By On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague hosted the South Africa v. Israel trial, captivating the attention of a global audience with its controversial commands. This landmark event is by far one of the most-watched legal proceedings in the history of the United Nations’ top court. Media outlets, both polarized and impartial, have disseminated the news, offering conflicting perspectives. All the same, the world’s responses — spearheaded by influential Palestinian and non-Palestinian activists, who meticulously tracked and scrutinized the Gaza incident since October 2023 — reverberate across a rich spectrum of emotions and opinions.
The ICJ has mandated Israel to “take all measures within its power” to put an end to all acts that fall under the purview of the U.N. convention on genocide. With a focus on safeguarding Palestinian civilians, the court stipulated measures to prevent the “killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” a rule that passed with a decisive 15-2 vote.
In addition, the court has emphatically called upon Israel to deploy all available means and to implement “effective measures” to penalize any form of incitement aiming at genocidal acts against Palestinians and to facilitate the swift provision of critically needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. Simultaneously, it has issued a directive for Israel to avert destruction and guarantee the preservation of evidence concerning allegations of genocide. These eminent mandates have garnered a substantial majority of 16-1 and 15-2, respectively.
Furthermore, the Court has imposed a stringent mandate on Israel, directing it to swiftly guarantee that the Israeli Forces refrain from participating in actions acknowledged as genocidal under the Genocide Convention — passing by a 15-2 margin.
Closing out its verdicts, the Court mandated that Israel furnish “a comprehensive report” detailing all measures taken to implement these directives within a month from the date of proclamation, a requirement that was unanimously endorsed by a decisive 15-2 vote.
At first glance, these directives refrain from explicitly calling for an immediate ceasefire, sparking public discourse on the perceived fairness of the rulings towards Palestinians. Opinions diverge, with some asserting that achieving these imperatives is implausible without a tangible ceasefire once and for all, while others argue for the explicit ruling that demands a permanent ceasefire verbatim.
For a closer look, here is what these 24 top-tier Palestinian and non-Palestinian activists have to say about these rulings.
Motaz Azaiza
Mohammed El-Kurd
Noura Erakat
Rashida Tlaib
Dima Khatib
Sana Saeed
Hebh Jamal
Mai Rajab
Bayan
Heba Gowayed
Malaka Shwaikh
Lexi Alexander
Nimer Sultany
Mai El-Sadany
Assal Rad
Yara Hawari
Hind Khoudary
Lana Tatour
Huwaida Arraf
Maha Hussaini
Ghada Majadli
Bisan Owda
Amani
Reema
Follow Muslim Girl on social media platforms to keep yourself updated on what is happening in Palestine and beyond.