The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that Israel has to immediately stop the Rafah operation wouldn’t have surprised anyone who knows how deeply biased the ICJ is against Israel.
In response to a request by South Africa, the court ruled that Israel must ‘immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’ It stopped short of granting South Africa’s request for the war to stop altogether.
The wording could imply, however, that as long as Israel’s actions in Rafah don’t amount to creating conditions for genocide and if Israel continues to take measures to make sure that humanitarian conditions don’t worsen, the fighting could carry on. Since Israel has taken measures to reduce harm to civilians and has met other obligations under the Genocide Convention, it may be able to argue that it’s in compliance with the ruling.
Israeli politicians criticised and rejected the decision
What the ICJ didn’t say is more telling than what it did, exposing its lack of impartiality.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in