International Court of Justice imposes ‘interim measures’ to stop Israeli genocide in Gaza
The International Court of Justice, where the ruling was given.
The International Court of Justice has ruled that there is a prima facie case that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and has imposed interim measures to prevent it.
These measures are:
Israel shall take all measures to prevent commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of the Genocide Convention: killing Palestinians, causing serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions considered to bring about harm, and preventing births.
Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any of these acts.
Israel shall take all measures to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement of genocide.
Israel shall take measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by people in the Gaza Strip – humanitarian aid.
Israel shall take effective measures to prevent destruction and preserve evidence of genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Israel shall submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order, within one month. South Africa, which brought the case against Israel, will then have an opportunity to submit its observations on Israel’s report.
The court cannot enforce its ruling – and Israel will almost certainly ignore it altogether.
But the ruling remains significant.
It means a court representing the international community has said it is possible that agents of Israel are committing the most heinous crime known to humanity – genocide.
Other nations that are signed up to the Genocide Convention should now support that finding and exert pressure on Israel to comply with the interim measures that have been stated.
Those include the United Kingdom, where both the Tory government and Labour opposition have vociferously supported Israel since the current conflict began on October 7.
In other words, Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer are now in a tricky position.
The country they chose to back is now in danger of being convicted of appalling crimes against humanity – that they have supported.
What will they say now and how will they justify what they have said in the past?
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I’ve just watched this live on TV. I really think this is seismic. Israel is a ‘First World’ country and, if I am correct, the only one ever successfully taken to ICJ (in the sense that Provisional Measures were enacted – this is success) Has anyone ever taken another First World country to ICJ?
But it is also seismic in the sense that an overwhelming number of the judges have backed this case in the Provisional Measures – 15 to 2 in all case except where it was 16 to 1.
Having read the South African case in full I thought it would be impossible for the court to deny this case on technical grounds as Israel requested. Israel’s case was that there was no dispute between SA and Israel as Israel was yet to reply to SA’s questions on the war in Gaza. For two reasons this would not fly, first – any country so accused could simply ignore countries trying to get assurances and also, by responding to SA’s case at ICJ they are de facto responding, in full detail, to SA’s questions. SA’s case was fact based as you’d expect but the facts mentioned in their 84 page initial case were all publicly available, had written and video evidence and were not denied as fact by Israel. In short Israel’s response was very weak. At first they had been granted last minute permission to show footage of the Hamas atrocities on 7th October. But this permission was later withdrawn (I’m not aware why this was first granted then withdrawn) This, to me, indicated that Israel had no factual response, no denials to make, and was going to depend on an emotional appeal and ask that the court allow them to continue in their course of action because of what had been done to their citizens rather than hold them to International Law.
Usually First World countries show respect to the judgements of the ICJ and will be quick to condemn anything that the ICJ adjudges to be genocide or even gives Provisional Measures for. It will put even the US in a difficult position. Usually Israel’s greatest ally even the US has diverged from them and called for them ‘to respect international humanitarian law’ Israel has responded by publicly stating they will not change course. The UK is a major supporter and the government and opposition parties have shrugged off the very idea that Israel is breaking any laws. This has been increasingly difficult to hold as a position as we hear of even government officials loudly ‘expressing concerns’ and seeking to have UK Govt avoid any ‘Aiding and Abetting’ levelled against it.
The judgement for Provisional Measures takes some pressure off those governments and parties to make a decision, one has been made for it. They need simply say ‘we respect the court’ How they respond will be telling. We’re either going to move to an age where Israel becomes culpable for its actions or one where the ICJ is officially a joke..