Belgium has recently lodged a declaration of intervention at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning an ongoing genocide case against Israel related to its actions in the Gaza Strip. This intervention signifies Belgium’s engagement in the complex legal discourse surrounding allegations of genocidal intent under the Genocide Convention. By referencing a past ICJ order in the Gambia v. Myanmar case, Belgium asserted that an armed conflict does not preclude the court from determining genocidal intent. Furthermore, military objectives do not inherently negate such an intent if war operations are disproportionate to their stated objectives, counteracting Israel’s claims attributing civilian harm to Hamas’ strategies.
Belgium also contended that adherence to international humanitarian law does not serve as a defense against genocide accusations. This argument focuses on whether breaches such as indiscriminate attacks can indicate genocidal intent, although their absence does not prevent the court from reaching such a finding. Israel’s argument rests on claims of Hamas utilizing civilians as shields and diverting aid. Belgium’s intervention, grounded in Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, emphasizes its commitment to international law, echoing actions by countries like Colombia, Türkiye, and Palestine.
The ICJ has requested written observations from South Africa and Israel in light of Belgium’s involvement. The genesis of the proceedings dates to December 2023, when South Africa accused Israel of genocidal actions in Gaza, and failing to prosecute incitement to genocide. Although the case is still pending, the ICJ has mandated several times this year that Israel ensure the uninterrupted flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
A report from a United Nations independent commission on September 16, 2025, concluded that Israel committed genocide, citing the deaths of over 60,199 Palestinians since October 7, 2023, with a significant proportion being women and children. Despite its non-binding nature, this report presents evidence that could be critical to the ICJ’s deliberations.
For further information, JURIST provides detailed coverage of these developments on their website.