Dear Readers,
Naturally, the day after I sent out my last update, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) released a new Order in response to South Africa’s request for additional provisional measures, which this edition summarizes.
For more on South Africa’s additional requests here. To learn more about South Africa v. Israel as a whole, check out my initial Explainer on the case.
As I emphasized in the last edition, though this case is important, it will not stop this genocide. In fact, Israel has continued its genocidal acts in Gaza unabated since the ICJ issued its original provisional measures on January 26, 2024, as the ICJ itself noted in this new Order.
To stop this genocide, it will take all of us doing what we can with what we have where we are — calling, emailing, and writing to our representatives at the city, state, and national levels,1 voting uncommitted or no vote or whatever your state’s options are, disrupting business as usual, boycotting, divesting,2 joining protests, donating to mutual aid efforts, and other related efforts.
Again, you do not need to know more about the history of Palestine to take action now to stop this genocide.3 As writer Sumaya Awad said in an October 2023 interview4:
It actually doesn't matter what you think about 75 years ago right now. You don't need to have an opinion formed on how Israel established itself as a state and what massacre did or did not happen. You don't need to have an opinion on this to have a stance on the fact that a nuclear state that has some of the most sophisticated military technology in the world is dropping six thousand plus bombs over the course of the last ten days on 2.2 million people who are encaged. They cannot leave. They have no supplies. They have no fuel. No water. They have no electricity. Many have said that they might die of dehydration, if not from the bombs. This is collective punishment against 2.2 million people, 50 % of them children. There's no justification for this. No matter what you think about Israel's history. This is such clear brutality. The idea that people still want to debate. It's such a harrowing reflection of our humanity or lack of it.
Please take action today and every day.
South Africa v. Israel — The March 28th Order
On March 28, 2024, the ICJ released a new Order.5 In this Order, the ICJ concluded:
that the current situation before it entails a further risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and that there is urgency, in the sense that there exists a real and imminent risk that such prejudice will be caused before the Court gives its final decision in the case.
The ICJ reiterated its finding from January 26th — that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitutes plausible genocide prosecuted against the Palestinian people, and if Israel continues these actions while the ICJ considers the merits of South Africa’s case against Israel — which will likely take years — , the Palestinians will suffer irreparable harm — annihilation as a people or group.6
Consequently, the ICJ determined it needed to issue additional provisional measures:
In conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine7 and starvation, Israel shall:
(a) take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary; and
(b) ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.
The Court further considers that the catastrophic situation in the Gaza Strip confirms the need for immediate and effective implementation of the measures indicated in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah. In these circumstances, the Court finds it necessary to reaffirm the measures indicated in that Order.
* * * * * *
The Court recalls that its orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed.
The language in this Order is straightforward — the Court sees Israeli-created starvation and famine in Gaza, thus Israel shall “without delay” allow in humanitarian aid by increasing access to Gaza by land. Additionally, Israel shall adhere to the ICJ’s January 26th Order (see my previous edition or Footnote 5 below for a recap).
As an aside — it is critical here to understand that Gaza is completely encaged, to borrow the term from Sumaya Awad. No one can leave or enter Gaza without Israeli or Egyptian permission (though it is my understanding that Israel also has some control over who Egypt allows to enter and leave Gaza through the Rafah crossing, as well).8
Below is a UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) map of Gaza, depicting the blockade of Gaza. The red strip around the land edges of Gaza demarcate the fence/wall that encages Palestinians in Gaza. The fence/wall and the crossings are militarized, guarded by heavily armed Israeli occupation forces, and Rafah crossing by Egyptian military forces.
The two land crossings, marked with a small gray X, are the Israeli-controlled Erez/Beit Hanoun Crossing in the north of the Strip into Israel and the Egyptian-controlled Rafah Crossing in the South of the Strip into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
Additionally, Palestinians can only enter the sea within 3 nautical miles of Gaza’s shoreline.9 The sea border is patrolled also by the Israeli occupation forces.
Here is an image of part of the wall around Gaza:
For more images, check out this AP article from December 2021.
How the ICJ arrived at this determination
The March 28th Order took note of a report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Global Initiative (IPC Global Initiative), quoting the following:
The IPC acute food insecurity analysis conducted in December 2023 warned of a risk that Famine may occur by the end of May 2024 if an immediate cessation of hostilities and sustained access for the provision of essential supplies and services to the population did not take place. Since then, the conditions necessary to prevent Famine have not been met and the latest evidence confirms that Famine is imminent in the northern governorates and projected to occur anytime between mid-March and May 2024.
