The United States cannot continue to support Israel's war in Gaza in the same way as it did before, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC), told DW on Friday.
"The US cannot support a similar campaign now, because it could be accomplice of genocide," said Moreno Ocampo.
He was reacting to the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) earlier Friday that said Israel risked genocide in its war in Gaza, and must take steps to avoid this. However, the ruling stopped short of ordering a cease-fire.
The court instead ordered the country to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and do more to help civilians.
"The court is saying to Israel what you are doing is a very imminent risk of genocide for these people in Gaza," said Moreno Ocampo.
The ICJ asked Israel to report back in one month with evidence that it is implementing the orders.
Moreno Ocampo described the court's decision not to order a complete cease-fire as smart, saying it was now up to Israel to decide how to prevent genocide.
The idea is not "to punish people here, the priority is to prevent genocide, and that why the issue is how Israel will adjust," said Moreno Ocampo.
Friday's ruling did not deal with South Africa's core accusation in the case as to whether Israel is committing genocide in the Palestinian enclave. The arguments about that might take years, but Moreno Ocampo said that does not matter.
"It is a compromise, because it give us a space, to political leaders to find a solution. If we believe in law, we have to stop it," he said.
UN court ruling on Gaza 'hard to ignore' for Israel's allies
All eyes were on The Hague as the UN's International Court of Justice ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza but failed to demand a cease-fire. The decision puts Israel's allies in a difficult spot.
As 17 judges inside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) prepared to deliver their first ruling in a landmark genocide trial against Israel, some 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were gathered outside the Palace of Peace to watch on a big screen. "No Genocide. No ethnic cleansing. Nowhere," read one banner, emblazoned with the Palestinian flag.
A few hundred meters down the road from the ornate red-brick courthouse in The Hague, Netherlands, a similarly sized cluster of demonstrators waved Israeli and Dutch flags, holding pictures of hostages seized from southern Israel by Hamas militants on October 7.
That deadly terrorist attack triggered a devastating Israeli military offensive in Gaza with the stated aim of wiping out Hamas — the armed Islamist group that controls the densely populated Palestinian enclave and is classified as a terror group by the EU, the US and other governments — in order to defend the Jewish state's population. In the nearly four months since then, Israeli strikes have killed more than 26,000 people according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza.
Friday's ruling was eagerly awaited by protesters outside the courthouse
Image: Piroschka van de Wouw/REUTERS
One side, or perhaps even both, of those assembled on this crisp, bright Friday was bound to be disappointed. In the end, a nuanced ruling left both sides with reason for dissatisfaction, though the scales tipped largely against Israel, as many had expected.
Court orders Israel to ease humanitarian blockade
As a signatory to the 1948 UN convention on genocide, Israel was ordered to take a range of steps to prevent genocide and irreparable harm to the Palestinian people in Gaza — including easing a near-total blockade on humanitarian aid. It was not, however, ordered to halt its military campaign outright.
Court President Joan E. Donoghue, who hails from the US, was at pains to stress that the judges were in no way ruling on whether Israel had breached the Genocide Convention or not. That decision could take years. At stake on Friday were a series of emergency injunctions requested by South Africa, which brought the case to the ICJ one month ago on behalf of Palestinians in Gaza.
A South African delegation (left) brought the case against Israel on behalf of Palestinians in Gaza
Image: Patrick Post/AP/picture alliance
Nonetheless, with the reported Palestinian death toll now over 26,000 and close to 2 million people internally displaced, the court found the situation grave enough to issue a series of emergency injunctions pending its long-off final verdict.
The decision will put pressure on Israel and its allies, including the United States, who had argued the case had no merit whatsoever.
Israel handed a string of injunctions over Gaza conduct
"The military operation conducted by Israel after 7 October, 2023, has resulted, inter alia, in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries; and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale," said Donoghue.
A clear majority of judges ordered Israel to "take all measures within its power" to prevent the killing of Palestinians as a protected group under the Genocide Convention and to prevent "causing serious bodily or mental harm," Donoghue added.
