Celebrating Feminists’ Voices, Inspiring Global Peace



ICJ’s Order to Prevent Genocide Applies to the Governments Arming Israel, Too

Delve into the ICJ’s groundbreaking ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in an article by Ray Acheson, Director of Reaching Critical Will, WILPF’s Disarmament Programme. Published on CounterPunch.org on January 28, the piece unravels the intricacies of the ICJ’s interim measures, their impact on Israel’s arms supply, and the potential accountability for governments arming a nation accused of genocide. Uncover the nuanced details and implications in the full article here.

Image credit: Musa Zanoun | Pexels
Ray Acheson
5 February 2024

War profiteers are on notice. On 26 January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that South Africa’s case against Israel for its genocide of Palestinians has merit. While the Court has not yet ruled on whether Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians since 7 October 2023 is genocide—a ruling at which it may take years to arrive—it did order Israel to prevent and not commit genocidal acts against Palestinians, prevent and punish public incitement to commit genocide, ensure the provision of humanitarian aid, preserve evidence related to allegations of genocide, and submit a compliance report within one month. These orders have a significant impact on the provision of weapons to Israel: governments arming genocide can be held accountable for genocide themselves.

The ICJ stopped short of ordering a ceasefire or an end to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Despite this failing of the Court, representatives of the State of Palestine and South Africa, along with many Palestinians and activists, academics, legal scholars, and others around the world, have welcomed the Court’s interim ruling and argue it must be treated as a de facto ceasefire order. As many analysts and officials have pointed out, Israel cannot comply with the interim measures without stopping its murderous rampage in Gaza.

Complicit in genocide

That said, of course, the Israeli and the US governments are trying to spin the lack of an explicit demand for a ceasefire as an affirmation of Israel’s “right to action”. This is incorrect, to say the least—and will have consequences. The United States, and other governments supplying Israel with weapons, such as Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, could be found complicit in the commission of genocide if they continue to provide Israel with bombs, missiles, guns, and other military equipment and support. Now that the ICJ intends to rule on South Africa’s case against Israel, the governments fueling Israeli violence should be very worried.

As noted in an earlier article for CounterPunch, arms transfers to Israel—even before the ICJ interim ruling—violate customary international law, including the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, as well as international humanitarian law, including Common Article 1 to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. For states that are members, arms transfers to Israel also violate the Arms Trade Treaty, the European Union’s Common Position on Arms Exports, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)’s Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers.

Each of these agreements work separately and together to bind states to a system of collective responsibility. And the Genocide Convention, under which South Africa has charged Israel at the ICJ, prohibits not only the commission of genocide but also complicity in it. While it is Israel under scrutiny in this particular case, legal experts and academics have noted that the governments supporting the genocide could be charged at the Court later.

The continued provision of weapons to Israel might also render states complicit in internationally wrongful acts through the aiding or abetting of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This could give rise to individual criminal responsibility of senior officials of these states under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

As for the weapon companies—the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and all the corporations making billions from genocides, wars, and armed violence worldwide—it is less clear how these responsible parties can be held to account. The UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has acknowledged that accountability for the arms industry is challenging, including because it is government officials that make decisions about whether or not to sell weapons or grant licences to a particular recipient. But as the Working Group points out, in many of the major arms exporting countries, the weapon companies “are almost naturally interwoven into the domestic national security fabric of their home States … which can

cause States to approve arms exports despite genuine human rights risks that should prevent them.” The lack of separation between the entity producing the weapon and the entity approving its sale is a recipe for corruption and for the continued export of violence in the name of profits or “national interest”.

There’s a treaty specifically for this situation

But this doesn’t mean there is no recourse to action. We do have one treaty that regulates the international arms trade and provides a potential tool for accountability.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), adopted at the United Nations in 2013, explicitly prohibits states parties from fueling genocide and other international crimes with weapons. All of the countries supplying weapons to Israel, except for the United States, are party to this treaty. Most of them even “championed” its negotiation. While this fact should give anyone pause about the treaty’s value, the ATT’s letter and spirit are clearly oriented towards preventing human suffering, even if some of its members are egregiously violating it. If nothing else, the ATT provides a clear legal framework for holding these governments to account on the international legal stage, which some of them still arguably care about. This means that activists and lawyers do have important tools to help end the steady flow of weapons to Israel right now.

Under the ATT, a state party is prohibited from transferring weapons “if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which they are a Party.”

