Defending itself from Iran’s drones and missiles cost the Israelis alone an estimated 4-5 billion shekels ($1.08-1.35billion). This does not include the cost to US citizens of $1 billion in countering Houthi and Iranian missiles and drones targeted at Israel. Israel’s initial limited response on April 19 through a drone attack on a military base in Isfahan leaves room for de-escalation of tension over a full-scale war.

Iran’s first direct attack on Israel hit the Nevatim airbase, a mere 40 miles south of Jerusalem, practically implying an Iranian credible deterrence capability if the potency of the deterrence is questioned. Prospects for a wider conflict in the region involving Russia and China remain, risking an ultimate nuclear exchange that should remain ‘unthinkable.’ Strategic partners Russia and China have Tehran’s back, and their role in West Asia’s conflict will only grow if the US doesn’t keep Israel in check. Whilst the war in Gaza and the Lebanon-Israel border continues. Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza, killing over 34000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, with the vast majority women and children, has turned public opinion against Israel. And, Israel’s attempts to destroy UNRWA — the backbone of relief efforts in Gaza — with its slow, meticulous, and often arbitrary inspection of trucks have further complicated aid delivery.

What indelibly marks these events, aside from the military and political calculations and implications for the region, is that they have occurred in violation of provisions of international law, including, but not exclusively, the breach of sovereignty, international humanitarian laws, laws of war,  crimes against humanity, wars of aggression, and according to a preliminary ICJ ruling, possibly the articles of 1948 genocide convention. Israel’s ‘ironclad’ supporter, the United States, is construed, therefore, as an accomplice in the crime of genocide through its arms transfers to Israel, and vetoes in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to end Israel’s almost seven-month-old military operation in Gaza. 

Al Jazeera English Video: “Nearly 200 bodies found in mass grave at hospital in Gaza’s Khan Younis”

A closer look at the post-Cold war period since 1990 reveals persistent US violations of international law, generally related to the 75-year-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The United States has paid a heavy financial and political, and now explicit moral, price for its protection of the state of Israel. But the biggest victim of this ‘special relation’ has been the very foundation of the liberal international order. The United States’ (along with its Western allies in NATO) double-standard views and application of provisions of international law have been detrimental to an orderly global governance, A major culprit for such liberal/illiberal dichotomy in rhetoric and practice is the US blind commitment to the state of Israel.  

The end of the Cold War promised the End of History and the beginning of a ‘New World Order.’ It promised that globalization of trade and finance and the technological revolution in information technology, transportation, and communication means the falsity of a looming ‘Clash of Civilizations.’ 

The United States experienced almost unprecedented economic prosperity in the 1990s and the European allies celebrated the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The Eastern European countries abandoned communism and joined the ranks of capitalist countries and the European Union. China continued with its miraculous economic performance welcomed Western investments and traded and cooperated in the Security Council curtailing the Iranian nuclear program. Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation similarly welcomed privatization. But,   structural adjustment policies resulted in a defunct privatization of state-owned properties, and with inadequate legal and institutional mechanisms to prevent the rise of the new oligarchs and ‘parasitic capitalism.’ 

Ironically, the new world order was to emerge on the ruins of Iraq after the 1990-91 first Persian Gulf war. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 authorized the first UNSC collective security action against an aggressor since the 1950-53 Korean War. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 triggered the first Persian Gulf war, but we also witnessed 30 scud missiles hitting Israel as Saddam Hussein attempted to expand the war and turn it into another Arab-Palestinian-Israeli war. The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) was a bloody confrontation between two Muslim countries with opposing views on Islam, power politics, and what constitutes national interest. Yet, the revolutionary state in Iran saw the liberation of al-Quds (Jerusalem) to follow the liberation of Shia holy sites in Kerbala and Najaf in Iraq. Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric and actions have remained steadfast since the advent of the revolution. 

The US Mideast policy immediately after WWII focused primarily on countering communism and securing the flow of cheap oil from the region which demanded dealing with authoritarian Arab regimes fearful of both the threat of communism and radical ideas that may threaten the status quo on the resource power parameters in the state-society relations. Still, the thorny Palestinian issue was two-pronged, and the Arab states fought against and cooperated with Israel to contain Palestinian nationalism. The Arab Israeli wars have always involved competing Arab, Israeli, and Palestinian nationalisms, compounded with inter-Arab states’ political rivalries, sectarianism, and US (and Israeli) interventions during and after the Cold War. Recall, the Arab-Israel-Palestinian wars with such hallmarks, including 1948, 1956, 1967-70, 1973, and 1982-85 (Lebanon) wars.

Regional wars bearing similar traits and related to the wider Palestinian nationalism include the first Persian Gulf War (1990-91), Intifada I (1987-1990), Intifada II (2000-2005), Lebanon (2006), and 15 wars involving Gaza alone since 1948, including the Gazan wars of 2008-09, 2014, 2018-19, and now the ongoing 2023-24 war. No wonder, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the mother of all wars in the region. The conflict over the years has fed the radicalization of politics in the region. The Islamic movements have rallied around the issue of the liberation of Palestine and al-Quds (Jerusalem) to mobilize popular support in advancing political and religious legitimacy in the absence of a viable democratic rule. The 22 authoritarian Arab states, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Türkiye have also been intimately involved with the Palestinian issue.   