The ICJ also took note of a recent and horrifying UNICEF report finding that “reported that 31 per cent of children under 2 years of age in the northern Gaza Strip suffered from acute malnutrition.”
Critically, the ICJ stated
The Court observes that Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine, as noted in the Order of 26 January 2024, but that famine is setting in, with at least 31 people, including 27 children, having already died of malnutrition and dehydration according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
In addition, “[t]he Court notes the unprecedented levels of food insecurity experienced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over recent weeks, as well as the increasing risks of epidemics.”
Another important piece of context: Gaza has been under a brutal blockade for about 17 years prior to October 7, 2023. According to Human Rights Watch (UN entities and other NGOs), “1.2 million of Gaza’s 2.2 million people were estimated to be facing acute food insecurity, and over 80 percent were reliant on humanitarian aid[,]”10 prior to October 7th. HRW, in “Israel: Starvation Used as Weapon of War in Gaza,” continued:
Israel maintains overarching control over Gaza, including over the movement of people and goods, territorial waters, airspace, the infrastructure upon which Gaza relies, as well as the registry of the population. This leaves Gaza’s population, which Israel has subjected to an unlawful closure for 16 years, almost entirely dependent on Israel for access to fuel, electricity, medicine, food, and other essential commodities.
In other words, before October 7th, many Palestinians in Gaza were already food insecure because of Israel’s blockade, thus creating the conditions where Israeli-created famine is possible so quickly. Palestinians in Gaza have also in that time experienced four brutal Israeli assaults that have destroyed infrastructure, land, homes, and livelihoods.
Recall, too, that 70% of Gaza’s population are refugees who were forcibly displaced from their homes in historic Palestine in 1948 and 1967.
Lastly, it is critical to understand that since October 7th, Israel has systematically destroyed Gaza’s farmlands, greenhouses, trees, and other spaces that provide Palestinians with fresh fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. Forensic Architecture has created an incredible resource to understand the ecocide Israel is perpetrating in Gaza. Please take a look.
Throughout the new Order, the ICJ cites various reports by UN and NGOs. For example, the Court cited the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), which recently reported that
[t]he situation of hunger, starvation and famine is a result of Israel’s extensive restrictions on the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid and commercial goods, displacement of most of the population, as well as the destruction of crucial civilian infrastructure.
Furthermore, the ICJ took note that despite the air drops and attempt to build a pier for food delivery by sea,11 “there is no substitute for land routes and entry points from Israel into Gaza to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of food, water, medical and humanitarian assistance; there is an urgent need to increase the capacity and number of open land crossing points into Gaza and to maintain them open so as to increase the flow of aid delivery.”
Indeed, the ICJ highlighted the Secretary-General of the UN’s statement about the latest IPC Global Initiative report:
This is the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded by the Integrated Food Security Classification system — anywhere, anytime.
This is an entirely manmade disaster — and the report makes clear that it can be halted
Also, the ICJ took note that Israel has killed over 6,600 Palestinians and injured over 11,000 Palestinians since its January 26th binding order, which required:
“[t]he State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts [in the Genocide Convention]”, and,
among other things, “[t]he State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip[.]”
The ICJ discussed that many humanitarian organizations have decried that the “catastrophic humanitarian situation can only be addressed if the military operations in the Gaza Strip are suspended.”
Why don’t the ICJ Orders Order A “Ceasefire”?
The Order takes notice of “resolution 2728 (2024) of the Security Council, which ‘[d]emand[ed] an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”’.12 But the Court itself does not explicitly order a ceasefire.13
The separate declarations by the ICJ judges make clear that this is an area of disagreement between the judges. Legal scholar Nimer Sultany (@NimerSultany on X/Twitter) explained that the following paragraph in the Order demonstrates this disagreement:
With regard to the measures requested by South Africa addressed to States or entities not parties to the present proceedings, the Court recalls that:
“the judgment in a particular case by which disputed rights may be adjudged by the Court to belong to the Applicant or to the Respondent has, in accordance with Article 59 of the Statute of the Court, ‘no binding force except between the parties’ . . . accordingly the Court may, for the preservation of those rights, indicate provisional measures to be taken by the parties, but not by third States or other entities who would not be bound by the eventual judgment to recognize and respect those rights” . . . The Court thus cannot, in the exercise of its power to indicate provisional measures in the present case, indicate the first three provisional measures sought by the Applicant.
