The US, the ICJ and Gaza

By John Whitbeck, John V. Whitbeck is a Paris-based international lawyer.

Jan 10, 2024

US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called the South African application “meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.”

John Mearsheimer has  considered the 84-page “application” that South Africa has filed with the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of of committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and requesting “that the Court indicate provisional measures to protect the rights invoked herein from imminent and irreparable loss” and “ensure Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention not to engage in genocide, and to prevent and punish genocide.”

The South African application has so far been formally endorsed by Malaysia, Turkiye and the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

In light of the urgency of this matter, public hearings have been scheduled for January 11 and 12 and can be watched live on the ICJ’s website and on UN Web TV.

No doubt aware of the potential liability of President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and other close collaborators for complicity in genocide, which could limit their ability to enjoy worry-free travel abroad for the rest of their lives if the ICJ were to recognize that the acts which they have been actively supporting do constitute genocide, U.S. government spokesmen have rudely dismissed this South African effort to restrain genocide through the application of international law. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvB7pGCHDOM).

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called the South African application “meritless, counterproductive and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” while State Department spokesman Matt Miller said that the United States is “not seeing any acts that constitute genocide” in Israel’s actions in Gaza.

In this context, it may be worth recalling that, several years ago, the U.S. government did see “acts that constitute genocide” in China’s anti-terrorism/de-radicalization/reeducation program in its Xinjiang province, even though this program was not even alleged to have involved any “cides” (intentional killings), and formally declared that China was committing genocide in Xinjiang.

As always with the U.S.-dictated “rules-based order“, which is the antithesis of the international law cited and appealed to by South Africa, it is not the nature of the act that matters but, rather, who is doing it to whom.