International Court of Justice (Al Jazeera)

The State of South Africa has submitted a request to the International Court of Justice to consider whether the decision announced by Israel to extend its military operations in Rafah requires the court to use its authority to prevent further imminent violations of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza.

This request came after increasing fears of an Israeli military operation against the Rafah area, which houses more than 1.4 million displaced Palestinians (most of whom are refugees registered with UNRWA) who were displaced from the northern and central regions of the Gaza Strip.

These concerns were expressed by more than one UN, American, European, regional and Arab official. Although there were many warnings in this regard, none of them constituted a real pressure tool on the occupation army.

Historical and present precedents say; The American behavior regarding this matter is clear, and the United States has always used its veto power against any project that criticizes or pressures Israel

Also, the American warning was not decisive and clear to prevent the occupation from launching this operation, and at the same time it was accompanied by efforts by the Biden administration to overcome all obstacles at the congressional level to supply Israel with additional ammunition and weapons. The American warning does not mean preventing the military operation, but rather calls for the necessity of “respecting the rules of international law and protecting civilians.” (Without there being a practical mechanism for advocacy).

Fears of the military operation focused on the expected human losses among civilians, as well as the place where the displaced could take refuge. To escape the indiscriminate Israeli bombing. (European Union foreign policy official Josep Borrell expressed his concerns by saying: Where are the people of Rafah going? Are we sending them to the moon?)

The Israeli threat to launch a large-scale operation against the residents of Rafah comes days before the deadline for the International Court of Justice to request that Israel submit a report on the extent of Israel’s commitment to measures to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide.

In this context, there are a set of questions that clarify the course of the litigation process and its future, including:

On February 26, 2024, will Israel submit a report to the International Court of Justice regarding measures to be taken to prevent further genocide? Does she have the answers at all, or did she treat the court's decision lightly? What are the repercussions of the Israeli escalation in Rafah on the course of the trial, and what may be included in the upcoming report?

It is clear, from field data and indicators, that the occupation did not take any measures, nor did it comply with the request of the International Court of Justice. The tight siege is still ongoing, killings and field executions have continued, ambulance crews have been targeted, and the number of civilian martyrs is still high. Despite this, Israel will submit a report (so that it is not considered to be violating the resolution).

However, it is expected that the content of the report will be empty, and will contain justifications for its criminal behavior against the residents of the Gaza Strip. Her response may constitute a dilution of the entire issue. The response will be considered formally to respect the court's decision that a report must be submitted.

Regarding South Africa’s new request from the International Court of Justice on February 13, 2024 regarding Rafah, the court is expected to react to this request, but not as quickly as South Africa expects. As for Israel, it is awaiting the court’s response to South Africa’s request from it in order to build on its requirements. That is, it is expected that Israel will not ignore the awaited new court request.

Will the International Court of Justice be convinced by the Israeli response? Is it negotiable and negotiable? (Although this must be decided due to the scale of crimes against the civilian population.)

There are considerations for a decision by the court, the most important of which is that international political will determines the course of justice, even if the judges enjoy absolute integrity. The court - like any national court - needs executive authority to implement the rulings it issues.

It is important to mention regarding the political environment that the position of the Arab and Islamic countries - especially the countries directly connected to Gaza - is not sufficient to provide a sufficient guarantee and immunity to protect the residents of the Gaza Strip from the crime of genocide, even if the court takes a decisive decision regarding Israel, especially with regard to the entry of the necessary humanitarian aid. And enough.

So, if the court is not convinced by Israel's written answer, it may then refer the matter to the Security Council, which must (in theory) take all necessary measures to implement the precautionary decision of the International Court of Justice.

Here we ask the following question: Will the Security Council take the appropriate decision regarding a country that refused to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice, or will the United States use its veto power? To prevent any action against Israel, the country officially accused before the International Court of Justice of the crime of genocide?

Historical and present precedents say; The American behavior regarding this matter is clear, and the United States has always used its veto power against any project that criticizes or pressures Israel.

The final question in this regard is: What if the United States actually stood in the way of international justice and provided a new umbrella to protect Israel from international accountability? What is the future of the United Nations, which was unable to achieve its goals and failed the moral test related to preventing the crime of genocide against the people of Gaza? Will the United Nations become a witness to a new crime of genocide, or will it restore respect for its principles and achieve justice for the residents of Gaza?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.