VIDEO: Nicaragua takes on Germany over Gaza genocide- an interview with Carlos Argüello Gómez

APRIL 15, 2024

Source

Max Blumenthal

Nicaraguan lawyer and diplomat Carlos Argüello Gómez speaks to The Grayzone about his case against the German government for its facilitation of Israel’s genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip, its potentially historic implications, and its similarities to the successful case he argued for the ICJ in 1986 which brought massive penalties against the United States for its illegal dirty war on Nicaragua at the time.

A full transcript follows.

VIDEO: Nicaragua takes on Germany over Gaza genocide- an interview with Carlos Argüello Gómez

Max Blumenthal: Why did Nicaragua feel compelled to bring this case against Germany? And perhaps you can fill us in on the latest development?

Dr. Arguello: Yes, thank you. Well, naturally, the main state committing the crime is Israel. The main abettor of what is happening is the United States. But the next one is Germany.

In the first case, Israel, South Africa has brought a case against Israel, of genocide, and that case is pending. Israel has been ignoring so far the orders of the court. In the case of the main abettor, the United States, we don’t have any jurisdiction to bring the United States to the court.

The United States not only does it accept the jurisdiction, but even when it became part of the Genocide Convention, which was 40 years after the convention from 1948 — it wan’t until 1988, that they became a party, with a lot of reservations, saying that they couldn’t be taken to the court, and that it [was] only genocide according to a decision by a court in the United States — with a lot of reservations that make it impossible to go against the United States.

But Germany doesn’t have that type of reservation, and Germany is the second [largest] supplier of weapons to Israel. So our position was a question of principle, beginning with: that it was very important to sit down and to make countries clear that there is an international obligation to prevent these types of situations.

The Genocide Convention specifically says in its first article that all countries have the obligation to prevent and punish genocide. We have the obligation to prevent — that doesn’t mean that the genocide has to have been completed already, that it has to have been determined by a court that there has been genocide. You have the obligation to prevent [it].

So what we have stated in the court, and have proven, is that Germany has had all notice, beginning from the Secretary General of the United Nations from the ninth of October, saying that genocide was possibly being committed. Even the International Court said that genocide was being committed.

Now, you have to understand also that if genocide is being committed, obviously, international humanitarian law is being [violated]. If you are massacring a population, the difference is, if you aren’t massacring with the intention of destroying it completely, which is genocide, you are still violating international humanitarian law.

Now the problem — to divide the situation — is Israel only accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the Genocide Convention. So you can’t claim against Israel violations of international humanitarian law, only genocide. And so that was another of the points that I’ll get to.

But first, going back, the principle involved here is all states have responsibility to prevent these type of crimes, international crimes. The court had already given indication of this 20 years ago, in an opinion that the International Court had given on the construction of a wall in Israel. The Court itself had felt that all states had the obligation to prevent what was happening. All states had the obligation to enforce the humanitarian law conventions, but nobody paid attention.

Germany never paid any attention to what was happening. The court even said that the Palestinians had the right to self-determination in that case. Nobody paid attention. So now we come to when the most crucial genocide is being evidenced — because genocide has been committed for many years. It’s not a question of just the past few months. But it is absolutely in evidence, and the countries continue as if it wasn’t. As if the Genocide Convention and all the international laws had nothing to do with them.

So we thought that as a matter of principle, we had to bring before the court this question. Now, I wish to clarify, because I have been asked: ‘why Nicaragua?’ Well, with Nicaragua, we have a lot of experience in the court. We came to the court forty years ago against the United States, on a question of principle also. It was the principle of non intervention… of the state. In that we made a very important contribution to international law.

And since then we have been in the court many times. We have been in the court more than twice as many times as Germany. So it’s not that we are discovering the court in this situation. We have experience and that’s why, this experience, we wanted to put it to the benefit of the Palestinian people that are being massacred, at the very least, if not committing genocide against them.

Now, another situation, and this is on a personal level: after South Africa brought the case against Israel — and that was at the end of December last year — then in January, I was just listening to interviews, by very important commentators, very important lawyers. Everybody was saying, ‘Well, no, genocide is possible… it’s very difficult to prove that,’ and whatever.

So I think the whole understanding of people who were watching what was happening was: well, obviously, then nothing is happening. It’s very difficult to prove. I mean, that wasn’t the issue. Israel was massacring everybody. It was violating all international humanitarian law. The only thing was that only genocide could be brought against them directly.

