What statements did the United Nations International Court of Justice make about Israel and allegations of genocide in 2024?

1. The procedural posture: South Africa’s application and the court’s limited remit

South Africa brought a case alleging that Israel’s conduct in Gaza violated the Genocide Convention, and the ICJ considered urgent provisional measures under that Convention rather than deciding the merits; the Court found that South Africa had prima facie standing and that certain rights claimed were plausible, thereby allowing the case to proceed to fuller argumentation on the merits at a later date ^{[4] [5] [1]}.

2. What the ICJ actually said about “genocide” — plausible risk, not a final finding

The Court explicitly did not pronounce a final judgment that genocide had occurred, but it held that “at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa…appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention,” language various commentators noted as establishing a plausible risk rather than a conclusive finding of genocidal intent ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Provisional measures ordered in January 2024: prevent, preserve, allow aid

In its 26 January 2024 order the ICJ directed Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts—this included preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring provision of urgently needed humanitarian assistance and services to Gaza, and taking effective steps to preserve evidence relevant to alleged genocidal acts ^{[4] [2] [7]}.

4. Expanded measures in May 2024: Rafah, crossings, and evidence preservation

By 24 May 2024 the Court reiterated and expanded provisional measures, specifically instructing Israel to halt military actions in Rafah that could create life‑threatening conditions for Palestinians, to keep the Rafah crossing open for the unhindered provision at scale of basic services and humanitarian assistance, and to prevent destruction of evidence related to Article II and III allegations under the Genocide Convention ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Reactions, compliance issues and monitoring claims

Israel strongly rejected accusations of genocidal intent, framing its campaign as counter‑terrorism in response to Hamas and disputing South Africa’s characterization ^{[9] [7]}; human-rights groups and UN experts, by contrast, wrote that the ruling made protection obligations clear and later warned Israel had not complied fully — NGOs such as Human Rights Watch reported obstruction of aid corridors and declines in aid deliveries after the ruling, alleging non‑compliance with at least some of the Court’s measures ^{[10] [2]}.

6. How the Court balanced legal thresholds and humanitarian urgency

Legal analysts noted the ICJ’s approach sought a middle path: recognizing the high evidentiary threshold for genocide (specific intent) and therefore declining to adjudicate guilt on an emergency timetable, while concluding that the factual and rhetorical record made South Africa’s claims sufficiently plausible to trigger provisional safeguards to protect civilians and preserve evidence pending a merits decision ^{[1] [6]}.

7. Hidden agendas, geopolitics and the messaging battle

The case unfolded amid intense diplomatic and public pressure: South Africa’s long‑standing advocacy on Palestine framed its petition as a legal remedy for what it called systemic harm, while Israel and its supporters characterized the suit as politically motivated and legally unfounded; the ICJ’s provisional language both validated some concerns about potential violations and stopped short of satisfying either side’s maximal claims, a posture that reflects the Court’s institutional caution and the charged geopolitics surrounding the dispute ^{[4] [1] [7]}.