In other words, the ICJ can only create binding orders “between the parties” — here, Israel and South Africa — and does not have jurisdiction/authority to order third parties — read Hamas — to do anything, such as adhere to a ceasefire.
However, Sultany points out that South Africa specifically requested that the ICJ direct “[a]ll Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” to “refrain from any action, and in particular any armed action or support thereof, which might prejudice the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts . . .”
This would only bind Israel, as Hamas is not a state or a signatory of the Genocide Convention. According to Sultany, the Court does not provide an explanation as to why it did not do so.
Moreover, Sultany argued that the Court could have used a different statute, Article 41, to issue the additional provisional measures of South Africa — essentially to end Israel’s military actions in Gaza. For the full technical explanation, see @NimerSultany thread on X (10AM on March 29, 2024). Also see Twitter commentary by legal scholars Adil Haque (@AdilHaque110) and Alonso Gurmendi (@Alonso_GD), to name but two.
Finally, Adil Haque noted that the factual findings in the ICJ Order could help the UN Security Council craft and push through a more comprehensive ceasefire resolution; however, it seems likely that the US would continue to veto any further resolutions that demand an immediate and lasting ceasefire.
Separate Declarations of ICJ Judges Regarding the March 28th Order
A number of the separate Declarations by ICJ judges indicate their frustration that the ICJ did not order Israel to cease its military operations in Gaza. Two of the judges expressed why they felt that they could not demand a ceasefire, and the ad hoc judge from Israel disagreed with the premise of provisional measures as a whole, with the exception of the requirement to prevent the commission of genocide.
DECLARATION OF PRESIDENT SALAM (Lebanon)
ICJ President Salam outlined in his separate declaration the desperate conditions in Gaza, including a quote High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell:
“this is a humanitarian crisis which is not a natural disaster. It is not a flood. It is not an earthquake. It is man-made. And when we look for alternative ways of providing support — by sea or by air — we have to remind that we have to do it because the natural way of providing support through roads is being closed, artificially closed. And starvation is being used as a weapon of war.”
President Salam continued:
Without such humanitarian aid, “the right of existence” of an entire human group, in the words of General Assembly resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, would be jeopardized.
* * *
It remains that these new measures ordered by the Court can only take full effect if the “immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan” demanded by the Security Council in its resolution 2728 (2024) of 25 March 2024 prior to the issuance of this Order, and which the Court took note of (see paragraph 37), is duly and fully respected by all the parties “and leads to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”.
Finally, how not to recall the “purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose” pursued by the Genocide Convention, whose object “on the one hand is to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and on the other to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles of morality”?
As an initial issue, the judges emphasized that “the current Order requires not only that Israel must take measures to ‘enable’ the provision of humanitarian aid, but that it must take measures to ‘ensure’ the provision of such aid.”
However, these judges then went on to lament the lack of an order for a ceasefire:
we deeply regret that this measure does not directly and explicitly order Israel to suspend its military operations for the purpose of addressing the current catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Similar to President Salam, these three judges outline the severity of conditions in Gaza, emphasizing that “[t]he current circumstances could lead to further devastating consequences where the very existence of the Palestinian people in Gaza is at a high risk.”
They went on:
Israel is the occupying Power in the Gaza Strip. It controls Gaza’s land border and all its land crossing access as well as its air and maritime areas. Israel’s dominant control over Gaza explains why Israel has the primary responsibility to ensure unhindered and unimpeded access, in particular, the land crossing access, for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in Gaza. For that purpose, suspension of military operations, including its planned military operation in Rafah, under the circumstances, appears indispensable for any meaningful implementation of the provisional measures indicated.
We agree with the factual finding of the Court. In our opinion, however, the Court’s factual finding should have led it to decide that Israel must suspend its military operations in a way so as to give full effect to its obligations under this Order. Much to our regret, the measure indicated in subparagraph (2) (b) does not extend far enough to make that point explicitly.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF (Somalia)
Judge Yusuf highlighted again the dire conditions in Gaza caused by the military actions of Israel, as well as its blockade against humanitarian aid entering Gaza.
