What happened:

In a much-anticipated decision on the genocide case brought forward by South Africa, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an interim ruling last Friday that agreed that there was probable evidence that Palestinians could suffer crimes amounting to genocide and ordered Israel to take measures to “prevent genocidal acts.”

The court did not determine whether Israel is committing genocide: the outcome of the case will most likely take years. However, the court placed heavy emphasis on the “overwhelming majority” facing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where more than 27,000 people have now been killed. It also expressed serious concern for the fate of the hostages still held by Hamas and called for their immediate and unconditional release.

The court ordered Israel to enable humanitarian assistance and basic services into Gaza and that it report back to the court in one month with the measures it is taking to comply. However, while the court ordered six of South Africa’s nine emergency measures, they declined the request to order an immediate ceasefire.

The responses:

Israel has rebuked the court’s ruling, asserting that most of the measures the court had ordered them to take were already in place.

Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defence minister, responded by saying that Israel “does not need to be lectured on morality” by the court to distinguish civilians from terrorists in Gaza.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected accusations of plausible genocide as “false”, “outrageous”, and a “mark of shame” on the court. On the other hand, he depicted the ruling as a victory for Israel by pointing out that the court had “justly rejected” a “vile attempt” to endanger Israel’s ability to defend itself by not ordering a ceasefire.

He vowed to continue the military campaign while doing, “Our utmost to keep civilians out of harm’s way.”

Among the 17 judges assessing the case was Aharon Barak, a Holocaust survivor and former president of the Supreme Court in Israel. Mr Barak said that the “very idea that Israel is now accused of committing genocide is very hard for me personally, as a genocide survivor deeply aware of Israel’s commitment to the rule of law as a Jewish and democratic state.”

He said the term genocide represents “calculated destruction and human behaviour at its very worst,” and “is the gravest possible accusation.”

Mr. Barak was one of the two judges, along with Uganda’s Julia Sebutinde, to oppose the court’s notion that genocide could be inferred from Israel’s conduct in the war. He stated his strong disagreement “on the question of intent” and argued the court had taken out of context the trigger of this war that was Hamas on 7 October, and that Israel’s actions demanded review under international humanitarian law, not the Genocide Convention. However, to the surprise of some observers, he voted in favour of orders that Israel allow more aid into Gaza and punish people who incite genocide.

South Africa hailed the court’s decision as a “decisive victory for the international rule of law.” Palestinian foreign minister, Riyadh Maliki, said it “breaks Israel’s entrenched culture of criminality and impunity.” The United States upholds the claim that allegations of genocide are “unfounded” and that the case is still ongoing; whilst the European Union has released a statement saying that it expects “full, immediate and effective implementation” of the ICJ’s orders.

The impact of the ruling:

The ICJ does not have any powers of enforcement and this decision never was going to be enforced. Similarly, in March 2022 the court ordered Russia to “immediately suspend the military operations” that it had started one month prior in Ukraine – which Russia swiftly ignored. Even if the ruling were brought to the UN Security Council, it would likely be vetoed by the United States.

However, the political commentator and former ambassador for Israel, Alon Pinkas, said that to claim Israel, a state founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust, has been affiliated in any way with genocide is “one hell of a symbol.”

The impact of the ruling is political, as governments now find themselves under greater scrutiny over their diplomatic support for Israel’s Gaza campaign. Karla McLaren, the head of government affairs for Amnesty International UK said, “After being critical of this case for weeks, the UK now needs to start taking the extremely grave issue of potential genocide against the Palestinian people seriously.”

And because the decision is legally binding, some countries may be under a legal obligation to deny military support to Israel should it violate human rights law. The ruling could raise questions about the use of US or European weapons or potential international complicity in any genocide, should that determination ultimately be made.

The decision also puts pressure on the actual conduct of Israel’s war on Gaza. Israel has effectively been warned that irresponsible actions from soldiers and reckless statements by leaders and generals can cause real damage.

That said, the ruling is largely symbolic. Its most important aspect in practical terms is the order to improve access to humanitarian aid, and we hope this will bring some relief to Gazans. Above else, it may provide some room or some drive for political action. Marwan Bishara, a Palestinian political analyst, has called the decision a “moral legal blow.”