'It was a judgment full of twists and turns': Barrister discusses ICJ hearing on Israeli genocide

Summary

The International Court of Justice ruled that South Africa's accusation of Israel committing genocide against Palestinians is plausible, but declined to order a ceasefire. The court ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts, restrain its military, allow in aid, and report back in a month. This was an interim ruling; whether Israel actually committed genocide will only be determined in a trial years from now. Still, the ruling puts political pressure on Israel's allies to condemn its actions. In the short term Israel is unlikely to change its military strategy, but long term its allies may compel it to allow more aid into Gaza.

Takeaways

• 😲 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found it is plausible that Israel is breaching the genocide convention against Palestinians.
• 😮‍💨 The ICJ declined to order a ceasefire or take strong action, instead issuing a restrained order for Israel.
• 🤔 The ICJ order requires Israel to prevent genocide, restrain forces, allow aid, etc - things it's already obligated to do.
• 🧐 The ICJ only ruled on plausibility of genocide allegations, not actual guilt, which will take years more to determine.
• 😕 South Africa, which brought the case, is likely disappointed by the weak order after the strong criticism of Israel.
• 👀 Israel's allies like the US and UK may face more pressure after the plausible genocide finding.
• 🤝 Allowing in humanitarian aid is an action allies could push Israel on in response to the order.
• 😶 Israel criticized the ruling but did participate fully in the proceedings.
• ⏳ This case will continue for years - this was just an interim emergency hearing.
• 🤷‍♂️ Both sides can claim some victory, but the genocide plausibility finding still puts pressure on Israel.

Q & A

What was the first big headline from the court's judgment?

The court found that it is plausible to say that Israel is breaching the terms of the genocide convention in respect of Palestine.

Did the court order a ceasefire as requested by South Africa?

No, the court declined to order a ceasefire.

What did the court order Israel to do?

The court ordered Israel to do everything in its power to prevent genocidal acts, ensure the IDF doesn't commit prohibited acts, punish people who commit such acts, allow necessary aid, preserve evidence, and submit a report within one month.

Is the court's order significantly demanding new actions from Israel?

No, Israel already has a duty under the genocide convention to take most of the actions ordered except submitting a report.

Is this a final judgment on whether Israel committed genocide?

No, this was an interim hearing. The determination on whether Israel actually committed genocide will come at a later merits hearing.

How might this judgment put pressure on Israel's allies?

Israel's allies may now face more domestic pressure to justify their support for Israel given the court's finding that the genocide accusation is plausible.

What short-term impact might the order have?

Allies may pressure Israel more to allow in necessary humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

Could the court have issued a stronger judgment at this stage?

No, at this interim stage the court could only decide on the plausibility of the genocide accusation.

What happens next in this case?

The case will continue for years. Israel will likely claim in its report that it is complying with law. More pressure may be put on allies.

What was this case really about according to the experts?

It was more about putting pressure on Israel's allies than Israel itself to justify their support.

Outlines

00:00

🗣 Israel's Plausible Breach of Genocide Convention

Paragraph 1 summarizes the key points from a recent judgment by the International Court regarding a case brought by South Africa alleging Israel committed genocidal acts against Palestinians. The court found it was plausible Israel breached the genocide convention, but declined to order a ceasefire. Instead, it ordered Israel to take measures to comply with the convention.

05:01

😕A Holding Position, Pressure on Israel's Allies

Paragraph 2 notes this was an interim judgment, so the genocide determination will take years. Both sides can claim victory, but the finding puts pressure on Israel's allies to justify support. Short term, Israel's actions in Gaza are unchanged, but long term, pressure from allies could lead to changes.

Keywords

💡genocide

The term 'genocide' refers to the deliberate killing or causing serious harm to members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, with the intent to destroy that group. It is a major theme in the video, as South Africa has accused Israel of genocide against Palestinians. The International Court of Justice found it is 'plausible' that Israel is in breach of the genocide convention, but stopped short of concluding Israel committed genocide.

💡International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial body of the United Nations. It rules on legal disputes between states and gives advisory opinions on legal issues. In this video, the ICJ ruled on the dispute between South Africa and Israel regarding accusations of genocide.

💡ceasefire

A ceasefire is an agreement between conflicting parties to stop fighting and hostilities. South Africa asked the ICJ to order a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine, but the court declined to do so.

💡allies

Israel's allies refer to countries like the US, UK, and Germany that politically and diplomatically support Israel. The video discusses how the ICJ's ruling will put pressure on these allies to reconsider their support for Israel.

💡Gaza

Gaza is a Palestinian territory under Israeli blockade. It is discussed in the context of being where Palestinians are potentially in danger and need humanitarian aid, according to the ICJ ruling.

💡plausible

The ICJ found it is 'plausible' that Israel is breaching the genocide convention. This means the accusation is arguable and worth investigating further, but does not conclusively mean Israel committed genocide.

💡holding position

The ICJ's ruling is described as a 'holding position' - a temporary ruling while the court gathers more evidence, rather than a final determination.

💡humanitarian aid

Humanitarian aid refers to material and logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes, typically in response to crises. The ICJ ordered Israel to allow this aid into Palestinian territories.

