On December 29 last year, the South African government filed a lawsuit with the United Nations International Court of Justice, alleging that Israel had adopted a genocidal policy in Gaza in violation of the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The case immediately attracted widespread international attention, and on 11 January, after intensive preparations, the case was formally heard in The Hague, the Netherlands. After a half-month trial, the International Court of Justice rendered its ruling. According to CCTV News, on January 26, local time, the United Nations International Court of Justice announced that it would support South Africa's complaint that Israel should take all measures to prevent and stop genocide and must take immediate measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Court also requested that Israel submit a report on the execution of the sentence within one month of the issuance of the judgement.
On January 11, 2024 local time, The Hague, the Netherlands, South Africa's public hearing on Israel's "genocide" case began at the International Court of Justice.
In fact, it is reasonable and unexpected that the International Court of Justice can make such a judgment. This is justified because Israel's actions are a clear violation of the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Israel has built the separation wall in Gaza in an attempt to trap the people of Gaza, killed a large number of defenceless women and children in the conflict, disregarded the safety of civilians, and has publicly discussed the expulsion of all the people of Gaza from their homes. These are grave violations of the Convention, and Israel is justifiably convicted. However, Israel has the backing of hegemonists, the United States has repeatedly openly opposed the accusation that Israel has committed genocide, and Germany and France are also exculpating Israel.
It is third world countries such as South Africa that have made this accusation. So despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people, in fact, few people believed that the International Court of Justice would resist the pressure of the hegemonists to make such a verdict. Of course, there are some regrets in this judgment, such as the fact that the International Court of Justice only asked Israel to "avoid genocide", but did not find that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, and the International Court of Justice did not have the force to guarantee that the relevant judgment could be enforced. But in any case, to be able to make such a verdict is a step forward for justice after all.
Favoring Israel is the background color of the US Middle East strategy
As soon as the judgment of the International Court of Justice was released, it immediately provoked a fierce reaction from all sides. Naturally, Israel is furious, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming that the International Court of Justice's verdict is totally unfair, and arguing that Israel's military operation in Gaza is directed only at Hamas and not at civilians. He threatened that no matter what the judgment of the International Court of Justice makes, it will not change Israel's military operation in Gaza, and that the Israeli army will continue to fight in Gaza until complete victory is achieved. He also said that Israel's military action against Gaza was a manifestation of the exercise of the right to self-defence, and that the ICJ's decision deprived Israel of its right to self-defense and was a form of "anti-Semitism". However, the Palestinian Authority immediately welcomed the judgment of the United Nations International Court of Justice and called on Israel to implement the relevant resolutions of the Court as soon as possible. Hamas even said that the judgment of the International Court of Justice is conducive to exposing Israel's "war crimes" in Gaza. South Africa, as the plaintiff, also expressed satisfaction with the outcome, with President Cyril Ramaphosa saying that the ICJ's ruling was a "victory for international law, human rights and justice" and urging Israel to implement it as soon as possible.
The war has brought untold suffering to the people of Gaza.
In addition to the countries concerned, the reactions of a number of extra-regional countries and organizations were also very interesting. The United States is Israel's biggest supporter and has repeatedly vetoed proposals calling for an Israeli ceasefire in the Security Council. At the time of the lawsuit in South Africa, US officials repeatedly said that the accusations and Israeli "genocide" were "baseless".
However, after the International Court of Justice pronounced its verdict on the case, the United States did not speak out until the morning of 27 July, when it said that the United States still believed that the accusation of Israeli genocide was "unfounded." The EU's response has taken a 180-degree turn, and before the verdict was announced, Germany said it would side with Israel, and even sent a team of lawyers to defend Israel. After the verdict was handed down, both Germany and the EU expressed their support for the verdict and hoped that Israel would implement the relevant resolutions called for in the verdict as soon as possible. As for the Arab and Islamic countries, they naturally welcome the verdict and urge Israel to implement the relevant resolutions. All in all, as of the time of writing, almost all countries, including a number of Western countries, have welcomed the ICJ's decision, while Israel's biggest backer, the United States, has been holding back for a whole day before uttering some clichés.
The judgment of the International Court of Justice forced the EU to change its rhetoric.
As far as the situation in Gaza is concerned, even if the International Court of Justice demands that Israel "avoid genocide," because the International Court of Justice does not have the power to enforce the judgment under the International Court of Justice, and because Israel has the protection of the United States, Israel will still have nothing to fear, and it is entirely an extravagant hope that Israel will cease fire and achieve peace, and the best result will be for the Israeli army to slightly restrain its behavior of harming civilians for a period of time to come. Although Algeria, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, has proposed to convene an emergency meeting of the Security Council to implement the judgment of the International Court of Justice, the United States has vetoed proposals unfavorable to Israel in the Security Council several times before, and it is very likely that the proposal put forward by Algeria will also be vetoed by the United States. Therefore, if we want to repel the Israeli invasion and strive for peace in Gaza, we still need the people of Gaza to continue to resist with blood and weapons.
