PNN – A group of analysts have described the verdict of The Hague Court against Israel as a historic verdict.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, the International Court of Justice announced its initial verdict on South Africa’s complaint against Israel last Friday and asked Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent the genocide in Gaza.
The court also ordered Israel to report to The Hague-based court all the measures it has taken to prevent the genocide within one month of the verdict. Despite this, The Hague Tribunal did not issue an emergency order to stop the war in Gaza, contrary to South Africa’s request.
Some analysts considered it of little importance considering that the court did not issue an order to stop the war. Despite this, some other analysts consider this ruling as historical and consider the process of issuing it to be very important and meaningful.
The first and most important point about the importance of this ruling is that the International Court of Justice has ruled against Israel. In fact, the judges of The Hague Court did not reject any of South Africa’s arguments about the possibility of genocide committed by Israel and considered it prosecutable.
International law experts say the fact that the International Court of Justice spent the first 36 minutes of its hearing explaining South Africa’s right to sue Israel shows that the court has not ruled out the possibility of genocide in Gaza. For this reason, Friday’s initial verdict is considered to be a kind of confirmation of genocidal actions by the Israelis.
Read more:
The Wall Street Journal: The American defense mistook the attacking drone for an internal plane
In an interview with the New Yorker, Oona Hathaway, a law professor at Yale University, said: “The International Court of Justice has its own procedures and those who are not familiar with those procedures may not know that what South Africa was asking for was a request for interim measures. “Such a request does not in any way mean that the court will immediately issue a verdict that genocide has happened or not.”
According to the university’s argument, South Africa, in its complaint, had asked the court to issue a temporary ruling on whether there was enough evidence to decide whether genocide had occurred.
South Africa’s 80-page complaint contained very detailed and thought-provoking points and asked The Hague Tribunal to condemn Israel for committing the crime of genocide.
The court actually affirmed both of the above cases by 15 votes to 2. One of the two judges who voted against is from Israel. In this session, the judges of the court decisively rejected Israel’s claim that its actions were carried out in “self-defense”.
Tarek Cyril Amar, a German historian who works at Kecs University in Istanbul, wrote in a note in Rashatudi: “This verdict is a victory for South Africa and for Palestine and the Palestinians, and a heavy defeat for Israel, as even Human Rights Watch, a completely pro-Western organization, has made it clear.”
One of the other reasons that caused some people to consider the judgment of the International Court of Justice as less important is that this court does not have the power to implement its own judgments. The guarantee of the implementation of the decisions of this court should be done through the approval of a resolution in the UN Security Council, and in this council it is clear that the United States will not allow the approval of any resolution against Israel.
Despite this, even from the reaction of the Israeli authorities, it can be seen how much the issuing of this sentence has questioned Israel’s credibility and made it more difficult for them to continue the war.