Holding on at the Hague

This was only an interim decision, because this was just the first preliminary stage of the case. At this point, the question before the Court was not on the merits of the matter — i.e., the Court was not deciding whether or not Israel has actually committed genocide — but rather on jurisdiction, meaning the Court was being asked to determine, for itself, if it should even have the power to consider at some future date whether or not Israel has committed genocide.

That limited question turned on whether the judges felt that South Africa’s accusations were even plausible, a finding that requires a very low evidentiary standard. Not surprisingly, they found that “at least some of the acts and omissions… appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the genocide convention,” and therefore granted themselves the authority to eventually hear the arguments.

In the meantime, they also issued some temporary measures that South Africa had asked for. But just as important as what the judges said is what they refused to say, and while the ruling is not the immediate dismissal of the case that Israel sought, it is far more of an embarrassing defeat for South Africa and its Hamas-supporting allies.

Background

The decision came in response to an application that was genuinely absurd. By all accounts, including South Africa’s, Israel has the military capacity to destroy Gaza in a matter of minutes — if it so desired. Noticeably, Israel has not done so, and instead has taken extreme measures to protect innocent civilians. Compare that lack of genocide and genocidal intent with, for example, the actions and intent of Hamas, a group that has repeatedly vowed and tried to commit genocide.