Why the ICJ ruling, despite falling short on ceasefire, is damaging for Israel

The ICJ ruling doesn't offer an immediate victory for the Palestinian people. However, it has been damaging for Israel and major scenarios might unfold in the coming week when the US is expected to exercise their most significant UNSC move on Israel.

The South African case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was actually a test for the apex court itself. They could have shirked its responsibilities by dismissing South Africa's case against Israel. They could have delivered far less than what they did, or they could have effectively ordered Israel to a ceasefire. 

But they chose to be in the middle. 

The court held Israel responsible for not preventing genocidal acts in Palestine, thus the court survived its relevance as the apex body of the global legal avenues. 

There are ample areas for disappointment from this provisional measure however, including the fact that even if there was a ceasefire order, there is no enforcement framework of the ICJ rulings – which means that though Israel would be bound by the court findings, they could still continue its offensives as Russia did in the case of its invasion of Ukraine. 

Nevertheless, arguably, the orders that are included in the provisional measures are still a massive blow for Israel. 

This has also put the West in a precarious position as Algeria – the Arab representative on the council – has taken the case to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to enforce the measures. A UNSC meeting has been called next week to address the ICJ rulings. 

Now since the West has long asked countries like Russia or Myanmar to respect the ICJ orders on the Ukraine and Rohingya issues respectively, if the United States vetoes the ICJ measures again, it would further weaken their moral position in the world and weaponise those who ignore the ICJ rulings with bona fide excuses. 

Why is this devastating for Israel? There are strong diplomatic and legal avenues to Tel Aviv's predicament with the ICJ orders.  

To begin with, the court order established the proceeding for Israel's trial on their plausible genocidal acts in Palestine which was confined only to rhetoric and politics thus far. This now has officially booked a position in the legal avenues, and in the future, it will see the country stand at trials for committing genocides in Palestine. 

It also revealed the paradox that was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish law professor, who conceptualised the terms "crime against humanity" and "genocide." Now the Jewish state, after nearly a century of purging and cleansing the Palestinians, has finally come closer to facing the music of justice at the ICJ – thanks to South Africa. 

In a televised programme of Al Jazeera after the ICJ ruling, author and analyst Marwan Bishara called this a "moral and legal blow" for Israel.

"The ICJ is not just making rulings in the abstract," Bishara said. "They are telling Israel that we want to hear back from you in a month. It is like Israel is on probation already… that you need to come back, tell and show us how you are respecting the things we are telling you." 

However, just like others, Bishara also recognised the limitations of an ICJ ruling as this is no "world government" nor do they have police, military or the money to enforce the ruling.  For example, the same court opined in 2004 that the apartheid wall in the West Bank built by Israel was illegal and that it should be dismantled. It has been 20 years and the wall is still there. 

So which avenues are there for Israel to feel some pressure? 

"The importance of this court ruling lies in the fact that they suspect there is plausible evidence that Israel is carrying genocide against a people. So, it is not just about war crimes or avoiding civilian casualties," Bishara explained. 

"It must then provoke or invoke a certain move on the part of those who support Israel and those who don't support Israel. Because pressure is going to start building up the Western public opinion on Western states at the UNSC to call for a ceasefire. And I think different countries from the Global South are also going to start putting pressure on their Northern partner," he added.

The diplomatic damage that Israel is going to incur was even acknowledged by the Israeli foreign ministry cable which Axios revealed. They stated that the case "could have significant potential implications that are not only situated in the legal world but have practical bilateral, multilateral, economic, security ramifications." 

This ruling doesn't offer an immediate victory for the Palestinian people as the bombardment and Israeli killings in Palestinian territory are likely to continue. However, major scenarios might unfold in the coming week when the United States is expected to exercise their most significant UNSC move on Israel. 

The dilemma is obvious. But a wrong move could define the West, at large, in the global order on the moral high ground that they pursue with a democratic and rule-based system. 

This question was recently raised by Bronwen Maddox, the director of the Chatham House think tank, The Guardian quoted her on the Western double standard allegations. 

While illustrating the allegations, Maddox goes on to say, "[it] runs like this: the West cares about democracy, but not when it wants to install leaders it likes in other countries. It respects sovereignty except when it does not, as in Iraq. It argues for self-determination in Taiwan, not in Catalonia. It supports human rights, but not in countries from which it needs oil. It defends human rights except when it gets too difficult, as in Afghanistan." 

She further said that if the accusations are not answered then countries that want to undermine the West will use this as "a weapon even if their own hypocrisy is luminous." 

However, the timing is such that such a weapon might just be in the offering next week when the UNSC sits for enforcement of the ICJ ruling at the court. Maybe the Israeli state will be bailed out by the United States once again, further losing its moral grounds. But the real pressure would continue to build up on Israel both, in the form of diplomatic and legal woes, as it continues to face alienation on the global stage. 

And in this context, Bishara has an appropriate observation that, "the moral weight of this judgement, based on evidence of the past 100 plus days, will have huge effects on the psychology and moral standing of those countries who have been supporting Israel unconditionally in the past three-four months. [But] that, however, depends on how expedient they are or how narrow-minded they are, or how much they feel themselves to be the men and women on the right side of history." 

Masum Billah. Sketch: TBS