Those Who Stand With Israel Will Stand With Israel In Court
Introduction
Since March 2, 2025, Israel has imposed a total siege on Gaza, blocking
all humanitarian aid, including food, water, and medical supplies,
resulting in catastrophic consequences, including widespread starvation,
deaths, and the collapse of healthcare systems. Reports describe
children reduced to skeletal conditions, reminiscent of those liberated
from Nazi concentration camps, and hospitals unable to treat patients
due to supply shortages. These actions, designated as genocide by
Amnesty International and supported by a recent survey of genocide
scholars, violate international humanitarian law (IHL), Jewish law
(Halakha), and preventive measures ordered by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) in 2024. South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
before the ICJ, initiated in December 2023, is bolstered by evidence of
actus reus (the physical act) and mens rea (intent) under the 1948
Genocide Convention. The legal and moral obligations under the Genocide
Convention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, reinforced
by the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, highlight the global imperative to
prevent genocide, the “crime of crimes.” This essay elaborates on these
violations, ICJ orders, and evidence supporting South Africa’s case,
emphasizing that political leaders who continue to support Israel
despite strong evidence of ongoing genocide may face charges of aiding
and abetting genocide and war crimes under international and domestic
law, underscoring the profound moral and historical significance of this
crisis.
Violations of International Law
International humanitarian law, governed by the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
Additional Protocols, and customary IHL, sets clear standards for
protecting civilians during armed conflicts. Israel’s actions in Gaza
violate several core principles:
1. Protection of Civilians and Prohibition of Starvation:
- The Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 27) mandates humane
treatment of civilians, prohibiting actions that cause
unnecessary suffering. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I and
customary IHL (ICRC Rule 53) explicitly prohibit starvation of
civilians as a method of warfare. The Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) classifies intentional
starvation as a war crime (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)).
- Israel’s siege, blocking all food, water, and medical supplies
since March 2025, indiscriminately targets Gaza’s 2.3 million
civilians, leading to documented starvation deaths and severe
malnutrition, as reported by Amnesty International (2025). This
constitutes genocide, as affirmed by Amnesty International and a
survey of genocide scholars, who argue that the deliberate
deprivation meets the Genocide Convention’s criteria (Amnesty
International, 2025; Genocide Scholars Survey, 2024).
2. Obligation to Facilitate Humanitarian Aid:
- Article 70 of Additional Protocol I and ICRC Rule 55 require
parties to allow rapid and unimpeded humanitarian aid to
civilians. Israel’s blanket prohibition of aid, including
U.S.-funded convoys, breaches this obligation, with UNRWA
reporting no aid entering Gaza for over 14 weeks (UNRWA
Situation Report #172, 2024).
3. Collective Punishment:
- Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective
punishment. The siege punishes Gaza’s entire population for
Hamas’s actions, constituting a war crime, as highlighted by
Human Rights Watch (2023).
4. U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (Section 620I):
- Section 620I prohibits military aid to countries restricting
U.S. humanitarian assistance. Israel’s blockade of U.S.-funded
aid, as documented by a leaked State Department memo (DAWN,
2025), violates this law, with lawmakers like Senator Bernie
Sanders calling for suspension of military aid (Sanders, 2024).
This reflects the moral and legal imperative to prevent
genocide, aligning with the Genocide Convention’s call for
action against such crimes.
Violations of Jewish Law (Halakha)
Jewish law, or Halakha, based on the Torah, Talmud, and rabbinic
interpretations, emphasizes ethical conduct, even in warfare. Key
principles include:
1. Pikuach Nefesh:
- The principle of pikuach nefesh (saving a life), rooted in the
Talmud (Yoma 85b), prioritizes preserving human life above
nearly all other commandments. The siege, causing starvation and
death, directly contradicts this principle by endangering
civilian lives unnecessarily.
2. Laws of War (Din Milchama):
- Maimonides, in Mishneh Torah (Laws of Kings and Their Wars 6:7),
stipulates that during a siege, one side must remain open to
allow civilians access to essentials, prohibiting complete
blockades. Israel’s total siege, blocking all entry points,
violates this rule, causing widespread suffering among
non-combatants, including children, as reported by OHCHR (2025).