The government must ensure the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) do not carry out acts that may constitute genocide, and also prevent and punish the incitement of genocide, she continued.
Crucially, officials must "take immediate, effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance." The World Health Organization (WHO) warned late last month that an unprecedented 93% of Gazans were experiencing crisis levels of hunger, Donoghue noted.
Demonstrators waving Israeli and Dutch flags held up pictures of hostages seized from southern Israel by Hamas militants
Patrick Post/AP Photo/picture alliance
Donoghue took time to read out several statements from top-tier Israeli officials, including President Isaac Herzog and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, that had been flagged by UN officials as exhibiting "dehumanizing language." The court also instructed Israel to submit a report on how it was complying with ICJ measures within a month.
With an eye to Hamas, which is not involved in proceedings because it is not defined as a state actor, Donoghue made clear that "all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law."
On behalf of the ICJ, Donoghue also demanded the release of all the remaining hostages taken by Hamas on October 7. Israel believes that of the 253 people originally kidnapped, over 100 are still alive and being held in Gaza.
Israel calls genocide charge 'false and outrageous'
Israel was incensed by Friday's ruling, with the Foreign Ministry calling the "charge of genocide leveled against Israel" at the ICJ "false and outrageous" in a statement.
In the same press release, Foreign Minister Israel Katz said his country's commitment "to international law is unwavering. It exists independently of any ICJ proceedings, as does Israel's inherent right to defend itself against the genocidal terrorists of Hamas."
Two weeks earlier, Israeli lawyers had asked the top UN court to throw out South Africa's case as meritless and "grossly distorted."
The Genocide Convention, they recalled, was drawn up in the wake of the Holocaust, the carefully plotted mass murder of millions of European Jews by the German Nazi regime during World War II.
Speaking to DW in The Hague, Ammar Hijazi, a representative of the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank, welcomed the ruling as a "historic decision."
"Today, for the first time in the history of the Palestinian people and their struggle for independence and freedom, Israel, their oppressor, has been held to account in front of the highest court in the world," he said.
Several supporters of South Africa's case told DW they were mostly happy with the outcome, with many interpreting it as a de facto order for Israel to lay down its weapons. As it was read out, the crowd outside the courthouse occasionally erupted with appreciative shouts.
One person at the pro-Palestinian rally, a man named Mouaan Al-Borsh, told DW that he had lost much of his family in Gaza and was "very sad" about the ICJ decision, saying he had been hoping for a cease-fire order. "This is exactly what America, what Israel wants," he said of the ruling.
ICJ ruling 'hard to ignore' for Israeli allies
Richard Gowan, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution NGO, did not share that assessment. "A lot of states and legal experts will argue that Israel will have to fundamentally change its tactics or simply end hostilities," Gowan told DW by phone from New York. While Israel was likely expecting such a ruling, Gowan said it would be too much to call the lack of a cease-fire order a victory.
The ICJ ruling puts Israel's allies in a "painful quandary," according to Gowan. "Officials in Washington and London will be saying quietly to the Israelis, you really do have to significantly curb your campaign now because international outrage is continuing to mount," he said.
Unlike a national court, which relies on the police or the prison system, the ICJ has little means to enforce its rulings.
The ball, therefore, now passes back to the UN, Gowan explained. "A lot of diplomats here in New York expect that Algeria, as the Arab member of the Security Council, might table a resolution next week essentially demanding that Israel abides by the ICJ measures," he said.
The US would find it hard to sign off on anything that gave even mild credence to the notion that Israel was committing genocide, Gowan said. Nonetheless, "Israel and its friends will find [the ICJ ruling] hard to ignore," he added.
Khaled Elgindy, an analyst from the Middle East Institute, a Washington-based think tank, agreed.
Elgindy said the US, Britain and Germany — who have been "the most full-throated and unconditional in their support for Israel's military campaign" — will find it difficult to "dismiss the court's findings and preliminary measures without undercutting the institution of the ICJ and their own stated commitment to a rules-based order."
