More than three months after the Islamic Resistance Movement popularly called, Hamas, attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel has retaliated very ferociously on Gaza Strip consistently in the bid to tame and deal with members of the group.

Israel’s action did not go down with many, who not only condemned the consistent ferocious attack on Gaza Strip, but also Israel, because the majority of the huge casualties recorded were dubbed innocent citizens, including children.

This necessitated some concerned stakeholders with South Africa leading the pack to take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging genocide. Just about a week ago, the ICJ, in its ruling, ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide in its war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

While many have hailed the decisions of the ICJ, some are not happy because the ruling did not call for immediate ceasefire or have sympathy for Israel considering the steps Israel were asked to make.

Commenting on the ruling, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said the charge of genocide leveled against Israel was ‘outrageous’ and said it would do whatever is necessary to defend itself.

On his part, Palestinian Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, said: “The ICJ judges assessed the facts and the law, they ruled in favour of humanity and international law.”

Commenting on the ruling, the Deputy Secretary General, the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), Professor Salisu Shehu, said the body couldn’t hold back its elation over the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 

“Whereas the ICJ did not order for an immediate stoppage to the cruelty the Palestinians have been subjected to for over a hundred days now, with the powerful nations of the world not just being indifferent, but playing participatory roles in the promotion of fiendish acts against the defenceless civilians of Palestine in Gaza, as they have always done for over half a century, the Court has demonstrated readiness to address any issues of genocide that may be proven against Israel.

“It has ordered that Israel does nothing genocidal against the Palestinians. It has obligated Israel to, within one month, show proof that she is in compliance with the decision of the Court.”

NSCIA stated the court’s decision has put all nations, whose actions are obvious endorsements of the culture of impunity on the part of the Israeli government against Palestinians on notice that they too will become culpable for any genocidal acts against Palestinians by Israel.

The Council saluted the uncommon intrepidity demonstrated by the government and people of the Republic of South Africa, who picked up the broken threads, in a world where feelings for the suffering of Palestinians had been numbed, to weave a fabric of hope for the mortified and helpless women, children and men of Palestine.

NSCIA hopes the Court will find the final courage to ask for a total stoppage to the killings and destruction, which are ostensibly intended to erase Palestinians from the earth. “The court must deny this fire the needed air to continue to burn.”

It, therefore, called on the powerful nations of the world USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Turkey and Canada, to do what is morally and legally right, by not just stopping the killings, but by guaranteeing the Palestinians’ right to live in dignity.

“The walls of hubris, domination, and oppression must be pulled down for all to live in dignity and peace.” Similarly, NSCIA implored the neighbouring Arab, Muslim and other countries that are honestly, truly and sincerely committed to and stand for freedom, justice and human rights to take advantage of this historic order by the ICJ to swiftly act and save millions of Palestinians who are dying of hunger and starvation. 

“We should all rush to send food, water, medicine and all other essential provisions to save the lives of children, women and all innocent civilians that are being suffocated to death by the inhuman blockades of the occupying forces.” 

Looking specifically at the details of the ruling, the court ordered Israel to avoid taking actions that could fall under the Genocide Convention including ensuring its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza, though it did not order ceasefire in Gaza, which Israel argued could allow Hamas militants to regroup for launch of new attacks.

“At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention,” the judges said.

Also, Israel was told to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza aside preserving evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.

The court also expects Israel to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in Gaza, just as it said it was concerned about hostages held in Gaza, imploring Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release them without conditions.

In the days ahead, Israel, over a month, is to submit a report to the court on steps taken to comply with its orders in the ruling to allow the court examine in detail the merits of the case.

What is the 1948 Genocide Convention that those who went to ICJ relied on? The convention was enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust and it defined genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Commenting on the ruling, a Professor of International Relations at the University of Jos, Plateau State, Victor Adetula, noted that the Hague has given its opinion that Israel takes action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

“While the Palestinians are applauding it, Israel is insisting on its rights to defend itself. This in effect mean nothing has changed in practical term beyond the moral persuasion by the ICJ. The war is still on, and with the prospect of spreading across the region, also bringing in external actors, which will surely further complicates the scenario.  

“No doubt that international morality, international law, and international diplomacy have their roles in the management of inter-state. However, today’s international relations are governed through power politics. Expectedly this has implications for global peace and stability. Worst still, since the end of the Cold War the international system has lost its highly structured and practicable patterns of relationships among states. Thus, the post-Cold War international system is resting on weak and fragmented global governance architecture. No definite state on ceasefire.”

