Israel-Gaza: What does ICJ ruling on Israel’s Rafah offensive mean?

The highest court of the UN, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), issued a ruling last week on the Israeli military offensive in Rafah.

It is the latest court pronouncement in a case brought by South Africa, which accuses Israel of genocide in the Gaza Strip. Israel has vehemently denied the allegation.

Since the start of the case, the court has issued a series of contested decisions.

The two most important concern whether or not the court suggested that there is a risk of genocide in Gaza. The second ruling – issued on May 24 – includes highly controversial language on military operations in Rafah.

This issue is now the subject of intense scrutiny and debate.

In its order last week, the court ruled by a vote of 13 to two that Israel must: “Immediately end its military offensive and any other actions in the Rafah governorate that could impose upon the Palestinian Gaza group living conditions which could lead to its establishment. total or partial physical destruction.

Headlines suggested it was an order to stop all military operations in Rafah – but some judges disagree with what that means.

Five of the 15 published their own views. Three had supported the ordinance and two had opposed it.

Judge Bogdan Aurescu of Romania said he voted for the order, but revealed that he thought the court was unclear and stressed that it could not prohibit Israel from taking legitimate measures of self-defense.

Justice Dire Tladi of South Africa disagreed with Aurescu, even though they voted for the same order. He said he had asked Israel “in explicit terms” to end its offensive in Rafah.

The two judges who opposed the order said that whatever the others voted for, it was certainly not a demand by Israel to begin a unilateral ceasefire. in Rafah.

Ugandan Julia Sebutinde said the court could not “micromanage” a war and Israeli Aharon Barak, temporarily appointed to the case, said the ICJ order was “nuanced” as long as the country adhered to the Genocide Convention.

The summary by German judge Georg Nolte is most revealing of the court’s situation.

The order, which he voted for, prohibits any military action “to the extent that it could endanger the rights of the Palestinian people” to be protected against the risk of genocide. But he stressed: “The court can only play a limited role in resolving the situation. She must be careful not to exceed the limits of what she can and must do.”