After ICJ, eyes on Israel and Hamas’ hostages
The government has claimed Friday’s ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Israel-Gaza war as a major victory for the international rule of law, even if SA did not achieve the ceasefire it sought.
The court ordered Israel to ensure that its forces do not commit acts of genocide and that senior officials do not incite acts of genocide. It also ordered Israel to improve humanitarian access and to report back within a month on its efforts, as it wages war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.
The court also called on Hamas and other armed groups to release Israeli hostages, expressing grave concern about their fate.
It stopped short of demanding the ceasefire that was SA’s first request and has not yet ruled on the core of the case brought by SA: whether genocide has occurred in Gaza.
That ruling could take years, but Friday’s interim ruling paves the way for SA to bring the full case to court.
President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Friday that he expects Israel to abide by the ICJ’s ruling that it take measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians.
Israel had called for the case to be thrown out, denying SA’s allegations of genocide as “grossly distorted” and saying it makes efforts to avoid civilian casualties.
Israel will have to halt fighting in the besieged Gaza Strip if it wants to adhere to the orders of the ICJ, international relations minister Naledi Pandor said after the ruling. “How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire? If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen,” Pandor said at the court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The SA Jewish Board of Deputies welcomed the ICJ’s recognition of Israel’s right to defend its citizens by denying the ANC government’s request for a ceasefire, and said the court’s call for the hostages to be freed is fundamental to ending the conflict.
“We are saddened by our government not playing a more constructive role in engaging both sides, as they have in every other conflict, to help to bring an
end to this war,” it said in a statement.
SA alleges Israel violated the Genocide Convention in Gaza, in response to a Hamas-led attack in October in which 1,200 Israelis were killed and 240 kidnapped. Israel responded with an assault on Gaza, killing more than 25,000 people, according to Palestinian health officials’ most recent report.
In a majority interim ruling read by ICJ president Joan Donoghue, the court ordered Israel to stop all acts listed as violations within the Genocide Convention, such as killing Palestinian civilians and creating a “harmful condition” for Palestinian lives. Israel must ensure the “provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance” to Gazans.
It must report back to the court within a month after the ruling to indicate its compliance. SA will be allowed to comment on the report.
While Friday’s ruling does not deal with whether Israel is committing genocide, many experts view it as part of a larger international effort to intervene in what many believe are human rights violations in the region.
Prof Adil Haque from Rutgers University told Business Day that because there is no country veto power in the ICJ, as there is in the Security Council, this makes the ICJ “the one other institution in the UN system that could issue a legally binding order that will stop the fighting”.
Israel, however, is supported by powerful states such as the US and Germany, which have criticised SA’s allegations as “baseless”.
SA received worldwide support for initiating the case at the ICJ even if, as Haque told Business Day, many states may “stop short of accusing Israel of genocide”. Primarily, most countries seem to want some kind of intervention, including a ceasefire, he said.
“I think it was a remarkable judicial victory for SA,” said Christopher Gevers, from the University of KwaZulu-Natal school of law.
“The ICJ not only granted all the requested provisional measures, except for the unilateral ceasefire, which was always a long shot, it did so with an overwhelming majority of judges in agreement with SA’s case.”
However, Gevers cautioned that “it remains to be seen whether the international community can ensure that these orders are translated into meaningful relief and justice for the people of Gaza”. He points to “those states that are parties to the Genocide Convention that have, thus far, supported Israel by their acts or omissions”.
Prof Shane Darcy from the Irish Centre for Human Rights said on social media that a finding against Israel “puts all other states’ parties on notice of their obligation to prevent genocide”.