It is a bitter twist of history that 75 years after the horrors of the Holocaust saw the UN adopt the genocide convention, Israel is likely to find itself in the dock of the international court of justice accused of being intent on destroying the Palestinians “in whole or in part”. Hundreds of people – mainly women and children – are dying every day under Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip, a death rate reckoned to be the worst of any major conflict this century.
South Africa filed an application instituting genocide proceedings against Israel at The Hague a month ago. On Friday, the world court said it had established that at least some of the acts alleged by South Africa fell within the provisions of the convention. While a final judgment is years away, this was a historic decision by the court. It was not made lightly by jurists in the middle of a war that was sparked by a horrific Hamas attack last October that left 1,200 Israelis dead.
Some may be disappointed that the court did not issue a provisional measure ordering a ceasefire in Gaza. That would be to miss the significance of The Hague’s judgment. The measures it did call for – including directing Israel not to commit or incite genocide – reveal that not only is protection for ordinary Palestinians urgent, but that there is a plausible claim of the Gazan population being decimated. Given the desperate humanitarian situation in the coastal strip, it is a very good thing that the court has reached its decision so quickly.
Israel is a signatory to the genocide convention, over which the ICJ has jurisdiction. It should comply with the court’s ruling immediately, and preserve evidence related to the case. The ICJ rightly did not spare Hamas, demanding that the hostages it holds must be freed. The militant group’s role in death and destruction should not be forgotten. While South Africa welcomed the measures describing the ruling as a “decisive victory for the international rule of law”, Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, posted on X saying “Hague schmague”, and the defence minister, Yoav Gallant, said his country did “not need to be lectured on morality”. Such words will see Israel isolated in the world.
Domestic rather than international concerns shape the response of Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme rightwing government. There is a depressing circularity to its refutation of the court. Since the judges at The Hague only ordered the prevention of genocidal acts, and as Israel denies any genocidal acts are being committed, Mr Netanyahu will probably try to use this rejectionist logic to take no meaningful action. But Israel’s friends and allies, especially those who see themselves as upholding the international legal order, do not have that option.
The court has few powers of enforcement. States that respect international law must ensure the ICJ’s measures are implemented – and report back with Israel’s compliance efforts within a month. Western nations – including the UK and the US – that belittled South Africa’s case ought to swallow their words. There have been efforts to broker a deal between Hamas and Israel to expedite aid deliveries into Gaza, halt the fighting and get hostages out. Governments need to urgently use their leverage to ensure that the ICJ’s order is enforced. The scale and severity of suffering in Gaza demands nothing less.
• This article was amended on 27 January 2024. An earlier version referred to Israel as “a signatory to the Geneva conventions”; while that is the case, the intended reference was to the genocide convention. Also, the ICJ ordered the “prevention” of genocidal acts, not the “cessation” of such acts. This has been corrected.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
