Contact: [email protected]
To: Interested Parties
From: The 10/7 Project
Re: ICJ Rejects South Africa’s Call for Unconditional Ceasefire in Israel-Hamas War
Today, the International Court of Justice rejected South Africa’s call for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. In its ruling, the court also expressed concern for the fate of the hostages Hamas kidnapped during the October 7th massacre, and called on the terrorist group to immediately release the remaining captives without conditions. Key takeaways from the court’s ruling are below.
NBC News: “‘I think it’s notable that the court did not call for an immediate cease-fire, which was something that South Africa was seeking,’ said David J. Simon, director of the genocide studies program at Yale University. ‘Implicitly, the court recognized Israel’s invocation of their right to self-defense.’”
Washington Post: “‘The court found that Russia had no foundation under international law for its claims of self-defense and that it should stop waging war [in Ukraine],’” said Yuval Shany, a law professor at Hebrew University and former member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. “‘In this case, you might read the court’s rulings as an implicit validation that Israel does have a legitimate claim of self-defense.’”
CNBC: “The court also said it was ‘gravely concerned’ about the welfare of the over 200 Israeli hostages abducted by Palestinian militant Hamas during their Oct. 7 terror attacks that triggered Israel’s retaliatory military response in the Gaza Strip. The World Court called for the immediate release of the captives.”
The Atlantic: “However, the court stopped short of ordering Israel to end its military operations against Hamas, a nod to Israel’s right to respond in self-defense after the deadly Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7. South Africa had hoped the court would order such a cessation, in effect ruling in favor of an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. The court did also call for the immediate release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas…For the law to provide justice, however, it must be fairly and evenly applied. South Africa’s case raises the question of why Israel is accused of genocide when Hamas is not.”
National Review: “Opponents of the accusation of genocide include Australia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, while Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau has said that, though he does not personally believe Israel has committed genocide, his country will accept the ICJ’s ruling. Critics of South Africa’s case have noted that the definition adopted at the United Nations’ 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — itself prompted by the Holocaust — describes intentional acts rather than the inadvertent killing of civilians during armed conflict.”
Wall Street Journal: “[The International Court of Justice] stopped short of ordering the fundamental objective South Africa and its allies sought: an end to Israel’s military response to the Oct. 7 attacks Hamas launched from Gaza. The court also called for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages Hamas took from Israel….[the Court] also acknowledged that Israel had asserted a right to self-defense, which the U.N. Charter recognizes, and that Israel in official statements had said it sought to minimize harm to civilians.”
Reuters: “However, the court did not demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, something that Israel says would allow Hamas militants to regroup and to launch new attacks on the country. The court also said it was ‘gravely concerned’ about the fate of hostages held in Gaza and called on Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release them without conditions.”
The Hill: “‘The court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law,’ [ICJ President Joan] Donoghue said. ‘It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on seven October 2023. And held since then, by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.’”
New York Times: “Notably, the court has not ordered Israel to cease its attacks, but only to take actions to ensure its soldiers and citizens adhere to the Genocide Convention.”
NBC News: “These ‘provisional measures’ [ordered by the International Court of Justice] are different than the main ask requested by South Africa, which is bringing the case and wanted a total and immediate cease-fire.
BBC: “The court did not agree to South Africa’s request for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza – something that will disappoint the South Africans and Palestinians alike.”
AP: “While the case winds its way through the court, South Africa had asked the judges ‘as a matter of extreme urgency’ to impose provisional measures. Top of the South African list was a request for the court to order Israel to ‘immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.’ But the court declined to do that.”
CBS News: “In its ruling on Friday, the ICJ said it was “gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”
Reuters: “Israel unleashed its assault after a cross-border rampage on Oct. 7 by Hamas militants. Israeli officials said 1,200 people were killed, mostly civilians, and 240 taken hostage. The court said it was “gravely concerned” about the fate of the hostages in Gaza and called on Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release them without conditions.”
###