What will happen in Gaza after the UN Court decision?

While Israel described this as a “sign of shame”, it actually emphasized that it would not prevent it from continuing its raids in the Gaza Strip. South Africa instead believes the implicit demand is a ceasefire. Two diametrically opposed views on the sentence given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest court of the UN, regarding the genocide complaint filed by the South African government in Tel Aviv. Moreover, the “legal” decision also opens the door to different interpretations. The “political” decision is clearer, as the harsh words of the Israeli government show. And perhaps it is this latter aspect that may give greater weight to the future of the conflict. But let’s go in order.

What does the sentence say?

The Hague judges responded to South Africa’s objection, agreeing that the ICJ had jurisdiction in the case and that the Pretoria lawyers’ claims were based on factual factors, despite the claims of Tel Aviv defenders. The court does not declare that there is genocide in Gaza, but it believes there is a risk. Hence the demand for Israel to take interim measures (“all measures within its power,” as we read in the text) to prevent a genocide of Palestinians and to allow humanitarian aid to enter the Strip. Israel must report to the Court within one month what it has done to comply with these orders.

“Implicit” ceasefire

Now The Hague did not go any further and called for a ceasefire as South Africa wanted. “Israel is waging a just war against the monsters of Hamas, and the Court rightly rejected its request to deprive us of the right to self-defense,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. But Netanyahu revealed a certain uneasiness by criticizing the judges for their willingness to consider possible genocide in Gaza (“a mark of shame that will last for generations,” he said). Before that, minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who had violated the prime minister’s order not to comment on the sentence ahead of the government’s official announcement, had even described the Tribunal as “anti-Semitic”. Why so much anger?

Although it does not order a formal ceasefire, the IGC’s request actually comes close to that, according to some observers, including South African minister Naledi Pandor. According to Pandor, Israel will have to stop the conflict in Gaza if it wants to comply with orders. The Minister told reporters, “How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire? If you read the sentence carefully, there should be a ceasefire indirectly.” Preventing genocide also means preventing “the killing of people within the protected group,” James Bay writes on the website of Al Jazeera, a media outlet in Qatar, a country close to the Palestinian cause. The journalist asked, “Well, if the protected group are the Palestinians, then if you are going to protect the Palestinians in Gaza and possibly the West Bank, how can that be when Israel continues to bomb Gaza indiscriminately?” he argues.

The first round and turning point of the UN Security Council

There is an impression that this sentence is only the first round. Israel will need to submit a report within a month, at which point we will have to wait for the new decision of the International Court of Justice. The ICJ’s decisions are legally binding and cannot be appealed. However, The Hague has no authority to enforce its decisions. This task falls to the international community, more precisely the UN Security Council.

If Israel is found guilty of not doing enough to prevent genocide, a member of the Security Council can discuss the matter with the other members (the permanent ones are the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France). The Council may decide to intervene through economic sanctions, arms embargoes, or even military action to implement ICJ decisions. In the case of Israel, it is very likely that none of this will happen because the US will veto it. But they would do so at a high geopolitical cost, argues Neve Gordon, professor of international law at Queen Mary University of London, because they would pit Washington against a ruling by the highest UN court and increase hatred of the West in the Global South. . And Tel Aviv’s Western allies may increase pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire to avoid exactly this scenario.

Source: Today IT

\