by Shaima Abu Baker @ShaimaAbubaker
International Legal and Policy Advisor| Public International Law
Why did Israel request that the report submitted to the ICJ be treated as confidential?
Israel’s request for confidentiality can be seen as a tactic of gaslighting, aimed at concealing falsehoods behind a veil of confidentiality in order to evade scrutiny from the international community. They will continue to dismissively claim that the court lacks jurisdiction over the case, providing minimal responses until a final decision on the merits is issued by the court.
Israel is likely apprehensive that if the media, public opinion, and governments scrutinize its submissions, it will reveal Israel’s violation of the ICJ order, possibly resulting in further unilateral sanctions against Israel. This request by Israel is intended to divert attention from their lack of significant actions on the ground.
The undeniable truth is that Israel’s actions have resulted in the killing of 3525 Palestinians and injuries to 5246 since January 26th. Additionally, humanitarian aid access to Gaza was reduced by 50% in February.
The basis on which the court approved the confidentiality request remains unclear. Israel may have justified their request to the court by citing ongoing negotiations with Hamas that necessitate confidentiality to ensure the “safe release of hostages.”
They may have vaguely mentioned measures taken against certain members of the IOF, arguing the importance of maintaining confidentiality for operational security reasons. Israel’s reporting strategy to the court seems to focus on emphasizing the court’s call for the unconditional and immediate release of hostages.
Probably, they will willfully disregard that the measures imposed by the ICJ are aimed at Israel, not Hamas. They will try to evade responsibility while undermining the court’s findings as outlined in its Initial Order. Israel is likely to deny that the court-ordered measures, including providing basic humanitarian aid to Palestinians, are non-negotiable and not contingent upon the release of hostages.
As long as Israel continues to receive unwavering military aid and support from powerful countries, they may not take these measures seriously. Israel’s failure to implement substantive measures on the ground to prevent the destruction of Palestinians could be used by South Africa to increase the demands for more stringent and robust provisional measures, such as suspending Israel’s military operations in Gaza and relinquishing control over the Rafah border to allow the entry of humanitarian aid as long as it remains an occupied territory, potentially leveraging the advisory opinion that the court may issue in respect of the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to support such measures.