So the fact of bringing this case against Germany, which includes not only genocide, but also its obligations, German obligations, to also help prevent the violation of international humanitarian law. All that is on the table with Germany. Against Israel, only the genocide. Against Germany, we have all international law, humanitarian law also on the table. So I mean, that aspect is also very important.

Part of the reason, right, but obviously, Germany will try to avoid [it] and say that, as they said in the court, that we can continue in this case without the presence of Israel. But independently of what is happening, each country in the world, all countries in the world, have the obligation to prevent [genocide]. It’s an independent obligation.

So, I mean, this is more or less where we are. And hopefully, the court will order. There are no third states, I’m sorry, there are no other parties, but Germany and Nicaragua involved in this. There is no reason why the court can not simply order that Germany cease supplying weapons to Israel, which is what we hope will happen.

Wyatt Reed: So the Germans are offering kind of a novel legal defense here. The legal director for the German Foreign Office, Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, said recently that, “Our history is the reason why Israel security has been at the core of German foreign policy.” So the point here seems to be that given that Germany carried out the Holocaust, it’s now compelled to do whatever it takes to defend the so-called ‘Jewish state,’ and apparently, including even facilitating the mass extermination of Palestinians. Is that an accurate reading of the German position here? And if it is, how do you expect that to hold up in court? Are you optimistic about the outcome here?

Dr. Arguello: Well, frankly, in court… Let me make two comments on that. Even before the Germans spoke — when we presented our case on Monday, the Germans responded on Tuesday — we’d already made the distinction. We told them, because I think Germany has always been saying that it is their raison d’etre that they have: the defense of Israel.

So one of the things we told them on Monday is that we understand and that it is a praisable situation, a very laudable situation, that they feel responsible for the Holocaust, and the barbarities that were committed in the Second World War against the Jewish people. But a distinction should be made, Israel is not the Jewish people. What they’re helping is a state that is committing genocide.

That’s one point and a very important distinction. But in the long run, what they are doing is, they are going against the Jewish people, because Israel is causing enormous prejudice to the Jewish [court], the world around. It’s incredible. Frankly, I don’t know how we can understand that position of Germany. If they’re really worried about what they did, or what happened, of their ancestors or the Nazis, or whatever we want to call them. Well, I think the first thing should be, their heart should tell them that they should be helping the Palestinians in this situation. I mean, those are the guys that are suffering. I mean, Israel is not suffering. If they want to really have compassion, or they feel compassion to those that are suffering, Israel is not suffering. Israel is a superpower.

Max: Ambassador Arguello, you mentioned earlier the case that you brought at the International Court of Justice or that the Nicaraguan government brought back in 1984. In 1986, you received a favorable ruling from the ICJ. And this was a case against the United States for its violation of international law, through the CIA’s backing of the Contra death squads, as well as its mining of Nicaragua’s Harbor. The US did not abide by the decision. It simply sat on its hands and waited until its preferred candidate, Violeta Chamorro, won in 1990, and proceeded to withdraw the case. Do you see any similarities between that case and the case you’re bringing now against Germany for its participation in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people? And how do you expect the ICJ or the international community to enforce a decision in the current case, given the brazen attitude of Israel in the United States towards international law?

Dr. Arguello: Well, that’s a very important consideration, and thank you for the comment on the historical background. Yes, I mean, the case we brought against the United States has certain similarities. Some we pointed out during our intervention — the most obvious is that one of the main things we’re requesting [from] the court right at the beginning, was that the United States should cease its supply of weapons in support to the Contra forces that were fighting the government of Nicaragua. And they were, in this case, they were created and supplied entirely by the United States.

Obviously, the State of Israel wasn’t created and doesn’t depend entirely on Germany, but Germany is also supplying weapons and maintaining politically, diplomatically, giving all the efforts in helping possible to Israel. So what we are asking the court, in a certain sense, and we repeated that, was exactly what we were asking against [the] United States forty years ago: to cease this assistance to Israel, in the same way that you will cease the assistance to the illegal forces fighting Nicaragua.

Now, of course, the United States didn’t comply. The United States, in my experience, even before we came before the court — and I don’t want to go lengthy discussion on that, [but] in my opinion, the United States has never respected international law. Any treaty with the United States, any third country that thinks that they are ‘armor’ against anything because they have a treaty, that treaty will only be respected as long as it’s in the interest of the United States. The United States does not respect international law, unless it’s in its benefit.

