Whatever one's opinion on the merits of the genocide charge, the interim ruling issued by the International Court of Justice yesterday against Israel constitutes, also from an objective standpoint, a "disaster" for Tel Aviv.

In this context, today's Independent editorial commented that from now on, every time an Israeli minister, spokesperson or diplomat appears in public, or in a private meeting with their counterparts, they will have to confront the blatant charge of genocide.

In addition, the charge was not made casually by an “extremist” Islamic faction or an anti-Semitic Western politician, but by the highest court in the international community, and was presented in sober and considered terms citing relevant evidence that cannot be easily dismissed.

The British newspaper believes that the words of the President of the World Court, Judge Joan Donghue, will weaken the desire of Israel's allies to support it and alienate those countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan and Egypt, with which Israel is trying to establish and maintain normal relations.

Israel has lost more of its moral cause in a war it considers existential. America in particular will be dismayed and disappointed, as is likely to be expected from the court's ruling.

Compliance with international law

If Israel wants to live in peace and stability - according to the Independent's opinion - it must maintain the support of its near and distant allies, and it must remain within the framework of international law. This is why what the ICJ says is important.

The newspaper added that although the ruling was only temporary, Israel should not have found itself in potential violation of the 1946 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and now finds itself in contempt of the most sacred international agreements.

The Independent continued that if Benjamin Netanyahu's government had responded to the warnings of its friends and allies weeks ago regarding stopping the escalation of the war on Gaza and the subsequent killing of more than 25,000, the wounding of 63,000, and the displacement of 1.7 million people, South Africa's case would have been much weaker, and the Court of Justice might have rejected this. Accusations.

It is not wise now for Israel to attack the UN court and challenge the “temporary measures” it demanded, because its rulings are legally binding, and deliberately ignoring them will make Israel’s position worse, according to the newspaper.

Israel should therefore refrain from disparaging the Court of Justice or South Africa, and must comply with the Court's instructions on the protection of civilians and the prevention of genocide. This effectively means ending the war, allowing a humanitarian ceasefire for a longer period, and not calling the Palestinians with inhumane names such as “human animals.”

The Independent concluded its editorial by saying that there is a need for a radical change in Israel's strategy, and Netanyahu must not be stubborn about complying with international law.

Source: Independent +Aljazeera