What did the ICJ say on the massacre in Gaza? How bound is Israel to accept the decision of the International Court?

Is Israel committing genocide against Palestinians amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza? This is a big question which was raised by South Africa. The case was heard by a panel of 17 judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) earlier this month. On 26 January the World Court directed Israel to take all measures within its power to stop acts of genocide, however, stopped short of calling for a complete ceasefire. Rejecting Israel’s argument that the court does not have jurisdiction to order interim measures. The decisions come as international calls for a ceasefire are rising, adding to the pressure on Israel and its US supporters in recent weeks.

According to Time magazine, South Africa told the world court during a two-day hearing on January 11 and 12 that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip were a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which Israel is a party. According to South African government lawyers, Israeli leaders intended to create conditions for the deaths of Palestinians living in Gaza. Videos and public statements by Israeli officials were presented to the court, among them Defense Minister Yoav Galant’s October statement that Israel would impose a complete siege of the area because it was engaged in a war with “human animals”.

Israeli lawyers have vehemently rejected the charge of genocide. He claims that the country’s military gave civilians enough notice to evacuate before the invasion in late October. He said Israel had resumed aid distribution after it had stopped at the beginning of the conflict. To demonstrate its efforts to protect civilians from harm, Israel issued more than 30 secret orders issued by military and government officials as part of its defense. The court was to decide whether Israel’s alleged acts were under the Genocide Convention and whether the proposed sanctions were actually necessary to protect the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, before deciding whether all or part of those requested by South Africa would be permitted. Any emergency measures should be implemented.

What did the ICJ say?

The court offered some further relief to Israeli leaders in the genocide case brought by South Africa, which goes to the core of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, according to The. associated Press. The half-dozen court orders will be difficult to achieve without some kind of ceasefire or cessation of hostilities. Court President John E. Donoghue said before accepting that the Court is fully aware of the extent of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continued loss of life and human suffering. The decision drew heavy condemnation of Israel’s wartime conduct and added to growing international pressure to end the nearly 4-month-old offensive, which has killed more than 26,000 Palestinians.

Is the interim decision binding?

South Africa and Israel cannot appeal the court’s decision because they are both members of the United Nations and therefore bound by its decisions. Nevertheless, the ICJ lacks any means of enforcing its orders. Another option is for South Africa or other countries to write to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), whose members would be urged to vote for Israel to comply with the ICJ’s emergency measures. Since the beginning of the Gaza war, the US has already used its veto power to block resolutions that demanded a ceasefire and accountability from its close ally, Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

However, according to another report by Al Jazeera, experts have warned that US President Joe Biden’s demand to maintain the global rules-based order by others, even rivals like China and Russia, could lead to the US The ICJ’s veto may further weaken the case. The UNSC can punish Israel if it adopts a resolution mandating that Israel comply with World Court rulings. Travel bans, arms embargoes, and trade or economic sanctions are some examples of the past.