"The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must 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." This is what the International Court of Justice said in Article 50 in its ruling on Friday in response to the petition submitted by South Africa on behalf of the Palestinians, who claimed that the Gaza war was tantamount to genocide.
On its face, the International Court of Justice's decision against Israel on Friday appears to be an unambiguous directive for Israel to cease its military operations in Rafah immediately. However, for those who deal with grammar, it's easy to pick up the nuances in the clause construction that Israel could seize upon to argue for a narrower interpretation boosting its ability to continue operations: Use of the non-restrictive clause "which may inflict...conditions of life that could bring about...physical destruction." What does "which" refer to? One option is that it describes Israel's military offensive so that the sentence can be read: "Israel must immediately halt its military offensive which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Or does the "which" apply only to the words in commas, meaning that the which could be read as only describing 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."
According to the authoritative source, the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "In today's usage which and that are both used to introduce restrictive clauses, those which cannot be removed from the context of the sentence, and which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, those which provide additional information but can be removed without the sentence falling apart." In other words, the "which" in the ruling could apply to both parts of the sentence equally and Israel could justifiably claim that the verdict only restricts it from carrying out action that could lead to the "physical destruction in whole or in part" of the Palestinians in a way that violates the Genocide Convention.
The use of "which" instead of "that" to introduce this clause is significant. A restrictive clause (with "that") is essential to the meaning of the sentence, while a non-restrictive clause (with "which") merely provides additional, non-essential information. It is unclear if the judges, most of whom do not speak English fluently, were aware that they were digging themselves into a hole.