The United States has relied on its hard and soft power to lead a liberal global order since World War II. The Cold War preoccupation with polarity and deterrence based on a doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) complicated the plans for a liberal international system, beginning with the creation of the Bretton-Woods gold-based, fixed-rate exchange system and its institutions—the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). The principle behind the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) eventually developed into the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, as the Europeans’ attempts at integration since 1951 progressed into the creation of the European Union in 1993. Other rule-based regional economic integration also appeared in Asia, Africa, South and North America. Contrary to the unstable interwar period that saw the rise of Nazism and Fascism, the post-WWII ‘peaceful’ international system witnessed 51 founding members of the UN in 1945 increase to 193 countries today. 

The United States’ commitment to the security of the state of Israel has been a dominant theme in its Middle Eastern policy since its creation in 1948 but also at the expense of its advocacy for a liberal-based international law and order. The US has over decades dispensed billions of dollars in economic and military aid premising it on Israel as a strategic ally in countering communism, helping the flow of oil, and keeping Arab radicalism at bay. Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding, collecting about $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) in total economic and military assistance. The US diplomatic coverage of Israel also is unconstructive; the UN data shows it has vetoed dozens of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions critical of Israel, including at least 53 since 1972.

A review of debates in Congress and data analysis also shows, “Members of Congress have consistently debated and passed resolutions in support of Israel and in repudiation of its foes, showing strong bipartisan support for Israel.” The US’s unequivocal support of Israel has seen it prevent resolutions condemning, among others, violence against protesters, illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank built since 1967. The US meanwhile has obliged its NATO allies, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan in its quest to protect Israel and in support of authoritarian Arab states!

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the ‘mother of all conflicts’ in the MENA region that has intimately influenced or been influenced by Arab nationalism, the Islamic movements, the radicalization of politics, and overall governance in the region. To the neglect of elsewhere in Africa, the Sahel region has experienced five military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger, and Gabon. Whilst, Tunisia, Chad, and Sudan have experienced constitutional coups and widespread violence in the case of Sudan. The US Africa Command since 2008  has been involved in military training of African states to counter the Russian and Chinese military and economic inroads in the Continent.  

The restoration of a global liberal order necessitates a uniform and unbiased application of the expectations, norms, and laws of international law. Since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel from Gaza, the world has witnessed the continuing degradation of the norms and laws and the expectations of behavior in the so-called international liberal order. The Israeli overreaction to the Hamas attack resembles the United States’ initial response to the terrorist attack on its soil on September 11, 2001. In that instance, the United States, for the sake of revenge, self-defense, or the restoration of international order, took measures that violated the very norms, laws, and expectations of the international system which Washington had championed for decades. The United States in less than a month began bombing Afghanistan and quickly overthrew the ruling Taliban regime and chased al Qaeda fighters across the border into Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond. This story, however, did not end there. The US declared a ‘War on Terror’ resulting in a policy of regime change beginning with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, Moammar Qaddafi in Libya, and unsuccessful attempts in Syria and Yemen.  

Estimates of direct civilians killed due to American military intervention totals stand at least 400,000 since 9/11. The number of people killed indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, is estimated at 3.6-3.8 million, though the precise figure remains unknown. This brings the estimated total of direct and indirect deaths to 4.5-4.7 million. Similarly, the Israeli overreaction after the tragic events of October 7, 2023, resulting in 1200 Israelis killed, has already led to 34,000 Palestinian dead, with women and children accounting for the majority, not accounting for thousands injured, maimed, traumatized, and remain unaccounted for. The deadly Israeli assault on Gaza has also led to the death of many journalists, members of the NGOs, and the destruction of hospitals and mosques. 

International law today remains incomplete and in need of drastic structural changes, e.g., a reform of the UNSC membership and power structure, a revisiting of the adjudication power of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) and its ‘compulsory’ jurisdiction, the World Trade’s provisions for labor and environmental protection, and a serious re-commitment to empower UN and its functional agencies with necessary resources. The United States unconditional support for Israel and its lack of attention to the welfare of peoples in the MENA region, as well as elsewhere in the developing world, in pursuit of peace, human security, and good governance, is detrimental to the universal compliance and voluntary adherence to the norms and rules of international law.    

The International Court of Justice is holding hearings Monday and Tuesday of this week regarding whether it should issue precautionary measures against Germany. Nicaragua brought the case in March, saying that the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not even attempted to “prevent what is plausibly a genocide” against Gaza Palestinians, demanding that it cease providing “political, financial and military support” to Israel.

Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Nicaragua’s ambassador to The Hague, said, “Germany seems unable to differentiate between self-defense and genocide. Germany is not fulfilling its own obligation to prevent genocide or ensure respect for international humanitarian law.”

The ambassador pointed to a German double standard. Merely on Israel’s say-so, Berlin halted financing for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Gaza. But the German government has ignored much more credible allegations that Israel itself is committing genocide in Gaza.

Israel’s charge that UNRWA was riddled with Hamas militants was fact-free and lacking in any sound evidence, and most of the countries that suspended support for UNRWA after Netanyahu’s scurrilous accusations have now restored their donations.

Argüello said, “The Palestinian people are being subjected to one of the most destructive military actions in modern history.”

He said that without the unstinting support of countries such as Germany, Israel would not be able to act with impunity.

The ambassador acknowledged that Germany recognizes a special obligation to assist the Jewish people because the National Socialist government of Germany genocided them during World War II. He observed, “that is an understandable and commendable policy if it were addressed to the Jewish people, but the State of Israel, and particularly its current Government, should not be confused and equated with the Jewish people.”

Argüello has a point. The policies of the current extremist Israeli government are often being dictated by people like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who are plausibly characterized as fascists.

For Germany to be compliant with demands of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is to compound the sins of the Holocaust, not to alleviate them. You can’t make up for mass murder committed by fascists by supporting fascists committing mass murder.

Al Jazeera English Video: “ICJ hears Nicaragua’s case against Germany over Israel’s war on Gaza”

Argüello added, “True friends of the Jewish people should emphasize the difference: the Jewish victims in the concentration camps in World War II would feel sympathy and empathize with the more than 30,000 civilians, including 25,000 mothers and children, massacred so far in Palestine, and the 20,000 orphaned children, with two mothers murdered every hour.”

Again, he makes a good point. For many people and many Jews, the Nazi genocide was a universal event in human history, with universal implications. The implications are that the world should never again stand aside and allow mass murder with impunity. For the ilk of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir the lesson of the Holocaust is instead that they should genocide their enemies quickly before those enemies can kill any more Jews. It is a tribal reading of the Nazi genocide, and itself can lead to genocidal acts.

Al Jazeera English reports that the Nicaraguan team also argued that German arms firms have made a great deal of money supplying tank shells and other ammunition to Israel for use against civilian buildings in Gaza.

There are, of course, many ironies in this story for people who like irony (i.e. the appearance of the unexpected). It is ironic that Germany should be accused of genocide once again, this time for being overly solicitous of Zionist politicians who are themselves quite willing to commit atrocities.

It is also ironic that the dictatorial government of Daniel Ortega, which has chased 30,000 people out of the country through its repression and has banned opposition politicians and closed down newspapers (including the print edition of the neoliberal La Prensa), should be the one pointing a finger at Germany on grounds of human rights abuses.

La Prensa quotes Carlos Murillo Zamora, a professor at the University of Costa Rica with expertise in international law, as saying that the Ortega government is merely grandstanding and attempting to break the isolation into which it has painted itself by posing as a champion of human rights at The Hague.

All that is no doubt true. But it is also true that the United States and Germany, by giving the extremist Netanyahu government carte blanche to commit unspeakable war crimes against civilians, has created exactly this sort of opening for critics of liberal values such as Ortega and the ayatollahs of Iran. That Ortega’s ambassador can score undeniably valid points on the failures of democratic societies to halt a genocide playing out before the world’s eyes is the fault of Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz, who have undermined the whole regime of international humanitarian law.

The US was rebuked by China, according to Akmal Dawi at VOA: “‘Security Council resolutions are binding,’ Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Tuesday.”

Beijing is correct on the law, and the Biden administration is being disingenuous. If President Biden did not want a ceasefire resolution to pass, he should have vetoed it. By abstaining and letting the world community vote on the matter, Biden has elicited a binding decision, and his officials should stop dancing around it.

The law here is clear.

Article 25 of the UN Charter, to which the US, China and Israel are all signatories, says, “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

Moreover, we could consider the actual language of the resolution, in which the UNSC

“Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”

You’d have to twist yourself into a pretzel to avoid concluding that the Security Council sees the ceasefire as binding, given the use of the verb “demand.” The UNSC isn’t suggesting. It isn’t hoping. It isn’t imploring. It is demanding.

BBC News Video: “Gaza: Fighting continues despite UN Security Council resolution calling for ceasefire | BBC News”

Washington’s hypocrisy on this matter is legendary and stunning.

After the Gulf War of 1990-1991 the UN Security Council passed resolutions demanding the disarmament of Iraq. We now know that Iraq complied. But the US and other major powers refused to believe Baghdad’s assertions or even documents in this regard.

One of the grounds that George W. Bush put forward for invading Iraq was precisely its failure to abide by those UN Security Council resolutions. He actually represented the US not as acting unilaterally for narrow American purposes but as upholding the authority of the UNSC.

Robert McMahon at Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty wrote in 2002, “Expressing frustration and alarm, U.S. President George W. Bush says Iraq’s long defiance of United Nations disarmament resolutions has placed the UN’s credibility in question.”

So disobeying the UNSC according to Washington is so serious a matter that it could get you invaded and your government overthrown. I guess that’s not non-binding.

In 2007, the UNSC, disappointed in Iran’s non-compliance with demands for it to cease its civilian nuclear enrichment activities, imposed an embargo on weapons sales by Tehran. To enforce economic sanctions against Iran, the UNSC even allowed the boarding of vessels on the high seas suspected of carrying Iranian weapons.

The UNSC also allows ships carrying North Korean goods to be boarded. Ordinarily freedom of navigation on the high seas is an absolute right in international law. But the UNSC can do as it pleases. It has placed extensive economic sanctions on Pyongyang.

The only real sense in which UNSC Resolution 2728 is “non-binding” is not a legal one but a practical one. Since the US has a veto, if the UNSC tries to sanction Israel for its defiance, as it did Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the Biden administration would use its veto to protect the fascist government presently ruling Israel. But that action is not high diplomacy, just arbitrary and disgusting partisanship that makes a mockery of international law and of ethical principles.

Finally, consider the legislative history. What did the UNSC members intend? The UN News tells us.

Russian ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia said, “‘Those who are providing cover for Israel still want to give it a free hand,’ he added, expressing hope that the wording contained in the resolution ‘will be used in the interests of peace rather than advancing the inhumane Israeli operation against the Palestinians’”.

He opposed the Biden administration’s granting of a free hand to Israel to thumb its nose at the resolution.

Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett of Guyana: “‘This demand [by the Council] comes at a significant time as Palestinians are observing the holy month of Ramadan,’ she said, noting continuing deaths in the enclave and a growing number of families left homeless.”

