On Friday, the World Court issued an order to Israel, directing it to prohibit acts of genocide against the Palestinian people and to increase its assistance to civilians. However, the court did not issue a ceasefire order, as South Africa had sought.
The lawsuit was taken before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by South Africa earlier this month, and the country requested that the court grant emergency measures to put an end to the violence, which has resulted in the deaths of over 26,000 Palestinians.
In its offensive, which began after Hamas members surged into Israel and killed 1,200 people and kidnapped more than 240 more, it accused Israel of committing genocide under the leadership of the state. Israel attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed from the court.
Israel is required to take all means within its power to prevent its troops from committing genocide, to punish those who commit genocide, and to take steps to improve the humanitarian situation, according to the verdict that was handed down on Friday to the judges.
It was decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the Palestinians looked to be a protected group under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Despite the fact that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, it stated that it would not throw out the genocide case. It did not make a decision regarding the veracity of the allegations of genocide.
The Israeli government has stated that it is making every effort to prevent civilian casualties and has referred to South Africa’s charges as “grossly distorted” and baseless respectively.
Lawyers from both parties engaged in a heated debate on the interpretation of this Convention during proceedings that took place earlier this month in the magnificent hall of the Peace Palace, which is the location where the International Court of Justice is located.
South Africa has accused Israel of committing “genocidal” acts with the intention of causing the “destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group.”
The document urged the court to issue an injunction that would require Israel to “immediately suspend” its military operations in Gaza and make it possible for humanitarian aid to reach the civilians living there.
Israel condemned the accusation as a “grossly distorted story” and stated that if any genocidal crimes had been carried out, they had been carried out against Israel during the strikes that were carried out by Hamas on October 7.
“What Israel seeks to accomplish by operating in Gaza is not to destroy a people, but rather to protect a people, its people, who are under attack on multiple fronts,” said Tal Becker, the most senior attorney in Israel.
The current question is whether or not the decisions made by the court will be followed.
Despite the fact that its decisions are legally binding, it does not have any mechanism to execute them, and it occasionally entirely ignores them. For instance, it has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has already given indications that Israel will not comply with any ruling of any kind, claiming that “no one will stop us,” including a verdict from The Hague.
However, analysts are of the opinion that in addition to the tremendous symbolic influence that the verdict will have, there may also be tangible ramifications of the ruling on the ground.
“It makes it much harder for other states to continue to support Israel in the face of a neutral third party finding there is a risk of genocide,” said Juliette McIntyre, someone who specializes in international law and works at the University of South Australia.
“States may withdraw military or other support for Israel in order to avoid this,” said the spokesperson.
According to the health ministry of the Hamas administration, Israeli bombardments and ground offensives have resulted in the deaths of at least 26,083 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since then. Approximately 70 percent of those killed were women, small children, and adolescents.
