The World Court’s initial response Friday to charges of genocide against Israel had deep historical resonance for both Israelis and Palestinians, even if it had no immediate practical consequences.
The International Court of Justice has not ordered a halt to fighting in the Gaza Strip and has not attempted to rule on the merits of the case, a process that will take months, if not years.
But the court ordered Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention, send more aid to Gaza and briefed the court on its efforts to do so – interim measures that appeared to be a rebuke to Israelis and a moral victory for the Palestinians.
For many Israelis, the fact that a state founded in the wake of one genocide was blamed for another was “quite a symbol,” said Alon Pinkas, an Israeli political commentator and former ambassador.
“That we are even mentioned in the same sentence as the concept of genocide – not even an atrocity, not disproportionate force, not a war crime, but genocide – it’s extremely uncomfortable,” Mr. Pinkas added.
For many Palestinians, the court’s limited intervention brought little practical relief but offered a brief sense of validation of their cause. For Palestinians, Israel is rarely held accountable for its actions and Friday’s decision appears to be a welcome exception.
“The massacre continues, the carnage continues, the total destruction continues,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a former Palestinian official. But the court’s intervention reflects “a serious transformation in the way Israel is perceived and treated globally,” she said.
“Israel is being held accountable for the first time – and by the highest court, and by an almost unanimous decision,” she added.
But many Israelis say the world holds Israel to higher standards than most other countries, and the move appears to them to be the latest example of bias against Israel in an international forum.
Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister whose inflammatory statements about the war were cited by the court in the preamble to its decision, called the decision anti-Semitic. “The State of Israel does not need to lecture on morality to distinguish between terrorists and the civilian population of Gaza,” Mr. Gallant said.
“Those who seek justice will not find it in the leather chairs of the Hague court,” he added.
Nonetheless, the court’s instructions could now provide momentum and political cover for Israeli officials who have been lobbying internally to moderate Israel’s actions in Gaza and ease the humanitarian disaster in the territory, according to law professor Janina Dill. internationally at the University of Oxford.
For Professor Dill, the case also sparked reflection “on the human condition,” she said.
“Preventing human beings from turning against each other is a constant battle, and no group in the world is incapable of it,” she added.
