Middle East Crisis Top U.N. Court Decision Adds to Israel’s Growing Isolation
May 24, 2024
The United Nations’ top court at The Hague issued its decision in response to a request from South Africa. Credit: Johanna Geron/Reuters
Here’s what we know:
The International Court of Justice ordered Israel to suspend its military campaign in Rafah, in southern Gaza, but the court has no means of enforcing the decision.
Top U.N. court decision adds to Israel’s growing isolation.
The World Court ruling is a blow to Israel’s standing, but the court has no enforcement powers.
Israel says its military operations in Rafah don’t — and won’t — violate the World Court’s order.
Israeli forces recover the bodies of three more hostages in northern Gaza.
Israeli forces cut off access to a battered major hospital in northern Gaza.
News Analysis
A decision by the International Court of Justice highlighted Israel’s growing diplomatic isolation.
Credit: Koen Van Weel/EPA, via Shutterstock
In 2011, a former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, warned that Israel faced a “diplomatic-political tsunami” of censure if its conflict with the Palestinians went unresolved, as peace talks faltered and revolution spread across the Middle East.
To Israeli foreign policy analysts, that tsunami has never seemed closer.
On Friday, the International Court of Justice, an arm of the United Nations, ordered Israel to suspend its military campaign in Rafah in southern Gaza, adding to a growing list of diplomatic and legal moves against Israel that have undermined its international standing.
The ruling came just days after prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, another international tribunal, called for the arrest of Israel’s prime minister and defense minister, a move that was supported by some longstanding partners of Israel, including France.
The order came the same week that three European countries took the coordinated step of recognizing Palestine as a state. It also followed widespread university campus protests in the United States against Israel’s campaign in Gaza, as well as decisions by Turkey to suspend trade with Israel and by Belize, Bolivia and Colombia to break diplomatic ties with Israel.
“This is not North Korea or Belarus or Myanmar levels of isolation — but it is isolation,” said Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former consul general in New York. “It creates a tremendous sense of pressure.”
The latest move by the International Court of Justice may not have immediate practical effects: Under the terms of the order, Israel has a month to show how it has complied with its instructions. Even if Israel ignores the order, the I.C.J. has no means of enforcing it. In theory, the United Nations Security Council can issue a resolution on the matter, but the United States, Israel’s most powerful ally, has a permanent seat on the council, enabling it to veto any measure against Israel.
But, put together, the moves against Israel show not only the ebbing of Israel’s international reputation but also the dwindling of American influence, said Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington, as the United States is increasingly unable to prevent American allies and international institutions from targeting its main partner in the Middle East.
“There is a change in the rules of the international politics,” Mr. Rabinovich said.
“The rest of the world is on the way toward overcoming the U.S.,” Mr. Rabinovich said, adding, “They are saying, ‘We cannot beat you in the U.N. but we now have the two international courts and we will shift to those places where you have no control.’”
Against that backdrop, the United States and other steadfast allies of Israel, like Germany, have adopted a more critical tone against the Israeli government, even as they try to defend it against foreign condemnation.
In the second week of the war, President Biden flew to Israel with a clear message: “You are not alone.” But in recent months, he has expressed increasing concern about Israel’s counterattack in Gaza, calling its strategy a “mistake” and some of its actions “outrageous.”
He also paused a shipment of bombs to Israel, signaling his opposition to Israel’s plans to invade the urban core of Rafah.
Germany’s position has shifted subtly, too, with Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, asking during a visit to Tel Aviv in March, “No matter how important the goal, can it justify such terribly high costs?”
Still, Israel may feel able to continue the war as long as the United States maintains most of its financial and military aid. In April, Congress voted to provide Israel with another $15 billion in military aid, highlighting that Washington broadly continues to act in Israel’s favor even as some American leaders express verbal reservations.
Mr. Biden will need to weigh any further moves against Israel with the political cost. While a stronger stance could boost him in the eyes of his left-leaning base, it could also allow Republicans to present themselves as better allies of Israel. Speaker Mike Johnson has been signaling for weeks that he intends to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress.
