Ottawa shrugs off ICJ genocide verdict while cutting funds to Palestinian refugees

 

Many Western powers are now plausibly complicit in the genocide of Palestinians

On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The results were welcomed by South Africa as well as Palestinian leaders, diaspora, and solidarity activists: in its ruling, the court ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts of genocide” and to allow humanitarian aid into the deliberately starved territory. The court also ordered Israel to prevent its forces from violating the 1948 Genocide Convention “with immediate effect.”

In all, the ICJ has found that Palestinians are a protected national group at risk of irreparable harm under the Genocide Convention. The court also found plausible risk that Israeli forces are committing or will commit genocide in Gaza.

Israeli representatives had been calling for the ICJ to simply throw out the case, arguing that South Africa has no legitimate quarrel with Israel at the world’s top court. By issuing provisional measures against genocide and moving forward with South Africa’s case, the ICJ has sided with South Africa, dealing a huge blow to Israel’s already tattered credibility on the world stage.

As Andrew Mitrovica writes in Al Jazeera:

Near unanimously [15-1], the court was convinced that South Africa made a plausible case demonstrating that Israel has displayed the intent to execute genocide. As a result, the court is required, by international law, to proceed with a full hearing and, ultimately, to render a verdict on the seminal question: Is Israel guilty of the crime of genocide in Gaza?

While the court stopped short of ordering a ceasefire, the ICJ’s provisional measures would amount to a ceasefire if implemented. Essentially, the court has called for a ceasefire by implication. As South Africa’s Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor said after the ruling, “I believe that in exercising the order, there would have to be a ceasefire. Without it, the order doesn’t actually work.”

It is worth noting that during a number of previous genocide cases at the ICJ, including Bosnia in the 1990s and Myanmar in 2019, the ICJ did not directly call for a ceasefire.

The ICJ’s ruling puts the lie to the dominant claims by Western media and government officials that Israel is simply defending itself against terrorism, and its actions in Gaza, however excessive, are nonetheless justified. In short, the global majority has rejected the West’s framing of the Israeli war on Gaza.  (more...)

Ottawa shrugs off ICJ genocide verdict while cutting funds to Palestinian refugees