A makeshift cemetary where Palestinians killed in Israeli bombing are buried in shallow tombs in Gaza City's Al-Sahaba Street. Israeli troops reportedly ransacked graves and exhumed bodies in January. — AFP
REGARDLESS of what one might say, the ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel's military operation in Gaza is undoubtedly important in a symbolic sense: It found that the Palestinians of Gaza are a protected group under the provisions of the Genocide Convention 1949. Moreover, South Africa had proven that there is a reasonable basis to litigate whether Israel’s military onslaught constitutes a genocide.
As expected, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in keeping with his promise to reject any ruling that the Court may make, continued his tirade by lambasting the interim verdict. He even felt “exonerated” because the Court did not call for a total ceasefire, hence giving the Israelis the green light to continue their genocidal campaign against the trapped population of Gaza.
Of course, one would not expect Netanyahu and his ministers to own up. Not only have they rejected the interim order but have gone on once again to, you know what – accuse the Court of antisemitism!
The whole bunch of extremists in Netanyahu’s government went berserk once the decision was announced – Yoav Gallant, the defence minister with his retort that “the international court of justice went above and beyond when it granted South Africa’s antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza”, to “the decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people,” by Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir.
Netanyahu vowed Israel would keep fighting “until total victory, until we defeat Hamas, return all the captives and ensure that Gaza will not again be a threat to Israel.” The same “self-defence” line which he and the other leaders are famous for.
It was Yoav Gallant’s statements that were quoted by the president of the Court when she delivered the decision, words cited as evidence of genocidal intent, like “Israel does not need to be lectured on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and the civilian population in Gaza.” A clear expression of genocidal intent.
But this verdict has circumscribed the manner by which Israel can continue to fight the war. Now South Africa has the basis to continue its legal case against Israel. A full legal victory may take many more years. But as a provisional measure, to attenuate the effects of Israel's devastating attack against Gaza, the ICJ verdict is a partial victory in four contexts.
One, the ICJ did not call for a permanent ceasefire. Two, Israel must allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza. Three, the ICJ urged Israel to exercise full restraint in not committing any genocidal acts, and they can be held accountable by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
Four, Israel must investigate its own belligerent conduct and report back to the ICJ in one week. Five, the full disclosure of its conformity to the verdict can be reported to the ICJ in one month (i.e. from Jan 26, 2024).
On closer scrutiny one must look at their paradoxical nature too. Only by doing so can one separate what is arguably the theatre of the presiding judges and the reality confronting Gaza at hand.
First and foremost, the ICJ, with a verdict of 16 against 1, has agreed with South Africa, the lead petitioner, that the unravelling humanitarian tragedy in Gaza is both serious and grave. There are obvious signs that Israel is committing acts that can lead to a genocide. Yet the ICJ stopped short of calling for a permanent ceasefire. This raises doubts if the ICJ itself believes that the reality in Gaza has become unliveable?
Had the ICJ done so, the pressure on Israel, and by extension the United States, not to further enable the genocide against Palestinians would have piled up ineluctably.
Instead, the ICJ affirmed that while there are valid arguments made by South Africa to point to a genocide and the onset of one, Israel can carry on with the military operations as it is. Tel Aviv just has to exercise greater caution not to inflict greater harm upon the civilian population.
Curiously, Israel is asked to report back to the ICJ in a month's time on the measures taken "not to cause any genocidal acts."
If anything, Israel must "preserve the evidence." Wouldn't this be imposing an onus or retinue of responsibility that Israel would not be keen to enforce since it leads to self-incrimination; be it as it may that the ICJ's verdict is legally binding.
In this vein, the ICJ's verdict does not make much sense, since the very accused, Israel, is asked to be the protector of the same evidence that can haul it up to face further legal charges. The time line of the self-reporting, whether a week or a month, also lent itself to a high degree of incredulity because the perpetrator is Israel, the party facing the genocide charge. Israel is an entity known to regularly flout international humanitarian laws in the most egregious manner since its founding in 1948.
Mourners gathering for prayers near the bodies of Palestinians killed in yet another Israeli strike. — Reuters
Based on the context above, the ICJ's overwhelming verdict can seem underwhelming on closer reading. Be that as it may, this is only the first time that a country in the Middle East has been brought to face a genocide case before the ICJ.
To be sure, Israel had categorically denied the accusation. At any rate, while the measures announced by the court are legally binding, it appears evident that the regime would not abide by it, or would be foot-dragging the issue for a longer period as it has done with the so-called “peace process”. Netanyahu’s “we would continue to do what is necessary to defend Israel” further indicates what is in store.
If countries like South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia still want to pressure Israel further to stop the war, it seems that the ICJ's provisional measures are not sufficient to lead to a ceasefire.
A total of 157 countries had voted in favour of a ceasefire on Dec 9, 2023, but now they have to contend with more waiting on how to stem the bloodletting in Gaza.
Over the next one month, as the regime continues to bombard Gaza, all nations that are adamant on stopping the war, to prove that might is not right, would have to work harder. After all, this is the first case of genocide involving the settler-colonialist project known as Israel. The regime has always been getting away with all kinds of atrocities that it has brought upon the Palestinians. Might cannot be right if the regime harkens to honour its reputation as a democracy.
More importantly, granted that the likes of Asean and the Gulf Cooperation Council had already met in Riyadh on Oct 13 to 14 in 2023, these two regional organisations have to enhance their efforts to bring attention to the world on how dangerous it is to allow Gaza to be pummelled indefinitely. Why?
This is because the conflict in Gaza has become the fault-line that triggers Israel's military actions against Lebanon, Palestinians in the West Bank and the runways of Syria.
For now, it is safe to affirm that global public opinion is without a doubt against Israel and anyone abetting it. This is an issue that has less to do with Hamas than the heinous actions of Israel completely ignoring all forms of civilisational decorum and decency.
Laying siege to Gaza by cutting off its fuel, food and access to clean water and sanitation facilities are all war crimes. They are just as deadly as the bunker buster bombs and the sniper bullets that have run rampant.
Dr Syed Azman Syed Ahmadis CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies Malaysia (IAIS Malaysia). The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.