Within Israel, however, the moves against its government could bolster Mr. Netanyahu, analysts said. Days after ministers in his government spoke out against Mr. Netanyahu’s leadership, the court decisions have prompted those same ministers to close ranks and show a united front.
The rebukes from foreign governments and institutions also provide Mr. Netanyahu with another chance to present himself as Israel’s defender, shoring up his ebbing domestic support, Mr. Pinkas, the former diplomat, said.
“It plays into his narrative that the world is against us and I’m standing tall,” he said.
Still, Mr. Netanyahu’s critics said that Israel’s standing would be higher had he not squandered the outpouring of good will for Israelis that followed the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
Opposition to Israel’s war conduct has been partly spurred by contentious comments by government ministers, who have called for Israel to maintain permanent control over Gaza or even to drop an atomic bomb on the territory. Israel’s security services have also often failed to prevent Israeli civilians from obstructing aid convoys and ransacking their cargo.
Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s opposition, criticized the court ruling, noting, “Israel was the one that was brutally attacked from Gaza and was forced to defend itself against a horrific terrorist organization.” But he also said that the ruling could have been averted if a “sane and professional government would have prevented insane statements by ministers, stopped criminals who torch aid trucks and performed quiet and effective political work.”
Israel’s isolation has extended to the cultural and academic worlds, where decades-old calls to boycott Israeli artists and universities have gathered momentum.
In recent months, universities in countries including Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Spain have announced that they have cut ties with Israeli counterparts or are considering doing so.
“We want to give a clear message that the warfare that the State of Israel is now carrying out in Gaza is unacceptable, and undermines the democratic foundation on which all universities must build,” the University of Southeastern Norway said in a statement in February after terminating its exchange programs with two Israeli colleges.
Thousands of artists signed an open letter in February calling for the organizers of the Venice Biennale, one of the art world’s most important festivals, to bar Israel from participating in this year’s gathering.
Though the festival ignored the petition, the Israeli team behind the country’s entry chose to close its display to the public until a cease-fire was reached. But that failed to quell the opposition to their presence, and more than 100 protesters — some of them artists involved in the Biennale — marched through the festival site in April, chanting “Viva Palestina.”
Johnatan Reiss contributed reporting from Tel Aviv and Jonathan Rosen from Jerusalem.
— Patrick Kingsley reporting from Jerusalem
The World Court ruling is a blow to Israel’s standing, but the court has no enforcement powers.To Israeli foreign policy analysts, that tsunami has never seemed closer.
On Friday, the International Court of Justice, an arm of the United Nations, ordered Israel to suspend its military campaign in Rafah in southern Gaza, adding to a growing list of diplomatic and legal moves against Israel that have undermined its international standing.
The ruling came just days after prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, another international tribunal, called for the arrest of Israel’s prime minister and defense minister, a move that was supported by some longstanding partners of Israel, including France.
The order came the same week that three European countries took the coordinated step of recognizing Palestine as a state. It also followed widespread university campus protests in the United States against Israel’s campaign in Gaza, as well as decisions by Turkey to suspend trade with Israel and by Belize, Bolivia and Colombia to break diplomatic ties with Israel.
“This is not North Korea or Belarus or Myanmar levels of isolation — but it is isolation,” said Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former consul general in New York. “It creates a tremendous sense of pressure.”
The latest move by the International Court of Justice may not have immediate practical effects: Under the terms of the order, Israel has a month to show how it has complied with its instructions. Even if Israel ignores the order, the I.C.J. has no means of enforcing it. In theory, the United Nations Security Council can issue a resolution on the matter, but the United States, Israel’s most powerful ally, has a permanent seat on the council, enabling it to veto any measure against Israel.
But, put together, the moves against Israel show not only the ebbing of Israel’s international reputation but also the dwindling of American influence, said Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington, as the United States is increasingly unable to prevent American allies and international institutions from targeting its main partner in the Middle East.
