What the ICJ’s interim ruling means for Israel’s war on Gaza
JVL Introduction
The ICJ has delivered its judgment, and issued a series of provisional measures that require Israel to comply with the 1948 Genocide Convention, allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza and act against those who issue genocidal statements.
We will carry analyses of the judgment and its implications in the coming weeks but for now repost this Al Jazeera article by Justin Salhani, outlining the main elements of the judgment and reactions from a variety of quarters to it.
“While the ruling itself does not call for a ceasefire,” says Salhani, “it could make it harder for Israel’s allies to continue to stonewall global efforts to bring the war to a halt.”
RK
This article was originally published by Al Jazeera on Fri 26 Jan 2024. Read the original here.
What the ICJ’s interim ruling means for Israel’s war on Gaza
The ICJ’s provisional measures stop short of calling for a ceasefire, but could make the war harder for Israel to wage, say experts.
Loading article text…
USA, UK, EU and any others must stop arming Israel or else run the risk of increasing the potential for genocide. The case for BDS has also been increased as has a case for governments globally to institute sanctions. Israeli leaders might stop travelling internationally if the International Criminal Court, on the heels of the ICJ ruling, declares that some individuals face investigation on accusations of war crimes. In some ways it’s a very clever ruling from the ICJ for although they didn’t call for a ceasefire, as S Africa wanted, for Israel to abide by the demands of the Court, they really have to stop fighting, eg to let humanitarian aid in, to restore a health service and so on. Indeed South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor said precisely that when she said the ruling implied the necessity of a ceasefire for Israel to comply.
The ICJ ruling may well ASSIST other legal cases already underway in the UK and USA to stop supplying arms to Israel. Italy has already stopped supplying Israel. I think Spain, Ireland, Australia and Canada wanted the ICJ’s decision before doing the same.
A surge in countries stopping the sales of arms to Israel – before or because of court decisions that they MUST do this – would begin to reduce Israel’s colossal superiority in arms over the Palestinians and frighten its government and citizens.
When warfare HURTS the more powerful side almost as much as it does the weaker one there’s a far better chance of serious, respectful negotiations leading to a just and mutually beneficial peace.
The ICJ ruling is obviously a compromise, designed to maximise support amongst the judges and to minimise objections from Israel’s big backers.
The extremist Israeli government has reacted with disingenuous bluster.
I hope that this ICJ ruling will make it harder to maintain the hypocrisy and that in turn the long term oppression, dispossession and extermination of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are recognised for what they are.
We must not try to put lipstick on a pig. After examining South Africa’s case against Israel, the ICJ said that it is plausible Israel is committing genocide. Even so it has not accepted South Africa’s call for a ceasefire. These two positions are incongruous and show that even the ICJ has been hobbled by Israel and the US. What use now is the ICJ when it will not pass motion to demand that a ‘possible’ genocide should be halted?
The ICJs ruling is very welcome though Israel is still talking belligerently of its right to defend itself (?) from Hamas violence.
I am confused though with where you mention Moscow ‘ignoring’ a similar ruling in March 2022. Surely peace talks apparently occurred between the warring parties in April 2022 and were about to be resolved when Boris Johnson, presumably on a mission directed by Washington, scuppered the deal. So how can it be written that Moscow ignored the ICJs ruling? Surely, it was the proxiist Ukraine which insisted war should continue unabated. Let us fervently hope Washington takes good notice of todays ruling from the ICJ, and threatens Israel with a termination of it’s military aid, and a strong suggestion that serious talks between Hamas, the Palestinians and it are the only solution to its security concerns.
John’s point, ‘The ICJ ruling is obviously a compromise, designed to maximise support among the judges and to minimise objections from Israel’s big backers.It is well put.
I wonder if the limits of the ruling were achieved in order to keep most of the judges on board. The difference from the ruling on Russia is pointed.
Al Jazeera quotes Geoffrey Nice (a UK lawyer who led the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal). He explained that arms companies and their Directors – as well as governments – would risk prosecution for complicity in genocide if they continue to supply weapons to Israel likely to be used against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Businesses (especially socially controversial businesses) are often more leery about the risks of being prosecuted in high profile, reputation-damaging criminal cases than are governments.
Arms businesses can probably sell to Ukraine most or all of the items they’d normally sell to Israel. Totally avoiding the risk of prosecution for complicity in genocide would cause minimal damage to company turnover and profits.
Few Directors would risk being jailed – especially jail for the awful crime of genocide.
The ICJ ruling leaves me hopeful.
