Ed covered the ruling by the United Nations International Court of Justice regarding a potential “genocide” in Gaza yesterday, but the ICJ’s strange conclusion has a few more odd elements to it that are worth examining. The court was handling a case brought by South Africa, a nation that somehow supports Hamas, which accuses Israel of engaging in genocide against the Palestinians. They also requested that the ICJ order an immediate ceasefire in the war. While the wording of the court’s ruling was indeed shameful (as Bibi Netanyahu called it), they wound up failing to deliver on either of South Africa’s demands. There was no demand for a ceasefire and instead of finding Israel guilty of genocide, they simply urged Israel to “do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza.” In short, they essentially took the same position that the White House has been taking from the beginning. (Associated Press)

The United Nations’ top court on Friday ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in Gaza, but the panel stopped short of ordering Jerusalem to end the military offensive that has laid waste to the Palestinian enclave.

In a ruling that will keep Israel under the legal lens for years to come, the court offered little other comfort to Israeli leaders in a genocide case brought by South Africa that goes to the core of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. The court’s half-dozen orders will be difficult to achieve without some sort of cease-fire or pause in the fighting.

“The court is acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering,” court President Joan E. Donoghue said.

The irony of South Africa making accusations of genocide against the targets of the greatest genocidal assault in history shouldn’t be lost on anyone. Yet the ICJ wasn’t willing to step a toe over that line, and for good reason. The textbook definition of genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” Hamas does not comprise a unique people, nation, or religion. For that matter, neither do the Palestinians at large. They are Arab Muslims, so even if Israel manages to wipe out Hamas, there are plenty more Arab Muslims left in the world.

In short, Israel is not engaging in acts of genocide. They are engaging in acts of war, a war started by Hamas on October 7 of last year. And as we have reminded readers repeatedly here, bad things happen in war. Of course, there may be another reason that the ICJ showed some restraint in its ruling. I discussed this reality when I first covered this case. Israel does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICJ, nor does the United States. They are among seven major nations who never signed on to the Rome Accord which created the court. Surely the court knew that if they attempted to order Israel to stop the war or “convicted” them of genocide, Israel could and would simply ignore them. That would be an embarrassment to the court.

The AP seems to be highly disappointed in the outcome of the court’s deliberations and offers more of what you “need to know” about this. They try to put a pro-Hamas spin on the result by noting the court’s recognition of “the heavy death toll and humanitarian disaster in Gaza.” Of course, Israel didn’t need the court to remind them of that. They are fully aware of the death toll in Gaza as well as the shocking death toll among the Israelis over the past three months and more. It’s a war and people were always going to die.

The AP also notes that the court failed to rule that Israel was engaging in genocide, but said that they “did not rule out the possibility that Israel is conducting genocidal acts.” There we go again with the “genocidal acts” phrasing. Of course, we’re dealing with such an ambiguous phrase that the media can effectively spin it however they like. The AP has taken a very anti-Israel stance in this matter from the beginning, while largely ignoring the horrors committed by Hamas, not just on October 7, but for generations.

The actions of the International Court of Justice regarding the Israel-Hamas war will likely come down to little more than the usual, unenforceable lip service we’re used to seeing from the United Nations. If they wanted to make themselves useful in terms of preventing genocide, they might want to take a look at the ongoing efforts to continue the very real, genocidal assaults against the Jewish people. But even if you accept their rather twisted definitions, if Hamas is somehow wiped entirely from the face of the earth, would the world really be any worse off?