With the dust of war settling over the Gaza Strip and the ceasefire taking effect on Sunday, 19 January, 2025, hopes are rising for international investigative teams to enter Gaza and document the catastrophic aftermath of the 15-month-long war of extermination. The reports issued by media outlets and international organisations fail to capture the full scale of the tragedy, making it imperative for investigative teams to be on the ground to gather evidence. This evidence will play a pivotal role in the genocide case presented to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and assist the International Criminal Court (ICC) in indicting additional military and political leaders involved in the crimes.
Time is of the essence as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatens to resume fighting after the initial phase of the ceasefire ends. This urgency necessitates swift action from international courts to pursue justice and accountability. However, the ICC has been slow in its response, halting its progress after approving arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant months ago without taking further steps. This delay persists despite the long list of individuals accused of committing war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.
The sluggish proceedings and hesitancy to hold all responsible parties accountable stem from various reasons, chief among them the political pressures and threats faced by the court. This calls for international actors to advocate for the establishment of a special international tribunal, similar to those for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to operate effectively, free from external pressures and with enhanced capacity to address the vast number of crimes committed.
READ: Lebanese judge elected president of ICJ
The case brought before the ICJ by South Africa, accusing Israel of genocide, is equally significant. More than a year has passed since the case was filed, yet the proceedings remain slow. Compounding this issue is the resignation of Judge Nawaf Salam from the ICJ presidency due to his appointment to form the Lebanese government. This opens the door for his deputy, who is sympathetic to Israel, to potentially assume the position, further delaying the hearings.
Salam’s resignation has left the ICJ presidency vacant, with Ugandan Judge Julia Sebutinde temporarily assuming the role. Sebutinde, known for her blind support for Israel, became the first African woman to hold this prestigious position. While the election of judges should be based on expertise and qualifications, political and geographical factors often play a significant role in their selection.
During her tenure, Sebutinde received little attention regarding her impartiality or fairness, aside from being the first African woman in this role. Coming from a continent ravaged by colonialism, massacres and resource plundering, she was expected to uphold justice through the court to promote peace and security in a world rife with conflicts.
These expectations were dashed when Sebutinde, along with other judges, obstructed the genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel. She made headlines for her views opposing the court’s rulings, including its advisory opinion on the illegality of occupation, which the court had approved. Her dissenting opinion was rooted in peculiar and baseless arguments drawn from religious beliefs and fabricated historical narratives.
A close examination of Sebutinde’s lengthy opinions reveals her manipulation of international law principles to suit her biases and beliefs. Her conclusions seem influenced by myths akin to those propagated by religious Zionist extremists, which are neither recognised by the court’s system nor upheld by international law. This is especially alarming given the case’s gravity, which concerns the existential threat to a national group on its land.
Comparing Sebutinde’s stance on the South Africa-Israel genocide case with her position on Ukraine’s genocide case against Russia reveals stark contradictions. In the latter, Sebutinde and the other judges examined the presented evidence and applied the law without considering religious or political dimensions, declaring Russia’s actions pure aggression against a sovereign state.
The precautionary measures issued in the Ukraine case, endorsed by most judges, including Sebutinde, mandated a ceasefire. This stripped Russia of its claimed right to self-defence against the spread of “neo-Nazis”, whom it accused of committing massacres against Ukrainian citizens of Russian origin.
Day 1 in office: Trump lifts sanctions on violent Israeli settlers
In stark contrast, Sebutinde’s stance on the South Africa-Israel genocide case was deeply flawed. Despite the situation’s severity, the court’s precautionary measures did not include a ceasefire, a grave error reflecting the influence of pro-Israel state policies on certain judges. Sebutinde outright rejected these measures, disregarding the evidence and international humanitarian law. Her dissenting opinion, marked by reliance on her religious convictions and political biases, ignored the facts presented in the case.
In the court’s ruling on 26 January, 2024, which included six precautionary measures approved by 15 judges against two dissenting votes, Sebutinde opposed all measures. This included provisions urging Israel to allow the unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid. Strikingly, even the Israeli-appointed judge on the court panel, Aharon Barak, approved two measures: one obligating Israel to prevent incitement to genocide and another ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid.
Sebutinde’s lack of impartiality and staunch belief in Israel’s absolute right to act as it pleases were evident in her opinion. She made unverified accusations against Palestinian factions, alleging heinous crimes like rape and child murder. In contrast, her comments on Gaza’s suffering lacked specific details or references, dismissing South Africa’s evidence as false and asserting the court’s lack of jurisdiction at this stage. Contrary to the majority’s view, she denied that the evidence indicated potential genocide.
Her opinions have undermined the court’s credibility and raised concerns about her fitness for a role demanding neutrality and adherence to justice.
Sebutinde also opposed the additional three precautionary measures (passed by 13 votes to two) included in the court’s ruling on 24 May, 2024, following Israel’s attack on Rafah. It seems that Judge Barak learned from her stance, as it is inconceivable that she could appear more aligned with Zionism than he is. Barak joined Sebutinde in rejecting these measures, even reversing his earlier positions by opposing the first measure, reaffirming the precautionary measures outlined in the court’s January ruling.