He noted that though the court ordered Israel to refrain from any act that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza, period, the ruling by ICJ was based essentially on hard facts.

“Nevertheless, some of the acts and omissions allegedly committed by Israel in Gaza were seemingly capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention. Therefore, Israel should do all within its power to prevent and punish any act of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Also, Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians.

“As for ceasefire, ICJ did not make declaration on it.  Israel had said ceasefire would allow Hamas militants to regroup and to launch new attacks on the country. And it should be noted that the ICJ has no power to enforce ceasefire.”

Adetula said Israel has indicated its respect for international law but reiterated its commitment to defend itself against all threats to its security as a sovereign state.

“Israel will not compromise its stand of insisting on defending itself at all costs which is also the position of its main ally, the US.” Speaking on whichever stand Israel takes for international politics and diplomacy, Adetula said whichever stand Israel takes will not by itself change the situation in any fundamental way. “Therefore, Israel war against Hamas will not on its own change the principle and practice of international relations and diplomacy in any fundamental way. However, the internationalisation of the conflicts through involvement of external actors on both sides has the prospect of significantly disturbing the balance of power in the region, and with grave consequences for regional peace and stability.”

On his part, former Director General, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Professor Bola Akinterinwa, said the ruling has an interim character but still enables further reflections to which the ICJ could be politically neutral, jurisdictionally competent, and objectively reconciliatory.

According to him, it particularly reflects the true nature of power politics in international relations.

“In other words, there is politics of law and there is law of politics. The ICJ reflects power politics to a great extent in that it cannot easily do away with the influence politics of the United States. The allegations by South Africa of genocidal crimes against Israel are stricto sensu not only against Israel per se, but lato sensu, against Western countries led by the United States in particular.

“Israeli behaviour in international politics is that of ‘don’t care’ and this has largely been condoned by the big powers. In my view, the ICJ ruling simply reconciled law and politics in order to sustain the status quo without offending any side. More important, the ICJ did not say directly that Israel had engaged in genocidal crimes but simply cautioned that Israel should prevent genocide as required by the 1948 Geneva Conventions.

“It tried to cover up Israeli’s genocidal atrocities by so doing. It is important to recall that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on 10 December 1948 and that the human rights treaty, by virtue of the importance attached to it, was the first to be adopted on December 9, 1948, that is, a day before. By signing it first was to underscore the determination of ‘never again,’ never again. Another genocide against the Jews or any other people?

“There should never be another holocaust, and therefore should not be tolerated in whatever form. Thus the December 9, 1948 humanitarian treaty was actually very protective of the Jews. It was a commitment never to accept a recurrence. As defined by the convention, a genocide is any of the ‘five acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group.

“Based on this definition, genocide must first of all be intentioned. A genocidal crime must be a resultant from political will. Genocide cannot be accidental or incidental. And perhaps, more disturbingly, the Convention identified the five genocidal acts as including ‘killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.

“Additionally, and most interestingly, the Convention prohibits ‘complicity, attempt, or incitement of its commission.’ With this explanation, we can ask many questions in light of the provisions of the Convention: for instance, has Israel committed any genocidal crime? Yes, I readily answer. This is because the Netanyahu government has made it crystal clear that the objective of its war on the Hamas is to ‘wipe the Hamas out.

“This is very consistent with the notion of intentional genocide provided for in the Geneva Convention. And true enough, the Israeli forces lived as promised, killing Gazans recklessly and indiscriminately. This means that Israel has committed genocidal crime by declared intention and by act.”

Akinterinwa, however, noted the ICJ advising Israel not to go to the extent of committing acts of genocide is nothing more than playing high-wire politics.

“How do you expect South Africa, a small or medium power that South Africa is, attempting to challenge a superpower like the United States? In fact, even though, in municipal law, it is the prayers brought to a law court that the bench is required to address, not more than that, at the level of the ICJ the states which are the only disputants that can bring cases to the ICJ, are by the principle of pacta sunt servanda, obligated to ensure that the obligations created by the Geneva Conventions are respected by all the signatories.

“Both Israel and South Africa are signatories. It is against this background that the South African case of genocide against Israel should be understood.”

