'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.