The Gaza Genocide: the fall of Israel’s immunity
Despite the passage of four months since the court’s initial decision, Sebutinde did not alter her stance, even as the death toll rose and the scale of destruction and starvation widened. Instead, she disregarded these realities, describing them merely as a “complex humanitarian crisis”. In contrast, she elaborated extensively on the suffering of Israelis, citing specific numbers and incidents that resulted in limited casualties and injuries. Sebutinde even highlighted the involvement of new actors in the conflict, such as the Houthi movement and the escalation of Hezbollah operations in the south, using these developments to justify rejecting precautionary measures to halt the assault on Rafah.
Sebutinde’s commentary on these and the preceding rulings amounts to an endorsement of bloodshed. She supported the continuation of military operations, arguing that halting them would jeopardise the safety of: “100 hostages held by the terrorist organisation Hamas.” However, evidence, including official admissions by the Israeli military, confirmed that many hostages were killed during these operations.
In her advisory opinion dated 19 July, 2024, she diverged from the majority opinion regarding: “The legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem.” While most judges deemed the occupation illegal and called for its dismantling, Sebutinde argued that the court should not have issued the advisory opinion in the first place. She claimed it would complicate the issue by circumventing the agreed-upon negotiation framework between the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel. In doing so, Sebutinde openly criticised her fellow judges and revealed her deep-seated religious beliefs rooted in the Old Testament, along with interpretations of religious texts and archaeological findings from 3,000 years ago that allegedly prove the existence of a “Jewish nation” while denying the existence of Palestine.
Sebutinde’s dissenting opinion read:
“The evidence includes archaeological findings in the City of David. Excavations in Jerusalem’s “City of David” have uncovered structures, fortifications, and artifacts dating to the time traditionally associated with the reign of King David. These artifacts provide evidence of a settled, literate society engaged in trade, agriculture, and governance. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) offers detailed accounts of the history, culture, and governance of the Israelites during this period. While these texts are religious in nature, many scholars consider them valuable historical documents. While these texts are religious in nature, many scholars consider them valuable historical documents. These combined archaeological, textual and historical pieces of evidence support the existence and continuous habitation of Jewish people in ancient Israel during the period from 1000 to 586 BCE.”
Imagine a dispute being brought before any court in the world—except Israel—over property ownership. One party presents a religious text from a holy book, claiming it proves ownership of the property from hundreds of years ago, while the other party submits officially documented contracts and a certified title deed from the relevant authorities. What would the judge’s reaction be? I imagine they would either order the first party to be sent to a mental institution or hold them in contempt of court for wasting their time.
READ: Uganda disowns ICJ judge who voted in favour of Israel in genocide case
Sebutinde contradicts herself in her dissenting opinion, simultaneously using the Balfour Declaration and the Partition Plan to validate Israel’s legitimacy while denying Palestinians their rights under the same documents. Her distortions extend to the West Bank and Jerusalem, which she considers disputed territories rather than occupied ones. She ignores all United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions affirming their status as occupied lands.
Sebutinde’s religious beliefs blind her, much like extreme settlers who manipulate history to serve their ideologies. She blames Arabs, from the Mandate period to the present, for rejecting every proposed solution for sharing the land and living peacefully with their Jewish neighbours. According to her, all acts of terrorism by Zionist militias and wars waged by Israel were pre-emptive and defensive.
Throughout the court’s deliberations, Sebutinde clung to her view that the conflict is ideological and political and unsuitable for resolution within judicial forums. This stance persisted despite the overwhelming evidence presented, showing the systematic war machine targeting people, trees and stones in meticulously planned extermination campaigns. Tens of thousands were killed or injured, entire cities destroyed and over two-thirds of the population displaced.
A judge consumed by religious myths and distortions cannot serve justice between nations. Her rightful place for expressing such beliefs is in a temple, political party or even a criminal organisation like the Israeli military, where she could actively participate in such atrocities as a soldier or officer. Allowing her to preside over the highest judicial authority tasked with resolving international disputes and safeguarding peace and security is a travesty of justice.
Fortunately, court decisions are made by majority vote, as evidenced by the overwhelming approval of the rulings, leaving her dissent without significant influence. However, in cases where the court is divided, the president’s tie-breaking vote becomes crucial. While such scenarios are rare, Sebutinde’s potential election as president raises concerns. The concerning aspect of this, within Sebutinde’s authority as a supervisor of the court’s technical committees, is that she could play a role in slowing down procedures, complicating processes and delaying hearings. The situation could escalate, given her extremism, to leaking discussions or confidential documents related to the case.
Therefore, the judges of the court must not elect a judge who adopts an extremist ideology to hold such a high position. There is a clear contradiction between the mission of the court to resolve international disputes and achieve peace and security and the goals of the current to which she belongs, which spreads chaos, fuels wars and spills blood. Hence, Sebutinde must be prevented from assuming the position of president of the court.
Netanyahu: ICJ is ‘anti-Semitic’
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.