"I don't see a way for Israel to continue operating the way it has in Gaza and still be in compliance with the court's ruling," Elgindy told DW from Washington.
Edited by: Jon Shelton
Ella Joyner Correspondent@EllaRoseJoyner
S.Africa hails ‘decisive victory’ at UN court
By AFP
January 26, 2024
Many South Africans reacted with pride after a UN court ordered that Israel refrain from taking genocidal actions in Gaza, in response to a case brought by South Africa - Copyright POOL/AFP Ludovic MARIN
Umberto BACCHI with Julie BOURDIN in Cape Town
South Africa on Friday hailed a ruling by the United Nations’ top court that Israel should do everything it can to prevent any acts of genocide in Gaza.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague handed down its verdict in a landmark case brought by Pretoria also ordering Israel to allow humanitarian access to the Palestinian territory.
“Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people,” South Africa’s ministry of foreign affairs said.
“The decision is a momentous one,” it added, thanking the court for its “swift ruling”.
South Africa has accused Israel of breaching the 1948 UN Genocide Convention — set up in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust — during its military campaign in Gaza, sparked by the October 7 attacks by Hamas.
The court did not pass judgement on whether or not Israel is actually committing genocide but handed down emergency orders while it considers the wider accusation — a process that is likely to take years.
– ‘Plausibly genocidal’ –
“Third States are now on notice of the existence of a serious risk of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza,” the ministry of foreign affairs said.
“This necessarily imposes an obligation on all States to cease funding and facilitating Israel’s military actions, which are plausibly genocidal.”
President Cyril Ramaphosa and the ruling council of the ruling African National Congress party erupted in cheers, singing and dancing after judges read the order.
Ramaphosa was due to make a speech on the ruling later Friday.
The ANC’s National Executive Committee suspended a meeting to watch a broadcast from the court, and live footage from the event showed senior party and government figures celebrating.
The case, and their government’s involvement in it, has also generated public interest in South Africa, where many have sympathy for the Palestinian quest for statehood.
In Cape Town and Pretoria, AFP reporters found people gathering to watch the ruling, which was carried in full on state television.
As the ICJ judge announced the provisional measures, applause erupted among a diverse crowd of about 30 gathered in a community centre in Cape Town, some wearing earrings and colours in support of Palestine.
“We are discussing the extent to which it can have an impact… For now it is a step in the right direction,” said medical student Kwezi Zwane, 24, as attendees embraced and commented on the ruling.
The ICJ’s rulings are binding on all parties but it has no mechanism to enforce them. Sometimes they are completely ignored.
– Anti-apartheid struggle –
“South Africa sincerely hopes that Israel will not act to frustrate the application of this order, as it has publicly threatened to do, but that it will instead act to comply with it fully, as it is bound to do,” the ministry said.
Pretoria has long been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause, with the ANC party often linking it to its own struggle against apartheid.
The October 7 Hamas attack resulted in the death of around 1,140 people in Israel, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.
At least 26,083 Palestinians, around 70 percent of them women, young children and adolescents, have been killed in the Gaza Strip in Israeli bombardments and ground offensive since then, according to the Hamas government’s health ministry.
‘End to war’: World reacts to Gaza-Israel ruling
By AFP
January 26, 2024
Israeli air strikes on Gaza continued on the day the top UN court said that it had to prevent acts of genocide - Copyright ANP/AFP Remko de Waal
The reactions to the top UN court’s ruling Friday in the Israel-Gaza case were split along the lines of the war raging in the Palestinian territory.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza and allow humanitarian aid into the besieged strip of land.
The war in Gaza started with the October 7 attack by Hamas that resulted in about 1,140 deaths in Israel, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official Israeli figures.
Militants also seized about 250 hostages and Israel says around 132 of them remain in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 dead captives.
Israel has vowed to crush Hamas and launched a military offensive that Gaza’s health ministry says has killed at least 26,083 people, about 70 percent of them women and children.
