Was hat der International Court of Justice zu Gaza eigentlich entschieden?

Nach dem der erste Staub, der aufgewirbelt wurde, sich gelegt hat, stellt sich die Frage, was nun eigentlich das ICJ in Den Haag entschieden hat und was seine Entscheidung meint.

Yuval Yoaz geht dieser Frage in der ToI auf den Grund und kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass keineswegs Klarheit herrsche und jede Seite aus dem Spruch herauslesen könne, was ihr gefällt:

In the decision, read out by the President of the International Court of Justice Nawaf Salam, the operative directive on the Rafah issue states that Israel will, “Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

The question is whether the qualification – “which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” – applies only to “any other action,” or also to “military offensive.”

In other words, must Israel halt its entire Rafah military operation, or can it continue with that military operation provided it does not constitute a genocidal risk? The formulation and punctuation of this key, complex, three-clause sentence in the ruling seem to allow for both of these — very different — interpretations. (...)

This is not the first time in history that judges whose opinions differ try to find a form of compromise that everyone can agree on. Such compromises allow as many judges on the bench to unite around an agreed-upon bottom line. 

But in the present case, an unacceptable situation was created, in which the compromise brought about such a vague text that each side is now reading it as it wishes.