By Press TV Staff Writer
In a much-anticipated interim ruling on Friday in a case filed by South Africa against the Israeli regime over genocide in the Gaza Strip, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provincial measures but stopped short of calling for a ceasefire in the besieged territory.
The provisional measures, which need further follow-ups, signaled a major victory for the South African side that created history by dragging the Tel Aviv regime to the top UN court based in The Hague.
In a 45-minute ruling, ICJ judge Joan Donoghue rejected the Benjamin Netanyahu regime’s claim that the UN court lacks jurisdiction to hear South Africa’s genocide case against it.
However, many human rights campaigners say the ruling was inadequate as it did not clearly charge the Israeli regime with genocide and issued no order for a full ceasefire in Gaza.
Since October 7, Israeli aerial and ground aggression on Gaza has resulted in the killing of more than 26,000 Palestinians, most of them children and women.
The territory has been rendered uninhabitable, according to the United Nations.
In late December, South Africa filed a case at the ICJ, charging Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention and calling for an immediate halt to the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The court held two days of intense hearings earlier this month, hearing the arguments of both sides. The interim ruling came on Friday. The final ruling is expected to take years.
What is the ICJ ruling?
The Hague-based court rejected the Israeli claim and said it has the prima facie jurisdiction to hear the case filed by South Africa under Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
The court issued six provisional measures under Article 41, which are as follows:
- Israel must take all measures possible to prevent acts under Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, which include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting harm on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”
- Israel must ensure its military does not carry out any of the above actions.
- Israel must prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to commit genocide” against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Israel must allow humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip.
- Israel must ensure the preservation of, and prevent the destruction of, evidence related to acts under the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Israel must submit a report to the ICJ on all measures taken to uphold the provisional measures ordered by the ICJ within one month.
What did the court say about genocide?
The top UN court said there was a dispute under Article IX of the Genocide Convention to call Israeli actions in Gaza as genocide, which came as a big surprise to many legal experts.
“The parties appear to hold clearly opposite views as to whether certain acts or omissions allegedly committed by Israel in Gaza amount to violations by the latter of its obligations under the Genocide Convention,” the court said in its ruling.
However, it ordered Israel to take steps to prevent acts of genocide as the war on Gaza drags on.
Donoghue said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts included in the genocide convention and ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit acts deemed genocidal.
“The court is also of the view that Israel must take measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to the members of the Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip,” she said.
Since October 7, the Israeli regime has wreaked havoc in Gaza, killing more than 26,000 Palestinians and destroying the infrastructure, including residential houses, schools, hospitals and refugee camps.
What did the court say about the ceasefire?
The UN court, much to the chagrin of Palestinians, stopped short of calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. In contrast, it had ordered Russia to halt its offensive in Ukraine less than two years ago.
However, the judge said the court is “of the view that Israel must take measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide”.
South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor, who was present in the court, said she was “hoping” the court would order a ceasefire in the besieged strip in provisional measures.
Pertinently, the US and some of its allies had previously opposed the ceasefire in Gaza at the United Nations, with US President Joe Biden publicly backing the Israeli aggression on Gaza.
What did South Africa demand?
South African complaint stated that the Israeli regime “has breached and continues to breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in particular the obligations provided under Article I, read in conjunction with Article II, and Articles III (a), III (b), III (c), III (d), III (e), IV, V and VI.”
Thus, the regime “must cease forthwith any acts and measures in breach of those obligations, including such acts or measures which would be capable of killing or continuing to kill Palestinians,” it added.
South Africa further called for “persons committing genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, directly and publicly inciting genocide, attempting to commit genocide and complicit in genocide contrary to Articles I, III (a), III (b), III (c), III (d) and III (e)” be “punished by a competent national or international tribunal, as required by Articles I, IV, V and VI.”
It also asked the ICJ to indicate the following in its provisional measures to Israel: immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza, ensure that any military or irregular armed units directed, supported or influenced by it take no steps in furtherance of the military operation.
How did South Africa react to the ruling?
In a statement, South Africa hailed the interim ruling as “a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.”
“There is no credible basis for Israel to continue to claim that its military actions are in full compliance with international law, including the Genocide Convention, having regard to the Court’s ruling,” the South African government statement read.
Foreign Minister Pandor said if the ruling is read carefully, “a ceasefire must happen.”
“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Pandor was quoted as saying on Friday.
Can the ruling be enforced?
Both South Africa and Israel are required to comply with the court’s rulings and cannot appeal a decision made by the ICJ. However, the UN court itself lacks the mechanism to enforce its orders, which experts believe will allow the Israeli regime to continue its aggression.
If the Israeli regime continues its genocidal war, South Africa can take the case to the UN Security Council where member states would be asked to vote to pressure the Israeli regime into compliance.
If the UN Security Council passes a resolution that calls on the Tel Aviv regime to adhere to the ICJ ruling, the regime could even face punitive action, according to legal experts.
What’s the next step in the case?
Israel has to submit a report on its actions in response to the interim ruling by February 26, after which South Africa will have the chance to respond to the Israeli report.
After that, the ICJ will analyze the report and the South African response and see whether the Israeli regime is actually abiding by Friday’s ruling or not.
It will be followed by more hearings in the case based on the evidence presented to the court.
The decision to move forward is because the UN court on Friday ruled that it cannot reject the case filed by South Africa, which the Israeli regime had asked for.