They want to go: ‘The United States has accepted the jurisdiction of the court.’ But when it became against them, that was it. They didn’t comply, said goodbye to the court. Israel, obviously, is following the example of the United States. Not the example — it’s covered by the same forces of the United States. Israel is the local bully in that area, but it has the big brother bully behind it. So they feel completely armored against anything. But we have the feeling — and… perhaps we’re wrong, I don’t know — But I don’t think that Germany will have the same attitude with a judgment of the court.

I think the United States, obviously, any order of the court, they simply ignore it. And not only the government, but probably even the media, all the traditional media in the United States would probably also ignore it. But I think in Germany, it would be different. I think a judgment by the court order in Germany to stop is going to have a lot of effect. And apart from that, world opinion at this moment, I think, has been mobilized. In that respect, perhaps even these cases before the court are also helping this mobilization. But people, even in German, there’s a lot, currently, of people that are also very, very worried and very ashamed of what’s happening. So I think, I think it will be very difficult. And that’s why I’m hopeful that if the court orders it, it will be an effective order. It’s not going to be ignored completely.

Wyatt: So in recent months after South Africa brought its case against Israel, we saw some attempts in the United States government, specifically the Congress, to pursue some kind of bilateral relations review, effectively implying the threat of sanctions or decreased economic trade activity with South Africa — kind of an implicit threat. So I’m wondering whether Israel has tried to interfere with this case, or whether the US itself has attempted to retaliate beyond the sanctions that it’s already imposing and plans to impose on Nicaragua?

Dr. Arguello: Well, I am not aware at this moment of any particular additional sanctions, or additional positions against Nicaragua. I mean, the United States has been already doing — with different governments — has been doing everything possible to destroy the government of Nicaragua. So it’s nothing, it’s nothing new. They attempted a coup d’etat when Mr. Bolton was in charge of these operations in 2018. We have been sanctioned constantly. So I mean, if that happens, it’s going to happen. I mean, I don’t know what more they can do against us.

We have our moral obligation we feel. As I said at the beginning, I mean, what can we contribute to the Palestinian people? Among the few things we can do — we can’t give them money because we’re not a rich country, we can’t give them weapons. How can we help them? And one of the few things that we have is experience, and we have something, which is the International Court. So when this case began, we said let’s go wholeheartedly here. And I received instructions from my bosses that we should go immediately, and do everything possible. That’s what we’re trying, that’s what we try to do.

Max: And then just on the theme of your moral obligation: the Sandinista municipality in Managua has renamed a street ‘Pista Gaza,’ a major thoroughfare in Managua. The Sandinista party has a traditional affiliation or solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization, how does this case fit into the ethos of the Sandinista front and its support for oppressed people and working people around the world?

Dr. Arguello: We had, I mean, right from the beginning, from the birth of the Sandinista party or movement, even before the triumph of the revolution, there’s always been enormous sympathy from both ways — from the Palestinians toward  our cause, and from, obviously, our cause to them. And what is happening to Palestine is something that has hurt us enormously, and we have been feeling it for a very long time. When, some years ago, there was this convoy of help that was going from Turkey to Israel, which was intervened, and there was an attack from Israel to stop it, we broke relations with Israel completely. We initiated relations with Israel just a few years ago again, in the hope that things would try to be normal.

But the reality is that Israel has been acting this way. This is among the more blatant – obviously, it’s something that now is indisputable, it’s being watched by even children all over the world. Everybody in the world knows what’s happening. And everybody now sympathizes.

Perhaps 50, 60 years ago, there was less common knowledge of everything that was happening. The media was more controlled by certain groups of states. But now, I think that the sympathy that we originally felt with the Palestinian people, since way back, is now something that is shared with a lot of humanity. So that’s also a hope, a hope we have.

Max: And I guess my last question would be a more general question about international law. It’s clear that the rules based order that the Biden administration in Washington preaches has suffered an enormous blow to its credibility, through the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza and all the violations that we’ve seen. But we’ve also seen institutions, multilateral institutions, like the United Nations Security Council, or the World Court, the ICJ be unable to enforce decisions like the acceptance of the South African case or calls for a ceasefire. So what are your thoughts on the future of international law and these institutions born out of the kind of post World War Two order and their ability to enforce it in the face of these brazen, unilateral — and still very powerful — forces like Israel in the United States? Is there really a future for international law?