She called it a demand, and said that said that “after more than five months of a ‘war of utter terror and destruction’, a ceasefire is the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and others.

Doesn’t sound like a mere polite suggestion to me.

China’s Zhang Jun said, “The current draft is unequivocal and correct in its direction, demanding an immediate ceasefire, while the previous one was evasive and ambiguous.”

I note the term “unequivocal.”

Hwang Joonkook of South Korea said, “The situation must be different before and after this resolution. This will only be possible when both Israel and Hamas respect and faithfully implement this resolution.”

So, not voluntary. Binding.

Israel’s government was so furious at Joe Biden for abstaining rather than vetoing the resolution that it has canceled a planned trip to Washington. But this intransigence in the face of international law and international institutions could end up hurting Israel severely. Since the state is already under scrutiny for committing genocide by the International Court of Justice, its truculence and defiance of the UNSC can only harm its case.

In a further blow to Israeli policy, Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 of the UN Human Rights Council, issued a report Monday entitled “Anatomy of a Genocide.

Albanese, an attorney with degrees from Pisa and SOAS in London, has worked for a decade with the UN on human rights law. She is also at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University as an Affiliate Scholar.

Her report begins, “After five months of military operations, Israel has destroyed Gaza.” She points out that the Israeli military has killed over 30,000 Palestinians, included over 13,000 children, and has wounded 71,000. She says that not only has 80% of the population been made refugees but 70% of the areas where people lived have been destroyed. So they have no place to return to. Corpses have decayed “in homes, in the street or under the rubble.”

The report concludes that Israel’s policies in Gaza give “reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met.”

The Special Rapporteur finds that Israeli authorities are misusing and distorting the international law governing the prosecution of war (jus in bello), disregarding their function in protecting innocent civilian noncombatants, “in an attempt to legitimize genocidal violence against the Palestinian people.” In other words, Israeli officials’ invocation of international humanitarian law is nothing more than a “camouflage.”

The Special Rapporteur argues that genocidal projects are inherent in settler-colonial states. She cites the mass killings of the Native Americans in the US, the First Nations in Australia, and the Herrero in Namibia. Since the settler-colonial state covets the land and the resources of the native people, it has a motive for provoking the disintegration of the native people’s social institutions and very identity.

AJ+ Video: “How Israeli TV Sells Gaza’s Destruction”

The report alleges, “Israel’s settler movement and leaders have framed Gaza as a territory to be ‘re-colonized’ and its population as invaders to be expelled. These unlawful claims are integral to the project of consolidating the ‘exclusive and unassailable right of the Jewish people’ on the land of ‘Greater Israel’, as reaffirmed by Prime Minister Netanyahu in December 2022.”

One of the problems for the Israeli government’s attempts to defend itself against charges of genocide is how openly and volubly Netanyahu and his cronies have proclaimed their intentions and the racist bases for them.

Turning to the charges of genocide, the report notes that in just the first few months of the current Israeli campaign against Gaza, the Israeli army deployed

a) over 25,000 tons of explosives (equivalent to two nuclear bombs) on countless buildings

b) that these targets were chosen using Artificial Intelligence

c) that the Israeli military dropped 2000-pound “bunker buster” bombs in “densely populated areas” and even on the “safe zones” declared by that very Israeli military.

d) The Israelis killed an average of 250 people a day in this period, including 100 children a day, destroying entire neighborhoods and necessary infrastructure.

Albanese points out that by early December, the Israeli government was alleging that it had killed “7,000 terrorists” in Gaza. But at that point only 5,000 adult males had been killed, so it is clear that the Israeli authorities considered all of them terrorists.

In a compelling bit of reasoning, she points out that “This is indicative of an intent to indiscriminately target members of the protected group, assimilating them to active fighter status by default.” That is, the Israeli government’s triumphalist statistics are themselves genocidal.

She estimates moreover, that 10 children are dying of acute malnutrition daily that that over 500,000 Palestinians could die from malnutrition and poor health conditions in 2024.

So that’s the first element of genocide, “Killing members of the group.”

The report then goes down the other criteria for genocide. “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group?” Check. This includes depriving them of needed medicines and inflicting psychological harm.

Then there is “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Check.

Here she mentions the destruction of 77% of healthcare facilities, 68% of telcoms, almost 50% of roads, and 60% of Gaza’s 439,000 homes, all the universities, 60% of schools, etc.

What about “Genocidal intent”? Check.

The Israeli officials have made this one a no-brainer. Albanese writes,

50. In the latest Gaza assault, direct evidence of genocidal intent is uniquely present. Vitriolic genocidal rhetoric has painted the whole population as the enemy to be eliminated and forcibly displaced.150 High-ranking Israeli officials with command authority have issued harrowing public statements evincing genocidal intent, including as follows: (a) President Isaac Herzog stated that “an entire nation out there…is responsible” for the 7 October attack, and that Israel would “break their backbone”;151 (b) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Palestinians as “Amalek”152 and “monsters”.153 The Amalek reference is to a biblical passage in which God commands Saul “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”.154 (c) Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant referred to Palestinians as “human animals”,155 and announced “full offense” on Gaza, having “released all the restraints…”

Finally, the Israeli military has subverted basic principles of international humanitarian law, which makes a key distinction between combatants and noncombatants. In essence, Israel’s government has treated all Palestinians in Gaza as combatants. Moreover, the Israeli military has declared all civilian institutions to be Hamas “power centers,” obliterating the distinction between hospitals and military garrisons. While such “objects” can be legitimate targets if they are used by the enemy for military purposes, they are only targets while they are so being used. Israel’s army is treating them as legitimate targets if they ever were or potentially might be used by Hamas. It is thus ignoring the distinction between military and civilian objects.