It is not possible for anyone to reasonably deny that Israel is committing genocide anymore. The people buried under the rubble of houses and hospitals know this is genocide. The medical professionals murdered for saving lives, the journalists targeted for exposing the truth, and the millions of displaced and traumatized Palestinian civilians know that this is genocide. The vast majority of people around the world know this is genocide.

But regardless of whether the ICJ eventually rules that Israel is committing (or, by the time the ruling is finalized, has committed) genocide against Palestinians, arms transfers to Israel are still unlawful under the ATT. Israel has dropped thousands of bombs on the densely populated Gaza Strip, willfully destroying hospitals, houses, schools, refugee camps, sanitation and water infrastructure, and convoys of fleeing civilians. The Israeli forces have targeted medical workers and journalists, they have made life unlivable for millions of people, and they are generating wider regional unrest and violence, with the potential for broader conflict.

All of these acts render arms transfers to Israel unlawful. Beyond its prohibition of fueling genocide, the ATT also requires its states parties to conduct risk assessments to evaluate that the likelihood that the weapons transferred could be used to undermine international peace and security, or be used to commit human rights violations or violations of international humanitarian law. The treaty even specifically mandates a risk assessment to see if the weapons could be used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children. If these risks are found, the state party is not allowed to authorize the export of weapons.

With more than 10,000 children among the more than 25,000 civilians killed to date, it is not possible for any government to deny that weapons being sent to Israel are not “at risk” of being used to commit violence against children. Similarly, with thousands of pregnant people being killed by Israeli soldiers, denied access to healthcare, forced to give birth in extremely unsafe conditions, facing escalating rates of premature births and the death of newborns from preventable causes—to the extent that South Africa charged Israel with “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”—it is not possible to deny that pregnant people are not facing gender-based violence. Men, often targeted in armed conflict under the assumption that men are militants, not civilians, are also subject to gender-based violence by the Israeli forces.

Beyond a ceasefire

The list of human rights and international humanitarian law violations is extensive; South Africa has done a good job of collating many in its very dark submission to the ICJ. But the unlawful provision of weapons to Israel extends much further back than 7 October 2023. Over decades, unchecked military support to Israel has enabled, facilitated, and maintained Israel’s decades-long settler colonial and apartheid regime imposed over the Palestinian people.

A ceasefire to end the current slaughter is imperative. But a ceasefire is insufficient to prevent the ongoing and relentless genocide of Palestinians that Israel has pursued since its creation. Only the dismantling of Israel’s structures of apartheid and occupation can protect Palestinian life.

In light of the ICJ case, the Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Coordinating Committee (PAACC), which includes the Anti-Apartheid Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Anti-Apartheid Committee of the Palestinian National Council (PNC), the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, the Palestinian Human Rights Organization Council (PHROC), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), has called on states to impose a two-way military embargo on Israel, work to adopt a mandatory arms embargo on it at the UN, and adopt other punitive measures to prevent and suppress its acts of genocide, and end the provision of economic and diplomatic support to it. This reflects the calls from the open letter prepared by Al-Haq, the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) in November 2023, which was signed by hundreds of organizations.

At the national level, many activists have been and continue to campaign to end arms transfers to and from Israel. Some have organized letter writing campaigns and petitions to government officials, others continue to engage in blockading weapon production factories or ports through which weapons are being shipped to Israel. These actions are practical and meaningful and must continue. So must efforts to hold governments and weapon contractors accountable through national and international courts, and to demand reparations from those who have profited from the death, displacement, and dispossession through the barrels of their guns.

The ICJ interim measures are just that—interim. In and of themselves, they will not save Palestinian lives or end the brutal occupation of Palestine. But the pressure and community that can be built through acting against the arms trade with Israel will be essential to disrupting the merchants of death now and in the future.

Share the post

Ray Acheson

Ray Acheson is Director of Reaching Critical Will, WILPF’s disarmament programme. They are author of Abolishing State Violence: A World Beyond Bombs, Borders, and Cages and Banning the Bomb, Smashing the Patriarchy. They organise for abolition, disarmament, and demilitarisation in their work with various coalitions and provide intersectional feminist analysis and advocacy at international disarmament forums. 

Your donation isn’t just a financial transaction; it’s a step toward a more compassionate and equitable world. With your support, we’re poised to achieve lasting change that echoes through generations. Thank you!

Thank you!