Dr. Arguello: If you permit me, I mean, I remember, I have made this comment many times in my career. 40 years ago, when we began, or 38 years ago, with the judgment of the court, the case against the United States — when the United States had already said goodbye to the court and that it wasn’t going to pay any attention to what was happening. That question was always coming up. I mean, what can you do? And what can the court do? I mean, ‘you’ve been wasting your time, coming to the court, the court doesn’t have nuclear weapons to force the United States to obey.’

There was an expression that I took from a French tourist that was, many years ago, wondering: what can you do if a big power doesn’t compile? The only thing left is the mobilization of shame. And if we break that down, this mobilization of shame, even in the United States, the amount of people now informed of what’s happening is increasing. And, Mr. Biden, politicians like him, have no real principles or no real belief in international law. But they believe in their posts. And if people in the United States are changing their opinion, they’re being informed and this shame is mobilizing them, then eventually they will have to mobilize the immovable objects like Mr. Biden. So that’s, that’s the hope with this. Perhaps being too idealistic, but it’s the only weapon we have.

Max: Okay, well, Ambassador, is there anything you wanted to add or touch on? Before we go?

Dr. Arguello: Well, just to thank both of you, your program. I think we’ve more or less covered [everything]. Obviously, we could talk for hours and hours about different things but I think we basically touched base on the main points.

Max: I guess I do have one more question. I guess I have one more question, something I’ve been thinking about, and we’ve been covering a lot at The Grayzone. But when you first brought your case against the United States, at the ICJ, the world was in a different place. The Cold War was still taking place. But now we see the emergence of the Global South and a kind of multipolar order. We see the rise of BRICS, China and Russia are beginning to ally themselves. And Nicaragua is forming new alliances as well. To what extent does this case and the South African case represent the Global South asserting its power in a new way against a declining global hegemony?

Dr. Arguello: Well, I think there must be, there’s an element of that, obviously. In the case of Nicaragua, since we began 40 years ago, as you said, during the height of the Cold War, that wasn’t the main reason for our doing it. Although, I don’t want to be very presumptuous on this, but perhaps that case, at least in the International Court, was the beginning of, let’s say, a movement, that has been followed up and that we are in 40 years later, still continuing. In that respect, that’s what I have told some people in Nicaragua that I feel, even forty years later, that again, we are simply continuing. And, unfortunately, to cite a Nicaraguan poet, he was supposedly a Nicaraguan Patriot in the 1850s against an American, North American invader, taking over the country. He killed one of the soldiers, throwing a rock. So this Nicaraguan poet, 100 years later in the 1930s, wrote a poem that ended something like saying, you know: ‘Andrés, 100 years later, throw the rock. The enemy is still the same.’ Now, forty years later, I feel that I still have the rock in my hand, and the enemy is still the same. Anyway, we still have the rock and we still have the energy, and we have to go on.

Wyatt: David continues the fight against Goliath.

Max: Ambassador Carlos Arguello Gomez, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us. And thank you for your contribution to humanity.

Dr. Arguello: Oh, thank you. Thank you for having me on your program and your contribution to humanity. I told you, I have enjoyed many of your programs and will continue to do so. Ok, thank you very much.

Max: Thank you, and we’ll be following up after the decision.

Israel: In Violation of God’s Law, Natural Justice, the Laws of War & All Customary International Humanitarian Law

MARCH 31, 2024

ILANA MERCER

Over and above industrial-scale mass murder of individual people—Israel is engaged in the eradication of Gazans as a People ~ilana

Inarguably, to condemn Israel’s industrial-scale campaign of slaughter and starvation in Gaza ought to be ethically straightforward. Basic really.

That Israel is committing the “the crime of all crimes” against the Palestinians of Gaza is not within the realm of opinion.

That the Global North is standing stock-still in the face of this meticulously documented holocaust is not in dispute.

That the United States is an active participant in war crimes, funding and arming Israel in contravention of international humanitarian law , a plethora of US laws (having, without attached conditions, delivered more than 100 arms shipments to Israel since October 7), and the natural justice, articulated by Cicero as early as 106-43 B.C: these are all fact.

That America has provided the Jewish State with diplomatic cover—running interference for it, so that it may continue to its evil ends—until recently vetoing three (albeit symbolic) international attempts to stop Israel: this, too, is immutably true.

Right and wrong are universal, not relative. The Sixth Commandment is not opinion, but a species of the inviolable natural law. Neither is it optional. “Thou shalt not murder” is called a commandment for a reason. There are no tribal privilege clauses attached to it. Like gentiles, Jews are enjoined against murder, to say nothing of mass murder.