As a state identifying with Jewish values, Israel’s actions contravene
Halakha’s ethical mandates, particularly pikuach nefesh, which demands
prioritizing life preservation.
Contravention of ICJ Preventive Measures
The ICJ, in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, issued binding
provisional measures in 2024 to prevent genocide and ensure humanitarian
access:
- January 26, 2024: Ordered Israel to prevent acts under Article II of
the Genocide Convention, including killing, causing serious harm,
and creating conditions leading to physical destruction, and to
ensure humanitarian assistance (ICJ Order, 2024).
- March 28, 2024: Due to worsening conditions, including famine, the
ICJ reiterated the need for unhindered humanitarian aid throughout
Gaza (ICJ Order, 2024).
- May 24, 2024: Ordered Israel to halt its military offensive in Rafah
and ensure conditions that do not lead to the physical destruction
of Palestinians, emphasizing unimpeded aid access (ICJ Order, 2024).
Israel’s total siege since March 2025, blocking all aid and leading to
starvation, directly contravenes these orders. Statements from Israeli
officials, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s April 2025
declaration that “not even a grain of wheat will enter Gaza” (Middle
East Eye, 2025), indicate non-compliance, strengthening South Africa’s
case.
Legal Obligations Under the Genocide Convention
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide imposes specific obligations on states to prevent and punish
genocide, defined as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group (Article II).
Key obligations include:
1. Prevention (Article I):
- States must take all measures within their power to prevent
genocide, including diplomatic, economic, and military actions
to stop ongoing genocidal acts. The ICJ’s 2007 ruling in
Bosnia v. Serbia clarified that states must act when they have
influence over actors committing genocide, such as through arms
supplies or political support (ICJ, 2007).
- In Gaza, states providing military or economic aid to Israel,
such as the U.S., UK, and Germany, must ensure their support
does not facilitate genocide. Failure to act risks breaching
this obligation.
2. Punishment (Article III):
- States must prosecute or extradite individuals responsible for
genocide, including complicity (Article III). This applies to
Israeli officials, as evidenced by ICC arrest warrants issued in
November 2024 for starvation as a war crime (ICC, 2024).
3. Non-Complicity (Article III(e)):
- States must not be complicit in genocide, including by providing
arms or support to actors committing genocidal acts. Countries
supplying weapons to Israel risk complicity if these facilitate
the siege (Amnesty International, 2025).
4. Jurisdiction and Cooperation (Articles V-VI):
- States must enact domestic legislation to enforce the Convention
and cooperate with international tribunals like the ICJ and ICC.
South Africa’s case, supported by over 30 states, reflects this
cooperation, pressing the ICJ to hold Israel accountable (ICJ
Press Release, 2025).
Legal Obligations Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
The Responsibility to Protect, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in
2005 (World Summit Outcome Document, paras. 138-139), obligates states
to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and
crimes against humanity. R2P comprises three pillars:
1. Pillar I: State Responsibility:
- Each state must protect its population from genocide. Israel, as
the occupying power in Gaza, fails this obligation by imposing a
siege causing starvation and death (OHCHR, 2025).
2. Pillar II: International Assistance:
- The international community must assist states through
diplomatic, humanitarian, and other means. States like Jordan
and Egypt have attempted aid delivery, but Israel’s blockade
hinders these efforts (Middle East Eye, 2025).
3. Pillar III: Timely and Decisive Response:
- If a state fails to protect its population, the international
community must take collective action, including through the UN
Security Council. Israel’s non-compliance with ICJ orders
triggers this obligation, though U.S. vetoes have blocked action
(UN Security Council, 2024).
Evidence of Genocide: Actus Reus and Mens Rea
South Africa’s genocide case argues that Israel’s actions in Gaza,
including the 2025 siege, constitute genocide, as affirmed by Amnesty
International and genocide scholars:
1. Actus Reus (Physical Acts):
- The Genocide Convention (Article II) defines genocide as acts
including killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and
inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical
destruction. Israel’s siege meets these criteria:
- Killing and Serious Harm: Starvation deaths, skeletal
children, and hospital collapses constitute killing and
serious harm (Amnesty International, 2025).
- Conditions of Life: The blockade creates conditions for
physical destruction, with over half of Gaza’s population
facing “catastrophic” hunger (OHCHR, 2025).