She said at a pro-Palestinian gathering in Pretoria attended by a number of officials from the ruling African National Congress, “I have already issued a statement alerting those who are South African and are fighting alongside or in the Israeli Defense Forces: We are ready. When you come home, we are going to arrest you.”

Minister Pandor also called on people to create posters saying “Stop Genocide” and to demonstrate in front of the embassies of the “five primary supporters” of the Israeli campaign against Gaza. She did not name them but they certainly include the US and Britain.

There are about 70,000 Jews in South Africa, a country of about 60 million. It wasn’t reported how many of them are dual nationals or are serving in the Israeli army.

The South African government took Israel to the International Court of Justice with a charge that Tel Aviv is committing genocide in Gaza. On January 26, the ICJ issued the equivalent of a preliminary injunction against Israel on this charge, admitting its plausibility.

Hindustan Times Video: “South Africa Vows To ‘Punish’ Own Citizens Serving As Soldiers In Israel Army; ‘Will Strip Your…'”

Minister Pandor maintains that she has been the victim of an intimidation campaign, receiving online hate mail with threats of violence against her and her family that required here to request security from the government. She blames, in part, Israeli intelligence for this campaign.

Her ministry, charmingly called “International Relations and Cooperation,” just last week made a further appeal to the International Court of Justice to intervene to halt the starvation of the people of Gaza. It requested the Court to issue instructions to the effect that:

“All Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide must, forthwith, refrain from any action, and in particular any armed action or support thereof, which might prejudice the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts, or any other rights in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.

The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address famine and starvation and the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, by:

(a) immediately suspending its military operations in Gaza

(b) lifting its blockade of Gaza

(c) rescinding all other existing measures and practices that directly or indirectly have the effect of obstructing the access of Palestinians in Gaza to humanitarian assistance and basic services; and

(d) ensuring the provision of adequate and sufficient food, water, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, alongside medical assistance, including medical supplies and support.

The United Nations has warned that a fourth of the people in Gaza are at imminent risk of starvation.

South Africa’s attempt to rally the signatories of the Convention against Genocide of 1948 against Israeli actions, and its raising of the possibility of jail time for soldiers fighting the total war against Gaza, distinguishes it from most other international actors, who have done no more than express regret the for the over 31,000 Palestinian deaths in the war so far, if they have done that much.

Pandor’s comments raise the question of whether dual nationals serving in the Israeli army could be found guilty of being complicit in genocide if they return to their home countries from Israel after the war. While this outcome is difficult to imagine in the case of US returnees, the question remains open in Europe, which has strong human rights laws and European courts bound by international humanitarian law.

Failing to Ensure Basic Services, Aid

( Human Rights Watch ) – (The Hague, February 26, 2024) – The Israeli government has failed to comply with at least one measure in the legally binding order from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in South Africa’s genocide case, Human Rights Watch said today. Citing warnings about “catastrophic conditions” in Gaza, the court ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian aid,” and to report back on its compliance to the specific measures “within one month.”

One month later, however, Israel continues to obstruct the provision of basic services and the entry and distribution within Gaza of fuel and lifesaving aid, acts of collective punishment that amount to war crimes and include the use of starvation of civilians as a weapon of war. Fewer trucks have entered Gaza and fewer aid missions have been permitted to reach northern Gaza in the several weeks since the ruling than in the weeks preceding it, according to United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

“The Israeli government is starving Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians, putting them in even more peril than before the World Court’s binding order,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli government has simply ignored the court’s ruling, and in some ways even intensified its repression, including further blocking lifesaving aid.”

Al Jazeera English Video: “What happened in Gaza while Israel was meant to act to stop genocide | Al Jazeera Newsfeed “

Other countries should use all forms of leverage, including sanctions and embargoes, to press the Israeli government to comply with the court’s binding orders in the genocide case, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch found in December 2023 that Israeli authorities are using starvation as a weapon of war. Pursuant a policy set out by Israeli officials and carried out by Israeli forces, the Israeli authorities are deliberately blocking the delivery of water, food, and fuel, willfully impeding humanitarian assistance, apparently razing agricultural areas, and depriving the civilian population of objects indispensable to its survival.

Israeli authorities have kept its supply of electricity for Gaza shut off since the October 7 Hamas-led attacks. After initially cutting the entire supply of water that Israel provides to Gaza via three pipelines, Israel resumed piping on two of its three lines. However, due to the cuts and widespread destruction to water infrastructure amid unrelenting Israeli air and ground operations, only one of those lines remained operational at only 47 percent capacity as of February 20. Officials at the Gaza Coastal Municipalities Water Utility told Human Rights Watch on February 20 that Israeli authorities have obstructed efforts to repair the water infrastructure.

According to data published by OCHA and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the daily average number of trucks entering Gaza with food, aid, and medicine dropped by more than a third in the weeks following the ICJ ruling: 93 trucks between January 27 and February 21, 2024, compared to 147 trucks between January 1 and 26, and only 57 between February 9 and 21. A survey of impediments to the entry of aid faced by 24 humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza between January 26 and February 15 pointed to a lack of transparency around how aid trucks can enter Gaza, delays and denials at Israeli crossings and inspection points, and concerns about safety of trucks.

By comparison, an average of 500 trucks of food and goods entered Gaza each day before the escalation in hostilities in October, during which time 1.2 million people in Gaza were estimated to be facing acute food insecurity, and 80 percent of Gaza’s population were reliant on humanitarian aid amid Israel’s more than 16-year-long unlawful closure.