“There is a change in the rules of the international politics,” Mr. Rabinovich said.
“The rest of the world is on the way toward overcoming the U.S.,” Mr. Rabinovich said, adding, “They are saying, ‘We cannot beat you in the U.N. but we now have the two international courts and we will shift to those places where you have no control.’”
Against that backdrop, the United States and other steadfast allies of Israel, like Germany, have adopted a more critical tone against the Israeli government, even as they try to defend it against foreign condemnation.
In the second week of the war, President Biden flew to Israel with a clear message: “You are not alone.” But in recent months, he has expressed increasing concern about Israel’s counterattack in Gaza, calling its strategy a “mistake” and some of its actions “outrageous.”
He also paused a shipment of bombs to Israel, signaling his opposition to Israel’s plans to invade the urban core of Rafah.
Germany’s position has shifted subtly, too, with Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, asking during a visit to Tel Aviv in March, “No matter how important the goal, can it justify such terribly high costs?”
Still, Israel may feel able to continue the war as long as the United States maintains most of its financial and military aid. In April, Congress voted to provide Israel with another $15 billion in military aid, highlighting that Washington broadly continues to act in Israel’s favor even as some American leaders express verbal reservations.
Mr. Biden will need to weigh any further moves against Israel with the political cost. While a stronger stance could boost him in the eyes of his left-leaning base, it could also allow Republicans to present themselves as better allies of Israel. Speaker Mike Johnson has been signaling for weeks that he intends to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress.
Within Israel, however, the moves against its government could bolster Mr. Netanyahu, analysts said. Days after ministers in his government spoke out against Mr. Netanyahu’s leadership, the court decisions have prompted those same ministers to close ranks and show a united front.
The rebukes from foreign governments and institutions also provide Mr. Netanyahu with another chance to present himself as Israel’s defender, shoring up his ebbing domestic support, Mr. Pinkas, the former diplomat, said.
“It plays into his narrative that the world is against us and I’m standing tall,” he said.
Still, Mr. Netanyahu’s critics said that Israel’s standing would be higher had he not squandered the outpouring of good will for Israelis that followed the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
Opposition to Israel’s war conduct has been partly spurred by contentious comments by government ministers, who have called for Israel to maintain permanent control over Gaza or even to drop an atomic bomb on the territory. Israel’s security services have also often failed to prevent Israeli civilians from obstructing aid convoys and ransacking their cargo.
Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s opposition, criticized the court ruling, noting, “Israel was the one that was brutally attacked from Gaza and was forced to defend itself against a horrific terrorist organization.” But he also said that the ruling could have been averted if a “sane and professional government would have prevented insane statements by ministers, stopped criminals who torch aid trucks and performed quiet and effective political work.”
Israel’s isolation has extended to the cultural and academic worlds, where decades-old calls to boycott Israeli artists and universities have gathered momentum.
In recent months, universities in countries including Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Spain have announced that they have cut ties with Israeli counterparts or are considering doing so.
“We want to give a clear message that the warfare that the State of Israel is now carrying out in Gaza is unacceptable, and undermines the democratic foundation on which all universities must build,” the University of Southeastern Norway said in a statement in February after terminating its exchange programs with two Israeli colleges.
Thousands of artists signed an open letter in February calling for the organizers of the Venice Biennale, one of the art world’s most important festivals, to bar Israel from participating in this year’s gathering.
Though the festival ignored the petition, the Israeli team behind the country’s entry chose to close its display to the public until a cease-fire was reached. But that failed to quell the opposition to their presence, and more than 100 protesters — some of them artists involved in the Biennale — marched through the festival site in April, chanting “Viva Palestina.”
Johnatan Reiss contributed reporting from Tel Aviv and Jonathan Rosen from Jerusalem.
— Patrick Kingsley reporting from Jerusalem
A house hit overnight by an Israeli bombardment in Rafah on Monday.Credit: Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The International Court of Justice on Friday ruled that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, dealing another blow to the country as it faces increasing international isolation.