On no definite statement about ceasefire in the court ruling, Akinterinwa said no one under normal circumstance would have expected such a definite statement on ceasefire for reasons that cannot be farfetched.

“The ruling has political dimensions. The ruling appears to have Western, and particularly, American, jot of influence. It is well known that the United States is the strongest ally of the Israelis in international relations. The United States has not always vetoed any UN resolution meant to undermine Israeli interests. We should not forget that the United States was very instrumental to the partitioning of Palestine into Jewish and Arab States in 1948, especially in collaboration with the United Kingdom who had the League of Nations’ Mandate over Palestine. Please also recall that the United States was the first country to recognise the State of Israel when it was established on May 14, 1948.

“When the Arabs openly pledged the following day to push the Israelis to the seaside and never to accept the survival of the new State of Israel, it was thanks to the very strong backing of the Americans that the Arabs were quickly defeated. In this regard, the United States wants to be a credible mediator in the Israelo-Arab conflict, but, most unfortunately, has very partisan interest which is not acceptable in principle in diplomatic practice.

“Consequently, it should be expected that the United States would normally do what is doable to prevent any ceasefire and ruling that is neither in the interest of the Israelis nor in that of the Americans. The truth in this case is however clear-cut. Israel does not want to withdraw from any of the territories it occupied following the wars with the Arabs.

“Israel is vehemently opposed to the idea of a two-state solution to the conflict. In fact, there are currently two competing suggestions on how best to end the conflict: return to the pre-1967 war boundaries and two-state solution. None is acceptable to the Israelis.

“Israel’s declared intentional policy of wiping out the Hamas is very genocidal in all ramifications and that is precisely what the Israelis want. The ultimate objective is to create a situation of terra nullius, that is, ‘no man’s land’ that will eventually be occupied by the Israelis. But without any whiff of doubt, it is precisely this Israeli’s policy of applying the principle of legitimate self-defence that will catalyse and internationally increase anti-Jews sentiments and that may prompt a second Jewish holocaust.”

The professor of international relations at Achievers University, Owo, Ondo State, said: “The argument of the Israelis that they are fighting Hamas and not the Palestinians is nothing more than a smokescreen. The Hamas are original Palestinians and cannot be easily wiped out without international consequences. Again, even if the ICJ ruling has provided for a ceasefire, it cannot but be at best meaningless for many reasons.

“First, Israel is not on record to have any due regard for the ICJ. Israel does not respect any UN resolution or court ruling that is detrimental to any Israeli’s interest. Secondly, Israel has openly declared that it would not comply with any ICJ ruling that is inconsistent with its interest. Consequently, ceasefire or no ceasefire, the ruling is to sustain the status quo.”

Speaking on whether Israel will take directives from the measures prescribed by ICJ, Akinterinwa noted that there are three main measures taken by the ICJ, which are need to prevent genocidal crimes in Gaza by not engaging in it and by non-incitement into it; the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages; and enablement by Israel of access to basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian Gazans.

“The likelihood of Israel preventing genocide is remote because Israel has said that it will wipe out a whole people because they are terrorists and anti-Israel. The release of hostages falls more within the whims and caprices of the Hamas than within the power of the Israelis.

“Israel’s image has the potential to be further damaged if it refuses international access to basic services to the genocidal victims. One bitter truth that the world is yet to accept is that the much military devastation and destruction of Gaza by Israel has only destroyed more of the internationally-protected citizens: the non-combatants, innocent children, hospitals, etc.

“For as long as the measures you may have in mind are not detrimental to Israel’s intention to occupy Gaza as a newly acquired territory, it can be expected that Israel might accept the directives. Israel cannot have another good opportunity to acquire another Palestinian territory.

“Again, do not forget that Israel is not acting alone in this regard. Many European Union countries do support Israel. Arab countries themselves cannot be said to be responsible enough in the protection of Palestinian interests.”

Asked the implications for international politics and diplomacy whichever stand Israel takes, Akinterinwa said that first and most significant implication is the further polarisation of the global community and the making of a new Cold War.

“For example, the Israelo-Hamas conflict has already created three schools of thought on the matter of genocide: proponents, opponents, and deponents of other views. The proponents argue that Israel has actually committed genocidal crimes. I belong to this school of thought because Israel declared its intention to wipe out the Hamas, arguing the case of legitimate self-defence or the case of unprovoked attack.