High-ranking Israeli officials have articulated a policy to deprive civilians of food, water, and fuel, as Human Rights Watch has documented. The Israeli government spokesperson said more recently that there are “no limits” to aid entering Gaza, outside of security. Some Israeli officials blame the UN for distribution delays and accuse Hamas of diverting aid or Gaza police for failing to secure convoys.

The Israeli government cannot shift blame to evade responsibility, Human Rights Watch said. As the occupying power, Israel is obliged to provide for the welfare of the occupied population and ensure that the humanitarian needs of Gaza’s population are met. The Israeli human rights group Gisha challenged the Israeli government’s claims that it is not obstructing entry or distribution of aid and also found that it is not complying with the ICJ order.

Israeli authorities have also obstructed the aid that enters Gaza from reaching areas in the north. The survey of humanitarian organizations found that “almost no aid is distributed beyond Rafah,” Gaza’s southernmost governorate. On February 20, the World Food Programme paused deliveries of lifesaving food to the north, citing lack of safety and security. Israeli forces struck a food convoy on February 5, the UN said and CNN documented.

Between February 1 and 15, Israeli authorities only facilitated 2 of 21 planned missions to deliver fuel to the north of the Wadi Gaza area in central Gaza and none of the 16 planned fuel delivery or assessment missions to water and wastewater pumping stations in the north. Fewer than 20 percent of planned missions to deliver fuel and undertake assessments north of Wadi Gaza have been facilitated between January 1 and February 15, as compared with 86 percent of missions planned between October and December, according to OCHA.

“Israel’s ground forces are able to reach all parts of Gaza, so Israeli authorities clearly have the capacity to ensure that aid reaches all of Gaza,” Shakir said.

Since the ICJ order, Israeli authorities have also apparently destroyed the offices of at least two humanitarian organizations in Gaza and taken steps to undermine the work of UNRWA, the largest provider of humanitarian aid in Gaza, which more than half of other humanitarian organizations rely on to facilitate their operations. The head of UNWRA, Philippe Lazarini, said in a February 22 letter to the UN General Assembly president that the agency has reached a “breaking point” due to multiple government suspensions of funding and Israel’s campaign to shut the agency down.

Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said on February 13 that he had blocked a US-funded flour shipment to Gaza, because it was going to UNRWA. Israel has alleged that at least 12 of the agency’s 30,000 employees participated in the October 7 attacks, which the UN is investigating.

In late December, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a multi-partner initiative that regularly publishes information on the scale and severity of food insecurity and malnutrition globally, concluded that over 90 percent of Gaza’s population is at crisis level of acute food insecurity or worse. The IPC said that virtually all Palestinians in Gaza are skipping meals every day while many adults go hungry so children can eat, and that the population faced famine if current conditions persisted. “This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country,” the group said.

On February 19, The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) found that 90 percent of children under age 2 and 95 percent of pregnant and breastfeeding women face “severe food poverty.” On February 22, Save the Children said families in Gaza “are forced to forage for scraps of food left by rats and eating leaves out of desperation to survive,” noting that “all 1.1 million children in Gaza [are] facing starvation.”

In response to a request by South Africa for additional provisional measures following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s order for Israeli authorities to explore a possible plan to evacuate Rafah ahead of a ground incursion, the ICJ said that the “perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures” throughout Gaza – but not new measures – and highlighted Israel’s duty to ensure “the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

Beyond enabling the provision of basic services and aid, the measures in the ICJ’s binding order require Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide. The ICJ issued these measures “to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible,” including “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide.” Although South Africa asked the court in its oral arguments during January hearings on the provisional measures to make any report it ordered public, the court did not indicate that it has done so.

Between January 26 and February 23, more than 3,400 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, according to figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry compiled by OCHA.

South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide is distinct from the proceedings on the legal consequences of Israel’s 57-year-occupation, which began at the ICJ on February 19.

“Israel’s blatant disregard for the World Court’s order poses a direct challenge to the rules-based international order,” Shakir said. “Failure to ensure Israel’s compliance puts the lives of millions of Palestinians at risk and threatens to undermine the institutions charged with ensuring respect for international law and the system that ensures civilian protection worldwide.”

Human Rights Watch

They pointed to the obligations laid on states by the Third Geneva Convention to ensure respect for the law: “States, whether neutral, allied or enemy, must do everything reasonably in their power to ensure respect for the Conventions by others that are Party to a conflict. This duty to ensure respect by others comprises both a negative and a positive obligation. Under the negative obligation, High Contracting Parties may neither encourage, nor aid or assist in violations of the Conventions by Parties to a conflict. Under the positive obligation, they must do everything reasonably in their power to prevent and bring such violations to an end.”

They also called for a halt to all transfers of arms to Hamas.

The joint statement said, “All States must ‘ensure respect’ for international humanitarian law by parties to an armed conflict, as required by 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international law. States must accordingly refrain from transferring any weapon or ammunition – or parts for them – if it is expected, given the facts or past patterns of behaviour, that they would be used to violate international law.”

The experts added, “Such transfers are prohibited even if the exporting State does not intend the arms to be used in violation of the law – or does not know with certainty that they would be used in such a way – as long as there is a clear risk.”

They slammed private arms manufacturers as well, saying “They have not publicly demonstrated the heightened human rights due diligence required of them and accordingly risk complicity in violations.”