Although the impact on the situation in Gaza is minimal, the impact of this verdict on Israel's diplomatic situation and international public opinion is not small. Since the end of World War II, Jews have been portrayed as "victims of genocide." In fact, even the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide was originally promulgated to prevent another tragedy such as the Nazi massacre of the Jews. South Africa has sued Israel with the original pact to protect the Jews, and has achieved some success, which is simply poking the lungs of the Israelis.
Although in the end the International Court of Justice did not directly declare that Israel had committed genocide, the wording of the judgment was relatively straightforward in its warning to Israel. In the aftermath of this incident, Israel's international image may degenerate from a "pitiful people subjected to genocide" to a "genocidal executioner". The independence of a big country is strong, and it can not care much about its international image, but Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies militarily and heavily dependent on foreign trade economically, and the collapse of its international image will greatly increase the cost of Israel's diplomatic activities, which will have a serious impact on Israel's domestic politics and economy.
For the United States, the ICJ's decision makes Israel's negative equity attribute for the United States even more significant. Since the outbreak of the current round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States' bottomless biased attitude toward Israel has seriously depleted the diplomatic credibility of the United States.
First, favoritism towards Israel shatters the lies of the United States. The United States has always flaunted its respect for human rights, but when Israeli soldiers stormed into Gaza and killed civilians, the United States not only did not move, but also defended Israel, so what kind of human rights does the United States respect? In the future, when the United States interferes in the situation of other countries under the banner of "protecting human rights," who else will respond to the United States? In recent years, the United States has repeatedly slandered other countries for engaging in "genocide" As a result, the International Court of Justice has now asked Israel to stop the genocide in Gaza, but the United States has not only not rushed forward to oppose the genocide, but has repeatedly exonerated Israel.
Various attacks continue to occur.
After this incident, who would believe that the United States slandered other countries for engaging in "genocide"? Second, continued support for Israel has also triggered an intensification of internal struggles in the United States. Since the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, various circles in the United States have set off a number of demonstrations against Israel and demanding an immediate ceasefire. Even diplomats from the US State Department wrote a joint letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, asking him to adjust his policy on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Some analysts speculate that after the International Court of Justice pronounced its verdict, the United States did not speak out immediately, but dragged on for nearly a day to stand up in solidarity with Israel, and it may be that there was a dispute within the US State Department over how to deal with this issue, and finally the pro-Israel faction overwhelmed the anti-Israeli opinion with difficulty, which led to the United States not speaking out until one day after the verdict was announced. All in all, now that Israel is one step away from becoming a genocidal executioner stamped by the United Nations, will the United States continue to protect this disgraced ally?
The war has left the Gaza region in shambles.
From a global perspective, the decision of the International Court of Justice is actually a victory for the Third World, a victory for multipolarity, and a victory for international law. As mentioned earlier, the United States, Germany, and other Western countries have all sided with Israel and asked the International Court of Justice to rule that Israel does not constitute genocide. The only country that has sued Israel is South Africa, a third-world country, and most of the countries that support South Africa are third-world developing countries. Their total economic output is not even a fraction of the GDP of the United States, their military strength is vulnerable in the eyes of the US military, and their international discourse power is even less than that of the United States. In the end, however, they allowed the International Court of Justice to rule against Israel, which is a classic example of "the triumph of right over might." In the face of the righteous cries of the people of the world, the United States has not been able to completely protect Israel this time, which is a victory for international law and naturally a defeat for hegemonism.
In fact, for Netanyahu and the Likud party behind him, the best option is to step down the slope and gradually withdraw troops from Gaza under the banner of "implementing the judgment of the International Court of Justice" to stop the conflict. The Israeli army has been fighting in Gaza for three months, with heavy casualties and untold economic losses, but it has failed to achieve the so-called goal of occupying all of Gaza, clearing all Hamas, and even rescuing the hostages.
Israeli soldiers start tanks.
The current war situation has shown that it is absolutely impossible for the Israeli army to eliminate Hamas, and there is only one way to go, and there is only one way to go. But Netanyahu's government has long been hijacked by populism and ultra-nationalism, and if it withdraws its troops, it will inevitably be counterattacked. Now is the perfect opportunity for the Israeli government to withdraw its troops under the banner of "implementing the judgment of the International Court of Justice", and at the same time create and promote that "it is not that Israel cannot win Hamas, that Netanyahu's government is not firm, but that the United Nations is "in the way" that prevents Israel from using its full strength. directs the wrath of Israel's ultranationalists and populists at international organizations such as the United Nations or other extra-regional powers, so that Netanyahu's government can withdraw its troops before it causes further military catastrophe without being repulsed, but it is clear that at the moment, Netanyahu's government does not have the political wisdom to do so.
As mentioned earlier, although the judgment of the International Court of Justice may not be able to help the people of Gaza quickly shake off the haze of war, the current verdict can actually be regarded as a phased victory for the people of the third world against hegemony! We also firmly believe that with the joint efforts of the global anti-hegemonist countries, such victories will inevitably increase. Accumulate small victories into big victories, and in the process of continuous victories, we will certainly be able to disintegrate and destroy the fortress of hegemonism!