The ICJ, Gaza and a Year of Deafening Silence

It is rare for the highest judicial bodies in the world to challenge Israeli impunity in a meaningful way. The United Nations Security Council has attempted to do so in the past, only to be stonewalled by the United States’ veto power or even the mere threat of it. Yet, on January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took an extraordinary step—it ruled that Israel must implement legally binding provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza from what could amount to genocide.

This was not just another diplomatic censure or a symbolic resolution; this was an authoritative ruling from the world’s most prestigious judicial institution. And yet, a year later, the ruling has been all but erased from political discourse. No major global leader acknowledged the anniversary. The failure to enforce these measures has been met with silence, not just from politicians but from much of the media as well.

The judgment was one of the most significant in the ICJ’s history, triggered by a meticulously argued case from South Africa, which laid out a comprehensive legal indictment against Israel. Despite this, the world continued on its path of selective outrage—demanding accountability in some conflicts while turning a blind eye to others. This silence is not just an oversight; it is complicity.

The ICJ’s decision was based on one critical question: Is there a plausible risk that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide? The answer was a resounding yes. The court did not hesitate in recognizing the clear and present danger to Palestinians, ruling that urgent intervention was necessary to prevent further atrocities. For some, the ruling itself was controversial—not because of its content, but because it implicitly recognized Palestinians as a people with rights.

South Africa’s legal team presented undeniable evidence of genocidal intent. Intent, not the number of casualties, is the legal determinant of genocide. It is not merely about how many people are killed, but whether the perpetrators seek the destruction of a specific group, in whole or in part. The Israeli leadership’s statements and policies made it impossible to deny their intentions.

The world was momentarily shaken by the ICJ’s ruling. Would Israel finally be held accountable? Would the global community step in to prevent a full-scale catastrophe? The answer, as history has now shown, was no. Instead of enforcement, we have witnessed even greater brutality.

If there was any hope that Israel would moderate its actions following the ICJ’s ruling, that hope was soon shattered. Over the past year, Israel’s military operations in Gaza have only intensified, pushing the boundaries of international law with little to no consequences. If doubts remained about the genocidal nature of these actions in January 2024, they have since evaporated. The northern Gaza offensive, which lasted for three grueling months, saw some of the worst violence yet. It was not just about targeting Hamas fighters; entire communities were systematically starved, bombed, and displaced.

Could anyone seriously argue that the Israeli leadership’s intent was anything other than to inflict “serious mental and bodily harm” on the Palestinian people? The evidence is overwhelming. Yet, those in power—the very governments that claim to champion human rights—continue to ignore it.

One of the most damning charges against Israel was its use of starvation as a weapon of war. The ICJ’s provisional measures explicitly ordered Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza without obstruction. Yet, for months, aid was deliberately restricted, with Israeli officials openly justifying these actions.

This was not an issue of logistical failure or bureaucratic inefficiency—it was a calculated policy decision. Israel turned off the flow of aid and then, at will, turned it back on to suit its strategic needs. Before a January 2025 deal increased the number of aid trucks entering Gaza, the daily average stood at a mere 57. Once political calculations changed, that number skyrocketed to 700 per day. The suffering of the Palestinian people was not accidental—it was intentional.

Additionally, Israel’s calculated destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure—its power grid, hospitals, water supply, and sanitation—ensured that even if aid did get through, it would be of minimal use. The ICJ’s ruling made it clear: Israel had an obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief. Instead, it did the opposite, all while deflecting blame onto the United Nations and Palestinian groups.

The ICJ did not just call for humanitarian access—it also ruled that all parties must prevent and punish incitement to genocide. Yet, a year later, not a single Israeli leader has faced consequences for their incendiary remarks. From the highest levels of government, dehumanizing rhetoric continues unabated.

One of the most egregious recent examples came from Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who declared that Gaza was “an animalistic society that sanctifies death.” Such statements are not just offensive; they are textbook examples of incitement to genocide. Yet, Western politicians—so quick to condemn far lesser offenses elsewhere—have largely ignored them. The failure to act on this incitement is not just a dereliction of duty; it is an open invitation for continued atrocities.

When the ICJ issued its ruling, it was not merely offering legal guidance—it was issuing a stark warning to the world. Provisional measures are not recommendations; they are obligations under international law. And yet, the response from the most powerful states has been to look the other way.

Instead of enforcing the ruling, key Western governments have continued to supply Israel with weapons, ensuring that the machinery of destruction remains well-oiled. This is not just passive complicity—it is active participation. The governments supplying arms to Israel are not merely bystanders; they are enablers.

As more nations, including Ireland and Spain, join South Africa in demanding accountability, the moral and legal case against Israel’s actions grows stronger. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both determined that Israel’s actions amount to genocide. Holocaust and genocide scholars have echoed these concerns. Yet, those with the power to intervene remain silent.

The failure to uphold the ICJ’s ruling is not just a betrayal of the Palestinian people—it is a precedent that will haunt the international system for years to come. If a ruling of this magnitude can be ignored, what does that say about the future of international law? What does it say about the ability of global institutions to prevent future genocides?