– ‘False, outrageous’ –
“The charge of genocide levelled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
– ‘No state above law’ –
“The ICJ order is an important reminder that no state is above the law,” Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki said in a video statement, adding that the ruling “should serve as a wake-up call for Israel and actors who enabled its entrenched impunity”.
– ‘Victory for justice’ –
“Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people,” said the foreign affairs ministry of South Africa, which brought the case before the ICJ.
– ‘Isolating Israel’ –
“The (International) Court of Justice’s decision is an important development which contributes to isolating Israel and exposing its crimes in Gaza,” said Palestinian militant group Hamas.
– ‘Advocate for peace’ –
“We will continue to advocate for peace and an end to war, the release of hostages, access to humanitarian aid and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, so that both nations coexist in peace and security,” said Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez.
– ‘Hope attacks end’ –
“We hope that Israel’s attacks against women, children and the elderly will come to an end,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, calling the ruling “valuable”.
– ‘Must comply with orders’ –
“Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must comply with them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation,” the European Union said.
– ‘Prevent genocide’ –
“The World Court’s landmark decision puts Israel and its allies on notice that immediate action is needed to prevent genocide and further atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza,” said Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch.
Gazans torn between pride and frustration after UN court ruling
By AFP
January 26, 2024
The court session was closely watched around the world and in the occupied West Bank - Copyright AFP Zain JAAFAR
Mai Yaghi with Hossam Ezzedine in Ramallah
Palestinians trapped in the grip of war were caught between feelings of pride and frustration on Friday following the UN’s top court saying Israel must prevent genocide in Gaza.
In the Palestinian territory’s southern city of Rafah, more than a million displaced people are struggling to survive amid bombardment and severe shortages of basic supplies.
Some who had access to electricity gathered around a television Friday to watch the International Court of Justice make an initial ruling on the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel.
“I feel proud of the court’s decision, it’s the first time that the world’s telling Israel that it crosses all lines and international law,” said Maha Yasin, who was forced to flee from the northern Gaza City to Rafah.
“At least I feel that the world has started to feel for us, and that our blood, our martyrs, our physical and mental loss is not in vain,” the 42-year-old told AFP.
More than 26,000 people have been killed in Gaza, about 70 percent of them women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
The war erupted on October 7 with an unprecedented Hamas attack which resulted in about 1,140 deaths in Israel, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official Israeli figures.
Militants also seized about 250 hostages and Israel says around 132 of them remain in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 dead captives.
The Israeli military has laid to waste swathes of Gaza in its blistering assault, with 1.7 million people forced to flee their homes according to the United Nations.
– ‘Stop the war’ –
Abu Mohammed Zaqout, 55, reached Rafah with dozens of relatives who were crammed into a tent unfit for the harsh winter weather.
“I was pinning my hopes on the court ordering a stop to the war,” he said.
“But I am happy that I lived to see the day when the world is saying to Israel that it is criminal and its war unethical,” added Zaqout.
The ICJ’s landmark decision also said Israel must facilitate “urgently needed” humanitarian aid to Gaza, where the limited number of trucks that enter are often swamped by people desperate for food.
Zaqout supported the court’s ruling, but said it would not be enough to stop the suffering.
“We need to see an end to the war on the ground. No one can bear it anymore,” he told AFP.
The court session was closely watched around the world and in the occupied West Bank, where residents gathered at a cinema in Ramallah.
“Thank you South Africa” placards were on display, but attendees were disappointed the court stopped short of ordering an immediate halt to hostilities.
“It is unacceptable for the world to stand today — after more than a hundred days — and still watch, and not make an immediate decision to stop the fire, bring in food and medicine, and evacuate the wounded,” said Hala Abu Gharbiyeh, with a South African flag in her hand.
A metres-high statue of South Africa’s anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela stands in Ramallah, while earlier this month Palestinians raised the country’s flag over the West Bank city of Bethlehem.
Back at the cinema, Palestinian Mais Shabana said she was disappointed with the court’s response to the South Africa case.
“We were very optimistic, but now we are not happy. We feel that the court could have clearly decided that there would be a ceasefire,” she said.
