María Suárez Toro

This morning, January 26, 2024, judges (15 to 2) ruled that the court has jurisdiction to rule in the case by South Africa against the State of Israel for possible violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.

 The court concluded that it has enough evidence to rule provisional measures in order to pursue a further genocide case, because it has jurisdiction in the case.

The provisional measures rules by the ICJ court approach the characteristics of Israel’s military operations  that might be genocide, like failing to prevent and punish incitement to genocide in Gaza against the 2 million Palestinianas (according to UN sources) in the Gaza strip, as expressed in Article 2 of the Convention where genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, through actions as such:

  • Killing members of the group (Article 2).

Although the Court states that following Israeli operations since 7/10/2023, although “figures cannot be independently verified, 25,700 Palestinians have been killed”.

  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. (Article 2)

Although the Court states that following Israeli operations since 7/10/2023, although “figures cannot be independently verified, over 63,000 injuries have been reported”

  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. (article 2)

Although the Court states that following Israeli operations since 7/10/2023 although “figures cannot be independently verified, 360 housing units have been destroyed or partially damaged and 1,000,007 million persons have been internally displaced.”

  • Imposing measures in order to prevent births within the group. (Article 2)

Although the statement by the Court includes this article as one where Israel has impacted, it does not explicitly present statistical evidence.

It is up to the women’s movement and all movements that support the protection of women of genocide against their reproductive right and women’s in the reproduction of life as a mothering species, to draft an amicus causa expanding the broader case of the genocide perpetrated to the very core of the overall reproduction of life in this war against Palestinians (Ross Patchesky) as is characterized indirectly in other indicators presented in the court, such as the statement by the UN Under secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Relief, Efforts, Mr. Martin Griffith: “… medical facilities have come under relentless attacks; a public health disaster is unfolding…”

Furthermore, the characterization of the war against children’s lives, against the living condition in the displacement camps, alongside the plight of pregnant women (not included in the court), presented by many media venues, such as obstetrician Dr. Deborah Harrington, an obstetrician, in  Christian Amanpour of CNN or AlJazzera’s Hind Khoudary in Gaza’s about displaced Palestinian pregnant women. According to her, 55,000 women have given birth in the most inhumane conditions in Gaza.

The court it did not accept South Africa’s request for a cease fire.  The merits of the broader allegation of genocide remains open and in the meantime, Israel has to Report to the ICJ court about its abidance with the provisionary measures.  Failing to comply can be used against the State of Israel in the future case.

The ICJ Court delivered its Order on Friday, 26 January 2024.