World Court orders halt to Israeli offensive in Rafah
Maureen Clare Murphy, Electronic Intifada, May 24 2024
The International Court of Justice ordered a halt to Israel’s military offensive and any other action in Rafah “which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” While warmly welcomed by supporters of Palestinian rights, the court order handed down on Friday stops short of an unequivocal demand to end hostilities in Rafah and for the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the entirety of Gaza, as requested by South Africa. The court observed that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate despite previous legally binding orders demanding that Israel allow the immediate and effective provision of basic services and humanitarian aid to the territory. The judges stated that they were unconvinced that Israel had taken care to ensure the security of civilians by ordering the evacuation of Rafah. Nor were the judges swayed by the response given by Israel when asked about the conditions in and passage to its unilaterally declared “humanitarian zones,” including al-Mawasi. Many champions of Palestinian rights interpreted the provisional measures as ordering a halt to Israel’s offensive in Rafah without any condition. Others found the language to be convoluted. Some court judges who weighed in on the measure in statements appended to the ruling said that the order to halt Israel’s offensive in Rafah was limited to the extent that it “may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
Aharon Barak, Israel’s ad hoc judge, stated in a dissenting opinion that the provisional measure concerning Rafah “merely reaffirms Israel’s existing obligations” under the Genocide Convention. He added that the “qualified” order means that “Israel is not prevented from carrying out its military operation in Rafah as long as it fulfills its treaty obligations.” According to Barak, “the military offensive in Rafah does not plausibly raise questions under the Genocide Convention.” The Israeli judge contended that “there is no evidence of intent,” the threshold that must be met for the crime against humanity of genocide. Julia Sebutinde, a judge from Uganda and vice-president of the court who voted against all measures alongside Barak, likewise stated that she viewed the order as qualified.
Judge Georg Nolte of Germany asserted that the court order “does not address military operations outside Rafah and that the measure obliging Israel to halt the current military offensive in Rafah” is conditional. Bogdan Aurescu, a judge from Romania, explained that the provisional measure was qualified. The jurist added that the court could have stated that the measures indicated “do not affect the right of Israel to conduct operations” in conformity with international law “to protect its civilian citizens and to free the hostages still held in the Rafah area by armed groups.” Aurescu regretted that the court did not include “a measure by which it could have asked Israel to make demarches to implement with immediate effect UNSCR 2728 (2024), including its provision on a ‘lasting sustainable ceasefire.’” That resolution, adopted in March, demanded a immediate but temporary ceasefire, the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages” and “the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale.” Dire Tladi, a South African judge, similarly said that the Rafah order refers to “offensive” operations and that “legitimate defensive actions, within the strict confines of international law, to repel specific attacks, would be consistent with the order of the court.” Tladi added that what would not be consistent with the order is the “continuation of the offensive military operation in Rafah, and elsewhere, whose consequences for the rights protected under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide has been devastating.”
The other three measures ordered by the court on Friday left far less room for interpretation. The new provisional measures, similar to an injunction or restraining order, also include an order to open Rafah crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border “for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.” The judges also ordered Israel to allow UN missions unimpeded access to Gaza “to investigate allegations of genocide” and to submit a report to the court within one month “on all measures taken to give effect to this order.” The new set of provisional measures, the third in the case of South Africa vs Israel, reiterates what the court has already demanded of and has been brazenly flouted by Israel. In January, the court stated in an interim ruling that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and called on Israel to “take all measures within its power” to prevent violations of articles of the Genocide Convention, to which it is a state party. The judges also ordered Israel to prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide, enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza and to prevent the destruction of evidence. The second set of provisional measures issued in late March ordered Israel to take “necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the UN, the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.” The judges also ordered Israel to ensure that “its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.”
In a separate case initiated by Nicaragua, the court declined to issue emergency measures barring German arms exports to Israel as sought by the Central American state. But in their ruling in the Nicaragua case, the judges affirmed that state parties to the Geneva Conventions “are under an obligation ‘to respect and to ensure respect’” for the law and that states must “employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide so far as possible.” The court reminded states of their obligations in relation to the transfer of arms where there is a risk that weapons might be used to violate international law. Reacting to Friday’s decision by the World Court, Al Mezan, a Gaza-based Palestinian human rights group, said:
The only way for Israel to fully comply with all of the provisional measures issued since Jan 26 is the immediate cessation of hostilities in all of Gaza.
Gisha, a human rights group based in Israel that advocates for Palestinians’ right to freedom of movement, likewise said:
A full ceasefire is the only way to begin to reverse the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, stop the killing, starvation and displacement of civilians there, and bring the hostages home.
