ICC to Halt Aggression in Rafah: Boon or Bane for ‘Israel’ and America?

Before the International Court of Justice issued its ruling on South Africa's request for an urgent order to halt Israeli aggression on the city of Rafah pending a final decision on the "genocide" lawsuit, it was expected that a decision would either halt the aggression on all of Gaza or at least on Rafah.

A political official speaking to Israel Today on May 23, 2024, affirmed this, explaining that Tel Aviv was awaiting two possible scenarios: orders to halt the operation in Rafah or orders to cease the war in Gaza altogether.

In its ruling on May 24, the court called on “Israel” to halt aggression on Rafah, akin to international criminal convictions of both Hamas and “Israel.” It added to its decision by demanding Hamas unconditionally release Israeli prisoners.

The decision, passed with the approval of a committee of 15 judges from around the world by a majority of 13 votes to two, faced opposition only from Ugandan judge Julia Sebutinde and former Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak.

Israeli cessation of all military operations in Rafah and the opening of the Rafah crossing to ensure the delivery of all humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza is a significant step, but it raises questions: Why not a complete cessation of the war, with Rafah alone? And why were Israeli prisoners included in the decision?

Demanding “Israel” halt its attack on Rafah alone means giving the occupier a green light to continue aggression in the rest of Gaza.

The demand to stop the war on Rafah also wasn't coupled with a demand for “Israel” to withdraw from there, so it doesn't signify its withdrawal from the positions it occupied, the continuation of control over the Philadelphia Corridor the Egyptian-Palestinian border, and the persistence of the occupation and disruption of Palestinian lives.

The decision doesn't appear to be in favor of Palestinians but rather to extricate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from the dilemma he trapped himself in with Rafah.

It might also give Netanyahu a pretext to climb down from the tree and an excuse to the extremists in his government, telling them he will halt the war at the court's request while seeking to save face.

Prior to the International Court's demand for Netanyahu to halt aggression on Rafah, Israeli newspapers and the security and military leadership had urged him to stop the war and suffice with the losses incurred, given the failure of the aggression to achieve its objectives.

As expected, “Israel” did not comply with the order, but it will increase pressure on the increasingly isolated Zionist state, according to observers.

Flaws in the Decision

The court's ruling included three primary orders directed at “Israel.” Firstly, it demanded an "immediate" cessation of its military assault or any other actions in Rafah due to the "direct danger" posed to the Palestinian people.

Secondly, it mandated the opening of the Rafah crossing for the entry of humanitarian aid into the region, along with ensuring access for any investigative or fact-finding committee regarding the charge of genocide.

Thirdly, “Israel” was required to provide the court with a report within a month detailing the steps it would take.

However, the President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Nawaf Salam, of Lebanese origin, went further and added a fourth order, demanding Gaza's resistance "immediately and unconditionally release the Israeli hostages." He expressed grave concern over the Israeli prisoners’ continued detention, despite the decision having no direct relation to Hamas.

Ironically, the court acknowledged in its latest ruling that “Israel does not comply" with its orders. The same court issued "interim measures" in March 2024, which “Israel” ignored, as confirmed by the court, yet it did not impose any penalties.

Earlier, in January 2024, the court ordered “Israel” to do everything possible to prevent acts of genocide and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, but stopped short of issuing a ceasefire order.

The court refused to classify Israeli Occupation’s actions as "genocide," implicitly indicating that it is influenced by the major powers (like the U.S.) that oversee the Security Council responsible for implementing its resolutions.

In its latest decision, the court noted that it is not convinced that the evacuation operations and other Israeli measures are sufficient to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians, pointing out that the humanitarian situation in Rafah is now classified as catastrophic and has worsened since the court's last order.

Court Orders and Compliance Issues

The court's orders are binding on all United Nations members, including “Israel.” The UN Security Council is responsible for enforcing these orders. However, the U.S. continues to block the International Court of Justice's decisions from gaining enforcement authority through the Security Council by using its veto power.

It is believed that the court's decision to focus solely on Rafah, rather than ordering a halt to the entire war, was a strategic move to avoid a U.S. veto in the Security Council. The U.S. has previously vetoed four Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping the war in Gaza, including orders from the International Court of Justice.

The International Court of Justice is the highest authority of the UN for settling disputes between states. Its rulings are final and binding, but they have often been ignored in the past and lack enforcement power. For instance, in July 2004, the court ruled that the Israeli Occupation’s separation barrier was "contrary to international law" and ordered its removal from Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. This has not been implemented to date.

The ruling itself appears vague, according to Eliav Lieblich, a professor of international law at Tel Aviv University. Speaking to CNN on May 24, 2024, he said that the order can be understood in two ways: either “Israel” must stop the attack in Rafah, or specifically the actions that could create living conditions leading to physical destruction.

