South Africa’s genocide claim against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) shakes the foundations of the rules-based international order. The growing number of state and non-state actors expressing support for this case, and for Palestinian liberation in general, signals the emergence of a movement for a more principled, just, and just international order.
Indeed, states, regional bodies, international institutions and civil society organizations around the world are taking a stand against Israel’s war on Gaza and the seemingly unconditional support of its Western allies. The demands focus on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a permanent and just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a solution that takes into account the context of Israel’s decades-long occupation of the Palestinian territory and the right of Palestinian people to self-determination.
In doing so, the moral, institutional and legal foundations of a more just and principled rules-based order are built – an order in which acts of aggression are not overlooked and international humanitarian law is respected. applies equally to everyone.
The fragility of the current rules-based order was apparent long before the attack on Gaza.
While powerful permanent members routinely veto United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions based on their national interests and preferences, the international community struggles to take collective action to uphold humanitarian law, protect vulnerable communities and punish rogue actors.
In a system built on asymmetrical and unjust colonial foundations, where financial, political and legal institutions have inherent gaps, selective adherence to international law has long sparked disputes between nations. The UN itself cited double standards in the application of certain rights as a threat to global security in its New Agenda for Peace, in July 2023 – months before the latest attack on Gaza began.
Israel’s war on Gaza and the world’s response to it, however, have exposed these existing shortcomings and accelerated the collapse of the system already underway.
The world community’s radically different response to violations of international humanitarian law by Russia in Ukraine and by Israel in Gaza has made it clear that in the current rules-based order, not all human lives are equally valuable.
The rapid refusal of several Western countries to fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims that a handful of members of the Agency personnel reportedly participated in the October 7 Hamas attack, adding weight to growing criticism of the system.
South Africa’s case before the ICJ, which condemns Israel’s war on Gaza as illegal and immoral and suggests it amounts to genocide, has emerged as a powerful expression of the South’s ever-growing revolt against hypocrisy and lack of consistency of current rules. -order based on.
At the same time, steps are also being taken at the intergovernmental level to expose current inconsistencies in the application of international law and achieve a new rules-based order that is fairer and more principled. While US vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza make collective action at this level impossible, the ICJ is currently examining a UN General Assembly initiative on the legal consequences of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory, requested by majority vote in 2007. December 2022. After proceedings began earlier this month, a record 51 countries presented arguments on the controversial Israeli policies in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and occupied East Jerusalem – only two of which (the United States and Hungary) defended the legality of the occupation. . This is the largest number of parties participating in an ICJ case since the creation of the UN’s highest court in 1945. The Court’s opinion, which is expected to be delivered before the end of the year , will not be binding on the Security Council or Israel. . However, he could pressure Israel and its staunchest ally, the United States, to comply with international law.
Major regional blocs also strongly condemned current and past Israeli actions and policies, calling them violations of international humanitarian law, and demanding justice and equality for all people on the international stage. The 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) denounced Israel’s alteration of the physical and demographic landscape of Palestine through settlement expansion and reaffirmed its commitment to upholding its “common and principled positions.” long-standing” on Palestine to end colonialism and occupation. The G77 (representing approximately 80 percent of the world’s population) stressed the need “to end the Israeli occupation which began in June 1967 and to address and resolve the root causes of this continuing injustice, in accordance with the international law and relevant United Nations resolutions. The BRICS countries also condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza and called for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) expressed support for the South African genocide case against Israel at the ICJ and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) strongly condemned the Israeli aggression in Gaza, affirming its solidarity with the Palestinian people. .
Civil society around the world has also made demands and expressed aspirations for a more just and principled order through protests, boycotts, legal challenges and other nonviolent actions since the start of the war. of Israel against Gaza.
In the first three weeks following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and the subsequent Israeli attack on Gaza, some 3,700 pro-Palestinian protests took place around the world – by comparison, there were had just over 520 pro-Israeli demonstrations during the same period. Pro-Palestinian protests have continued with increasing force since, with most participants demanding an immediate ceasefire, an end to the Israeli occupation and accountability for many Western governments’ unconditional support for Israel’s war on Gaza. .
National courts have also become a venue for civil society to denounce their government’s complicity in Israel’s war on Gaza and the double standards that have come to define the world order.
In the US state of California, for example, Palestinian Americans have launched a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration, accusing it of being complicit in the genocide in Gaza and demanding that it stop supporting the Israeli army. The court ultimately dismissed the case, finding that it did not fall within its jurisdiction, but nonetheless ruled that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza “plausibly” amounted to genocide, and called on U.S. leaders to consider ” the results of their unwavering support for the military siege against the Gaza Strip.” Palestinians in Gaza.
In the Netherlands, a group of NGOs, including Oxfam, challenged in a national court the Dutch government’s decision to continue providing military aid to Israel in its war on Gaza, and won. The court ordered the government to stop supplying parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, citing a “clear risk of serious violations of international law.”
These and similar court cases serve as a warning to national governments that their disregard for international law can have consequences at home. They also demonstrate the determination of civil society to put humanitarian values and principles at the forefront of international relations.
At the same time, the impact of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement has also grown as a form of civil resistance to the Israeli occupation. Across the Arab world and globally, academic associations, unions, churches, local city councils, and private investors have begun to disengage and cut ties with Israel in support of the goals of the BDS movement.
The cultural boycott of Israel is also growing, with many world celebrities canceling their scheduled performances in Israel. There is also pressure to keep Israel out of international cultural events, such as Eurovision.
As the war against the Palestinian people, described by international law professor Richard Falk as “the most transparent genocide in human history,” is televised, a global movement for change is mobilizing – a movement for justice and equal treatment of all peoples. under international law.
Tragically for Palestinians and for all of humanity, there is still significant resistance to the clear demands made by this movement. Despite preliminary orders from the ICJ aimed at preventing acts of genocide, Israel continues to carry out airstrikes and block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Ignoring growing global support for a ceasefire in Gaza, including from a majority of American voters, the Biden administration continues to block UN Security Council resolutions calling for the end of hostilities. Despite the ICJ’s preliminary ruling that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, the United States and a number of Western states continue to provide military, political and diplomatic support to their ally.
These immense challenges do not mean that the movement for a more just and principled new order will not succeed. The movement has deep roots and convergent long-term goals. Their achievement will likely come through a process of non-linear but transformative social change.
If the trends we are currently seeing in the courts, on the streets, at the UNGA and elsewhere continue, Israel and its allies will ultimately be forced to step back and align their actions with international law. Growing support for the Palestinian cause across the world will put both sides on an equal footing and pave the way for an inclusive and just political settlement that could address the root causes of a decades-old conflict and achieve to long-term peace. . Such an achievement, and precedent, will cement the foundations of a fairer, more principled rules-based order – one that protects the vulnerable from extreme acts of aggression and holds all countries equally responsible to international law.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.