Would ICJ ruling stop the massacre? – Charles Santiago

The International Court of Justice in its decision has made it clear that Israel’s actions have elements of genocide as stipulated under the Genocide Convention 1948. – ICJ pic, January 27, 2024


Would ICJ ruling stop the massacre? – Charles Santiago


This judgment will push states selling arms to Israel to stop and think if they want to be complicit to genocide

IT was a much-awaited judgment. And to a large extent the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did not disappoint.

But many, including me, were disheartened that the United Nations court stopped short of ordering Israel to put an end to the military onslaught. Despite the fact that the ICJ cannot enforce its ruling, my heart ached for stronger words.

But the damage is done, even if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded quickly and insisted his country was defending itself and promised to continue abiding by international humanitarian law – sound bites that sounded lame.

This judgment would now push states (especially those selling arms to Israel) to stop and think if they would want to be complicit to genocide. The ICJ made that clear: that Israel’s actions have elements of genocide as stipulated under the Genocide Convention 1948. This, in itself, is a victory.

Secondly, the ruling has now made it even more impossible for Israel to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter. Israel’s claim of self-defence was ridiculous from the very start, as it is an occupying force.

But the more pertinent question is this: how would the ICJ’s ruling work to stop the massacre of the Palestinians in Gaza?

Here are some factors to consider: the ICJ’s ruling, although technically binding, cannot be enforced by the court. Therefore, besides comforting ourselves that abiding by Article 2 of the Genocide Convention would entail putting a stop to the military offensive, for now it only looks good on paper.

And even if the UN Security Council takes up on the judgment, it is very likely that the United States and the United Kingdom would exercise their veto powers. US President Joe Biden’s administration, just like Israel, has brushed off the ruling.

Israel’s pledge to respect international humanitarian law is and has always been hollow. The ICJ noted its senior officers’ harsh and demeaning words: calling for a complete siege and fighting human animals, before concluding that the current catastrophic situation for the Palestinians in Gaza would therefore deteriorate even further.

The court also observed that Israel’s countermeasures were insufficient to remove irreparable damage to the people.

But again, the question is whether the Palestinians in Gaza would now be safe and protected? Would there be an adequate supply of food and clean water so that the people don’t die from starvation?

Would they have access to fuel, electricity and proper heating? Would the killings of children stop? Would surgeries happen in proper hospitals and with anaesthesia?

While I commend the politically historical judgment by the ICJ and the unambiguous tone in which it was delivered, the ruling won’t stop the massacre or ensure proper humanitarian aid into Gaza.

This is shocking, frightening and leads me to ask if we have failed the people of Gaza. If we have failed ourselves.

Is there really another tangible solution, UN mechanism or tool that can actually put an end to this senseless war? Or should we comfort ourselves as the judgment may offer a new political reality? – January 27, 2024

Charles Santiago is a former Klang MP. He is currently chairman of the National Water Services Commission and also chair of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights