Foreign Interests: Suzy Hansen The Specter of Genocide

What happens if the U.S. is implicated in the worst crime?

ON JANUARY 26, the International Court of Justice ruled almost unanimously that Israel's war against Gaza could amount to genocide and ordered the Israelis to take six measures to prevent it. For Americans, the judgment likely produced confusion. The ICJ did not declare that Israel's assault, which has claimed over 26,000 lives, was genocide full stop. Before the ruling, White House spokesperson John Kirby called the case, which had been brought by South Africa, "meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever." Those convinced of Israel's right to self-defense after Hamas' October 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis derided the South African case as theater. The court is affiliated with the United Nations, which, after failing to take action in so many wars in recent decades, has come to be seen as ineffectual. Meanwhile, the onslaught in Gaza continues.

But it would be a mistake to view the ICJ's actions as insignificant. As the legal scholar David Kaye noted in Foreign Affairs,

had the court ordered Israel to cease its military operations altogether, it would have given both Israel and its backers, particularly the U.S., the excuse to do what they usually do: Dismiss the court entirely.

Yet by issuing a moderate but condemnatory judgment, the court put the U.S. on notice that it could be considered party to the worst crime imaginable. The ICJ is expected to rule again in the coming years, and if the U.S. fails to rein in its ally, the consequences will be catastrophic not only for the Palestinians but for the whole "rules-based international order" that the U.S. built in the aftermath of World War II. The court, in effect, is giving the U.S. one last chance to save itself.