As for states, they observed, “International law does not enforce itself. All States must not be complicit in international crimes through arms transfers. They must do their part to urgently end the unrelenting humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.”

They cited approvingly the decision of an appeals court in the Netherlands forbidding the export to Israel from that country of spare parts for the F-35 fighter jet. A Dutch news site quoted Judge Bas Boele as saying, “It is undeniable that there is a clear risk that the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law.” I also noted that the NL Times added that the court said, “Israel does not take sufficient account of the consequences of its attacks for the civilian population. Israel’s attacks on Gaza have resulted in a disproportionate number of civilian casualties, including thousands of children.”

They noted that the Dutch court of appeals pointed to indiscriminate bombing, the destruction of 60% of civilian homes, damage to hospitals, schools, mosques and other facilities, the displacement of 85% of the population, and the very high civilian death toll as indications that Israel is violating the laws of war.

The experts also pointed to the January 26 preliminary injunction against Israel by the International Court of Justice, which found the genocide case lodged against Tel Aviv by South Africa to be plausible and ordered that acts that constitute genocide under international law be halted by Israel.

They said, “The need for an arms embargo on Israel is heightened by the International Court of Justice’s ruling on 26 January 2024 that there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the continuing serious harm to civilians since then. This necessitates halting arms exports in the present circumstances.”

The 1948 Genocide Convention forbids countries from exporting arms into a situation where it is plausible that genocide is taking place.

The experts said, “State officials involved in arms exports may be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes, crimes against humanity or acts of genocide. All States under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and the International Criminal Court, may be able to investigate and prosecute such crimes.”

Israel’s main arms suppliers since October have been The United States, Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Australia. The experts are saying that the politicians and military men making these arms transfers to Israel could end up being prosecuted for complicity in war crimes, including the crime of genocide.

TRT World Video: “Israeli air strikes kill at least 104 people in Gaza in 24 hours”

Some countries have already halted arms shipments to Israel. They include not only the Netherlands but also Spain, Belgium’s Walloon regional government and Italy. The OHCHR says they lauded the Japanese company Itochu Corporation, as well, for ceasing exports to Israel.

The experts noted an obligation on UN member states to uphold international humanitarian law and urged that states take the following steps with Israel:

Diplomatic dialogue and protests;

– Technical assistance to promote compliance and accountability;

– Sanctions on trade, finance, travel, technology or cooperation;

– Referral to the Security Council and the General Assembly;

– Proceedings at the International Court of Justice;

– Support for investigations by the International Criminal Court or other international legal mechanisms;

– National criminal investigations using universal jurisdiction and civil suits; and

– Requesting a meeting of the parties to the Geneva Conventions.

Note that the ICJ proceedings have already been initiated. The Security Council has three times voted to impose a ceasefire, but the Biden administration vetoed it in each case. The General Assembly has also voted for a ceasefire but has no executive power.

The OHCHR press release listed the experts:

Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; Cecilia M. Bailliet, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity; Claudia Mahler, Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons; Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; Livingstone Sewanyana, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Surya Deva, Special Rapporteur on the right to development; Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on foreign debt, other international financial obligations and human rights; Ashwini K.P., Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; Paula Gaviria Betancur, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons; Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; Tomoya Obokata, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences; Carlos Salazar Couto (Chair-Rapporteur), Sorcha MacLeod, Jovana Jezdimirovic Ranito, Chris M. A. Kwaja, Ravindran Daniel, Working Group on the use of mercenaries; Robert McCorquodale (Chair-Rapporteur), Fernanda Hopenhaym (Vice-Chair), Pichamon Yeophantong, Damilola Olawuyi, Elzbieta Karska, Working Group on business and human rights; Barbara G. Reynolds (Chair), Dominique Day, Bina D’Costa, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing; Dorothy Estrada Tanck (Chair), Claudia Flores, Ivana Krstić, Haina Lu, and Laura Nyirinkindi, Working group on discrimination against women and girls; and Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967; Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences; Fabián Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.

The statement is endorsed by: Aua Baldé (Chair-Rapporteur), Gabriella Citroni (Vice-Chair), Angkhana Neelapaijit, Grażyna Baranowska, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Perez, Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; and David R. Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment.

The Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Groups are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organisation and serve in their individual capacity.

The Security Council What’s in Blue site says that the US text calls for a “temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable, based on the formula of all hostages being released.”

According to Borger the draft goes on to state that the Security Council “determines that under current circumstances a major ground offensive into Rafah would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement including potentially into neighboring countries, which would have serious implications for regional peace and security, and therefore underscores that such a major ground offensive should not proceed under current circumstances”.

What’s in Blue says that Algeria’s resolution in favor of an immediate ceasefire, to be debated Tuesday morning, will be vetoed by the United States. Algeria developed its resolution on the basis of the January 26 ruling by the International Court of Justice issuing a preliminary injunction against Israel on the grounds that it is plausibly committing genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.

The US insists that any resolution condemn the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel, which other Security Council members have been unwilling to include, since they do not wish to couple it with the issue of Israel’s disproportionate response in Gaza. Algeria’s text lacks such a reference, though it does call for the release of the dozens of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

ABC 7 Chicago Video: “US circulates rival UN resolution for temporary Gaza cease-fire

It appears that after it vetoes the Algerian resolution, the US will table its own call, which is more favorable to the Israeli war effort. It asks not for an immediate permanent ceasefire but only a temporary cessation of hostilities as soon as Israel finds it “practicable.”