The court has no means of enforcing its orders, and Israel said the language of the ruling left some room for interpretation. Hard-line politicians in Israel immediately vowed that Israel would not comply.
Still, the 13-2 ruling puts more pressure on the Netanyahu government over the conduct of the war. Gazan authorities say at least 35,000 people have been killed, without distinguishing between combatants and civilians, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee repeatedly to avoid the Israeli bombardment, which has devastated most of the enclave.
“The court considers that in conformity with obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” the court’s president, Nawaf Salam, said in reading the ruling.
Read the I.C.J. Ruling on Israel’s Rafah Offensive
The International Court of Justice ruled on Friday that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, dealing another blow to the country as it faces increasing international isolation.
Read Document
The ruling is the latest in a series of rebukes of Israel over the conduct of its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The court emphasized the need for “the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance,” including maintaining open land crossings and, in particular, the Rafah crossing, which Israel seized more than two weeks ago. It ordered Israel to “immediately take all effective measures to ensure and facilitate the unimpeded access” of United Nations investigators into Gaza. The judges also ordered Israel to submit a report on the measures it had taken to implement the decision within a month.
A South African legal team had urged the I.C.J., the United Nations’ top court, last week to put further constraints on Israel’s incursion in Rafah, saying it was “the last step in the destruction of Gaza and its people.”
Israel’s military has said that since early May, it has been conducting a precise, targeted offensive against Hamas in Rafah, and is fighting in neighborhoods near the heart of the city. More than a million people who fled other parts of Gaza were sheltering in Rafah, but most have fled this month.
Israel’s deputy attorney general for international law, Gilad Noam, and other Israeli lawyers rejected the claims before the court last week, calling South Africa’s case an “inversion of reality.”
In a statement, the Israeli government said its military “has not and will not” take actions that would lead to the partial or complete destruction of the civilian population of Rafah. In effect, it said that the court’s decision has no bearing on Israel’s offensive because the military is not committing the prohibited acts.
Satellite imagery of Rafah from May 22 showed damage and clearing reaching around four miles into Gaza from the border with Israel toward Rafah’s center.
South Africa argued that Israel’s control over the two major border crossings in southern Gaza, at Rafah and Kerem Shalom, prevented enough aid from getting in, plunging Gaza into “unprecedented levels of humanitarian need.” Few aid trucks are entering, according to U.N. data, but many commercial trucks — which carry goods to sell rather than to distribute free — have entered the enclave.
The hearings are part of South Africa’s case, filed in December, accusing Israel of genocide, which Israel strongly denies. In late January, the court ordered Israel to do more to prevent acts of genocide, but stopped short of calling for a cease-fire. The main body of the case, dealing with genocide, is not expected to start until next year.
In March, in its strongest language to that point, the court ordered Israel to stop obstructing humanitarian aid to Gaza as severe hunger there spread, open more border crossings for supplies and provide “full cooperation” with the United Nations.
Judge Salam said the situation in Gaza had deteriorated since March, and was now “to be characterized as disastrous.”
Israel launched its military operation in retaliation for the Oct. 7 attacks that officials say killed 1,200 people and led to the abduction of about 250 others into Gaza. The court reiterated its call for the “immediate and unconditional release” of the hostages still held by Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza.
Lauren Leatherby contributed reporting.
— Gaya Gupta
The court has no means of enforcing its orders, and Israel said the language of the ruling left some room for interpretation. Hard-line politicians in Israel immediately vowed that Israel would not comply.
Still, the 13-2 ruling puts more pressure on the Netanyahu government over the conduct of the war. Gazan authorities say at least 35,000 people have been killed, without distinguishing between combatants and civilians, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee repeatedly to avoid the Israeli bombardment, which has devastated most of the enclave.
“The court considers that in conformity with obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” the court’s president, Nawaf Salam, said in reading the ruling.
Read the I.C.J. Ruling on Israel’s Rafah Offensive
The International Court of Justice ruled on Friday that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, dealing another blow to the country as it faces increasing international isolation.