He continued (and I quote much of his declaration here):
The Court has to base itself on the existence of objective indicia relating to the possible commission of genocide. If such indicia exist, which is the case in Gaza, the Court cannot take the position of a powerless bystander in the face of the possible commission of acts which are so offensive to the conscience of humanity. It has to preserve the rights of the protected group. To this end, it is the function of prevention which matters most and which offers the only effective way of preserving the right of existence of the protected group.
The Judge expounded in a number of ways that there is clear indicia that there is a plausible genocide occurring in Gaza. To that end, Judge Yusuf reiterated the ICJ’s original Order requiring that Israel, in sum, not commit genocidal acts. He continued:
Such an order by the Court issued under the Genocide Convention, calling on a State to “ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit” any of the acts enumerated under Article II of the Convention, is tantamount, in terms of the application and fulfilment of the Convention, to an injunction to bring to an end any military operations which may contribute to the commission of such acts. Indeed, the prevention of genocidal acts under the Convention, in particular as a conservatory measure, involves the suspension or termination of any actions undertaken by a State in its territory or in the territory of others which might have contributed to the existence of indicia of genocidal activity.
The Court’s indication of further provisional measures in the present Order shows that it is not satisfied that all that should have been done has been done by Israel to prevent the commission of genocidal acts. The argument that a State party to the Convention that is involved in a conflict with a non-State actor is not under an obligation to suspend its military operations to prevent genocide or should not be ordered to do so, unless the non-State actor is disarmed, makes no sense whatsoever. It is contrary to the very idea of prevention of genocide and to the objectives of the Convention, which was “manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose”.
In the same way that a State party to the Convention has a duty to prevent genocide in its territory whatever may be the nature of the forces or actors opposing it, it has also the obligation to prevent genocide in any territory which such party invades or occupies. This is the case with respect to the situation in Gaza. Israel has, therefore, an obligation, as underlined by the Court, to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of genocidal acts and to ensure that its military does not commit any such acts in Gaza.
In view of the catastrophic humanitarian situation and the increasing levels of disease and starvation among the population, the only effective way in which Israel can meet its obligations under the Convention is to suspend its military operations to allow for the delivery of aid and to bring to an end the relentless destruction and death caused by it at the expense of the right of existence of the Palestinian population.
* * *
It is an obligation of result which must be acted upon immediately. No such result can be obtained without suspending or terminating the aerial bombardments, the ground assaults on urban centres and refugee camps by the Israeli army, and the removal of the obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid. It requires an end to the destruction and death in Gaza.
The alarm has now been sounded by the Court. All the indicators of genocidal activities are flashing red in Gaza. An injunction has been served for ending the atrocities. The provisional measures indicated by the Court are binding. They are not something that a State party to the Convention is free to respect or to ignore according to its own pleasure. They must be implemented.
* * *
Therefore, Israel must bring its military operations to an end in order to ensure, as directed by the Court, that its army does not commit any acts which are in violation of the rights of the Palestinian population of Gaza to be protected from genocide.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH (Australia)
Judge Charlesworth took note of the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Gaza, creating “the continuing threat to the right of the Palestinian group to exist.” As a result, Judge Charlesworth stated
the Court cannot order a ceasefire as the conflicting parties are not all before it. However, while the Court cannot remove the risk to the Palestinian group completely, it can at least mitigate it by indicating measures directed at the Parties that are before it: Israel and South Africa.
* * *
in my view the Court should have made it explicit that Israel is required to suspend its military operations in the Gaza Strip, precisely because this is the only way to ensure that basic services and humanitarian assistance reach the Palestinian population.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE NOLTE (Germany)
Judge Nolte emphasized that the current conditions in Gaza would not exist had Israel complied with the original January 26th Order, thus a reminder of that Order was all that was needed, and Israel should comply. Additional measures were not necessary.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC BARAK (Israel)
Judge ad hoc Barak’s Declaration is the longest of all of the declarations. In it, Judge Barak is deeply critical of the ICJ’s position in this case, particularly that it has become overly political, now “entangled in an armed conflict,” and “has regrettably allowed South Africa to do so by entertaining its requests for provisional measures beyond the confines of the Genocide Convention.”
He wrote: “It is my hope that South Africa will cease its unbecoming attempts to enter the Great Hall of Justice through the side door of provisional measures and let the Court proceed to the merits of the case, where the true sanctuary of justice lies.”
