analysis
Israel is accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice. The federal government rejects the accusation. But Germany has no longer found it easy to position itself.
It’s difficult on the international stage, we hear again and again from government circles. The reason is Germany’s unrestricted support for Israel, or rather for the current, partly right-wing extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The images of children being killed or starving increase the pressure – also legally. The situation is described as dramatic for the civilians in Gaza, but also for the remaining hostages held by the terrorist organization Hamas.
Nicaragua is suing Germany
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is currently dealing with Israel’s actions in the Middle East in several cases. There are no proceedings pending against Hamas – only states can sue and be sued in The Hague.
The issue is nothing less than the accusation that Israel is committing genocide. Now the focus is also on Germany. Last week, Nicaragua filed a lawsuit against the Federal Republic for aiding and abetting.
“Every state party to the Genocide Convention has the duty to do everything possible to prevent genocide,” the application states. Germany is not living up to this obligation by providing political, financial and military support and by no longer funding the UNRWA aid organization.
The application is not just about Gaza, but also about the situation in the West Bank, in 2024 alone according to the German diplomatic mission Almost 400 Palestinians were displaced and more than 170 houses were destroyed. Amnesty International even reports that more than 60 Palestinians were killed, including 13 children.
A date for an oral hearing in the proceedings has not yet been set, but could come in the next few weeks. The federal government denies the accusation, but is now preparing for the proceedings.
South Africa is suing Israel before the ICJ
The reaction to South Africa’s first genocide complaint against Israel in January was similar. While Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock expressed clear criticism of the Israelis’ actions, the Chancellery said: “The accusation of genocide has no basis.”
The assessment was made via X before the court had even heard the oral argument. What’s more: The Federal Republic announced that it would intervene on Israel’s behalf at the ICJ. That could be challenging.
South Africa turns again to the ICJ
On 84 pages, South Africa listed why, in its view, the Israeli army’s actions in the Gaza Strip not only kill Palestinians, but also cause them severe mental and physical harm and create living conditions that are designed to bring about their physical destruction.
“In the first weeks after October 7, Israel used 6,000 bombs – per week,” said Adila Hassim, lawyer and representative of South Africa before the ICJ, during the hearing. “200 times it was 2,000 pounds of bombs.” The largest and most destructive bombs ever.
South Africa justified its specific intention for genocide with quotes from high-ranking Israeli politicians such as Defense Minister Joav Galland, who after the October 7 massacre spoke of “human animals” in reference to Palestinians and said: “We will wipe out everything.”
On January 26, the court ruled, among other things: “At least some of the acts and omissions committed by Israel in Gaza appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention.”
The court ordered Israel to take several interim measures to protect civilians more. Because of the spreading famine, South Africa turned to the court again on Wednesday and asked for further interim measures. It writes of an “outrageous breach of convention.”
Caught in your own argument
Germany continues to stick to its position. Government sources say Israel is acting “with the intention of defending itself against Hamas’ armed attacks.” So with the intention of defense and therefore not the intention of committing genocide.
But as cruel as Hamas’ October 7 crimes are, the right to self-defense that undoubtedly results from them cannot refute the accusation, say several international law experts. For example, Björn Schiffbauer from the University of Rostock opposite tagesschau.de: “The ban on genocide is absolute and is part of mandatory international law, so it stands at the top of the international legal order together with a few other norms, such as the ban on violence and the ban on apartheid. Genocide can therefore not be justified by anything – not even through self-defense .”
In addition, Germany can only explain in its intervention how it interprets the term in general. “It’s not about the application of the convention to a specific situation, but about the general interpretation of the law,” says Christian Tam from the University of Glasgow tagesschau.de.
But Germany has already done this in another genocide case: In the Gambia case against Myanmar, Germany argued for a broad interpretation.
Mike Becker, international law expert from Trinity College Dublin, says opposite tagesschau.de: “Germany is now limited to the interpretation it made to the court in the Myanmar case, where Germany took a more open-ended approach to how the court should determine the difficult question of genocidal intent. I cannot see how Germany can get away from it again.”