Mixing hope and skepticism, Palestinians watch Hague genocide hearings

For a moment, for the first time since Oct. 7, Palestinians glued to TVs or mobile phones watching live updates of the Israel-Hamas war were not witnessing missile strikes or evacuees fleeing fighting.

Instead, tens of thousands of people across the West Bank – in living rooms, in cafes, and regularly checking their phones at work – were watching the proceedings in a wood-paneled courtroom in The Hague filled with gowned judges and lawyers considering a case brought by South Africa against Israel.

“Even if the final ruling doesn’t go in our favor, we really need this case right now because it can result in a cease-fire [soon],” says Nael Abu Dheim, a 51-year-old mechanical engineer, at a Ramallah rally thanking South Africa for filing allegations of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

South Africa’s complaint, arguing that Israel’s ongoing military offensive in the Gaza Strip and failure to protect civilians constitutes genocide, is being watched closely by Palestinians.

The controversial case, which wrapped up its initial two-day public hearings Friday, could prompt judges to order a cease-fire in Gaza.

Many Palestinians in the West Bank see that as a rare glimmer of hope for relief from humanitarian suffering amid a bleak war and, apart from the war, the most violent year in the occupied territories in two decades.

But such hope is blunted by skepticism, born of what they see as decades of failures by the international community to enforce United Nations resolutions on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Israeli government has dismissed the Hague case as an “absurd blood libel” and a “despicable and contemptuous exploitation of the Court.”

The case, filed Dec. 29 by South Africa, alleges that Israel has violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in its war with Hamas in Gaza, restricting food and water supplies to the besieged enclave and killing thousands of Palestinian civilians.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticized the case Tuesday, calling the charge of genocide “meritless.” Last week, White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby described South Africa’s submission as “counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact.”

Israel, a signatory to the genocide convention, is engaging with the court to contest the case. Retired Justice Aharon Barak, former president of Israel’s Supreme Court, is serving as a judge on the ICJ panel.

Israel alleges the ICJ case is serving as “cover” for Hamas’ imprisonment of Israeli civilian hostages and barrages of missile fire targeting Israel.

No matter the final ruling, Palestinians hope the 84-page submission will convince the court to issue a “provisional measure” this month ordering Israel to suspend its military operations in Gaza so as to facilitate fact-finding missions and preserve evidence in the case – a court-ordered cease-fire.

Political leverage

Israel’s defense team warned Friday that such “provisional measures would stop Israel defending its citizens; more citizens could be attacked, raped, and tortured.”

At Friday’s session, Omri Sender, a member of Israel’s legal team, said Israel is working with a senior U.N. coordinator to “map the needs of future returns of Palestinians to northern Gaza,” which “shows that Israel remains bound by its international and legal obligations, especially as a party to the genocide convention.”

The Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, sees the ICJ case as offering potential leverage. Officials say any provisional decision could help pressure the Israeli government to wind down its operations in Gaza and fast-track a political resolution by which the PA would return to the coastal enclave, currently ruled by rival Hamas.

“The aim is tactical, a provisional ruling within two weeks that would result in an immediate cease-fire,” says Shawan Jabarin, director of the Palestinian human rights watchdog Al Haq. It would be much more difficult, he acknowledges, to prove Israeli intent to commit genocide.

Palestinian legal advocates view South Africa’s involvement as key. Had the submission come from the Palestinians, or from an Arab state, “it would have been a case, once again, of Palestine versus Israel, rather than what it really is, which is a question about [whether] genocide occurred and if the world will stop it,” says veteran lawyer Diana Buttu.

But there is a feeling of incredulity among Palestinians that it took an African nation some 4,000 miles away to pursue international law on their behalf.

“South Africa has shown more courage than Arab and Muslim leaders by taking up the claim on behalf of Palestinians,” says Bilal Abu Samra, a Ramallah merchant.

As a sign of appreciation, dozens of Palestinians braved cold and wet winter weather Wednesday and Thursday, gathering at a statue of Nelson Mandela in Ramallah, waving Palestinian flags and holding up signs quoting the anti-apartheid icon.

Experience fuels doubts

But their hopes were muted by experience. Several demonstrators pointed out that Washington has vetoed U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and that Israel has ignored U.N. rulings in the past.

They cited a 2004 World Court advisory opinion declaring Israel’s separation wall, cutting off the West Bank from Israel, to be illegal; the wall is still there. Last month the Security Council called for safe, unhindered, and scaled-up distribution of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, which has not occurred.

Najwan Jadallah, a 45-year-old assistant professor at Palestine Technical University, echoes many Palestinians’ doubts that any court ruling in their favor would ever be implemented or would change things on the ground.

“Even if the court orders a cease-fire, will Israel commit to it?” he wonders. “For decades, we have been under occupation and watching our own people killed. International law has not been enforced before; we don’t believe it will be enforced now.”

“I don’t believe anyone can stop Israel,” adds Mr. Abu Samra, the merchant. “I am not hopeful that this case will be more than symbolic.”

On Friday the ICJ adjourned for deliberations, with a decision expected this month on whether to issue an interim cease-fire order or not.