Yet Israelis now flout the Sixth Commandment with ugly audacity. They appear to believe that their sectarian supremacy transcends the universal moral order to which international law, the natural law and the Decalogue give expression.

With its actions, so “conspicuous and outrageous,” Israel has “knocked the cosmos out of kilter” (a lovely line by novelist Kathryn Harrison). Such is the moral turpitude of the Israel Über Alles crowd—Jewish and gentile, stateside and abroad—that they appear incapable of distinguishing evidence from assertion, and facts from feel-good fiction; they can’t tell right from wrong. By necessity, then, any preface to an essay about Israel’s manifestly intentional annihilation of the Gaza Strip must turn into a primer in ethics.

Clearly, if Israeli society is sick; then so are its cobelligerent backers and boosters.

AMERICA’S CEASEFIRE DECEPTION

America has conditioned the inalienable right to life of Palestinians on the return of Israeli hostages, in effect nullifying that right ~ilana

For throwing-up clouds of obfuscating sepia over its abstention vote on the United Nations Security Council’s ceasefire resolution, March 25, the Biden Administration and its UN representative must be exposed.

“Ceasefire” in previous U.S. drafts amounted to Orwellian News Speak. Having never once called for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, the U.S. had perfunctorily predicated temporary ceasefire resolutions on the return of Israeli hostages.

Whereas it was obligated morally to compel Israel to forthwith cease and desist its systematic and sustained onslaught on Gaza’s civilians; the US had opted, until March 25, to merely condition the temporary cessation of immoral and illegal mass murder of innocent Palestinians on the release of Israeli hostages, in effect tethering a “ceasefire” to the return of the Israeli hostages.

Against the wishes of citizens of our country and the world, America has deployed its veto power, repeatedly and reliably, in previous United Nations Security Council votes, so as to prevent an immediate, unconditional cease-fire in Gaza.

By so doing, America had conditioned the inalienable right to life of Palestinians on the return of Israeli hostages, in effect nullifying that inalienable right.

Recognizing that the right to life of innocent men, women and children is unconditional; Security Council member states, aside the United States and its protégé Israel, had refused to tether the fate of Gaza to hostage negotiations.

With pellucid logic, Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the U.N and the Arab bloc’s current Security Council member, had stated, February 20, 2024, that, “A vote in favor of [an unconditional ceasefire] is a support to the Palestinians’ right to life.” With its prior veto es and current abstention, the US had nullified Palestinian right to life independent of the rights of Israeli hostages to the same.

You can say that Gaza’s innocent civilians are being held hostage by Israel enablers Blinken, Biden and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

The general run of people around the world, however, are having none of this. We have been chanting “ceasefire” with catechetical promptness. The West’s “smart” set is belatedly getting the message that their constituents, decent citizens, are revolted by Israel’s acts and are in-revolt against supporting it.

In response, and oh-so cynically, all Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield did on March 25 was to abstain from using American veto power to stop the good guys—China, Russia, Algeria and the rest of the 15-member UN Security Council—from demanding an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. That’s all.

Expect the Biden Administration and its bi-partisan backers to keep gently cajoling brief lulls—conditional breaks—in the IDF’s bloodletting of a helpless, cornered civilian population.

Covering its wretchedness with sanctimony; the US had not vetoed the last ceasefire resolution; but had, nevertheless, worked to water it down. In its abstention vote, the US has “blocked action in the General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace resolution, where you could have seen some real meaningful action.”

For moral compass scrambled; it’s hard to beat former ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. In this protracted foreign-policy mirage, Blinken, Biden, Thomas-Greenfield and their political posse do Nikki Haley, a Republican, proud, for Trump’s appointee to the UN would have done nothing different.

CEASE AND DESIST! WHERE’S THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?

A violent offender, a serial killer, must be stopped; not cautioned and observed! ~ilana

IDF soldiers vaporize young men picking their way through rubble as though in a video game; they mock their victims, invade their homes; filch from their businesses, and rummage through the piteous intimate effects of people dead and dispossessed ~ilana

In the world of patronage, it doesn’t get much worse. The United States is at Israel’s elbow—it is a cobelligerent: In actively sustaining Israel’s armed forces, and running diplomatic interference for its politicians; America is acting as Israel’s “principal sponsor,” complicit in war crimes, signaling to the Jewish State that it will let it continue to its evil endgame.