Read Document
The ruling is the latest in a series of rebukes of Israel over the conduct of its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The court emphasized the need for “the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance,” including maintaining open land crossings and, in particular, the Rafah crossing, which Israel seized more than two weeks ago. It ordered Israel to “immediately take all effective measures to ensure and facilitate the unimpeded access” of United Nations investigators into Gaza. The judges also ordered Israel to submit a report on the measures it had taken to implement the decision within a month.
A South African legal team had urged the I.C.J., the United Nations’ top court, last week to put further constraints on Israel’s incursion in Rafah, saying it was “the last step in the destruction of Gaza and its people.”
Israel’s military has said that since early May, it has been conducting a precise, targeted offensive against Hamas in Rafah, and is fighting in neighborhoods near the heart of the city. More than a million people who fled other parts of Gaza were sheltering in Rafah, but most have fled this month.
Israel’s deputy attorney general for international law, Gilad Noam, and other Israeli lawyers rejected the claims before the court last week, calling South Africa’s case an “inversion of reality.”
In a statement, the Israeli government said its military “has not and will not” take actions that would lead to the partial or complete destruction of the civilian population of Rafah. In effect, it said that the court’s decision has no bearing on Israel’s offensive because the military is not committing the prohibited acts.
Satellite imagery of Rafah from May 22 showed damage and clearing reaching around four miles into Gaza from the border with Israel toward Rafah’s center.
South Africa argued that Israel’s control over the two major border crossings in southern Gaza, at Rafah and Kerem Shalom, prevented enough aid from getting in, plunging Gaza into “unprecedented levels of humanitarian need.” Few aid trucks are entering, according to U.N. data, but many commercial trucks — which carry goods to sell rather than to distribute free — have entered the enclave.
The hearings are part of South Africa’s case, filed in December, accusing Israel of genocide, which Israel strongly denies. In late January, the court ordered Israel to do more to prevent acts of genocide, but stopped short of calling for a cease-fire. The main body of the case, dealing with genocide, is not expected to start until next year.
In March, in its strongest language to that point, the court ordered Israel to stop obstructing humanitarian aid to Gaza as severe hunger there spread, open more border crossings for supplies and provide “full cooperation” with the United Nations.
Judge Salam said the situation in Gaza had deteriorated since March, and was now “to be characterized as disastrous.”
Israel launched its military operation in retaliation for the Oct. 7 attacks that officials say killed 1,200 people and led to the abduction of about 250 others into Gaza. The court reiterated its call for the “immediate and unconditional release” of the hostages still held by Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza.
Lauren Leatherby contributed reporting.
— Gaya Gupta
Latest Photos from Israel and Gaza
Israel says its military operations in Rafah don’t — and won’t — violate the World Court’s order.
Smoke rises over southern Gaza after an Israeli airstrike in Rafah.Credit: Haitham Imad/EPA, via Shutterstock
Israel on Friday rebuffed accusations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza as “false, outrageous and revolting,” while also stressing that it wouldn’t conduct military operations in the southern city of Rafah that would violate the World Court’s order not to inflict conditions that could lead to the destruction of the Palestinian population “in whole or in part.”
In a joint statement, Israel’s foreign minister and national security adviser insisted that its military “has not and will not” create such conditions, in effect saying that the ruling was moot.
It said that Israel’s campaign in Gaza after the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks has complied with international law, and also said that the Israeli authorities would also allow humanitarian aid to flow into the Gaza Strip and keep open the Gazan side of the Rafah crossing, which Israeli forces seized two weeks ago. The statement reflected critical requests in the court’s order, without formally saying Israel would comply.
But it was unclear how the court’s decision would shape Israeli military actions on the ground. In the decision, the judges ordered Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah — which has so far displaced more than 800,000, according to the United Nations — but did not specifically define the extent to which Israel could pursue more limited operations there.
Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet, spoke with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken on Friday afternoon. They discussed the court’s ruling, as well as the decision by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor to request arrest warrants for top leaders of Israel and Hamas, Mr. Gantz’s office said in a statement.
According to Mr. Gantz’s office, he thanked Mr. Blinken for “American support for Israel and its legitimacy to continue fighting,” adding that there was “critical meaning to that given the court’s decision.”
The I.C.J. decision was the latest international rebuke for an increasingly isolated Israel, in a week in which three European countries announced they would unilaterally recognize the State of Palestine, despite Israel’s objections, and the I.C.C. chief prosecutor said he was pursuing arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, on war crimes. The chief prosecutor also said he was seeking arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas on charges against humanity.
Yair Lapid, who leads Israel’s parliamentary opposition, denounced the World Court’s ruling. But, had Mr. Netanyahu’s government behaved more responsibly, Mr. Lapid added, it “could and should” have avoided such a damaging decision by the judges.
“A sane and professional government would have prevented insane statements by ministers, stopped criminals who torch aid trucks and performed quiet and effective political work,” Mr. Lapid wrote on social media. “We won’t win with this government.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right partners were quick to assert on Friday that Israel should not heed the court’s order.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right Israeli national security minister, said Israel should discard it altogether. “There ought to be one response: the conquest of Rafah, the escalation of military pressure, and the utter shattering of Hamas until the achievement of total victory,” Mr. Ben-Gvir said in a statement.
The decision sharpened a dilemma for Israel over its military operation in Rafah. Israeli officials have vowed to operate there in order to dismantle Hamas’s rule, despite international objection over the mass displacement of Palestinians who had been sheltering there.
Before Israel began its assault on Rafah, Hamas had established four militant battalions in the area, Israeli officials said, as well as dozens of cross-border tunnels that enabled the Palestinian armed group to smuggle in weapons and ammunition, circumventing an Israeli-Egyptian blockade.
In a joint statement, Israel’s foreign minister and national security adviser insisted that its military “has not and will not” create such conditions, in effect saying that the ruling was moot.
It said that Israel’s campaign in Gaza after the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks has complied with international law, and also said that the Israeli authorities would also allow humanitarian aid to flow into the Gaza Strip and keep open the Gazan side of the Rafah crossing, which Israeli forces seized two weeks ago. The statement reflected critical requests in the court’s order, without formally saying Israel would comply.
But it was unclear how the court’s decision would shape Israeli military actions on the ground. In the decision, the judges ordered Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah — which has so far displaced more than 800,000, according to the United Nations — but did not specifically define the extent to which Israel could pursue more limited operations there.
Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s war cabinet, spoke with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken on Friday afternoon. They discussed the court’s ruling, as well as the decision by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor to request arrest warrants for top leaders of Israel and Hamas, Mr. Gantz’s office said in a statement.
According to Mr. Gantz’s office, he thanked Mr. Blinken for “American support for Israel and its legitimacy to continue fighting,” adding that there was “critical meaning to that given the court’s decision.”
The I.C.J. decision was the latest international rebuke for an increasingly isolated Israel, in a week in which three European countries announced they would unilaterally recognize the State of Palestine, despite Israel’s objections, and the I.C.C. chief prosecutor said he was pursuing arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, on war crimes. The chief prosecutor also said he was seeking arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas on charges against humanity.
Yair Lapid, who leads Israel’s parliamentary opposition, denounced the World Court’s ruling. But, had Mr. Netanyahu’s government behaved more responsibly, Mr. Lapid added, it “could and should” have avoided such a damaging decision by the judges.
“A sane and professional government would have prevented insane statements by ministers, stopped criminals who torch aid trucks and performed quiet and effective political work,” Mr. Lapid wrote on social media. “We won’t win with this government.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right partners were quick to assert on Friday that Israel should not heed the court’s order.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right Israeli national security minister, said Israel should discard it altogether. “There ought to be one response: the conquest of Rafah, the escalation of military pressure, and the utter shattering of Hamas until the achievement of total victory,” Mr. Ben-Gvir said in a statement.
