Israel-Gaza: What does the International Court of Justice ruling regarding the Israeli attack on Rafah mean?

Judge Bogdan Aurescu of Romania said he voted in favor of the order, but revealed that he believed the court was “unclear” and stressed that it could not prevent Israel from taking legitimate measures in self-defense.

Justice Diri Tladi, of South Africa, disagreed with Aurescu, even though they voted for the same matter. He said that it asked Israel “in clear terms” to stop its attack in Rafah.

The two judges who dissented declared that no matter how others voted in favor of it, it was certainly not a requirement for Israel to begin a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah.

Uganda’s Julia Sibutinde said the court could not “micromanage” the war, and Israeli President Aharon Barak, who was temporarily appointed to the case, said the ICJ’s order was “conditional” as long as the country adhered to the genocide convention.

The summary presented by the German judge, Georg Nolte, is the most revealing of what the court reached.

The order, when voted in favor, prohibits military action “to the extent that it could endanger the rights of the Palestinian people” in protecting them from the threat of genocide. But he stressed: “The court can only play a limited role in resolving the situation.” She must be careful not to exceed the limits of what she can and should do.