As I ventured in January, the issuance of the equivalent of a legal cease-and-desist or a restraining order against a violent offender, Israel, is urgent and long overdue. It’s already too late for Gaza as a habitable landmass.

While progressives lauded the International Court of Justice (ICJ), my perspective about the Court’s indecision, some months back, was dimmer. (Disgust, actually.) Unfocused as I was on legalistic definitions of genocide; it was obvious to me that, what was indubitably mass murder and ethnic cleansing—crimes that are in process and ongoing—had to be stopped right away. A violent offender, a serial killer, must be stopped; not cautioned and observed!

Were the International Court of Justice an effective and just organization it would have issued some sort of binding cease and desist order, some manner of restraining order, if you will, instructing the Israel Defense Forces, the Devil’s emissaries on earth, to stop its depredations.

Another international tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC), had “issued, in March of 2023, warrants of arrest, no less “for two individuals in the context of the situation in Ukraine,” one of whom was Mr. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, president of the Russian Federation, who was being sought for war crimes.

With respect to Israel, the inept International Court of Justice appears compromised.

For in a just society, the moral strictures that apply to the individual must also extend to the collective. Immoral acts that are forbidden severally cannot be sanctioned collectively. If the citizen must not murder; neither should The State, any state.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL CEASEFIRE IS BINDING

A Security Council resolution not defanged by the US could have included a call for diplomatic, military, political, and economic sanctions, the freezing of Israeli assets, the deployment of a protection force, and the establishment of a tribunal for future prosecution ~ilana

In its uncontested superiority, the United States has asserted, moreover, that the UN ceasefire resolution is “non-binding.” “Completely false,” fumes international law expert Graig Mokhiber, in an interview, March 26, with Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” And I paraphrase Mr. Mokhiber:

It is black-letter law in the U.N. Charter that all members of the United Nations are bound to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. The Charter, in Article 25, and in subsequent decisions of the International Court of Justice, has made it indisputable that Security Council resolutions are binding for all member states.

Not only is the last ceasefire resolution binding, but it opens up an opportunity, given that Israel is in breach of it, to table a resolution for enforcement under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which “empowers the Security Council to orchestrate … collective actions … through a Military Staff Committee.”

A Security Council resolution not defanged by the United States could include a call for corporeal action: diplomatic, military, political, and economic sanctions, the freezing of Israeli assets, the deployment of a protection force, and the establishment of a tribunal for future prosecution.

If left to the rudderless Europeans and Americans—they’ve done not a thing to stop what Ron Unz has termed the first televised mass murder in history—it is for a heavenly tribunal that we will be waiting.

Scars will knit, but the dead don’t rise, and spry young limbs won’t grow back. More than ten children lose their legs daily by the IDF. Spare a thought for the lot of these children hobbled for life, for the US and world leaders have not.

Again, these judicial and political knaves and curs (with apologies to the canine community) could have cut off the supply of munitions to the culprits. (Some have. God bless Canada for placing an embargo on the export of kayaks and maple syrup to Israel.) Without Americans (you and me, the taxpayers); Israel would not last a day in its brave battle against mothers and their babies. We could hobble Israel’s offensive by the imposition of sanctions and boycotts, by freezing Israeli assets worldwide, as was done to Russians. Arrest warrants could have been issued, as the International Criminal Court had for Russians.

In essence, stop murdering and maiming Palestinians, no conditions attached.

ANNIHILATION, NOT WAR

Israel’s war is not a war by any known definition ~ilana

A ceasefire is called upon in war. This is not a war.

Ceasefire is defined as “an agreement, usually between two armies, to stop fighting in order to allow discussions about peace.” Israel’s onslaught on Gaza is not a war by any definition. These are not two armies arrayed one against the other. This is no war between opposing warrior forces. There is no parity here.

Why is Gaza 2023/2024 not a war?

Subscribe to New Columns

If combat veteran Alan Shebaro, U.S. Special Forces, fails to convince you with his experience, I will follow with fact, law and reason. Listen to Shebaro tell it to a Texas City Council in McKinney:

“I know war. What is going on in Palestine right now is not a war. It is the dehumanization, it’s the genocide, it’s the ethnic cleansing of a specific people to take their land. This is wrong … I’ve seen horrible things, but this [Gaza] takes it to an entirely new level.”

Does any military man half-decent swallow the lie that, in its orgiastic annihilation of Gaza, Israel is fighting another army fair and square?!