The decision sharpened a dilemma for Israel over its military operation in Rafah. Israeli officials have vowed to operate there in order to dismantle Hamas’s rule, despite international objection over the mass displacement of Palestinians who had been sheltering there.
Before Israel began its assault on Rafah, Hamas had established four militant battalions in the area, Israeli officials said, as well as dozens of cross-border tunnels that enabled the Palestinian armed group to smuggle in weapons and ammunition, circumventing an Israeli-Egyptian blockade.
Israel’s legal team at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on Friday. Credit: Peter Dejong/Associated Press
The court’s decision has enough ambiguity to give the Israeli military flexibility, as long as it reins in its campaign in Rafah, legal analysts said, though that would anger some hard-liners in the Israeli government.
“This decision does not order a halt to every military action in Rafah — only military activity that does not enable life to continue in Rafah,” said Michael Sfard, a prominent Israeli human rights lawyer. “At the same time, if Israel wants to comply with the ruling — it will have to scale down operations considerably.”
With the potential for international arrest warrants threatening its prime minister and defense minister, Israel is caught in a “legal whirlwind,” Mr. Sfard said. “International law has now become a major actor in the conflict.”
If Israel is believed to have violated the International Court of Justice’s decision, the country could find itself called before the United Nations Security Council, which is charged with enforcing such orders, said Pnina Sharvit Baruch, a former Israeli military legal adviser. In such a situation, she said, the United States would likely veto moves to penalize Israel.
“But if Israel finds a way to operate in Rafah without making the humanitarian crisis more severe, on principle we won’t be in violation of the order,” Ms. Sharvit Baruch said, adding Israel was more likely to buck the decision should a U.N. commission charged with investigating genocide in Gaza seek access to the Palestinian enclave.
— Aaron Boxerman
Here is what legal scholars have to say about the ruling.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague on Tuesday.Credit: Johanna Geron/Reuters
Experts on international law said that the latest emergency order from the World Court is sharper and more explicit than those issued earlier this year, which Israel has ignored.
“The language is quite blunt,” said David Scheffer, a prominent scholar of international criminal law, and a professor at Arizona State University. He noted that the majority writes about “the catastrophic situation in Gaza” and about a “disastrous” and “exceptionally grave” situation in Rafah.
“The court is signaling to Israel, ‘Do not worsen the situation because that may cross the red line of the Genocide Convention,’” Mr. Scheffer said.
Several analysts said they expected that Israel would ignore the order to halt the military operations in Rafah and that some countries would call a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
“This is an open invitation for the U.N. Security Council to act,’‘ said Stephen J. Rapp, a former international prosecutor and former American ambassador for war crimes issues. “It would come down to the U.S. to protect Israel with a veto, which in turn would weaken Washington’s ability to call for the rule of law elsewhere in the world.”
Mr. Rapp said the best solution would be for Israel to declare a victory over Hamas and wind down the offensive.
Here are some highlights of the ruling, legal scholars said:
Lawyers familiar with the International Court of Justice said the judges’ use of the word “shall” in the order made it a particularly forceful directive. The order says Israel “shall immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The order also says Israel must open the border with Egypt at Rafah, which it seized earlier this month, “for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.”
In addition, the order directs Israel to “take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide.”
The order says Israel must submit a report to the court on all measures within a month.
The court reiterated its “grave concern over the fate of the hostages taken in the attack in Israel” on Oct. 7, and called for their immediate release.
The judges said the forced evacuation of civilians from Rafah was not enough to prevent the risk of genocide as defined under international law. More than 800,000 people have heeded Israeli warnings to leave the city in advance of the offensive, but the court said Israel had not provided enough information to the court about their safety. The judges noted the areas where many people were ordered to go lacked safe water supplies, sanitation, food or shelter and other needs to ensure their survival. The court was not convinced the evacuation effort and related measures were sufficient to alleviate the immense risks to their survival.
— Marlise Simons
