The UN’s top court ruled on Friday that the humanitarian situation in Rafah was “disastrous” and ordered Israel to halt any operation that could bring about “physical destruction in whole or in part”.
The International Court of Justice further said that Israel must reopen the Rafah border crossing, which the IDF captured earlier this month, to facilitate the supply of humanitarian aid and to provide a report on its compliance in one month.
Jonathan Turner, chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), said that the media had widely misinterpreted the ruling to suggest that Israel must halt its Rafah operation completely.
“This is not the first time that UKLFI finds it necessary to correct misinterpretation of the ICJ’s Orders in this case,” he said. “We urge the media to correct the current headlines urgently, especially as such mis-reporting has a terrible impact in promoting antisemitism”.
The ICJ did not make an order requiring Israel to cease its military operation in Rafah unconditionally, as had been sought by South Africa, UKLFI said. Instead, it ordered that:
“The State of Israel shall… immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
According to UKLFI, it is clear from the wording and punctuation that the phrase “which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” qualifies both parts of the requirement that Israel must “halt its military offensive, and any other action the Rafah Governate”.
This qualification, UKLFI argues, can only be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition applies if the operation may have this effect.
"Israel considers that its military operation in Rafah does not inflict conditions of life that could bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a national, ethnic or racial group in Gaza in whole or in part,” a UKLFI statement said. “It will therefore continue the operation in compliance with the order.”
The ICJ also did not rule that the IDF must halt its broader war in Gaza, as the Israeli government reportedly feared it might.
Israeli spokesman Avi Hyman said before the verdict that any verdict issued by the court would not stop the IDF’s campaign.
“No power on Earth will stop Israel from protecting its citizens and going after Hamas in Gaza,” he said.
The judgment comes as part of a broader case in which South Africa has accused the Jewish state of committing genocide, an allegation on which the ICJ is yet to rule.
Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security advisor, said he was concerned Israel was losing global backing for its military campaign.
“As a country that stands strong in defence of Israel in international forums like the United Nations, we certainly have seen a growing chorus of voices, including voices that had previously been in support of Israel, drift in another direction,” he said.
“That is of concern to us because we do not believe that that contributes to Israel’s long-term security or vitality … So that’s something we have discussed with the Israeli government.
Israel insists that the charge of genocide is baseless and that its campaign in Rafah is necessary to fully defeat Hamas.
Anne Herzberg, a legal advisor for the pro-Israel NGO Monitor, said the ICJ’s verdict, “denies Israel is legal right of self-defence”.
She said: "It is clear that the UN's court was not guided by international law or human rights, but was a political move aimed to coincide with the indefensible actions of the ICC Prosecutor equating Israel to Hamas.
"The decision is based upon blatantly false information provided to the Court by South Africa's legal team and to advance the apparent objective of keeping Hamas in power in Gaza.
"Given that there is no legal foundation, nor moral justification for this opinion, Israel should not, and I expect will not, abide by the ICJ's decision."
