The allegations of genocide brought against Israel by South Africa in the International Court of Justice were a litmus test of commitment to justice. The outcome confirmed the failure of leadership by the very countries that originally created this legal framework.

Today the Western world watches the collective punishment being imposed day after day on the civilians in the Gaza Strip as they are indiscriminately bombed, starved and driven into so-called safe areas, where they are again subjected to indiscriminate bombing.

This is not strongly condemned by the United States or the United Kingdom, and it goes largely uncriticized by a handful of other Western allies.

Gaza is populated by Arabs, including Palestinians and Lebanese, and Christians. The Israeli military action targets the entire population of Gaza in a campaign that has also seen denial of medical supplies and widespread destruction of nonmilitary structures. It is, in effect, an offensive against the population of Gaza, irrespective of people's race or religion. To that extent, the actions do not target just one racial, ethnic or religious group.

The judges of the International Court of Justice were asked to rule on the allegations of genocide. They were not asked to rule on allegations of crimes against humanity or accusations of war crimes and breaches of internationally recognized rules of war.

The court ruled that Israel must ensure that its military does not commit acts of genocide and must likewise ensure that humanitarian aid to Gaza is increased.

Israel has not done this. Instead, it continues to treat all people in Gaza as if they are the same, including United Nations aid workers. In this sense, the International Court of Justice did affirm that Israel had to do more to prevent potential genocide, and it had to stop the destruction of any evidence that might suggest genocide had taken place, and allow humanitarian efforts to be implemented without interruption.

Israel's actions are those of a state that has put itself above the rules of war. It is supported by the US, which has also placed itself above the global rules-based order when it suits its purpose.

The Israeli campaign is now almost entirely dependent upon the continued flow of US arms, ammunition and equipment. It's a supply stream that could be turned off simply by an executive order of US President Joe Biden. This failure to act, more than the mealymouthed expressions of disappointment from the Oval Office, expresses the true complicity of the US in this collective punishment.

Looming beyond these issues is an issue of far greater importance, and that is the double standards that have been revealed in the approach to the rules-based order.

The refusal to comply with these rules, which are ignored when convenient by Western powers, strips away their moral authority. Although loud supporters of the global rules-based order, the US and the UK consistently choose to ignore these rules when it suits them to do so.

Opposition to the disproportionate Israeli response in Gaza should never have reached the point where it needed to be referred to the International Court of Justice. The moral failure of Western powers is that by failing to condemn or prevent this escalation, by failing their moral duty to enforce global rules, they became complicit in the slaughter.

This dramatic selective application of the rules-based order is the most significant implication of the international court's judgment. It is well noted by the developing Global South, and by every other country that supported the referral to the court.

The implications of the international court's ruling, and its rejection by the US, the UK and their small group of allies, strike at the heart of the legitimacy of the rules-based global order. Their contempt suggests the current global order is no longer fit for purpose.

The author is an international financial technical analyst and a former national board member of the Australia China Business Council.