Melissa Torres


Prior to being elected Vice-President, Melissa Torres was the WILPF US International Board Member from 2015 to 2018. Melissa joined WILPF in 2011 when she was selected as a Delegate to the Commission on the Status of Women as part of the WILPF US’ Practicum in Advocacy Programme at the United Nations, which she later led. She holds a PhD in Social Work and is a professor and Global Health Scholar at Baylor College of Medicine and research lead at BCM Anti-Human Trafficking Program. Of Mexican descent and a native of the US/Mexico border, Melissa is mostly concerned with the protection of displaced Latinxs in the Americas. Her work includes training, research, and service provision with the American Red Cross, the National Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance Centre, and refugee resettlement programs in the U.S. Some of her goals as Vice-President are to highlight intersectionality and increase diversity by fostering inclusive spaces for mentorship and leadership. She also contributes to WILPF’s emerging work on the topic of displacement and migration.

Jamila Afghani


Jamila Afghani is the President of WILPF Afghanistan which she started in 2015. She is also an active member and founder of several organisations including the Noor Educational and Capacity Development Organisation (NECDO). Elected in 2018 as South Asia Regional Representative to WILPF’s International Board, WILPF benefits from Jamila’s work experience in education, migration, gender, including gender-based violence and democratic governance in post-conflict and transitional countries.

Sylvie Jacqueline Ndongmo


Sylvie Jacqueline NDONGMO is a human rights and peace leader with over 27 years experience including ten within WILPF. She has a multi-disciplinary background with a track record of multiple socio-economic development projects implemented to improve policies, practices and peace-oriented actions. Sylvie is the founder of WILPF Cameroon and was the Section’s president until 2022. She co-coordinated the African Working Group before her election as Africa Representative to WILPF’s International Board in 2018. A teacher by profession and an African Union Trainer in peace support operations, Sylvie has extensive experience advocating for the political and social rights of women in Africa and worldwide.

WILPF Afghanistan

In response to the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban and its targeted attacks on civil society members, WILPF Afghanistan issued several statements calling on the international community to stand in solidarity with Afghan people and ensure that their rights be upheld, including access to aid. The Section also published 100 Untold Stories of War and Peace, a compilation of true stories that highlight the effects of war and militarisation on the region. 

IPB Congress Barcelona

WILPF Germany (+Young WILPF network), WILPF Spain and MENA Regional Representative

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris facilisis luctus rhoncus. Praesent eget tellus sit amet enim consectetur condimentum et vel ante. Nulla facilisi. Suspendisse et nunc sem. Vivamus ullamcorper vestibulum neque, a interdum nisl accumsan ac. Cras ut condimentum turpis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Curabitur efficitur gravida ipsum, quis ultricies erat iaculis pellentesque. Nulla congue iaculis feugiat. Suspendisse euismod congue ultricies. Sed blandit neque in libero ultricies aliquam. Donec euismod eget diam vitae vehicula. Fusce hendrerit purus leo. Aenean malesuada, ante eu aliquet mollis, diam erat suscipit eros, in.


WILPF uses feminist analysis to argue that militarisation is a counter-productive and ill-conceived response to establishing security in the world. The more society becomes militarised, the more violence and injustice are likely to grow locally and worldwide.

Sixteen states are believed to have supplied weapons to Afghanistan from 2001 to 2020 with the US supplying 74 % of weapons, followed by Russia. Much of this equipment was left behind by the US military and is being used to inflate Taliban’s arsenal. WILPF is calling for better oversight on arms movement, for compensating affected Afghan people and for an end to all militarised systems.

Militarised masculinity

Mobilising men and boys around feminist peace has been one way of deconstructing and redefining masculinities. WILPF shares a feminist analysis on the links between militarism, masculinities, peace and security. We explore opportunities for strengthening activists’ action to build equal partnerships among women and men for gender equality.

WILPF has been working on challenging the prevailing notion of masculinity based on men’s physical and social superiority to, and dominance of, women in Afghanistan. It recognizes that these notions are not representative of all Afghan men, contrary to the publicly prevailing notion.

Feminist peace​

In WILPF’s view, any process towards establishing peace that has not been partly designed by women remains deficient. Beyond bringing perspectives that encapsulate the views of half of the society and unlike the men only designed processes, women’s true and meaningful participation allows the situation to improve.

In Afghanistan, WILPF has been demanding that women occupy the front seats at the negotiating tables. The experience of the past 20 has shown that women’s presence produces more sustainable solutions when they are empowered and enabled to play a role.

Skip to content