The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza, but stopped short of calling for the ceasefire requested by South Africa.
The court has not ruled at this stage on the core of South Africa’s case – whether genocide took place in Gaza – but an overwhelming majority of its 17 judges presiding over the case have voted on Friday for the emergency measures to be implemented.
In issuing its interim ruling, the court said Israel must take all measures in its power to prevent its troops from committing genocide, prevent incitement to commit genocide, allow more humanitarian aid to Gaza and take more measures to protect the Palestinians, which he called a protected area. group under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
The ruling also calls on Israel to report to the court within a month on steps taken to implement these measures.
However, he did not order a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, where Israeli military action has killed more than 26,000 Palestinians since the war began on October 7.
Delivering the judgment, the President of the Court, Joan E Donoghue, said that there is sufficient evidence of litigation for the genocide case to proceed and that the ICJ has jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
In the meantime, until a final decision is made, she said the court “is of the view that Israel must take measures within its power to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide “.
“Reduce tensions”
Fifteen of the 17 judges voted for all of the emergency measures to be implemented. Ugandan Julia Sebutinde was the only judge to vote against all measures.
Israeli judge Aharon Barak, one of the judges sitting in The Hague, said: “Although I am convinced that there is no plausibility of genocide,” he voted for two of the measures.
He said he joined the majority “in the hope that this measure will help reduce tensions and discourage harmful speech.”
Barak added that he voted in favor of the Gaza aid measure in the hope that it will “mitigate the consequences of the armed conflict for the most vulnerable.”
Thomas Macmanus, a law professor at Queen Mary University of London, told Tel Aviv Tribune he was not surprised the court did not call for a ceasefire because, in some ways, this would “render Israel defenseless to attack, and that’s not really within reach.” falls within the jurisdiction of the court in this matter.”
“But what they are asking for… they have asked to stop the massacres,” he said.
“Maybe not a total cessation of hostilities, and maybe Israel can now carry out very targeted counterterrorism operations, but it cannot continue the attack on Gaza as we have seen over the last hundred days , or even more,” he added.
A “decisive victory”
South Africa welcomed the decision and called it a “decisive victory” for international law.
“South Africa sincerely hopes that Israel will not act to prevent the implementation of this order, as it has publicly threatened to do, but rather will act to fully comply with it, as it is required to do. to do so,” said the South African Ministry of Defense. International Relations and Cooperation said in a statement.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Maliki issued a statement on the decision and welcomed the decision, calling it an “important reminder” that no one is above the law.
“This shatters Israel’s entrenched culture of criminality and impunity, which has characterized its decades of occupation, dispossession, persecution and apartheid in Palestine,” he said.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas official, told the Reuters news agency that the move was an important development that helped isolate Israel and expose its crimes in Gaza. “We call for forcing the occupation to implement the court’s decisions,” he added.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the decision and reiterated that Israel had an “inherent right to defend itself” and that the “vile attempt” to deny this right constituted “blatant discrimination against the Jewish state.”
Even though the ICJ’s decisions are final and cannot be appealed, the court cannot enforce the measures either.
