Six hearings concluded in The Hague as the Israel-Palestine conflict remains a focal point for the international community
The six public hearings held in The Hague this Monday, marking the end of a two-week cycle of proceedings, explored Israel’s actions in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Spain participated among 49 countries, alongside Palestine as an observer at the United Nations, presenting its view on the matter. In its filing, the Israeli government argues that it has adopted measures demanded by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on January 26 as a response to the litigation brought by South Africa. The ICJ had ordered provisional measures intended to prevent possible genocide in Gaza. At that stage, the court estimated casualties around 25,000, while updated figures reported this Monday increase the toll to roughly 29,782, an increase of about 4,782 lives, predominantly women and children.
The ICJ had set a one-month deadline for Israel to report on how it is meeting the six emergency measures. The measures include refraining from actions that could kill civilians, ensuring the military does not violate the Genocide Convention, and guaranteeing essential supplies such as water, food, and electricity, among others. Monique Legerman, the court’s first secretary, told El Periódico de Catalunya, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, that the report was received in The Hague on Monday and has been transmitted to the nation that submitted the case, South Africa, which is expected to file its objections. Legal sources tracking the case note that Israel maintains to ICJ that it has implemented steps aligned with humanitarian principles.
The Israeli daily Haaretz described the submitted report as concise, listing actions taken immediately after the ICJ ruling. It notes that the army is examining alleged war crimes by some members of its forces. The ICJ did not issue the immediate ceasefire that South Africa had urged. The underlying argument was that, as a tribunal of UN member states, it should not issue a ruling that targets only one side, since Hamas, which governs Gaza, was not a party to the case.
The term “possible genocide,” as used by the ICJ in this phase of South Africa’s complaint, has risen since late January as the Gaza death toll nears the thirty-thousand mark. The six hearings concluded on Monday in The Hague aimed to clarify the legal conclusions of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories of West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Both Emilio Pin, deputy head of the International Legal Counsel at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his chief, Professor Santiago Ripol, grounded their arguments in the ICJ’s 2004 opinion on the construction of the barrier separating the occupied territories from Israel. Pin asserted that twenty years on, Israel continues to pursue policies that extend the violations already identified by the court. Ripol emphasized the obligation of all states to cooperate in ending the situation and noted that Palestinian conditions have deteriorated, with prior Security Council and General Assembly resolutions failing to produce the expected outcomes. Yet neither official called for a new advisory opinion to push Israel to withdraw from the occupied areas.
Since written reports were submitted in July 2023, several countries have updated their positions, whether in writing or in oral remarks. China, for example, modified its stance after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, actions by adding language that framed Palestinian resistance against external oppression as a non-violent right while distinguishing armed struggle from terrorism. Fiji, a nation of more than 300 islands in the Pacific, also joined the debate today, aligning with the United States and urging caution from the ICJ against issuing a ruling that would compel Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
The ICJ’s 2004 advisory opinion, issued after the construction of the barrier, remains central to many statements. It established that Israel is an occupying power in parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and that it does not fully meet its international obligations under international humanitarian law toward the Palestinian people. A number of intervening states referenced that 2004 opinion as judges prepared to deliberate and vote in the following months. In the meantime, Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to prepare for a renewed push that labels the ongoing situation as a potential genocide, with forecasts of further actions in Rafah at the Gaza border with Egypt.