Some lawyers see that the crimes stated by the ICJ are not forbidden as long as the occupation conducts them without “genocidal intent”.
-
Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories during a conference at the European HQ of the UN in Switzerland, July 11, 2023. (AP)
UN special rapporteur on the occupied territories, Francesca Albanese, declared that “Israel” is violating orders issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to immediately protect Palestinians’ rights and cease all activities amounting to genocide.
“Israel” has until February 23 to hand over a report to the ICJ regarding its compliance with the six orders issued.
“Israel” is required to “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide” against Palestinians in Gaza, after proof was found of “discernibly genocidal and dehumanizing rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials.”
The ICJ orders also obliged it to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.”
“Israel” was also ordered to prevent the killing of Palestinians, causing serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births – all within the context of the Genocide Convention.
However, some lawyers see that the aforementioned crimes are not forbidden as long as the occupation conducts them without genocidal intent, and “Israel” stated its belief that the court will not test in full. Albanese, however, said otherwise.
Read next: The World v. ‘Israel’: Is Justice Really Blind?
Despite the court ruling, Albanese stated that the vicious violence and demolition of residential infrastructure have not ceased.
Testing the world order
In an interview for The Guardian, she said, “The fatalities are not solely the result of bombings and sniper attacks,” adding, “They also occur due to a scarcity of medical supplies and treatment, and, most distressingly, due to inadequate access to food and potable water, forcing consumption of contaminated or polluted water.”
According to other lawyers, how much “Israel” complies is a test not only for the ICJ but for other signatories of the Genocide Convention.
A visiting fellow at New York University School of Law, Yussef Al Tamimi, noted that ICJ case law – specifically the Bosnia v Serbia ruling in 1996 – articulates that states are responsible and are required “to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible.”
He stressed that this does not exclude states with “the capacity to influence effectively the action of persons likely to commit, or already committing, genocide.” He recalled the Serbia ruling when the ICJ found that “a state bore responsibility if it was aware, or should normally have been aware, of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed.”
What does this mean for these states, most notably those that provide money, weapons, and intel to “Israel” and its genocidal campaign in Gaza? This spells stricter obligations on them, Al Tamimi said.
South Africa has already accused “Israel” of violating one of the measures imposed on it by the International Court of Justice, ordering the occupation to protect Palestinian civilian lives.
No Court credibility
South Africa’s Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor highlighted last week how Israeli occupation forces directly killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians just days after, and in spite of, the ICJ ruling.
“I can’t be dishonest. I believe the rulings of the court have been ignored. Hundreds of people have been killed in the last three or four days. And clearly, Israel believes it has the license to do as it wishes,” she told reporters in Pretoria, deriving parallels between Gaza and Rwanda amid the silence of the world on the Palestinian death toll.
Moreover, Pandor also highlighted how the International Criminal Court treated Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin differently in their respective cases. Reportedly, it seemed significantly easier for the ICC to charge Putin for war crimes, but Netanyahu has been let off the hook.
In an exclusive statement for Al Mayadeen on January 27, Pandor affirmed that the details of the ICJ decision and temporary measures that “Israel” has been mandated to comply with are indicative of the seriousness with which the ICJ is dealing with the lawsuit filed by her country.
