The court also said Israel must submit a report in one month outlining how it is implementing the court’s orders.
“We find ourselves in a perplexing situation as a court decision acknowledging the possibility of genocide falls short of demanding a complete cease-fire,” said Mohammed Mahmoud, 36, a father of five who has fled Gaza City for Rafah during the conflict. “Waiting longer in such circumstances only prolongs death and enduring pain.”
Palestinians had hoped the court would issue an order to immediately halt the fighting — as requested by South Africa — much the way the court in 2022 demanded that Russia stop its military actions in Ukraine. But legal scholars said there were key differences in the two cases that made a cease-fire order far less likely.
“The court found that Russia had no foundation under international law for its claims of self-defense and that it should stop waging war,” said Yuval Shany, a law professor at Hebrew University and former member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. “In this case, you might read the court’s rulings as an implicit validation that Israel does have a legitimate claim of self-defense.”
Israel would be able to comply with the court’s directives to protect civilians from harm and increase aid without substantially changing its operations in Gaza, Shay said. Israel already insists it warns Gazans of impending attacks and facilitates aid.
But Palestinian human rights lawyer, Diana Buttu, said the court’s actions would force Israel to significantly reduce its attacks in Gaza or risk the ICJ referring the case to the U.N. Security Council, as the Genocide Convention allows. The court ordered Israel to report back in one month with evidence of its compliance, a measure that allows for more public scrutiny of its actions and allow South Africa to request further interventions.
“The fact that they have to take measures to the prevent genocide, that is, in other words, a cease-fire,” she said. “There are going to be a lot of eyes on this ICJ opinion. I don’t think Israel is going to be able to just slide by like they usually do.”
Friday’s decision is not a verdict on whether Israel has committed genocide — that could take years. Rather, the provisional measures aim to prevent the situation from getting worse while the case proceeds.
“The court considers that the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable,” said Judge Joan Donoghue, the ICJ’s president and former State Department employee. “The court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment.”
The legal battle has captured the world’s attention, spotlighting deep divisions. South Africa alleges that Israel violated the law by committing and failing to prevent genocidal acts, and it had asked the court to order Israel to cease military operations in Gaza immediately. A host of capitals have voiced support, as has the 22-member Arab League and the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
In a statement after the ruling, South Africa declared a “decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.”
“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has determined that Israel’s actions in Gaza are plausibly genocidal and has indicated provisional measures on that basis,” the statement said. “For the implementation of the international rule of law, the decision is a momentous one.”
Israel has roundly rejected the allegations, saying South Africa presented a “grossly distorted” picture by ignoring the role of Hamas and “weaponizing” the international convention against genocide. The Biden administration dismissed the filing as “meritless.” Britain called the claims “nonsense.”
After the ruling, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “the charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it.”
He said Israel continues to facilitate humanitarian aid to civilians and would not end its campaign against Hamas.
Israel’s offensive has killed some 26,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, the majority of them women and children. It was launched after Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing roughly 1,200 people and taking around 253 hostage.
Though the court’s decisions are legally binding, they can be hard to enforce. Russia, for instance, ignored a 2022 order to cease its war against Ukraine. Still, the provisional orders will shape a fraught global conversation on the conflict.
“This is definitely a ‘win’ for South Africa, although there won’t be enormous immediate change on the ground, which means some will criticize the court for not going far enough,” said Juliette McIntyre, a lecturer in law at the University of South Australia who specializes in international courts and tribunals.
Amichai Cohen, a law professor at Israel’s Ono Academic College, noted that what Israel feared most — a call for a cease-fire — did not materialize. “All in all, Israel’s position is certainly not better, but the worst anxieties regarding the court’s possible position were not realized,” he said.
Some international human rights groups welcomed the orders.
In Ramallah, where about 150 people gathered at an auditorium Friday to watch a live stream of the proceedings, most Palestinians expressed frustration that the court did not go further.
“I came here to see international justice achieved, but unfortunately the decision was unjust,” said Iyad Stesti, 41, musician. “I was hoping and hoping for a complete cease-fire because people are suffering.”
Even though the court demanded steps from Israel to protect civilians and improve conditions, with an update from Israel in four weeks, Stesti said, he expects the killing to continue. “The decision gives Israel a full month to kill Palestinian people in Gaza and commit genocide,” he said.
At the heart of South Africa’s allegations is the claim that Israel has shown genocidal intent and that there is an urgent need for the court to order the country to cease its military operations.
“Nothing will stop the suffering except an order from this court,” Adila Hassim, one of the lawyers representing South Africa, said earlier this month.
In three hours of testimony on Jan. 11, South Africa’s legal team laid out the war’s devastating impact on civilians, including a soaring death toll and a spiraling humanitarian crisis.
“It is becoming ever clearer that huge swaths of Gaza — entire towns, villages, refugee camps — are being wiped from the map,” Blinne Ni Ghralaigh, an Irish lawyer on the South African team, said at the hearing. “On average, 247 Palestinians are being killed and are at risk of being killed each day, many of them literally blown to pieces. They include 48 mothers each day, two every hour. And over 117 children each day.”
They also argued that Israeli officials have used dehumanizing language in a calculated effort to normalize “genocidal rhetoric” and incite soldiers.
Israel pushed back on all charges. The Israeli legal team argued Jan. 12 that the civilian toll in Gaza is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fighting a militant group that hides in civilian areas, including hospitals.
Israel accused the South African side of taking remarks from leaders out of context and ignoring orders from officials to avoid unnecessary casualties. The team also sought to highlight efforts to limit civilian harm, citing phone calls and leafleting to warn Palestinians of incoming airstrikes, for instance.
“It is in response to the slaughter of Oct. 7, which Hamas openly vows to repeat, and to the ongoing attacks against it from Gaza, that Israel has the inherent right to take all legitimate measures to defend its citizens and secure the release of the hostages,” said Christopher Staker, a lawyer representing Israel.
Hendrix reported from Jerusalem. Sufian Taha in Ramallah, Adela Suliman and Ellen Francis in London contributed to this report.
