Nicaragua asks ICJ to end German support of Israeli

Nicaragua has asked the International Court of Justice to order Germany to halt military arms exports to Israel and to resume its funding of the UN Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, saying there is a serious risk of genocide in Gaza.

Nicaragua's agent ambassador Carlos Jose Arguello Gomez told the court Berlin had violated the 1948 Genocide Convention by continuing to supply Israel with arms after ICJ judges ruled it was plausible that Israel violating some rights guaranteed under the genocide convention during its assault on Gaza, Reuters reported. 

He told the judges that Berlin was ignoring its obligations under international law by continuing to provide military assistance to Israel.

The German government rejected Nicaragua's allegations.

Berlin is one of the major arms exporters to Israel, sending 326.5 million euros (US$353.70 million) in military equipment and weapons in 2023, according to Economy Ministry data.

 

 

 

 

ICJ Ruling: Greatest political dilemma for Joe Biden

In both a national and international context, the ICJ decision poses a huge problem for the Biden administration. White House and State Department officials took the absolute position immediately after South Africa filed their petition to the ICJ that the claim of genocide was meritless.

A close to unanimous court ruling that Israel’s assault on Gaza is plausibly genocidal — and with the singular US judge standing with the majority — that dismissive attitude, and related claims that ​the UN is biased against Israel will not get much traction.

“The much-anticipated decision by the International Court of Justice ​marks the greatest moment in the history of the court” says Richard Falk, a noted international law professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

It strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign states — not just some, Falk says about the ICJ’s ruling that South Africa’s magisterial presentation of evidence ​was sufficient to conclude Israel may be committing, conspiring to commit, or publicly inciting the commission of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The ICJ decision gave new strength to South Africa’s groundbreaking accomplishment — demolishing the taboo against holding Israel accountable for its crimes. As South Africa’s foreign ministry put it, “Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.”

“The decision is a momentous one,” says the foreign ministry, noting how important the determination is for the implementation of the international rule of law. ​“South Africa thanks the Court for its swift ruling.”

The decision was a significant victory beyond what most observers hoped for — not only the recognition that Israel’s actions are plausibly genocidal, but because of the imposition of provisional measures based on measures South Africa requested in order to stop Israel’s actions that are continuing to kill and put Palestinians at risk. 

The ruling was also particularly important because of the overwhelming majority of judges who supported it, including the sole US judge on the court. When the president of the court, Judge Joan Donoghue, who was a longtime State Department lawyer before being elected to the ICJ, read out the provisional measures, she included the line-up of how judges voted on each one. And she was among the 15 or 16 out of 17 judges who supported every one. 

 

While judges serve as individuals and are not supposed to represent their governments, there is no question that national allegiances and other political considerations often emerge. In this case, only the judge from Uganda opposed all the court’s measures while the temporary Israeli judge opposed four out of six.

It should not have been a surprise that this preliminary finding recognized that Israel’s war against the entire population of Gaza may well constitute genocide.

The definition, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, says that two things are required to fulfill that definition: a specific intent to destroy all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or other group (in this case the Palestinian population of Gaza), and the commission or attempt to commit any one of five specific acts to realize that intent.

South Africa presented evidence that Israel is already committing — and conspiring to commit and inciting commitment — of at least four of those acts: killing, seriously injuring members of the group, creating conditions that make survival of the group impossible, and preventing births within the group.

The ICJ decision was not a full determination of the facts and the law — as usual, those issues in international legal venues take years. This kind of initial finding requires a very low bar only that it is plausible that Israel’s military actions, the siege and more could plausibly be found to constitute genocide.

It took the court only two weeks to come to this ruling, though still too long given the numbers of people the Israeli military is killing on a daily basis. But it still represents a hugely important step that will play a major role in strengthening the growing, broadening movement for Palestinian rights that is now playing such an unprecedented role in U.S. and global politics.

