ICJ on Gaza: more protection but no ceasefire
The International Court of Justice in The Hague has called on Israel to better protect the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, but did not order an immediate end to the military offensive. The ICJ has not yet ruled on the claim of genocide brought by South Africa, but has declared that the matter does fall within its jurisdiction. Commentators debate the potential consequences for all the involved parties.
Both sides unhappy
The ruling is a balancing act, La Stampa explains:
“The Palestinians are disappointed by the failure to call for an immediate ceasefire. Israel is shocked by a sort of indictment of 'possible genocide', a word it would never have wanted to be associated with the Jewish state. The decisions taken by the judges have ultimately angered both sides. But the implications are more serious for Benjamin Netanyahu's government, even though it has received a clear condemnation of Hamas' actions, with an order for the hostages to be released. Whether the bloodshed in Gaza really amounts to genocide will only be decided by the court much later.”
No real progress
Eldiario.es doubts that the court orders can be enforced:
“The Hague Court's decisions are binding - even provisional ones like this one. ... However, the ICJ has no means of enforcing compliance. It's up to the Security Council to take the necessary measures to enforce the court's decisions. But there are five countries on the Security Council with veto power, one of which is the US. ... In short, we are where we were before. What happens in Palestine depends on Washington, because without the support of the US Israel would have had to withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967 long ago. Nevertheless, a judgement by the ICJ carries great political weight internationally and cannot be ignored by either Israel or the US.”
A strong warning
The pressure on Israel and the US is growing, says The Irish Times:
“The landmark ruling is a reflection of how seriously the ICJ takes the allegations. ... The measures set out in the order amount to a strong warning to Israel that in it must be conscious of its obligations under the Genocide Convention when it comes to Palestinians in Gaza. It also serves as an indirect warning to Israel's allies - most notably the United States - that they too have an obligation not to be complicit in breaches of the Convention. ... Israel should be in no doubt now that the international community will endeavour to hold it to account for how it is going about [its objective of destroying Hamas].”
It's Hamas that dreams of genocide
Die Welt finds the ruling shameful:
“Israel has no genocidal intentions in Gaza. It is Hamas that really dreams of genocide. It attacked civilians on 7 October, systematically torturing, raping and murdering them. There are thousands of comments by Hamas people calling for the genocide of the Jews. But Hamas is not in the dock, even though it is breaking every international law. ... If Israel has indeed committed war crimes, they will be punished. That is good and right. But Hamas is not having to face the international court. And so this ruling contributes to the public perception that once again it is Israel that is the only guilty party in this war.”
Question of intentions remains unanswered
Alper Ali Riza, the first Cypriot national to be appointed a Queen's Counsel in the UK, comments in the Cyprus Mail:
“When the case comes to trial in years to come, the main issue is going to be a question of fact, namely: whether Israel's destruction of Gaza was done in order to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as a group or to defend herself. ... According to Israel the death, harm and intolerable conditions of life in Gaza are collateral damage because Hamas uses its civilian population as human shields. ... But it has to be said that the constant relocation of nearly 2 million people to areas they are told are safe that are then bombarded is no way to protect civilians and there was nothing collateral about the intolerable living conditions inflicted on them.”