LONDON: Stopping short of demanding an immediate end to Israel鈥檚 military action in Gaza, the UN鈥檚 top court has confirmed the validity of South Africa鈥檚 claim that the besieged Palestinian enclave may be in the midst of a genocide.

By a majority of 15 to two, a panel of judges at the International Court of Justice on Friday confirmed its jurisdiction to hear South Africa鈥檚 case in full, denying Israel鈥檚 request that the case be thrown out.

While only an interim verdict, with the case expected to last several years, the immediate ramifications of the ICJ鈥檚 provisional ruling are already being felt, with Palestinian politicians celebrating the decision as a 鈥減ivotal moment in the long journey toward justice and accountability.

鈥淭he case brought by South Africa has forensically detailed Israel鈥檚 actions and its intent to commit genocide in Gaza,鈥� Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, said in a statement.

鈥淭he court has delivered its verdict to stop Israel from killing Palestinians, end incitement to genocide and allow in the desperately needed humanitarian aid to a displaced population starving and under siege and bombardment.鈥�

And in a video posted on social media shortly after the ruling, Riyad Al-Maliki, the Palestinian foreign minister, said that the decision was an 鈥渋mportant reminder that no state is above the law.鈥�

Delivering the verdict, the court鈥檚 president, Judge Joan Donoghue, said: 鈥淭he court is aware of the human tragedy in the region. The plight of children is particularly heart-breaking. An entire generation of children in Gaza is traumatized. Their future is in jeopardy.鈥�

The court also ordered Palestinian militant group Hamas to return the remaining 140 hostages who were captured during the Oct. 7 attack, in which 1,200 people were killed.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, called the ICJ鈥檚 decision a 鈥渄isgrace that will not be erased for generations.鈥�

Writing on the social media platform X, Netanyahu said: 鈥淚srael鈥檚 commitment to international law is unwavering. Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to defend our country and our people.

鈥淟ike every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself. The vile attempt to deny this right is blatant discrimination against the Jewish state, and it was justly rejected. The charge of genocide is not only false, it鈥檚 outrageous. Decent people everywhere should reject it.

鈥淥ur war is against Hamas terrorists, not against Palestinian civilians. We will continue to facilitate humanitarian assistance, and to do our utmost to keep civilians out of harm鈥檚 way.鈥�

Nevertheless, the ruling obliges Israel to change its conduct in Gaza, with the ICJ imposing six provisional measures, including the prevention of acts that could be considered genocidal and punishment of comments that appear to incite genocide.

Of more immediate concern for the civilian population in Gaza is whether Israel will honor the court鈥檚 demand to ensure sufficient humanitarian aid is permitted to enter the embattled enclave to stave off famine.

Some 26,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel began its military operation in October, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry, and most of the enclave鈥檚 population has been displaced by the fighting.

Significant though the ruling is, South Africa鈥檚 legal team did not get all of the provisional measures it had hoped for.

Speaking after the ruling, Naledi Pandor, South Africa鈥檚 foreign minister, said that without a ceasefire the court鈥檚 orders 鈥渄on鈥檛 actually work,鈥� adding that it would be up to Israel鈥檚 鈥減owerful friends鈥� to push it toward compliance.

Although she 鈥渨anted the word 鈥榗essation鈥� included鈥� in the ruling, Pandor said she was 鈥渟atisfied with the directions given.鈥� The government in Pretoria likewise called it a 鈥渓andmark ruling.鈥�

Others who spoke to Arab News shared Pandor鈥檚 dismay that the court did not repeat its provisional order from March 16, 2022, when it obligated Russia to 鈥渋mmediately suspend military operations鈥� in Ukraine while awaiting a final decision.

Hassan Ben Imran, a board member at Law for Palestine, told Arab News he was 鈥渄isappointed鈥� by the wording.

鈥淵es, morally, the judges need to ask themselves why they failed to clearly state the word 鈥榗easefire鈥� as they comfortably did in Ukraine and Myanmar. However, the provisional measures order was a huge strategic success for the victims in the long term,鈥� he said.

鈥淪o, while the court didn鈥檛 use the word 鈥榗easefire,鈥� the whole decision clearly means that implementing it needs a ceasefire.鈥�

Similarly, Juliette McIntyre, an expert in international law from the University of South Australia, said that the pronouncement by the court would make it 鈥渕uch harder for other states to continue to support Israel in the face of a neutral third party finding there is a risk of genocide.鈥�

This, McIntyre added, may lead to states withdrawing 鈥渕ilitary or other support for Israel in order to avoid this,鈥� with the US purportedly following developments closely.

Across Europe, pressure has begun to mount on governments to act on the ruling, with the Scottish National Party warning that UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak 鈥渃an no longer remain silent on atrocities being committed in Gaza.鈥�

Similarly, New York City-based monitor Human Rights Watch said that the ICJ鈥檚 decision had put 鈥淚srael and its allies on notice,鈥� calling on them to 鈥渂ack up their stated commitment to international law.

鈥淕overnments need to urgently use their leverage to ensure that the order is enforced,鈥� Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at HRW, said in a statement after the ruling.

鈥淭he scale and gravity of civilian suffering in Gaza driven by Israeli war crimes demands nothing less.鈥�

Pandor highlighted that the ruling鈥檚 success depended on international powers, telling reporters she has 鈥渘ever really been hopeful about Israel鈥� complying with the court鈥檚 orders.

Julia Roknifard, an assistant professor at the University of Nottingham鈥檚 School of Politics, History and International Relations, told Arab News that while 鈥渋n part鈥� there was a sense of disappointment that the ICJ had not demanded a ceasefire as it had with Russia, the decision had weight.

鈥淣ow, Israel is supposed to allow the aid in and provide a report on this in a month,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut even if Tel Aviv complies and all the necessary aid gets in, but the operation is still ongoing, that will not prevent the devastation, including the increase in the death toll.

鈥淎s of now, not unexpected, Israeli officials are showing disdain toward the ruling and the whole proceeding.鈥�

Indeed, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel鈥檚 minister of national security, responded to the ruling on X with the quip: 鈥淗ague Schmague.鈥�

Unlike Ben-Gvir, the Israel Defense Forces may be taking the court鈥檚 ruling more seriously, with reports that it has already altered tactics to comply with the ICJ.

Although Arab News was unable to verify these changes, sources have reported in recent weeks of a growing chasm between Israel鈥檚 military and political leadership on how the war is being fought.

For now, however, the Israeli government appears to be resolutely against the ruling. Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, said that Israel did not need 鈥渓ecturing on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and civilians.鈥�

He added that the IDF would 鈥渃ontinue operating to dismantle the military and governing capabilities of the Hamas terrorist organization, and to return the hostages to their homes.鈥�

For Yossi Mekelberg, associate fellow of the MENA Program at London鈥檚 Chatham House, the case has shown the limits of legal avenues to justice for the Palestinians 鈥� something he believes is ultimately a political process.

鈥淚 was afraid all along that this case would become a distraction from the main aim of bringing about an immediate humanitarian ceasefire,鈥� Mekelberg told Arab News.

鈥淭he focus should have been, at least at this stage, on the political, not the legal. The priority is to first stop the suffering and then deal with the legal aspects. I am not against applying international law and accountability; it is a matter of sequencing.鈥