However, the court's clear stance is that the operation cannot continue in the same manner, as it poses a danger to the rights protected by the Genocide Convention, according to Lieblich.

Pressure on Egypt

Another flaw in the International Court of Justice's decision is its ambiguous directive demanding (without specifying to whom) the opening of the Rafah crossing for humanitarian aid. “Israel” claims it does not block aid and blames Egypt for refusing entry. This makes the order appear directed against Egypt, potentially forcing it to open Rafah, which is controlled by “Israel,” thus reinforcing the status quo with the crossing in Israeli hands.

The decision seems to pressure Egypt to open Rafah while it is under Israeli occupation, potentially benefiting Netanyahu by legitimizing Israeli control over the crossing. Reports from May 22, 2024, indicate that Egypt has faced significant pressure from senior U.S. officials and has seemingly responded early to the court's order.

On the same day as the court's decision, Egypt announced an agreement with the U.S. to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid and fuel into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing, also controlled by “Israel.” The Egyptian presidency stated that President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi agreed with President Joe Biden to send humanitarian aid and fuel temporarily to the UN via Kerem Shalom, pending a legal mechanism for reopening Rafah from the Palestinian side.

Nazism Against 'Gentiles'

The Israeli government often rejects decisions made by the UN and its bodies, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, as these decisions do not align with the extreme religious nature of the current Israeli government.

However, the Israeli response this time surpassed even Nazi-like ideologies. In an initial reaction, Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir dismissed the court's orders as decisions made by "Gentiles."

In a post on X, he stated, “Our future does not depend on what the nations of the Gentiles will say, but on what the Jews will do.”

“No power on earth will stop Israel from protecting its citizens and going after Hamas in Gaza,” Avi Hyman, the government spokesperson, said in a press briefing.

Channel 12, citing unnamed officials, reported that “Israel has no intention of complying with such decisions."

Israeli War Minister Benny Gantz stated that “Israel” would continue its "just and necessary war, including in Rafah against Hamas to ensure the return of hostages and secure Israeli safety.”

National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi and Foreign Ministry spokesperson tried to downplay the court’s ruling in a joint statement, asserting, "Israel does not intend, nor will it conduct, military operations in Rafah that would create living conditions capable of destroying the Palestinian civilian population, either fully or partially."

This reaction encapsulates the arrogance and racism inherent in Israeli dealings with the international community, reflecting the perception that Israel is America's favored nation, protected from mistakes and immune to punishment.

However, it also highlights Israeli increasing isolation as it reveals its racist attitudes and attempts to elevate itself above international accountability, despite accusing the Nazis of committing similar crimes against them.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, who has previously called for punishing international judges who condemn “Israel,” criticized the ICJ’s order, stating, "The ICJ can go to hell.”

“It is long past time to stand up to these so-called international justice organizations associated with the UN. Their anti-Israel bias is overwhelming.”

Implications of the ICJ Decision

Decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are theoretically binding and final. However, history shows they have been ignored in the past due to the ICJ's lack of enforcement power, leaving implementation up to the Security Council, where U.S. veto power often impedes action.

Still, a ruling against “Israel” from the highest legal body of the United Nations should increase diplomatic pressure on Netanyahu's government. Despite Israeli officials' declarations of non-compliance, the ramifications of this decision are significant on multiple fronts.

This ruling serves as a crucial legal document in the Palestinian cause, adding to the growing international pressure on “Israel” to scale back or end its military actions in Gaza, thereby increasing the Occupation’s global isolation.

While the Israeli official stance is one of non-compliance, international law experts note that the ruling's existence will have tangible effects. According to Haaretz, if “Israel” disobeys the ICJ's order to halt the war or its military operation in Rafah, it could face international sanctions.

The paper suggests that even with U.S. backing, most Western governments are likely to adhere to the ICJ decision, especially after several European nations declared they would honor an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, should one be issued.

Despite strong U.S. support for “Israel,” an increasingly pressing question is how long Washington will continue on this path amid growing domestic opposition manifesting as continuous protests against the Joe Biden administration's policies perceived as supporting genocide.

The ICJ decision may also exacerbate internal divisions within “Israel” and create rifts with its allies and supporters abroad. According to Maariv, the ruling to halt the war will push Israeli allies, especially the U.S., U.K., and Germany, to pressure “Israel” into compliance.

The decision could impact arms shipments to “Israel” from friendly nations, with other countries like China potentially delaying shipments of civilian goods as a form of sanction, according to the paper.

Tel Aviv also fears the expansion of pro-Palestinian protests in Western countries, which could compel these governments to adopt less supportive stances towards “Israel” and its actions in Gaza.

The most significant political threat posed by the ICJ ruling is the potential for a Security Council resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times of Israel reports that the American veto is not guaranteed in the current situation, and notes that Tel Aviv is preparing for the worst.