Judge Barak alleges that the ICJ is operating beyond its scope by issuing provisional measures for what he views as potential violations of international humanitarian law, not the Genocide Convention, in large part because there is no evidence to show that Israel has genocidal intent.14 He averred: “In short, the Court has accepted South Africa’s invitation to become the micromanager of an armed conflict and use the Genocide Convention as an excuse to rule on the basis of international humanitarian law.”
He noted “that the Court is intervening in an armed conflict between Hamas and Israel, but only Israel is bound by its decisions. . . . This creates a structural imbalance which is particularly acute in the case of provisional measures addressing the conduct of hostilities.”
Judge Barak critiqued the evidence the ICJ used to determine provisional measures were necessary. In particular, he critiqued the judges for citing to public facing reports, such as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Global Initiative, which were released after the parties submitted their arguments to the Court.
Additionally, Judge Barak stated that the ICJ’s new Order does not take into account the fact that delivering aid is challenging given the current conditions in Gaza, and alleges that Hamas is making it difficult for aid to be delivered.
In his concluding remarks, Judge Barak stated: “The war in Gaza is Israel’s second war of independence. Israel’s very existence was imperilled on 7 October 2023, and since that time, the daughters and sons of Israel have made the ultimate sacrifice to safeguard their nation’s survival".”
Consistent with much Israeli messaging, Judge Barak concluded:
As judges, our approach is grounded in principles, operating within the confines of the law rather than outside it. The principle of the rule of law remains paramount. While there may be compelling ideas on how to end the fighting in Gaza, these belong to the realm of personal opinions, not judicial decisions.
I sincerely hope that this war comes to an end as quickly as possible, and that the hostages will return to Israel immediately. The key lies in the hands of Hamas. Hamas started the war and Hamas can finish it. It is time for the thunder of war to be replaced by the bells of peace.
**I want to note here that international law experts, NGO reports, and even media reports contradict many of the assertions Judge Barak makes in his Declaration.**
Ireland Will Intervene in South Africa v. Israel
The following is from a press release issued by the Irish government:
“… intervention as a third party in a case before the International Court of Justice is a complex matter and is relatively rare. Since 1948, only four other interstate cases have been initiated under the Genocide Convention before the International Court of Justice. Ireland intervened in one of these - the Ukraine v Russia case – and, after a rigorous and comprehensive process of analysis and consultation over the last six weeks, we have determined that we will do so again in the South Africa v Israel case.
“It is for the Court to determine whether genocide is being committed. But I want to be clear in reiterating what I have said many times in the last few months; what we saw on 7 October in Israel, and what we are seeing in Gaza now, represents the blatant violation of international humanitarian law on a mass scale.
“The taking of hostages. The purposeful withholding of humanitarian assistance to civilians. The targeting of civilians and of civilian infrastructure. The indiscriminate use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The use of civilian objects for military purposes. The collective punishment of an entire population.
“The list goes on. It has to stop. The view of the international community is clear. Enough is enough. The UN Security Council has demanded an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages and the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale. The European Council has echoed this call.
“The situation could not be more stark; half the population of Gaza face imminent famine and 100% of the population face acute food insecurity. As the UN Secretary General said as he inspected long lines of blocked relief trucks waiting to enter Gaza during his visit to Rafah at the weekend; ‘it is time to truly flood Gaza with life-saving aid. The choice is clear: surge or starvation’. I echo his words today.”
As of April 2, 2024, Ireland has not yet submitted its application to intervene in the case.
Wow, I know that was a lot, but I thought it was important to break things down. I hope it is useful. More soon as the cases in front of the ICJ, potentially the International Criminal Court, and US courts unfold.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy
The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Americans for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, and American Friends Service Committee are just some of the organizations that have scripts and templates for you to use when reaching out to your representatives.
You can learn more about BDS here.
But if you want to know more:
For extensive reading list, check out Librarians and Archivists with Palestine (including news outlets, legal organizations, and advocacy organizations to follow)
Decolonize Palestine provides a lot of helpful infographics and resources
For some amazing teach-in webinars on the history of Palestine and how we got here, check out Rutgers’s Center for Security, Race and Rights YouTube Channel for Palestine 101, etc.