💡allies

Israel's allies like the US and UK will likely face political pressure to demand Israel improves humanitarian access to comply with the ICJ ruling.

💡military blockade

The video mentions Israel's blockade of Gaza, referring to Israel controlling and restricting movement in and out of Gaza. The blockade has limited humanitarian access.

Highlights

The video is abnormal, and we are working hard to fix it.
Please replace the link and try again.

Transcripts

Sam FES is a barrister who has advised

on issues s around genocide in the UK

and internationally he has been watching

this judgment at the international Court

in the ha very closely um considering a

a a case brought by South Africa

alleging that Israel had embarked upon

genocidal behavior and and Sam joins us

now Sam what can you tell us um well

it's it was a judgment full of of twists

and turns first the first big headline

is the court found that it was plausible

to say that Israel is breaching the

terms of the genocide convention in

respect of Palestine so it is plausible

that South Africa says uh that Israel is

is committing a genocide or genocidal

acts now that is not the same as saying

Israel has committed genocide it's but

it's saying it's plausible it's arguable

that was the first big

headline South Africa would have then

expected Ed what that it would follow

that the court would order a ceasefire

and that's what South Africa asked

for and the court didn't the court in

declined to order a ceasefire and

instead made six uh six orders for

Israel or or or six one order with six

Provisions right um that essentially say

order Israel to do everything in its

power to prevent the commission of of

genocidal Acts to ensure that the IDF uh

doesn't commit any prohibited act uh to

punish people that do um to allow

necessary Aid and to preserve evidence

and to submit a report about all of this

to the the court within one month now

what's surprising about that is with the

exception of the of the last bit the

providing a report yes Israel already

has to do all of those things so it's

already Bound by the genocide convention

it already has has a legal duty to not

commit genocidal acts to punish people

that do to restrain its forces so after

coming forward with a very significant

criticism of Israel and in finding that

it's plausible it's breaching the

convention it was then a very restrained

and I think South Africa would argue

weak uh order that followed it and is

this a holding position Sam or is this

the end of the issue no this is much a

holding position and it'll be a holding

position for a long time this was simply

an interim hearing yes um so and the the

the court made made it very clear on

several occasions that the determination

on whether Israel has actually committed

acts of genocide is for the merits

hearing and that's not likely to happen

probably for a matter of years correct

so this is a case that will run on for a

long time um the the point of this

hearing was to say number one is it is

it pla plausible that there may be

breaches i. is this worth carrying on

with is it is it worth investigating is

it a real issue and also do we need to

do something to alleviate the immediate

danger to Palestinians and the court

answered yes to both of those questions

without really as you've explained it

specify I mean not really demanding any

new actions from Israel in order to sure

that they are doing the thing that the

court has told them to do as you say

they're already required to do all the

things that they've been told to do

except submit a report which sounds in

the great scheme of things relatively

unimportant well yes and I think the the

report will obviously provide another

opportunity for the the court to review

this but what Israel will say well is

well we're doing all these things

Israel's position is that we are

complying with international law we're

complying with the genocide convention

so yes we're perfectly happy to take all

measures NE necessary to comply with the

Gen genocide convention because that's

what we've been doing all of this time

so this is It's arguably a case that

that both sides could claim victory from

him and probably will except for one

wrinkle that occurs to me which is that

if I mean Israel's position probably

will be as you describe we will continue

to take all measures to prevent genocide

but if the court has found that the

genocide accusation is plausible then it

it it it would be quite easy to argue

with you clearly haven't taken enough me

because if you really had taken all

measures to prevent genocide the court

wouldn't have found the genocide

accusation as

plausible yes and I think that's uh

potentially the the point that Israel's

allies are going to find find themselves

under pressure on because this this case

realistically was always about Israel's

allies arguably more than Israel yes um

the Israeli government has said they

described the court the icj today as a

kangaroo court and so there's there's

been a sort of level of disrespect from

the is Israeli uh um Administration

although they did comply with the and

engage of the process in in full and in

good faith but it's the US it's the UK

it's Germany um it's all all of all of

these states will now be saying well

there there has been this finding that

it's plausible Israel breaching the

convention there has been a finding that

there's a real and immediate danger to

Palestinians politically this becomes

much more difficult to justify

domestically for those States um and on

the ground then in the in the short term

there won't be any particular changes in

what Israel is doing in Gaza but the but

the but the pressure being brought to

bear by allies may change the long-term

picture yes I think POS possibly one

thing in the short term is that allies

will put significantly more pressure on

Israel to allow in necessary Aid and

that is one of the points that's that's

in the order and it's sort of it's

almost politically the easiest to do for

um for for allies that to to really

focus on that um difficult to argue that

that Palestinian Civ civilians shouldn't

be entitled to that that Aid and that's

a way for St states in the west to uh to

look to to appear to com comply with the

order and to appear to take note and

sort of satisfy political pressure while

at the same time maintaining their their

diplomatic position of respecting what

they call Israel's need to defend itself

and and finally Sam could could the

court have handed down a stronger

judgment or was it only ever going to be

plausibility or

not it could only ever at this side time

decide on plausibility that's what I

thought I just wanted to never in a

position to to to to make because as

because as you say that that that's that

that can only be concluded years hence

um indeed Sam FS many thanks indeed