2. Mens Rea (Intent):
- The Convention requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
a group (Palestinians in Gaza). Statements from officials like
Yoav Gallant (2023), Bezalel Smotrich (2025), and Moshe
Saada (2025) demonstrate intent to starve Gazans, as reported by
Amnesty International and The Washington Post (2025).
Legal Accountability for Political Leaders Supporting Israel
Political leaders who continue to support Israel despite strong evidence
of ongoing genocide risk charges of aiding and abetting genocide and war
crimes under international and domestic law, as their actions may
facilitate or enable Israel’s violations:
1. International Law:
- Genocide Convention (Article III(e)): Complicity in genocide
includes providing material support, such as arms, funding, or
diplomatic cover, that facilitates genocidal acts. Leaders in
countries like the U.S., UK, and Germany, which supply Israel
with weapons and military aid, may be liable if their support
enables the siege. For instance, the U.S. provides over $3
billion annually in military aid, despite evidence of genocide
(CRS Reports, 2025; Amnesty International, 2025).
- Rome Statute (Article 25(3)(c)): The ICC can prosecute
individuals who aid, abet, or assist in war crimes, including
starvation. Providing arms or blocking UN resolutions could
constitute such assistance. Human rights groups have called for
investigations into U.S., UK, and German officials for their
role in arming Israel, citing complicity in starvation and
genocide (The Guardian, 2025).
- Customary IHL: States and individuals must not contribute to IHL
violations. Leaders providing unconditional support risk
liability for facilitating war crimes, such as collective
punishment and starvation. The ICJ’s 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia
ruling established that states with influence over perpetrators
must act to prevent genocide, or face responsibility (ICJ,
2007).
- Universal Jurisdiction: Certain states allow prosecution of
international crimes regardless of where they occur. Leaders
could face legal action in countries like Spain or Belgium,
where universal jurisdiction has been applied to genocide cases
(Al Jazeera, 2025).
2. Domestic Law:
- U.S. Law:
- The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (Section 620I) prohibits
military aid to countries restricting humanitarian
assistance. Leaders who ignore Israel’s violations, as
documented by DAWN (2025), may face domestic legal
challenges for breaching this law, especially given calls
from lawmakers like Senator Bernie Sanders to suspend aid
(Sanders, 2024).
- The Genocide Convention Implementation Act (18 U.S.C.
§ 1091) allows prosecution of U.S. nationals for complicity
in genocide. Officials authorizing aid to Israel could be
targeted, particularly if courts find that such support
facilitates genocidal acts (DAWN, 2025).
- NGOs have filed lawsuits against U.S. officials, alleging
violations of domestic and international law by continuing
arms sales to Israel, with cases pending in federal courts
(Reuters, 2025).
- UK Law:
- The International Criminal Court Act 2001 enables
prosecution of UK nationals for aiding war crimes or
genocide. Arms exports to Israel, despite evidence of
genocide, have prompted legal challenges against UK
officials, with campaigners seeking to halt licenses (Al
Jazeera, 2025).
- The UK’s Ministerial Code requires compliance with
international law, and failure to address complicity could
lead to domestic accountability, as seen in public inquiries
into arms sales (The Guardian, 2025).
- German Law:
- Germany’s Code of Crimes Against International Law (VStGB)
criminalizes complicity in genocide and war crimes.
Continued arms exports to Israel, despite ICJ orders, have
led to lawsuits against German officials, with courts
reviewing whether exports violate international obligations
(DW, 2025).
- Germany’s constitutional commitment to human rights, rooted
in its post-Holocaust legal framework, increases pressure on
leaders to avoid complicity (German Federal Foreign Office,
2025).
- Other Jurisdictions:
- Countries like Canada, France, and the Netherlands, with
domestic laws criminalizing complicity in international
crimes, face growing pressure to investigate leaders
supporting Israel. For example, Canada’s Crimes Against
Humanity and War Crimes Act allows prosecution of officials
involved in arms exports (Reuters, 2025).
- France’s penal code includes provisions for complicity in
genocide, and NGOs have filed complaints against officials
for arms sales to Israel (Le Monde, 2025).
