The US and UK will reject the International Court of Justice judgment requiring "Israel" to cease its attack in Rafah after retracting from their previously touted "red lines" on an offensive in Rafah.

Their initial stance was that they would not back any offensive without a credible plan for protecting civilians, yet these supposed "red lines" have been blurred to accommodate the Israeli intent of pursuing the ongoing genocide.

On Monday, the deputy foreign secretary, Andrew Mitchell, told MPs that "the UK could only support a constructive plan for Rafah that complies with international humanitarian law on all counts," stating on Tuesday that a "significant" operation had yet to begin, despite "Israel" driving out 800,000 Palestinians and conducting numerous strikes in the city.

Liam Byrne, the select committee chair, stated that if 800,000 people being driven out is not "significant, then what is?" to which Mitchell responded that the 800,000 had left of their own volition, casting doubt on whether a serious breach of IHL took place.

Labour MP Andy McDonald questioned Mitchell on whether the Palestinians even had a choice in moving, citing that it was a "preposterous suggestion to make – that this is a matter of free will?”

On the US side, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delusionally reported that Israeli officials briefed him they would conduct their Rafah operation while considering civilian harm, yet the toll continues to increase significantly by the day, with most of the victims targeted in Rafah. 

He also blatantly lied by alleging that Israeli aggression in the area has "been more targeted and limited," without targeting heavily populated areas and that the US would be watching what happens and monitoring the situation.

Of course, this translates to US officials expressing "concern" as they have for 8 months, without taking any serious action against the occupation.

According to Sullivan, the US would be looking at whether the operation in Rafah causes "a lot of death and destruction" or if it is "precise and proportional."

The US had previously stated that any attack on Rafah without "credible" humanitarian supplies for civilians would constitute a "red line". However, once "Israel" started an operation against the city earlier this month, it softened its stance.

It seems safe to speculate that the US is only saving face after "Israel" completely disregarded their wishes. Benjamin Netanyahu formerly expressed that an invasion would occur with or without US backing.

During a phone call with Israeli minister Benny Gantz, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated the US opposition to the offensive, and a White House spokesperson stated that the US has been "clear and consistent on our position on Rafah."

UK says ICJ order will 'strengthen view of Hamas'

According to Reuters, the UK government has criticized the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for ordering "Israel" to immediately cease its military assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, claiming that the verdict will bolster Hamas.

The ICJ issued an emergency verdict on Friday in South Africa's lawsuit accusing "Israel" of genocide.

Nawaf Salam, the president of the ICJ, read out the verdict, stating that the situation in Gaza has deteriorated since the court's last injunction to "Israel" to remedy it.

Salam stated that the occupation shall "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."

A UK foreign ministry spokesperson told Reuters that Hamas was to blame for the lack of a ceasefire, citing that they turned down "a very generous" deal. The intervention of the ICJ, according to the official, will "strengthen the view of Hamas that they can hold on to hostages and stay in Gaza," warning that if this happens, there will be no peace or "two-state solution".