Israel Targeted Again at the International Court of Justice

From September 7 to September 10, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is scheduled to hear preliminary objections raised by Germany in Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany).

Here is the brief background. In March 2024, Nicaragua filed an application against Germany at the ICJ alleging that Germany is violating the Genocide Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions vis-à-vis the Palestinian population.

Specifically, Nicaragua alleged that Germany “has failed and is failing in its obligation to prevent the genocide . . . being perpetrated against the Palestinian people” by, among other things, “cut[ting] off assistance to UNRWA,” and by providing “political, financial and military support to Israel.”

As part of the provisional measures pending a decision on the merits, Nicaragua asked the court to order Germany to suspend its military assistance to Israel and “reverse its decision to suspend the funding of UNRWA as part of the compliance of its obligations to prevent genocide . . . .”

The court did not grant any provisional measures but did not throw out the case for lack of jurisdiction either. Now, the court is scheduled to hear Germany’s preliminary objections.

As Nicaragua admitted in its March 2024 application, “UNRWA is funded almost entirely by contributions that though voluntary in origin have customarily been relied upon by [UNRWA] for fulfilling its mandate.” Indeed, States do not have any legal responsibility to fund UNRWA. To say that suspending such voluntary contributions to UNRWA constitutes a breach of Germany’s obligations under the Genocide Convention is not just far-fetched; it is absurd.

Nicaragua’s argument should be even more concerning when one considers that many UNRWA employees participated in the October 7 attacks on Israel; out of 12,521 UNRWA workers in Gaza, 1,462 were reported to be members of Hamas and other terrorist organizations; two of the UNRWA schools’ principals were confirmed Hamas members; and Hamas dug tunnels under, and stored weapons in, UNRWA schools. Germany decided to suspend the funding after a report published evidence that UNRWA school teachers and staff were celebrating the October 7 massacre. The report also revealed that educational materials branded with UNRWA’s logo included glorification of violent jihad, antisemitism, and violence against the Jewish people.

Furthermore, Nicaragua’s fussing about Germany’s suspension of funding to UNRWA becomes laughable when one considers how much funding Nicaragua provides to UNRWA – none.

Ironically, if Germany’s refusal to provide UNRWA with funding constitutes a breach of Germany’s obligations under the Genocide Convention, then Nicaragua itself is in breach of the same obligation as it is also a party to the same Convention. However, neither Germany nor Nicaragua has any legal obligation to fund UNRWA. Accordingly, there is no breach of obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Despite all this, Nicaragua’s claim about UNRWA funding is moot since Germany resumed the funding in April 2024. In the first six months of 2026, Germany provided $65 million “in support of UNRWA’s work in the region.”

Regarding Germany’s military support to Israel, the ICJ has previously noted that States have “international law obligations relating to the transfer of arms to parties to an armed conflict, in order to avoid the risk that such arms might be used to violate [International Humanitarian Law (IHL)].” States not parties to an armed conflict often provide military support to States involved in armed conflicts (e.g., western support of Ukraine). There is no prohibition against this. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the extent of international law obligations States have in providing military support. (See here and here for differing views.)

Without getting into the issue of the “extent” of international law obligations, it is important to point out the premise of Nicaragua’s application, which presupposes that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people and committing violations of IHL in its military operation in Gaza. This presupposition is problematic because, other than the biased U.N. “experts” (See here, here, here, and here), no legal body has ever determined that Israel is violating IHL, let alone committing acts of genocide. (Currently, a case is pending before the ICJ in which South Africa alleged that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.)

Notably, in its response to Nicaragua’s allegations, Germany stated that “there is no evidence that the supply of military equipment to Israel by Germany would have contributed to an alleged genocide or to breaches of international humanitarian law.”

Clearly, a neutral State providing military assistance to a State that is engaged in an armed conflict must, at the very least, have knowledge that the receiving State is likely to engage in genocide or other breaches of IHL for the neutral State to be in violation of its international law obligations. That knowledge must be based on some evidence.

For instance, when Iran provides weapons to Hamas, Iran violates its international law obligations because there is plenty of publicly available evidence that Hamas uses those weapons in violation of IHL by indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilian population centers. This is exactly what happened on October 7, 2023, when Hamas and other terrorist organizations from Gaza committed genocidal acts, and butchered 1,200 people (including men, women, children, babies, and the elderly), raped and mutilated women, and desecrated their dead bodies.

Israel, on the other hand, does not deliberately target civilians. In fact, Israel has a track record of carefully following IHL. Hamas and other terrorists put civilians in harm’s way by unlawfully using them as human shields. They also unlawfully use civilian facilities, such as schools and hospitals, to conduct military operations and store weapons. Israel takes every precaution to minimize civilian harm by giving evacuation warnings to civilians before conducting strikes against legitimate military targets. Because there is no evidence that Israel has a practice of violating IHL by deliberately targeting civilians or has committed any acts of genocide, Germany has no reason to foresee that Israel would do so in the future.

Another aspect of the dispute that the court may consider is its jurisdiction to adjudicate Nicaragua’s claims in the first place. Germany has argued this before and will likely argue it again in the upcoming preliminary objections. In line with an important international law principle, the ICJ does not hear claims whose very subject matter includes the rights of a State not party to the dispute before the court. In such a claim, the State not party to the lawsuit becomes an indispensable third party without whose presence the claim cannot be heard.

Here, Israel seems to be an indispensable third party in this dispute as any decision by the court would affect Israel’s rights whether they are related to receiving weapons from Germany in light of the false allegations of genocide or whether they are related to any alleged violation of IHL in conducting military operations in Gaza. However, Israel would need to consent to take part in this litigation—something it will likely not do.

Stand with the ACLJ as we defend Israel. Sign our petition.