AT PENPOINT
The decision by the International Court of Justice does not find Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza, but it takes the allegation seriously. It does not accept the Israeli plea that it is carrying out its attack on the people of Gaza to defend itself against the attacks launched on Israel on October 7 by Hamas, which rules Gaza.
This reflects the refusal of the world to go along with the Israeli point of view, and accept one more egregious Israeli claim. Israel has killed too many Palestinians to claim victimhood this time. It might be counter-intuitive, but the Zionists parlayed their having suffered the Holocaust into acceptance of the state of Israel on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. The West turned a blind eye to the slaughter of about 15,000 Palestinians, and the expulsion of about 750,000 more. Already, 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza, with no end to the slaughter in sight, which indicates that the present blood-letting might end up worse than that of the Nakba of 1948. As there are about 3 million Palestinians squeezed inside the Gaza Strip, if they are displaced, it may well imply a bigger expulsion than that of 1948.
The Israeli government has been told to provide a report on what has been done to stop incitement. Again, this is a sop to the liberal conscience, which cannot tolerate so much slaughter. One of the most blatant and obvious aspects of Israel’s deliberation were the public statements by Israeli cabinet ministers, rightwingers forming part of Netanyahu’s coalition, which denied Palestinians their humanity, and called for their slaughter. Perhaps more disturbing were the telecasts of Israeli children singing bloodthirsty songs.
For example, Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich stated the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians is the “right humanitarian solution” for Gaza, echoing the views of others including Danny Danon, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations and Knesset member Ram Ben-Barak who published a commentary to this effect in the Wall Street Journal. Israel’s Defense minister Yoav Gallant stated that “we are fighting human animals” and announced a “complete siege” on Gaza with no electricity, no food, no fuel.” Major General Ghassan Alian repeated this language, adding “there will be no electricity and no water [in Gaza], there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell,” and Prime Minister Netanyahu recently rejected all attempts at a ceasefire or the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The interesting aspect of the affair is whether the International Court of Justice can get involved. Israel is not a state party which has ratified the Statute of Rome and thus accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC. However, the alleged war crimes and acts of genocide have been committed on Palestinian soil, which makes any accused liable. Palestine was allowed to accede to the Statute of Rome after it was given observer status at the United Nations.
There is a catch, though. The ICJ will also take cognizance of the Hamas attack on October 7. Hamas has not been willing to have that action examined judicially, with the possibility of its officials being accused of crimes against humanity, or acts of genocide.
Of course, an ICC prosecution will involve some internal politics. Already, eight state parties have formally called for an investigation. Then there is the problem of the Africa Group. The African countries, the largest single group, is already exercised by the unfair attention it feels it has been getting from the ICC. South Africa having taken the case to the ICJ had this in view, and along with the Comoros and Djibouti, it is one of the three African states among the eight which have formally made a referral to the ICC Prosecutor for investigation. This is even though the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was set up by the US Security Council by the UN Security Council. The massacre of the Tutsis by Hutus is considered an example of genocide, and the subsequent convictions of numerous Hutus is considered a guideline for the ICC. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was also set up by a UNSC resolution, and it too serves as a guideline for the ICC.
The ICJ did the bare minimum that it could, showing that the world powers may want to help out Israel, but perhaps it has gone too far this time, and will either have to give up its cherished objective of eliminating all Gazans, or defy the world. That it has done before, but now it led to a court case. Oppressor parties don’t like them.
If a Security Council resolution is required to set up a tribunal, then Israel will look to the USA to prevent any such thing. There would also be the question of how exactly to get hold of any accused, Israeli or Palestinian, because like the ICJ, the ICC does not have an independent enforcement mechanism, and depends on domestic police forces. In furtherance of this, if Israeli police were to bring charges against servicemen for actions amounting to genocide, even if on lesser charges, they would still have priority. However, this is unlikely to happen. Even the filing of charges would mean an admission that a crime has occurred, and that Israel does not admit.
The claims that some of the October 7 casualties were inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces in pursuit of the doctrine that even hostages may be killed in the process of eliminating the kidnappers, mean that if Hamas fighters are charged with genocide or crimes against humanity, IDF personnel might be co-accused, or at least summoned by the defence to testify.
It would seem that Israel has overreached itself. The only similarity between the Nakba and today is the death toll. No one has been able to flee to safety; there is no ‘out of sight, out of mind’ phenomenon to dull observers’ consciences. Instead, as in 1948, of fleeing to other countries, the Gazans are stuck, while the places to which they have fled have become unsafe. The Israelis are now free to kill them all at leisure.
It is that which seems to be raising if not quite hackles, then at least eyebrows, in the West. First, there is the human suffering, which no human being of conscience can tolerate. Then there is the conceptual obstacle, of an attempt at genocide. Again, the world’s peacemaking mechanisms are being challenged very practically. The wiping out of an entire people is not an easy task. The Jews survived the Holocaust to found Israel and attempt their own genocide.
An important dimension is the violation of the laws and customs of war. The bombing of hospitals, for example, has not raised any of the protests that would be expected from professional military men. It may be because professional military men are trained to conquer, with the minimum of casualties on both sides, not slaughter people. Unarmed civilians, hospitals, and aid convoys are always spared.
Meanwhile, the war seems to be up a notch, as the Houthis have begun menacing shipping passing through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea. Backed by Iran, Yemen-based, they seem to be asking for the same sort of Western response which led Britain to make Yemen a colony: a desire to make shipping safe. The killing of three US servicemen by a drone strike in Jordan intensifies the crisis. Israel also has an interest, for it has a port on the Red Sea. Can the world tolerate a closure? The Suez Canal was closed due to war in October 1956 to March 1957. The war had been precipitated by Egypt nationalizing the Canal.
The ICJ did the bare minimum that it could, showing that the world powers may want to help out Israel, but perhaps it has gone too far this time, and will either have to give up its cherished objective of eliminating all Gazans, or defy the world. That it has done before, but now it led to a court case. Oppressor parties don’t like them.