While they may not provide Palestinians in Gaza with urgently needed protection, the new orders by the International Court of Justice will also put more pressure on Israel’s allies to enforce the tribunal’s rulings, including through the imposition of arms embargoes. Three prominent Palestinian human rights organizations said on Friday:
It is time to move beyond diplomatic rhetoric and implement concrete measures in line with international law. For nearly eight months, 2.3m Palestinians in Gaza have endured a genocidal military campaign by Israel that has killed over 35.7k and injured more than 80k. The time for action is long overdue.
DAWN, a Washington-based human rights watchdog, said:
The court ruling leaves no ambiguity about what should follow: an arms embargo on Israel. Continued US arms transfers to Israel would constitute deliberate defiance of the Court’s orders and make our government complicit in genocide.
The new orders will also bolster the case against Israeli leaders at the International Criminal Court, which submitted applications for arrest warrants on Monday.
The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, both based in The Hague, are separate entities. The former, also known as the World Court, is the UN’s principal judicial organ and handles complaints between states and issues legal opinions when requested to do so from within the UN system. The latter investigates and brings charges against individuals, rather than states. Israel recognizes the International Court of Justice but rejects the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as does the US. The ICC’s announcement of looming arrest warrants and the latest orders from the World Court are dramatic indications of Israel’s international isolation. Should Israel violate the new provisional measures as it has those that came before, it will only further harden its status as a global pariah.
Abed was killed while checking on his dad
Asil Almanssi, Electronic Intifada, May 24 2024
We have known Akram since we were young. He is a friend of my father. Akram has lived next to his two sisters for many years. He is younger than them. They doted on him as if they were his mother. And, in a sense, they had assumed that role as their own mother had died. Akram had four sons and one daughter. Majdulin, his daughter, was especially close to him. A student of English, she was very bright. Tragically, she died because of a health issue during her final year at college. Her loss affected Akram deeply.
After Israel declared its current war, it ordered a mass evacuation from the northern part of Gaza. But Akram and his family remained in the north, more specifically in Jabaliya refugee camp. They did not even leave when Israeli troops carried out their first ground invasion of the camp during this war. For more than a month, their house was effectively under siege. They lived in a state of true terror. They could hear the screams of injured people and the wailing of mothers whose children had been killed. They could hear the sound of buildings collapsing. And the shells and missiles being fired toward them. Most of the walls in their home were damaged. Food was scarce. It was too dangerous to venture outside and search for anything that might keep hunger at bay.
At one point, Israeli soldiers knocked on the door of their house. The family thought that they would all be killed. They did not open the door. After knocking repeatedly, the soldiers eventually left. The family were relieved. They thought they were as unscathed as they could be. But then Israel attacked some warehouses very close to the family’s home. The resulting fire spread to their home. A neighbor managed to rescue them and gave them shelter. When the Israeli troops withdrew from Jabaliya, the family went back to what remained of their home. They undertook some rudimentary repair work and moved back in.
Israeli troops invaded Jabaliya once again this month. The new and ongoing offensive took everyone by surprise. Everyone had hoped that Israel’s previous withdrawal would be irreversible. When he heard about the new invasion, Akram had the same idea as before: He would not leave the camp. Yet his wife and sons insisted that they could not cope with another invasion. Akram contended that the invasion would affect other areas of the camp. The Israelis had attacked the family’s neighborhood in the earlier invasion and would be unlikely to do so again. He did not, however, try to dissuade his wife and sons from leaving. And so they went to the Sheikh Radwan area of Gaza City.
Akram and his sisters remained in Jabaliya. We tried to keep in touch with him. But the communications network was very poor. When we made contact with his sons, they told us that they had not heard from him. On May 16, Akram’s 15-year-old son Abed decided that he would head toward Jabaliya and check on his father. Abed did not give his mothers or brothers advance notice of his perilous journey. When Abed managed to reach the family’s home, Akram was taken aback. How had Abed succeeded in traveling to Jabaliya when shells and missiles were being fired from all directions? Abed replied that God had accompanied him. After checking on his father and his aunts, Abed said goodbye. They went to the door of his home. Akram told Abed to be careful.
Before Abed had closed the door, he was hit by shrapnel. Akram ran toward Abed as he lay on the ground. The shelling was intense and nobody was available to help. There were no ambulances or taxis or even donkey-drawn carts. Akram had to carry his son. He went to Kamal Adwan hospital in the Beit Lahiya area of northern Gaza by foot. Abed was pronounced dead. Akram took his son’s shrouded body to his mother and brothers. They buried him in a Sheikh Radwan cemetery. It was extremely distressing for Akram. He blamed himself for Abed’s martyrdom. As soon as his son was buried, Akram became preoccupied with his sisters. He talked about returning to Jabaliya. But his sons tried to prevent him from doing so. They feared that he would be killed just as Abed had been. Akram’s sisters are still trapped in Jabaliya. It is not possible to contact them.
Niqnaq 