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel explained
By AFP
January 26, 2024
Friday's ruling is a landmark moment for the court - Copyright AFP Money SHARMA
Richard CARTER
The International Court of Justice will hand down a highly anticipated ruling on Friday in South Africa’s case against Israel over alleged genocidal acts in Gaza.
Here are some key questions about a case that has drawn global interest:
– Will the court decide whether Israel is committing genocide? –
No. At this stage, the ICJ is only deciding whether to impose emergency orders on Israel (“provisional measures” in the court’s jargon).
A ruling on whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza will be for a second stage of the procedure and is likely to take years.
The war started on October 7, when Hamas staged an unprecedented attack on Israel that left about 1,140 people dead, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.
Israel’s relentless military campaign on Gaza since has left at least 26,083 dead — about 70 percent of them women, children and adolescents — according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.
“At this stage, South Africa does not need to prove that Israel is committing genocide,” Juliette McIntyre, a lecturer in international law at the University of South Australia, told AFP.
“They simply need to establish that there is a plausible risk of genocide occurring.”
Even if the court rules against Israel, “it means that there is a plausible risk of genocide — not that there is genocide”, she said.
– What could the court do? –
South Africa has asked the ICJ to impose nine orders on Israel, including to immediately suspend military activity and to enable more humanitarian access to Gaza.
The court could order all nine of the orders, none of them, or even make up its own completely different orders.
“It seems likely that the court will grant some of the requests made by South Africa,” said Cecily Rose, an assistant professor of public international law at Leiden University.
Israel argued during the hearings that a ceasefire was unrealistic as the court could only order that on one party, since Hamas is not part of the proceedings.
However, Hamas said on the eve of the ruling that it would abide by a ceasefire order if Israel did the same.
“The court may order a ceasefire, but more likely in my opinion is an order that Israel take all measures within its power to ensure access to adequate food, water and humanitarian assistance,” McIntyre said.
– What happens next? –
From the court’s viewpoint, the case moves onto the “merits” stage, where it will determine whether Israel is actually committing genocide in Gaza.
The key is whether Israel will abide by any potential ICJ ruling.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already hinted he does not feel bound by the court.
Regardless of Israel’s reaction, the ruling will have important “ripple effects”, McIntyre said.
If the court rules there is a “risk” of genocide, “it makes it much harder for other states to continue to support Israel… states may withdraw military or other support”.
ICJ rulings are binding but it has little way of enforcing them and some states ignore them completely. Russia was ordered to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example.
However, “it creates an important historical record which may not change things on the ground right this moment but can be essential in future negotiations under new governments”, McIntyre said.
“Finally, there is the symbolic aspect which, given Israel’s context, is huge.”
– Why South Africa? –
South Africa brought the case against Israel because both countries have signed the United Nations Genocide Convention, drawn up in 1948 when the world vowed “never again” after the Holocaust.
Its filing states that Pretoria is “acutely aware” of the “particular weight of responsibility” in accusing Israel, of all countries, of breaking the Genocide Convention.
But it also says that no attack can justify alleged breaches of the convention and that Israel has “its own obligation” as a signatory to prevent genocide.
Pretoria has long been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause, with the governing African National Congress (ANC) often linking it to its own struggle against apartheid.
South Africa and Israel have in the past cut off diplomatic ties over the issue.
– What other cases are there? –
The ICJ rules on disputes between countries and is often confused with the International Criminal Court (ICC), also based in The Hague, which prosecutes war crimes by individuals.
ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan has started an investigation into events in Gaza and vowed to “step up” his probe.
Five countries including South Africa called in November for an ICC investigation into the Gaza war, and Khan says his team has gathered a “significant volume” of evidence.
International legal experts have told AFP that war crimes have probably been committed by both sides.
Finally, the United Nations has asked the ICJ to look into the legal consequences of Israel’s actions in the Palestinian Territories.
This will be an advisory opinion and will not focus on the military operation after October 7, when Hamas militants crossed into Israel.