3. Case Studies and Precedents:
- Darfur (2009): The ICC issued arrest warrants for Sudanese
officials, including for complicity in genocide, setting a
precedent for prosecuting leaders who enable atrocities through
material support (ICC, 2009).
- Srebrenica (1995): The International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted individuals for aiding and
abetting genocide by providing logistical support, establishing
liability for indirect contributions (ICTY, Prosecutor v.
Krstić, 2001).
- Myanmar (2017): UN reports called for investigations into
international actors supplying arms to Myanmar during the
Rohingya genocide, highlighting the risk of complicity for
states and leaders (UN Human Rights Council, 2018).
- These precedents suggest that leaders supporting Israel through
arms, funding, or diplomatic cover could face similar scrutiny,
particularly as evidence of genocide mounts.
4. Practical Implications:
- ICC Prosecutions: The ICC’s November 2024 arrest warrants for
Israeli officials for starvation as a war crime indicate an
active investigation, which could expand to include foreign
leaders providing support. NGOs like Amnesty International have
urged the ICC to investigate U.S., UK, and German officials for
complicity (Amnesty International, 2025).
- Domestic Lawsuits: Leaders face increasing domestic legal
challenges, with lawsuits in the U.S., UK, and Germany alleging
violations of national laws prohibiting complicity in genocide
and war crimes (Reuters, 2025; DW, 2025).
- Reputational and Political Consequences: Leaders risk public
backlash and reputational damage, as seen in protests and
campaigns targeting officials supporting Israel’s actions (Al
Jazeera, 2025).
- Sanctions and Travel Bans: Leaders implicated in complicity
could face sanctions or travel restrictions, as seen in cases
involving Sudanese and Syrian officials (UN Security Council,
2011).
5. Evidence Triggering Liability:
- Amnesty International Reports: Detailed documentation of
Israel’s siege as genocidal, with calls for accountability for
states enabling it (Amnesty International, 2025).
- Genocide Scholars Survey: A 2024 survey affirming Israel’s
actions as genocide, increasing pressure on supporting states
(Genocide Scholars Survey, 2024).
- ICJ Orders: Israel’s non-compliance with 2024 orders provides
legal grounds for holding supporting states accountable for
failing to prevent genocide (ICJ Orders, 2024).
- UN Reports: UN experts’ warnings of an “unfolding genocide” in
Gaza implicate states that continue to provide support (OHCHR,
2025).
Genocide as the “Crime of Crimes”
Genocide is the “crime of crimes” under international law, an indelible
stain on human history due to its intent to eradicate entire groups.
Coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 and codified in the 1948 Genocide
Convention, it aims to prevent atrocities like the Holocaust. The
Genocide Convention, R2P, and domestic laws like the U.S. Foreign
Assistance Act impose a legal and moral imperative to prevent and punish
genocide, with states and leaders accountable for inaction or
complicity.
Support for South Africa’s ICJ Case
South Africa’s case, supported by over 30 states, is strengthened by
Israel’s non-compliance with ICJ orders, international support,
humanitarian evidence, and ICC actions. The risk of charges against
political leaders supporting Israel underscores the urgency of
addressing this crisis.
Conclusion
Israel’s total siege on Gaza since March 2025 constitutes genocide,
violating international humanitarian law, Jewish law, and ICJ measures.
The Genocide Convention and R2P impose strict obligations on states to
prevent and punish genocide, obligations that Israel and its supporters
risk violating. Political leaders who continue to support Israel,
through arms, funding, or diplomatic cover, despite strong evidence of
genocide, may face charges of aiding and abetting genocide and war
crimes under international and domestic law, including the U.S. Foreign
Assistance Act, UK’s ICC Act, and Germany’s VStGB. The international
community must act decisively to halt these atrocities and uphold
justice, ensuring that those who stand with Israel in this crisis face
accountability in court.
Key Citations
- UNRWA Situation Report #172
- Amnesty International: Israel’s Siege
- OHCHR: Unfolding Genocide
- ICJ Orders 2024
- Smotrich Statement
- DAWN: Section 620I
- Sanders: Foreign Assistance Act
- ICC Arrest Warrants
- Bosnia v. Serbia
- 2005 World Summit Outcome
- Human Rights Watch: IHL in Gaza