*** BREAKING ****
The ICJ just ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The Court imposes several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law. A final ruling will still take more time, but this ruling will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.
This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement - Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions - not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of the manner that it could delegitimize Israel internationally. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel's legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.
Just as much as Israel's political system has publicly been increasingly associated with apartheid in the past few years, following groundbreaking reports by major human rights organizations such as Amnesty, Israel will now increasingly be publicly associated with genocide - as will likely those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the US under Biden.
The implications for the United States, as a result, are also significant. Firstly because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling. Instead, the matter will go to the Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or to allow the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”
So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ's decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine & Syria, the US and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.
The double standards of US foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling. It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.
It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct in terms of genocide. Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses - and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that can fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.
Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel's conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.
This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around. As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.
This ruling may also boost those arguing that they, as signatories of the Genocide Convention, have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation. What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the US and UK’s military action against the Houthis?
The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The US is rather accustomed and comfortable setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions.
Europe is not.
International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.
Final point: The mere application of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct. Plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application. If so, it shows that the Court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.
[This analysis was written by Trita Parsi on X immediately following the ruling. Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of The Quincy Institute For Responsible Statecraft ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further thoughts: I think it is significant that the president of the ICJ/World Court, Joan Donaghue, is an American. Despite the Biden Admin's statement that this case is "meritless, counterproductive and lacking basis in facts," she voted against Israel on all the injunctions. This is also the case for judges from other countries that are allies of Israel, proving that the ICJ functioned without fear or favor. Only Israel's ad hoc judge and the judge from Uganda down-voted any of the injunctions.
Predictably US media outlets are spinning this historic decision by emphasizing almost exclusively the fact that the ICJ did not order an immediate and complete ceasefire, which S Africa requested. But to appreciate what just happened I encourage all who are interested to skip the remarkably biased media on this issue here, and simply watch the proceedings which were live-streamed earlier this morning. Let there be no doubt that Israel (and by extension the US which enables its actions) has been condemned for potentially genocidal acts. Israel has been given one month to comply with injunctions that are delineated in the proceedings in the following video. They must submit a progress report on their compliance to the measures in 31 days. Almost all the substantive accusations made against Israel by South Africa in this case have been deemed serious enough to warrant the *prevention of genocide* under international humanitarian law. The US and Israeli dismissal of this case as "meritless and not based on facts" is no longer possible to take seriously on the international stage. The list of egregious acts presented in the proceedings truly shocks the conscience, and agrees with S Africa's presentation in the court 2 weeks ago. The ICJ also quoted UN officials and reports frequently to substantiate S Africa's accusations in the proceedings. Israel (and by extension the US) have been warned to change course. It now remains to be seen whether or not they will.
No comments:
Post a Comment