decision is likely to strengthen Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu politically inside Israel.
Fine added to Tel Aviv Tribune Net, “Biden will denounce the International Court of Justice’s decision, saying that it will encourage Hamas and hold a ceasefire, and Biden will be forced to ignore his enthusiasm for the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin, on charges of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
For her part, Asal Rad highlighted the discrepancy in Biden’s position and the International Court of Justice’s decision, noting that while the Biden administration has repeatedly said that it will not support a major operation in Rafah, American officials have tried to portray Israel’s actions in Rafah as limited in scope.
However, the decision of the International Court of Justice, which stated that Israel must cease its operations in Rafah immediately in accordance with its obligation under the Genocide Convention, clearly shows the devastating nature of the Israeli military attack on Rafah, according to Rad.
The political commentator added, “The Biden administration must now move to stop arms transfers to Israel or violate the court ruling. Unfortunately, the past eight months have shown that the administration is willing to break international law in order to support Israel’s actions in Gaza.”
A worthless decision
At the same time, and with no official statement issued by the White House or the State Department regarding the International Court of Justice’s decision, a number of American officials and commentators downplayed the importance of the decision.
David Aaron Miller, a former diplomat and now an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in a tweet on the X website, “Neither the rulings of the International Court of Justice nor the International Criminal Court will change anything on the ground in Gaza.”
Miller considered that “the only way forward is to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas, which results in a ceasefire, frees the hostages and creates the conditions for increased aid entry into Gaza. CIA Director Burns meets with Israelis and Qataris in Europe.”
Meanwhile, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, mocked the court’s decision. “As far as I’m concerned, the International Court of Justice can go to hell. It is long past time to stand up to the so-called international justice organizations associated with the United Nations,” he said.
Graham claimed that their “bias against Israel is overwhelming,” and said, “The International Court of Justice’s decision that Israel must halt operations necessary to destroy four brigades of Hamas killers and terrorists – who are using Palestinians as human shields – is ridiculous. This is what Israel should ignore.”
In explaining the American position regarding the decisions of the International Court, Tarita Barsi, Vice President of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC, believes that “when the Biden administration talks about an international rules-based system, it is talking about a system controlled by the United States, and does not mean a rules-based system.” .
