In a significant development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to cease its offensive operation in Rafah, the southernmost town in Gaza. The court ruled that Israel's war aims effectively violate the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention. The ICJ also emphasized the need for Israel to scale up aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

During the past two weeks, Israel has caused significant destruction in Rafah, reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and forcefully displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Israel claimed it needed to move into Rafah to defeat Hamas. However, the ICJ expressed its concerns about the protection of civilian lives and voted 13 judges to two that Israel must take effective measures to allow any UN-backed commission of inquiry to enter Gaza and investigate genocide allegations.

Moreover, the ICJ reiterated its previous January 26 ruling that Israel must increase aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Alonso Gurmendi, an international law scholar at King's College, remarked that the ICJ's orders reflect a loss of patience with Israel's actions.

Initially filed by South Africa, the emergency request called for an end to Israel's offensive in Rafah, which then expanded to a full ceasefire in Gaza. However, minutes after the ICJ ruling, reports emerged of Israeli air raids in Rafah.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not yet made a formal statement in response to the ICJ's orders, analysts believe that Israel may not comply with the court's directives. Legal scholars and analysts point out that Israel has previously refused to comply with earlier provisional measures issued by the ICJ.

The ICJ's new orders put additional pressure on Western states that provide arms to Israel. Legal scholar Gurmendi questioned how these states could justify selling weapons to be used in Rafah, stating that it might be legally impossible. The ICJ also ordered Israel to open the Rafah crossing without obstacles to ensure the provision of aid.

Heidi Matthews, a legal scholar at York University in Toronto, explained that the ICJ's order is legally binding and that previous orders have already alerted states to the imminent risk of genocide under the genocide convention. Matthews acknowledged that while some may be disappointed that a full ceasefire was not ordered, this ruling still represents a substantial move.

Hamas welcomed the ICJ's rulings, but expressed hope that the court will eventually issue an order for Israel to end its war on the entire Gaza Strip. Israeli officials, however, responded defiantly, accusing the ICJ of aiding "terrorists." Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich went as far as stating that stopping the invasion of Rafah was equivalent to demanding Israel's existence to cease.

Now, the ICJ's ruling will be discussed at the UN Security Council, where member states can decide on united action to enforce the court's orders. Although ICJ orders are legally binding, the US possesses a veto power, historically used to shield Israel from the consequences of violating international law.

The ICJ's decision comes amidst a devastating war in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 35,000 people and rendered the enclave effectively uninhabitable. The ICJ's new orders intensify pressure on Israel and its allied states to protect Palestinians and put an end to the conflict.