Even those who refuse to call Israel’s actions genocide cannot deny the litany of war crimes and crimes against humanity that have taken place. By ignoring the ICJ, the world’s most powerful actors have not just failed the people of Gaza—they have undermined the very principles of justice and accountability that they claim to uphold.

The consequences of this failure will not be confined to Palestine. By allowing one genocide to proceed with impunity, the international community has set a dangerous precedent—one that will embolden perpetrators of atrocities everywhere. If we do not act now, we will be forced to watch history repeat itself, again and again, with different victims but the same tragic outcome.

Despite the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) historic ruling, the world’s most influential actors have chosen silence, inaction, and complicity. This failure is not merely an oversight; it is an indictment of the very institutions that claim to uphold human rights and international law. When the highest judicial body in the world signals the imminent danger of genocide, its warnings should spark immediate and decisive action. Yet, instead of responding with urgency, world leaders and institutions have abandoned their moral and legal responsibilities, allowing Israel’s actions to escalate.

The ICJ’s provisional measures were not mere recommendations—they were legally binding orders. The ruling acknowledged that Palestinians in Gaza faced an existential threat and that Israel’s actions carried a real risk of genocide. This was not an abstract legal argument but a clear and urgent determination that required intervention. However, what followed was nothing short of a disgrace. The international community, especially those with the power to hold Israel accountable, did nothing. Worse, some nations actively enabled further atrocities by continuing to provide military aid, diplomatic cover, and media silence.

History has repeatedly shown that genocide does not happen in isolation. It requires a system of complicity, whether through direct support or passive neglect. The refusal to enforce the ICJ’s ruling and the continued supply of weapons to Israel implicate many nations in the crimes unfolding in Gaza. Those who arm and defend an aggressor after a judicial warning of genocide are not just bystanders—they are accomplices.

Genocide is not defined by the number of people killed, but by the intent to destroy a people, in whole or in part. The South African legal team demonstrated this intent with devastating clarity. Statements from Israeli political and military leaders provided undeniable evidence of genocidal rhetoric, and yet, not a single Israeli official has faced consequences for these inflammatory remarks. The ICJ specifically ordered that incitement to genocide be prevented and punished. This was a direct instruction, yet it has been entirely ignored.

If the global order functioned as it claims to, figures like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would be facing prosecution for his statement labeling Gaza’s population as “an animalistic society that sanctifies death.” Instead, such dehumanizing rhetoric continues unabated, creating the ideological groundwork for further atrocities. It is not enough for Western governments to simply call for “restraint”—they must demand accountability and impose consequences. Their failure to do so reveals the depth of their double standards when it comes to human rights.

One of the most damning charges against Israel was the deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war. The ICJ’s ruling explicitly ordered Israel to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, yet the opposite happened. The restrictions on food, water, and medical supplies were not logistical failures but strategic policies designed to break Gaza’s population.

When Israel suddenly increased aid entry after a ceasefire deal, it exposed the reality: the starvation was intentional. The number of trucks allowed into Gaza surged from an average of 57 per day in October to over 700 per day in January. The aid was never unavailable—it was withheld as a tool of war. Meanwhile, Israel’s continued blockade of power meant hospitals, water systems, and sanitation facilities collapsed, deepening the humanitarian catastrophe.

The same Western nations that once rallied against the use of starvation as a weapon in other conflicts suddenly lost their voices. The same institutions that imposed sanctions on states for lesser war crimes have remained silent. This is not an oversight; it is a deliberate political calculation that prioritizes Israel’s impunity over Palestinian lives.

Some argue that the focus should now shift to implementing the Israel-Hamas deal, that diplomacy should take precedence over legal rulings. This is a naive and dangerous proposition. The truth is that if Israel had taken the ICJ’s ruling seriously, it would have adjusted its conduct long before any ceasefire negotiations. Instead, it intensified its military campaign, expanded its operations in the West Bank, and continued its brutal siege on Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no real commitment to a lasting peace. His government’s actions demonstrate that any pause in violence is merely a tactical delay rather than a step toward resolution. The idea that a diplomatic deal can succeed while a state openly defies international law is a farce. Without enforcement mechanisms, without genuine consequences, such negotiations are doomed to fail.

If the world continues to disregard the ICJ’s ruling, it is not just the Palestinians who will suffer. The credibility of international law itself is at stake. If a state can defy the world’s highest court with impunity, then every other aggressor in future conflicts will follow suit. The refusal to act now does not only enable Israel’s crimes—it lays the foundation for future genocides elsewhere.

To ignore this ruling is to send a message that genocide is tolerable if the perpetrator is politically or militarily powerful enough. It tells the world that justice is selective, that international law applies only to the weak, and that institutions meant to protect human rights are ultimately toothless.

The ICJ did its duty. It issued its warning. It laid out the legal framework for action. The question now is whether the international community will allow itself to become complicit in one of the most documented genocides of the modern era.

No amount of political maneuvering can erase the evidence. No amount of diplomatic posturing can undo the suffering of those trapped in Gaza. The test of our time is whether we will stand by and watch as the principles of justice crumble—or whether we will finally demand accountability, not just in 

rhetoric, but in action.

The verdict of history will not be kind to those who chose inaction. And for those who still believe in justice, the time to act is now.