And then the ICJ went further, imposing six provisional measures to try and ensure that the rights of Palestinians might be protected from those actions. The measures imposed by the court say Israel ​shall take all necessary measures to prevent the commission of any of the five acts named in the Genocide Convention, that it ensure that its military forces do not commit any of those acts, that it punish any public incitement to those acts, that it take all measures to provide humanitarian assistance, to prevent the destruction of evidence relevant to the charges of genocide, and to report to the court within one month on what Tel Aviv is doing to abide by the court’s ruling. 

The first measure was the only one weakened by the court. South Africa had requested the immediate suspension of military operations: a cease-fire.

The ICJ language refers only to taking all necessary measures to prevent the five genocidal actions, but without demanding an actual end to the military assault.

However, the Court’s second measure arguably answers that weaker language by keeping to the South African request that Israel make sure that the military does not commit any of the relevant acts — meaning that the IDF should stop killing people and be prevented from doing so.

Not just prevented from killing too many people, as President Joe Biden’s administration and others have urged, but prevented from killing any people.

Netanyahu and his war cabinet must be punished for committing genocide

Human rights defenders and legal experts on Thursday lauded what many called South Africa's "compelling" opening presentation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in a case accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in the embattled Gaza Strip.

In a bid to obtain an ICJ emergency order for the suspension of Israel's relentless 97-day assault on Gaza, South African jurists including Justice Minister Ronald Lamola argued that Israel is violating four articles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly called the Genocide Convention. The landmark 1948 treaty—enacted, ironically, the same year as the modern state of Israel was born, largely through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arabs—defines genocide as acts intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."

South African lawyers detailed Israel's conduct in the war, including the killing and wounding of more than 80,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, forcibly displacing over 85% of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million people, and inflicting conditions leading to widespread starvation and disease. They also cited at length statements by Israeli officials calling for the destruction and even nuclear annihilation of Gaza in their presentations, which eschewed graphic imagery in favor of arguing "clear legal rights."

"In its opening argument thus far, South Africa has made a compelling case showing how the genocidal statements by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and other senior officials were interpreted as official orders by Israeli forces in their attacks against Gaza," US investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill said on social media.

"Beyond the citations of the vast civilian deaths and injuries caused by Israel in Gaza, [South Africa's] lawyers argued effectively that Israel's 'evacuation' orders were in and of themselves genocidal, demanding the immediate flight of a million people, including patients in hospitals," Scahill continued.

"What becomes crystal clear listening to the openly genocidal words of Netanyahu and other Israeli officials is that they know exactly what they are saying," he added. "And they are comfortable saying these things publicly because they know the US will shield them from accountability."

Left-wing author and activist and former South African parliamentarian Andrew Feinstein said, "South Africa's presentation to the ICJ thus far has been exceptional, overwhelming, and devastating," opining that "the only way the ICJ doesn't impose interim measures is if the judges are open to pressure from 'the West.'"

"South Africa's lawyers have done the nonracial, post-apartheid country proud," he added.

Legal scholar Nimer Sultany, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, called South Africa's presentation "compellingly argued and powerfully presented."

"Given the court's case law, and given the lower threshold required for issuing provisional measures, it will be very surprising if the court does not issue provisional measures against Israel," Sultany asserted.

"This also should prompt reflection amongst all those governments and media outlets who supported [Israel's war,] because they have been supporting a genocide," he added.

Sultany and numerous other observers said the most powerful presentation of the day was made by Irish lawyer and case adviser Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, who delivered South Africa's closing statement.

Israel—some of whose officials have condemned South Africa's case as a meritless "blood libel"—is scheduled to present its defense on Friday. Israeli jurists are expected to focus heavily on the atrocities committed by Hamas-led attackers who killed more than 1,100 Israelis and took around 240 others hostage on October 07, 2023. They will likely argue that the country has a right to defend itself, and that it is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

While an emergency order from the World Court would not be enforceable, it would represent a major international embarrassment for Israel, which is increasingly isolated on the world stage.

A growing number of nations including Brazil, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Jordan, and Bangladesh are supporting South Africa's case, as are the Arab League, more than 1,250 international human rights and civil society group, and progressive US Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush.

"Whatever the outcome, we are witnessing an amazing moment of rule of international law history," said Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard.