The International Court of Justice in Hague in a judgement announced that Israel must take action to prevent genocidal violence by its armed forces in Palestine. The ICJ ordained Israel to take measures to block and take punitive actions against incitement of genocide, and to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza and the occupied territories. South Africa had referred the ICJ accusing Israel of committing mass genocide of Palestinians post October 7 Hamas invasion. However, the ICJ did not call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, a demand put forth by lawyers representing Israel at the ICJ. They pleaded that any ceasefire in the war-torn occupied territories of Palestine would allow Hamas fighters to regroup. The world hailed the ICJ decision as ‘landmark’ and ‘historic’, but does it really deserve these appreciations?

The Judgement said, “At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention”. The 1948 Genocide Convention, enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The rulings of ICJ are final and there is no court of appeal above. The Israeli hothead PM Benjamin Netanyahu reacted in a way that was anticipated. He reiterated that Israel would do anything to defend itself and that the genocide charges levelled against it by the top international court were outrageous. Though the court ordained Israel to submit a report on the actions it will be taking to prevent a ‘genocide’, there is no binding force to enact the decisions of ICJ. Whether the report will be submitted or not, this remains the sole discretion of Israel.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is to meet next week over the decision by the ICJ calling for Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza. This development is being seen as a major leap towards a pronouncement of ceasefire in Gaza, a demand of the international community that has been vetoed time and again by Israel’s longstanding partners in crime, the United Kingdom and the USA. However, the ruling provides hope for the international community, most importantly, the people of Gaza who are bearing the brunt of Israel’s reckless aerial bombing spree. Since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, more than 26000 Palestinians including women and children have lost their lives. The rapid pace in which the intensity of the conflict grew, where schools and even hospitals were not spared from bombing, one may conclude that maybe it took too long for the international institutions to intervene and pass a ruling that may contribute to a ceasefire.

It was South Africa – the longstanding ally of the cause of Palestinians that took Israel backed by the powerful USA to the ICJ for its genocidal attacks on helpless Palestinians. The unfortunate fact that it was not Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, or any other Muslim country, but South Africa, raises a question mark on the unity of Muslim world today. The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), the so called 41 Nation Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), the League of Arab States (LAS), and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), have all remained nothing but silent spectators, whose response remained confined to a few statements condemning Israel’s actions. By keeping their silence and inaction, the Muslim world has been nothing but party to the genocide of Palestinians.

Israel and the US both are members of the ICJ, hence, any ruling by the top international court shall be considered binding. The ruling that says a genocide has indeed been committed might be years away from today, but the majority judges have ordained Israel to prevent deaths of innocent civilians. Since there is no enforcing mechanism in place, big powers often ignore ICJ rulings. More recently, Russia refused to acknowledge ICJ decision that asked Moscow to exit Ukraine. On the other hand, China has time and again ignored ICJ rulings regarding the state of Uyghur population. The US has also refused to comply with ICJ verdicts on the historic issue of Panama Canal. So, when it comes to making the powerful states obey, the ICJ rulings often go in vain. Israel may not be as strong as China, Russia, or the US, but as a matter of fact, for decades it has unconditionally been backed by the USA, UK, and France. Israel has strong lobbies in the west that allegedly play an important role in electoral politics in the EU and the US. The ICJ ruling may contribute to a ceasefire but its hard to imagine if it ever be accounted for brutally murdering more than 26,000 Palestinians within a span of 3 months.