It is, however, widely believed that any “temporary” ceasefire would likely be the de facto end of this Gaza campaign. Israel will find it difficult to start the war back up thereafter, especially in the March-April Ramadan fasting period when there are special sensibilities among Muslims worldwide.

The US had declined to call for a ceasefire, even a temporary one, for the past couple of months since the last pause ended. The Biden administration cautioned against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s plan for an invasion of Rafah, but did not seem inclined to do more than frown about it.

So the new resolution, however hedged about and favorable to Israel it may be, is nevertheless a huge about-face for Mr. Biden. It puts him on a collision course with Mr. Netanyahu, who says he insists on the invasion of Rafah.

Why is Biden at long last taking even a feeble practical stand at the UN?

Let me broach some informed guesses in response to this question.

First, Biden is getting enormous pressure from Egypt and other Muslim states to forestall a Rafah campaign that would force the Palestinians of Gaza into the Sinai Peninsula. The Wall Street Journal and other right wing US newspapers may think that there is nothing you couldn’t bribe the Egyptians into accepting. Receiving 2.2 million Palestinian refugees into a Sinai Peninsula which is already a severe security problem, however, is not acceptable to Abdelfattah al-Sisi and the rest of the officer corps. No amount of foreign aid or debt forgiveness could cover the enormous costs such a development would incur for Egypt. The US draft resolution refers obliquely to the Egypt dilemma, which suggests that Biden is trying to mollify Cairo. And it isn’t only Egypt. Biden’s team, including Antony Blinken, are auditioning for the role of Jared Kushner 2.0 by trying to add Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords. My suspicion is that Mohamed Bin Salman has told Blinken hell will freeze over first, if Israel goes through with a Rafah massacre. The Saudis may hate Hamas, but they hate unrest among their own citizens more, and the Saudi populace is boiling with anger.

Second, Biden is probably tired of having all his campaign rallies disrupted by people shouting “How many kids did you kill today?” Biden’s win in 2020 depended heavily on the youth and African American vote, and both groups are deeply unsettled by Biden’s complaisance toward Netanyahu’s butchery. The president cannot afford to lose Black voters, many of whom identify with the Palestinians. This war is disastrous for Biden’s reelection campaign and it is incredible that his team cannot see that.

Third, and this is just speculation on my part, the Ukrainians are losing the war with Russia because they don’t have enough artillery shells. President Volodymyr Zelensky more or less admitted it at last weekend’s Munich Security Conference. It could well be that the Israelis are proving such artillery shell hogs that the Pentagon is beginning to have to stiff Zelensky to keep the Israelis supplied. A Rafah campaign would put enormous pressure on the ammunition supply train, which is already stretched to the breaking point, from all accounts.

Fourth, Biden has asked Netanyahu to protect civilian noncombatants in Gaza, and has been rebuffed by Tel Aviv. Netanyahu and his ultra-Right Kahanaist government say they will do as they please regardless of Biden’s wishes. Leaking this draft resolution to the newspapers and then pushing it at the Security Council is a way for Biden to pressure Netanyahu and his cabinet to wind down the war without a further massive bloodbath in Rafah. Exerting pressure through the UN gets Biden off the hot seat with pro-Israel voters, since if the resolution passes it will be multi-lateral. It is therefore preferable in an election year to standing up to Netanyahu by, for example, cutting off ammunition, which Biden could do.

The IOL says that President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed Tuesday that South Africa has inquired with the ICJ whether it needs to issue another preliminary judgment to stop Israel’s planned offensive against Rafah. The Court is permitted to issue provisional orders at any time without having to convene to decide the case finally.

Lizeka Tandwa at the Mail & Guardian reports that the further submission to the court pointed out that “Rafah is the last refuge for the surviving people in Gaza.”

Vincent Magwenya, the spokesman for South African’s president, posted this statement to the presidency web site:

The South African Government has made an urgent request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider whether the decision announced by Israel to extend its military operations in Rafah, which is the last refuge for surviving people in Gaza, requires that the court uses its power to prevent further imminent breach of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza.

Under Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court, “The Court may at any time decide to examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures which ought to be taken or complied with by any or all of the parties.”

In a request submitted to the court yesterday (12 February 2024), the South African government said it was gravely concerned that the unprecedented military offensive against Rafah, as announced by the State of Israel, has already led to and will result in further large scale killing, harm and destruction. This would be in serious and irreparable breach both of the Genocide Convention and of the Court’s Order of 26 January 2024.

South Africa trusts this matter will receive the necessary urgency in light of the daily death toll in Gaza.

IOL reports that Naledi Pandor, Minister of International Relations and Co-operation, said that South Africa would not remain silent as Israel carried out atrocities in Gaza.

Zane Dangor, Director-General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, said that Israel is already in violation of of the measures ordered by the Court on January 26, according to TimesLive.

Al Jazeera English: “South Africa makes urgent request to ICJ on Israel’s Rafah offensive”

On January 26, the International Court of Justice instructed Israel to cease actions in Gaza that meet the definition of genocide in international law:

The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:

(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such . . . The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.

Not only has the Israeli government thumbed its nose at the court’s preliminary injunction, continuing to kill dozens of non-combatants daily and continuing to bomb dense population centers, including refugee camps, but now is planning an operation that human rights organizations are warning would be catastrophic.

The International Court of Justice was established to settle disputes among United Nations member states. The court has found that South Africa has standing to bring this action, which complains that Israel is violating the 1948 Genocide Convention to which both it and South Africa are signatories. Although it may take a long time for the court to rule on whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, the court has already issued the equivalent of a preliminary injunction, recognizing the plausibility of the South African allegations.