The ICJ’s vague demands for Israel to comply with the law are unlikely to result in palpable change | Yuval Shany

The case brought by South Africa was weak, but the judgment may encourage Israel's allies to push for a change of tactics

The decision by the international court of justice (ICJ) to issue provisional measures in the case brought by South Africa against Israel on the basis of the genocide convention came as no shock to most longtime observers of the court. Although most of the evidence presented by South Africa in support of its claims that Israel is violating the convention was merely circumstantial in nature (relying heavily on inferences drawn from the high death toll in Gaza, the dire humanitarian situation on the ground and statements by Israeli officials which could be read as eliminationist in nature), most judges were not willing to determine, at this early stage of the proceedings, that the case was implausible.

In fact, only two judges (Julia Sebutinde from Uganda and Aharon Barak from Israel) were ready to accept Israel's position: that Hamas's extensive use of human shields, the harm mitigation efforts by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the causal disconnect between the aggressive statements uttered by Israeli politicians and the actual cabinet directives provided to the IDF, rendered the South African genocide case implausible.