The Hague, January 28 (RHC)-- Social media has been abuzz since Friday after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its interim ruling in the case filed by South Africa against the Israeli regime over the Gaza genocide.

Netizens hailed the “historic” ruling by the UN court, which called on Tel Aviv to stop all acts of genocide in Gaza while refusing to entertain the plea of the regime to quash the South African complaint.

However, many social media users were disappointed that the ICJ did not call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Francesca Albanese, former UN rights official, in a post on X, formerly Twitter, said the UN court “just recognized that the horror in Gaza plausibly constitutes genocide,” referring to the ruling.

“A CEASEFIRE is the only sure way to fully abide by the Court's provisional measures to halt this horror. Third States should now work to achieve it & avoid breaching their obligation to prevent genocide,” she wrote.

Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian politician, in a post on X, said the ICJ preliminary measures are “binding” and they “clearly implicate” the Israeli regime of genocide.

“It is incumbent upon all states to ensure compliance & to act in accordance with the ruling. The US, UK, Germany, & others who are aiding & abetting genocide are culpable & must cease & desist,” she wrote.

Moussa Faki Mahamat, chairperson of the African Union Commission, in a statement posted on X, said the African Union “welcomes” the provisional measures ordered by ICJ.  “The ruling upholds the respect of international law and the need for Israel to imperatively comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention,” the statement noted.

Arnaud Bertrand, a social media savvy entrepreneur, in a post on X, formerly Twitter, slammed the “level of misinformation” peddled by the Israeli media analysts, saying it is “off the charts.”

“Israeli spokesperson's takeaway from the ICJ ruling is that they threw out South Africa's case and reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself. Both patently untrue,” he wrote.

Palestinian envoy to the UK, Husam Zomlot, shared his BCC interview on his X page, saying the Israeli regime is “now officially on trial for genocide.”  “That means all third parties that have offered material support for this genocide, including the UK and U.S., are on trial for complicity. Israel is not defending itself. It is defending its 76-year-old ethnic cleansing, colonial occupation and its suppression and denial of Palestinian rights.  It is we, the Palestinian people under occupation, that have the right to self-defense,” he wrote.

Fiona Edwards, a London-based writer, in an X post called out the Western media, especially BBC, for “trying to bury the news” of the UN court’s “historic ruling.”   “It is a clear indication of how badly the West and Israel are losing the ideological and moral battle for global public opinion that outlets such as the BBC are trying to bury the news of the ICJ's historic ruling that Israel has to answer to a case that it's committing genocide,” she wrote.

Amal Saad, a Lebanese academic and commentator, in a post on X, dissected the ICJ  ruling from the perspective of the Axis of Resistance, especially the Hezbollah resistance movement.

“On the one hand, it will be viewed as a moral victory for the Palestinian cause and its own position. On the other, it will be seen as vindicating its strategy of armed resistance,” she wrote.

“Hizbullah's officials and parliamentary bloc previously praised South Africa's case against Israel, while Hamas official Osama Hamdan said the group would adhere to any cease-fire injunction by the court if Israel adhered to it. Iran similarly commended South Africa today.”

Max Blumenthal, a US-based journalist and editor of Gray Zone website, in a post on X, formerly Twitter, said the Hague-based court did not order a ceasefire but “based on my reading, and I'm far from alone here, the only way to implement the ruling is by imposing one.”

He hastened to add, in another tweet, said the ICJ “has legitimized the charge of genocide while simultaneously setting the stage for its own discrediting by failing to order its cessation, or identifying an enforcement mechanism.”

“This is why Yemen's military intervention against genocide is necessary and legitimate,” he noted.

Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of the Intercept website, in a post on X, commented on the Israeli reaction to the ICJ ruling and the false air of victory.   “Israel’s position on the ICJ ruling is basically: We didn’t get found guilty of genocide at our arraignment so that means we can keep doing it. Plus, we aren’t killing Palestinian people, those are human animals. We won,” he wrote.

Bristol-based writer and media critic Jonathan Cook, in a post on X, said the world court has “created a rod on its own back” with the ruling issued on Friday.   “It could take years to sift the evidence on whether Israel is actually carrying out what the judges already admit looks very much like a genocide in Gaza,” he wrote.

“If it eventually finds Israel is indeed guilty of genocide, the big question it will have to answer is this: Why did it not insist on more concrete measures, undertaken in real-time, to stop the genocide taking place – beyond requesting Israel be nicer to Palestinians in Gaza.”

Edward Snowden, the acclaimed whistle-blower, in a post on X, commented on the ruling and why the world court stopped short of enforcing the ceasefire.  “The reason the ICJ didn't order an Israeli ceasefire in the Palestinian Genocide case is not for lack of evidence, in my opinion, but for fear that they could not yet enforce the ruling,” he wrote.   “For the ICJ to function, the US/EU must first stop serving as an accessory to the crime.”

Poet Remi Kanazi said it’s high time for a ceasefire in Gaza.  “Israel committed genocide. The world saw it. South Africa took action.  Even the ICJ couldn’t deny what is clear as day. The West can’t say it didn’t know. The West has been complicit.  The U.S. is shipping weapons.  A lot of people have blood on their hands.  We need a ceasefire now,” he wrote.

Arnesa Buljusmic-Kustura, a genocide researcher, in a post on X, said people must not have a “doomist and pessimistic view” of the ICJ ruling, describing it as a “huge win for Palestinians.”

“Stop helping Israel hasbara because you don’t understand the significance of the ruling and the provisional measures,” she wrote.