I am more positive than some of the commenters here. As I understand it the ICJ did not have the capacity to call for a ceasefire as Hamas is not party to the ICJ – not least because it is a non state actor. But while falling short of demanding a ceasefire, it is a very positive step. Note that Ali Abinumah of Electronic Intifada tweeted: A “ceasefire” is what you demand in an armed conflict. In a genocide you demand an immediate end to all genocidal acts and that is exactly what the ICJ ordered with immediate effect. Please stop helping “Israel” spin its historic defeat as a win. calling for Israel to stop genocidal acts is the right thing to do.”
Importantly it is also the boost we need to pressure our government to end their complicity.
ICJ has spoken, the Labour Party must act
Too many are looking for what we did not get from the ICJ rather than seeing the powerful weapon they have given us. The ICJ. went as far as they could given their remit. It does not cover breaches of the ‘laws of war’ and the Geneva Conventions but, in this area, is more narrowly limited to genocide. The ICJ went as far as they can in laying out the ways in which Israel’s actions might, in a final judgement, be ruled to be genocide. They laid down a serious set of conditions for Israel’s future action.
This is going to be very difficult for Netanyahu. If he does nothing Israel will clearly be in breach of the ICJ ruling. Which should have consequences, even from the USA who will be in a dilemma. If he accedes to the ICJ in any way then. The far ultra-right of his coalition will rebel and his government will fall and Netanyahu faces prison on the corruption charges before the Israeli courts.
The ruling lays out two areas of action for us. Firstly, obviously, pressure on Israel to conform to the dot and comma of the ICJ’s rulings.
Secondly, and possibly more important, to pressurise states like the UK that have befriended, empowered and armed Israel to pay due regard. To Article 1 of the Genocide Convention.
“The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in
time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish.”
Not doing this could have grave consequences. Because the convention requires them to ‘prevent and punish’ failure to take action will put them in breach of the Convention. We obviously have to demand that the Conservative government takes action in pursuance of Article 1. Equally importantly. We must be pressurising the Labour Party to put maximum pressure on the Tories to do just that. Any reasonably competent human rights lawyer. Would see that is essential.
It also raises interesting questions about the anti-BDS bill. Which is just about to be debated in the House of Lords. There. Is much disquiet in the Lords about many aspects of the bill and the ICJ judgement will give them much ammunition. It should enable them to pass very damaging amendments. The interesting bit comes when those amendments return to the Commons. Obviously we will be demanding that Starmer leads a fierce defence of the Lords amendments. This is good, principled politics but it’s also good political tactics. Because it will be very embarrassing. For Sunak and Gove to try to single out Israel for particular protection from BDS when the implication of the ICJ judgement is that if Israel does not comply with it is require state sanctions of Israel.
There’s another aspect. The judgement should allow us to reopen the whole issue of the widespread disciplinary action taken against those falsely accused of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Most of those members were pointing out that. the. potential for the Gaza catastrophe was already implicit in Israeli Politics and society and that the events since October 7th are not a break with the past but the consequences and intensification of the past.
We should be saying that he IHRA definition is the Horizon Project of the Labour Party with similar basic breaches of human rights and arbitrary punishment on the basis of no evidence.
The ICJ might not have been able to say Ceasefire Now but we can and must and use this judgement to support the call.
Fine explanatory posts from Leah and Mike and some others. Thank you all.
The ICJ requests indeed put the extremist Israeli government and its friends, inclusive of our own hypocritical have-a-go rulers, in well deserved difficulty.
The reaction of our rulers is to undermine the UN and the Gaza relief efforts.
Two very good points Mike Cushman!
“We should be saying that he IHRA definition is the Horizon Project of the Labour Party with similar basic breaches of human rights and arbitrary punishment on the basis of no evidence.”
The IHRA definition is full of ambiguities and is indeed self-contradictory and not fit for purpose – just like the Horizon Project.
“There’s another aspect. The judgement should allow us to reopen the whole issue of the widespread disciplinary action taken against those falsely accused of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.”
After the drama featuring the Post Office, Fujitsu and their involvement with Horizon
– further scandals about it have been unearthed and publicised.
There have been much injustice exposed both here and elsewhere in the case of false accusations of anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Is it too much to hope this is publicised by the MSM?
I reckon the ICJ got it right. As Leah Levane has pointed out – Hamas is not a state actor, so the ICJ is not able to call for a ‘ceasefire’. South Africa got the rulings that mattered, that will either hobble Israel’s actions or, if Israel disobeys, make Israel an international legal pariah. That feels like a pretty stunning victory.