“Polemologically, Israel refuses to recognise the fact that there are always profound causes of conflict, incidental causes, as well as immediate causes of any given conflict. The October 2023 attacks on the people of Israel are the immediate causes and not the profound causes. In fact, the attacks were neither incidental nor accidental.

“They were very profound and apparently prepared on a long term basis. There is nothing to suggest that another Hamas attack cannot still happen outside of Israel. Israel may now become a permanent target of terrorist attacks. This means that international peace and security will now be under terrorist threats in the near future.

“The opponents argue to the contrary that there is no genocide. The thinking here is that the Hamas or the Palestinians are yet to be completely wiped out, hence the consideration of any Israeli genocide cannot be tenable. The question here is whether to wait until the whole Gazans are killed before it can be posited that there is an act of genocide. Genocide exists the moment there is an intention to wipe out a people either partly or otherwise. The deponents of other views suggest that it is actually the sponsors of both the Israelis and the Palestinians that should be held responsible a priori.

“Both disputants have their supporters. The war between Israel and the Hamas is increasingly becoming a proxy war and by so doing catalysing the deepening of a new Cold War in the making. In other words, since the conflict and the ICJ ruling have polarised public opinion, the implications for international politics and diplomacy are most likely to be carried to inter-state level, that is, countries like the Arabs and Russia cannot but be expected to support the Palestinian Gazans, while the Americans and their Western allies are expected to similarly support Israel.

“Additionally in this regard, the resort to increased use of veto at the level of the UN Security Council should be expected. In other words, any resolution against Israel or Palestine cannot but be vetoed by the United States and Russia depending on whose case is at stake.”

Akinterinwa maintained that regardless of whatever position Israel takes, anti-Semitism is most likely to be on the increase as well.

“More importantly, in the mania of the South Africans, The Ukrainians have also considered the need and have actually taken Russia to the ICJ, this time not for genocidal crimes but for violations of the 1948 Geneva Convention. This is one immediate implication that it may no longer be easy to aid and abet genocide. If the aftermath of the ruling is not very cautiously managed, the Israelis may be inviting another holocaust for themselves.

“It is most ironical that the world leaders took exception to the genocide on the Jews and there said ‘never again,’ should there be another holocaust and the first beneficiaries of the protective Convention are the same, modern day Jews engaging in a fresh genocide against another group of people.”

Weighing in on the issue, the Palestine Ambassador in Nigeria, Ambassador Abdullah Mohammed Shawesh, asked for a ceasefire in the war, saying the killings calls for concerns, as two women are killed every hour alongside children.
   
Shawesh demanded for an investigation commission to look at what happened not only on October 7, but incidents on October 5 and 6, especially as the October 7 incident did not happen in a vacuum.
   
The ambassador also called for humanitarian aids for people of Gaza because of the humongous starvation in the land, mainly because access to food and water have blocked with many not eating for days.
   
The envoy further said that all hostages on both sides should be freed with the African Union made a member of the commission of enquiry on the war.
Shawesh maintained that it is erroneous to allude that the war has religious undertone, neither is it a Muslim-Jew conflict because on the Palestinian side are Jewish and Christians who are vehemently fight the Israelis.  He noted that the religious undertone is a propaganda by Israel, some western countries and media.

 
According to him, the Palestinians are not asking anyone to support them, but all they want is for people to listen to their narratives on the issue.
The ambassador stated that it is in the collective of all the war ends and justice is done including respect for international laws. For him, no one is safe until everyone is made safe, stating that Palestinians are being for fun with Israelis and the Western media portraying as if Palestinians lives do no matter.
   
According to him, over 33,000 people killed  with many bodies already decomposing as at the time the corpses were found. He added that Gaza is at present completely leveled as ten of thousands homes and buildings are now rubbles.
   
He also noted that the incitement against Palestinians is unprecedented, as many Israeli leaders and their supporters are making provocative statements against Palestinians.
   
Shawesh lamented that Israel has continued to show disrespect for international law and the International Court of Justice in the ongoing war in Gaza.
According to him, Israel has been very clear in its position that it will not abide by the decisions of the ICJ.

“Israel made it very clear that it will not abide by any judgment by ICJ. The Israeli Prime Minister declared that he will not abide. Israel and its officials have accused the ICJ of anti-semitic bias. They are very clear in this regard,” he said. He argued that the United States of America has continued to supply ammunition to Israel and frustrated all efforts to achieve a ceasefire.