Podcasts (a very limited list)":
Upstream
This Is Palestine podcast (Institute for Middle East Understanding)
Makdisi Street
Intercepted
The Dig
Sumaya Awad wrote Palestine A Socialist Introduction, and you can currently get the E-book for free at Haymarket Books. This quote is from Ms. Awad’s powerful October 20, 2023, podcast interview on Upsream Podcast, “Palestine Pt. 1: A Socialist Introduction with Sumaya Awad.” I highly recommend both the book and the podcast. g
As a reminder, the January 26th Order found that “at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” As a result, the ICJ ordered that “Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of [the Genocide] Convention.” Additionally, the ICJ reminded Israel that it is bound by the ICJ’s Order.
On February 16, 2024, in response to South Africa’s first follow-up application requesting additional provisional measures, the ICJ, in sum, stated that though the situation in Gaza is a “humanitarian nightmare,” additional measures are not needed at this time. Instead, Israel must “immediate[ly] and effective[ly] implement[] the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024.”
In full, the ICJ wrote:
The Court notes that the most recent developments in the Gaza Strip, and in Rafah in particular, ‘would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare with untold regional consequences’, as stated by the United Nations Secretary-General (Remarks to the General Assembly on priorities for 2024 (7 Feb. 2024)).
This perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and does not demand the indication of additional provisional measures.
According to the UN Refugee Agency,
[a] famine classification is the highest on the [Integrated Food Security Phase Classification] scale (Phase 5) and occurs when at least 20 percent of the population face extreme food shortages, acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent – meaning that people experience the most extreme and visible form of undernutrition – and two out of 1,000 people die from starvation on a daily basis.
As an example, you may have seen some media coverage on the fact that journalists have not been allowed by the Israelis at all, with the one exception of one time allowing CNN, ABC, and NBC reporters into Gaza only while embedded with the Israeli occupation forces. Check out the Times of Israel, The Hill, or The Guardian’s articles on this issue.
The Israeli occupation forces have killed and fired at numerous Palestinian fisher-people (see Human Rights Watch report and Reuters report), including in recent weeks as people desperately seek food from the sea. They also have fired at and killed people, including children, playing on the beaches of Gaza throughout the blockade. You can learn more about the Bakr children killed in 2014 at Adalah Legal Center.
You may also have heard about the flotillas that have tried to bring supplies to Gaza by sea to pierce the blockade Israel had enacted on Gaza. The Israeli Navy attacked the flotillas and killed some of the activists on board. You can learn more here, here, and here.
Also check out Amnesty International’s, Israel defying ICJ ruling to prevent genocide by failing to allow adequate humanitarian aid to reach Gaza,” which provides some context.
I have many thoughts and opinions about the food drops and the building of the pier. I will not go off on that here for the sake of time and space. I will just note that the air drops are completely inadequate, and Palestinians report that food dropped by the US is expired, non-Halal (for a majority Muslim population), and/or, in many cases, rotten. Additionally, people have been killed by pallets of food falling from the sky because of parachute malfunctions, drowned while trying to access the food that was inadvertently (I hope) dropped into the sea, or murdered by Israeli forces as they try to access the food drops.
The pier I am also skeptical about because I fear it will be used as a tool for forced mass deportation, extraction of Palestinian resources, and/or some other nefarious and damaging cause. It will take months to build while people starve. AND, the US and Israel are using the rubble of Palestinian homes to build this pier, which is repugnant in my view.
Finally, the criminal defunding of The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) by the US, UK, and other Western countries, has had a devastating effect on the delivery and coordination of aid to people in Gaza (along with Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and other locations).
To get this article out quickly, I have not cited articles for each of these critiques/observations, but you can and will find citations for all of them if you do an online search.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, for his part, referring to the latest IPC Global Initiative report on food insecurity in Gaza, stated that: “Palestinians in Gaza are enduring horrifying levels of hunger and suffering. This is the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded by the Integrated Food Security Classification system — anywhere, anytime. This is an entirely manmade disaster — and the report makes clear that it can be halted. Today’s report is Exhibit A for the need for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.”
To reiterate once again, the ICJ does very clearly order Israel to cease committing genocidal acts, to prevent the commission of genocidal acts, and to facilitate the entry of life-saving humanitarian aid.
He wrote:
First, because it is not grounded in the preservation of plausible rights under the Genocide Convention, since there is no indication of an intent to commit genocide. Second, because this measure deliberately builds an artificial link between Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention and the obligation not to prevent the delivery of humanitarian assistance. A State that prevents the delivery of humanitarian assistance may violate international humanitarian law, but not the rights of a protected group under the Genocide Convention.