“Israel will not change its course” after the order of the International Court of Justice: analysis by Paul Adams of the BBC

The order to stop a military operation that he considers essential to defeat Hamas and achieve the release of the hostages. This was something Israel sought to avoid.

However, there are no immediate signs that the Israeli government will change course following Friday’s ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Their tanks are approaching the center of Rafah and, just as the verdict was being read, a series of airstrikes left a huge black cloud over the city.

Some of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hardline colleagues have reacted with anger, accusing the court of anti-Semitism and siding with Hamas.

The former government spokesperson, Eylon Levy, pointed out that the presiding judge, Nawaf Salam, was Lebanese and that “he would not be able to return home safely if he sentenced in the wrong direction.”

For their part, for Netanyahu’s critics, the ruling is another sign of the growing international isolation of Israel.

Let’s consider the most recent signs:

• The prospect of arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his Defense Minister from the International Criminal Court (ICC).
• European countries preparing to recognize the State of Palestine.
• Mounting evidence that Joe Biden’s administration is losing patience with Israel’s refusal to participate in a meaningful plan for the future of the Strip.

on deaf ears

Israel will be dismayed that its arguments did not appear to influence the ruling of the ICJ judges.

The Netanyahu government assured that it has done everything possible to ensure civilians are out of harm’s way before sending troops to Rafah.

And he said they are ensuring that food and other vital supplies reach Gaza.

There are elements of truth in both arguments. More than 800,000 civilians have fled Rafah.

And while it is true that very little aid has entered the southern Gaza Strip since the Rafah offensive began almost three weeks ago, Israel has allowed hundreds of trucks carrying commercial goods to enter, meaning that in some parts of the territory there is food available (if not necessarily affordable).

Despite repeated warnings, especially in the north, famine has not yet set in.

If anything, the situation in the north may have improved somewhat thanks to the opening of additional crossing points.

But the court seemed unimpressed by this data and held that a new wave of mass displacement represented another major threat to the lives and well-being of the Palestinian population and therefore demanded new measures.

South Africa, which brought the lawsuit against Israel, argued that Rafah represented “the last line of defense” for the Gaza Strip.

The representation of the African country maintained that if Rafah had the same fate as other cities in the territory, the Palestinian population could suffer. more irreparable damage.

And this is what the court has tried to prevent.

Israel, meanwhile, denied that this was the purpose of its operation in the south and appears willing to move forward.

Click here to read more stories from BBC News World.

And remember that you can receive our notifications. Download the new version of the app and activate them so you don’t miss our best content.

• Do you already know our YouTube channel? Subscribe!

• The International Court of Justice orders Israel to “immediately” stop its military offensive in Rafah, southern Gaza
• What is the Philadelphi corridor, the strip of land in Gaza that both Israel and Egypt consider key to their security
• How Rafah, the city on the border between Gaza and Egypt where 1.5 million Palestinians take refuge, was split in two