U.N.’s top court orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza

The U.N.’s top court on Friday delivered major warnings to Israel about how it should conduct the war in Gaza. The International Court of Justice rejected South Africa’s request for a ceasefire after it accused Israel of genocide but said those accusations should be further investigated. Harold Koh, professor of international law at Yale Law School, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss.
Amna Nawaz:
Now to our other top story.
The International Court of Justice today rejected South Africa’s request for a cease-fire after it accused Israel of genocide. But the court also rejected Israel’s request for a dismissal and acknowledged genocide accusations should be further investigated, ensuring a legal spotlight will continue to shine on the war.
Nick Schifrin reports.
Judge Joan Donoghue, International Court of Justice: The catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.
Nick Schifrin:
In the Hague today, the International Court of Justice delivered what a Palestinian human rights group called a judicial thunderbolt.
Judge Joan Donoghue:
Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of the convention.
Woman:
The draft Convention on Genocide.
Nick Schifrin:
The Genocide Convention was adopted 75 years ago, born out of the Nazis’ systematic campaign to eliminate European Jews.
And Article 2 defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, and cites as examples killing, injuring, inflicting conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction, preventing births or transferring children.
Judge Joan Donoghue:
Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the aforementioned acts.
Nick Schifrin:
The court declined South Africa’s request for a cease-fire in Gaza and acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself. But it also said Israel must take immediate and effective measures to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide, and preserve evidence of its military decisions.
The first two were supported even by Israel’s ad hoc judge on the court.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister:
Israel’s commitment to international law is unwavering.
Nick Schifrin:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today vowed to continue the war, but also pledged the very steps that the court had demanded.
Benjamin Netanyahu:
Our war is against Hamas terrorists, not against Palestinian civilians. We will continue to facilitate humanitarian assistance and to do our utmost to keep civilians out of harm’s way, even as Hamas uses civilians as human shields.
Nick Schifrin:
But Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, was less restrained. In a statement, he said: “Those who seek justice will not find it on the leather chairs of the court chambers in The Hague. They will find it in the Hamas tunnels in Gaza, where 136 hostages are held.”
John Kirby, NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications:
We respect the court’s role as an arbiter of solving peaceful disputes.
Nick Schifrin:
Today, at the White House, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the court’s ruling echoed U.S. calls to minimize civilian casualties and send humanitarian assistance.
But he also said it would not change U.S. assistance to Israel.
John Kirby:
It’s difficult to see that it alone is going to change the approach. As I said, the president believes the approach we have been taking has been getting results, and we’re going to keep at that.
Nick Schifrin:
In a reminder of the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack that started this war, today, the U.N.’s principal agency in Gaza fired 12 employees for participating in the attack.
In response, the U.S. temporarily suspended financial support to the agency, which provides all of Gaza’s basic services.
Gilad Erdan, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations: How symbolic is it that on international Holocaust remembrance day, it was exposed that UNRWA employees took part in the massacre?
Nick Schifrin:
For perspective on the International Court of Justice’s orders today, we turn to Harold Koh, who served as the State Department’s legal adviser during the Obama administration and assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights during the Clinton administration. He’s now a professor of international law at Yale Law School.
Harold Koh, thanks very much. Welcome back to the “NewsHour.”
What’s your reaction today to the International Court of Justice’s ruling?
Harold Koh, Former State Department Official:
I think it’s a lopsided legal win for South Africa, and it’s a very severe public relations loss for Israel.
I think it has some virtues. I think it’s going to force the Israelis to be much more open about granting of access to humanitarian assistance, and it’s going to encourage its politicians to dial back their over-the-top rhetoric, which the court indicated might be considered incitement to genocide.
But it’s an unbalanced ruling also, in that it doesn’t require Hamas to do anything. It leaves Hamas free to continue its attacks.
Nick Schifrin:
When it comes to Israel, does it fundamentally force or push Israel to change the way it’s prosecuting the war?
Harold Koh:
Well, they didn’t tell them to stop.
But the Israelis had said that calling this a genocide was a total blood libel. They used that term. What the court said, and by a very decisive margin, 15-2, is that some of the acts could be capable of being viewed as either committing genocide or failing to prevent genocide, meaning that this is a plausible claim, depending on how severe civilian casualties are going forward.
So the Israelis have to take that very seriously. The kind of unrestrained language that was quoted showed that the politicians in the days after October 7 were really using overbroad language. And even the Israeli judge, the great Aharon Barak, said, you have to give humanitarian assistance, and you can’t make these intemperate statements that can be viewed by some as a call to genocide.
Nick Schifrin:
On Israeli military actions, the court’s not actually saying Israel has to be more precise, does it? The court is only saying you must — quote — “prevent the commission of acts” described in the convention that would show — quote — “the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza,” right?
Harold Koh:
Yes, so it’s possible the Israelis could respond by saying, we’re going to do the same things we’re doing and just very much renounce that we have any genocidal intent against the Palestinians in Gaza, as opposed to Hamas, who we have said we want to eradicate.
The problem, though, is that what the court flagged is that the scale of civilian deaths is so broad that from those deaths you could infer, possibly infer, an intent to wipe out a group. So I do think that it forces the Israelis to be much more careful and discriminate than they have been to this point.
Nick Schifrin:
As we just showed, John Kirby today, the spokesman for the National Security Council staff, said, this would not change U.S. support to Israel.
Is he right?
Harold Koh:
It’s certainly going to affect their discussions inside.
The United States wants — doesn’t want to be accused of aiding and abetting genocide. So all conversations are going to be inflected through the idea is, could what we’re doing in terms of aid to the Israelis be taken as aiding and abetting genocide? They want to stay on the side of it.
I think also what Kirby said was, the ruling tells — says only what we have been saying to the Israelis anyway, which suggests that it may actually help the United States in calling for the restraint from — more restraint from the Netanyahu government, both in terms of its words and actions.
Nick Schifrin:
What kinds of specific steps could the Biden administration take when it comes to pushing Israel one way or the other, if it does, as you say, use this court ruling for that effect?
Harold Koh:
The Biden administration could say, you have to monitor the rules of engagement so that there’s some assurance that they’re actually following international humanitarian law.
It’s a well-publicized story that Israeli troops fired upon and killed people holding a white flag. And the obvious question is, what kind of rules of engagement are they operating under in which they would fire when someone’s waving a white flag?
And I think what they could say is, we’re telling you this because we’re your friends, but also because we think you’re under the supervision of the court. And if you don’t take it seriously, they’re going to rule against you further.
Nick Schifrin:
As we reported earlier, the U.S. has suspended funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, after the U.N. admitted that 12 of its staff members participated in the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack.
And John Kirby today went even further. He said — quote — “We’ll certainly consider additional changes in the way we support UNRWA going forward, depending on the U.N. investigation.”
How significant is that?
Harold Koh:
This is a very disturbing development. UNRWA has 13,000 aid workers in Gaza. It’s absolutely critical to alleviating the humanitarian crisis, which is going on right now, which may lead to the death of thousands more civilians in the next period.
So it’s hard to do this without UNRWA. On the other hand, it’s already become clear that at least some part of UNRWA is compromised. Commissioner General Lazzarini of the UNRWA fired 12 people already. I think what it will do is also create a pall over U.N. activities.
The International Court of Justice opinion actually quoted language from Lazzarini in its report. And the Israelis could now say that that — those statements are biased or inflicted by an anti-Israel view on the part of UNRWA.
Nick Schifrin:
Harold Koh, thank you very much.
Harold Koh:
Thank you, Nick.