According to the ICJ president, information shows that more than 25 thousand Palestinians were killed, and over 2 million people were displaced during the war. The Palestinian people are under protection based on the agreement on the prohibition of mass killing, and Israel must take the necessary measures to prevent the crimes of killing against a human group. This regime must also ensure that its forces do not commit the crime of genocide and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The International Court of Justice at the Hague (also known as the World Court) is one of the leading judicial organs of the United Nations, which is headquartered in the Netherlands.

The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings).

In this connection, South Africa, citing Article 9 of the Genocide Convention as the basis of the court’s jurisdiction to handle this case, for the first time filed a case against the government of the Israeli regime in the court, and the court also confirmed its jurisdiction to handle this case. The case resulted in a verdict upholding South Africa’s claims of genocide in Gaza. Since, according to the statute, the rulings of the International Court of Justice are binding and final, and give the interested party the right to file a case in the Security Council, this issue is important from various dimensions.

First of all, this verdict proved the charges related to the mass killing of the Palestinian people by the Israeli regime and asked the Israeli army to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip and fulfill its duties within the framework of international law.

On the other hand, the opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s war in Gaza can be considered an important precedent in dealing with human rights violations during wars. This opinion shows that if it has jurisdiction, the International Court of Justice can investigate human rights violations during wars and demand the cessation of these violations.

Also, this vote shows that the international community takes human rights violations during wars seriously, and even powerful regimes with comprehensive international and media support, such as  Israel, cannot escape the consequences of their inhumane actions forever. On the contrary, issuing this opinion gives hope to the Palestinians and other victims of human rights violations that the international community will support them.

The most important effect of this vote is the loss of soft power, reputation, and international credibility of the Israeli regime, which the powerful lobby of those years had tried to provide for this regime through influence in the media and the film and television industry, and it was seen as a victim. To show the oppressed and the supporters of democracy and human rights. Now, the Court’s decision not only destroyed the image and credibility of the Israeli regime as an agent of genocide but also increased the cost of the support different countries provide for Tel Aviv; this is to the extent that the Ugandan authorities have deplored their judge in the court who ruled in favor of Israel. Based on this, it must be said that the Israeli regime was tried in the International Court of Genocide a few hours before the “Holocaust Remembrance Day.” it is a heavy defeat for this regime and a great victory for the oppressed Palestinian people.

Despite the above strengths, it seems that the court ruling was somewhat conservative in some aspects; South Africa, considering the previous rulings of The Hague Court in Ukraine’s case against Russia in 2022, in which the judges declared in their temporary order that “Russia is committed to ending all its military operations in Ukraine immediately.” They asked the court to issue a temporary order regarding the Gaza war before issuing the main verdict and to order that the Israeli regime should suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. However, there is no trace of such a ruling in the court’s interim order, and it is only stated that the Israeli regime must ensure that its forces do not commit genocide and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for the besieged Palestinians. Such a temporary order shows that the influence of the Israeli regime on international institutions is still at a high level. Apparently, the legal team of this regime has also been able to convince the judges of this court that the military operations of this regime against Hamas and the people of Gaza are justified in the form of “legitimate defense.” It is acceptable and necessary!

From a legal point of view, the next step after announcing the International Court of Justice verdict is for the Secretary General of the United Nations to send its instructions to the Security Council according to the Hague Tribunal’s statute. Although it is no secret that the American support in the Security Council of the Israeli regime, as it has prevented the ceasefire and the end of this devastating war, will probably prevent the imposition of serious pressure on this regime, the difference of opinion between the United States and the officials of the Israeli regime regarding the two-state solution to end this crisis and Biden’s concern about the pressure of public opinion on the eve of the presidential elections and the costs of defending a genocidal regime, all are factors that can weaken the firm support of the United States for the Israeli regime and pave the way for the relative coercion of the Israeli regime to conform to the rules of international law.

On the other hand, the ruling of the Hague Court against the Israeli regime enables the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (which deals with international crimes of individuals and state officials) to take action against the regime’s senior officials. Therefore, despite the existing conservatism, it seems that the decision of the court is an influential issue and can be the cornerstone and basis of new legal measures against the Israeli regime and all governments that use tools such as genocide and violations of the laws of war and human rights. They use humanitarianism for their own benefit.