Also a misnomer is the phrase “military operation.” It mocks out of meaning any linguistic convention that attaches words to the things they signify.

Valor was thus lost, not stolen, when, on October 24, 2023, Colonel Jack Jacobs, a retired US Army veteran—and a man who valiantly spoke up against the invasion of Iraq (ditto)—noodled on about Israel’s “expanding ground operations.” Once a principled voice, Colonel Jacobs lost respectability, right there, for there is no military operation an upstanding military man can get behind in Gaza, where easily 80 percent of the casualties are innocent civilians.

Hip to this last fact is U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. In a quickly retracted statement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told Congress, on February 19, “that more than 25,000 women and children had been killed by Israel in Gaza since October 7.”

The Pentagon later “clarified” that estimate, insisting that, because the figure came from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, not U.S. intelligence; it was unreliable. During that February congressional hearing, Austin had been asked how many Palestinian women and children had been killed by Israel. “It is over 25,000,” he had reflexively blurted out: This, according to the Pentagon, was but a monetary lapse of reason.

US bafflegab contradicts what I referred to, on January 4, as the “your lying eyes” standard, to use Richard Pryor’s wry phrase for he who has been caught in flagrante delicto:

“As they were turning Gaza into Dresden on TV, before our very eyes, Israel’s quicksilver state propagandists were also telling us, their American funders, that ‘this is not happening. …Who are you going to believe? Democratic Israel, or your ‘lying eyes’?’ I believe my ‘lying eyes,’ thank you very much. Those ‘lying eyes’ speak to the scale of Israel’s depredations against Gazans. … [And the numbers of dead, injured and displaced] are deemed ‘broadly reliable,’ by all reputable humanitarian, aid-rendering organizations worldwide, backed as they are by the science of satellite and radar.”

Let us indulge Secretary Austin’s already out-of-date estimate, in order to establish here that Israel’s “operation” is not a military operation behind which any military man worth his salt can stand:

Assume that 25,000 is the number of women and children murdered by Israelis, although it is more, not less, considering that thousands are buried beneath the rubble and more souls are being assassinated as we speak: To wit, in the 24 hours following the Security Councils’ vote, 76 Palestinians were murdered in Gaza.

IF 30,000 is the total—men and women, combatants and civilians—murdered heretofore; then women and children make up 83.3 percent of this total. (25,000/30,000) *100

IF 32,000 is the total number of souls slain to date; then the percentage of women and children is 78.1. (25,000/32,000) *100

IF a total of 33,000 human beings were slaughtered; then the percentage of women and children among them is 75.5. (25,000/33,000) *100

And if the number killed rises to 35,000, as it has, and the number of women and children assassinated is, by some miracle, held constant—their percentage would still constitute (25000/35000) *100= 71.4.

Israel’s war is not a war by any definition.

Unctuous UN ultimatums notwithstanding, as of March 21, Netanyahu had vowed to continue his evil clown’s campaign—so “handsomely equipped to fail” I observed in November—executed by a corrupt, clownishly inept and consistently depraved army.

Why, then, are Israel’s 2023-2024 actions in Gaza genocidal?

WHY GENOCIDE

Four conditions of genocide fulfilled; not one law of war heeded: In the course of its genocidal campaign; Israel has violated every law of war codified in Customary International Humanitarian Law ~ilana

How do you compensate a people whose society you’ve cannibalized? ~ilana

In a November 2, 2023 essay, “Bibi Obliterates Memory Of October 7 Martyrs; Creates New Martyrs In Gaza,” I explained why, logically at least, Israel has met the threshold for criminal intent, mens rea.

“If you know in advance that your actions will cause the deaths of thousands-upon-thousands of civilians; attached to your criminal actions (actus reus) is a guilty mind (mens rea), which means malice aforethought, also known as intent, in Western jurisprudence and judicial philosophy.”

“The razing and ethnic cleansing of Gaza by Benjmain Netanyahu, abetted by Joe Biden and his Uniparty accomplices, in the course of which tens of thousands civilians are dying: This is murder with malice aforethought, a concept that includes ‘deaths resulting from actions that display a depraved indifference to life.‘ Further depraved indifference to life was Israel’s throttling of supplies of water, food and power to the millions of aid-dependent Gazans, as Israel knew full-well this would imperil civilians indirectly.”

More than industrial-scale mass murder of individual people—Israel is engaged in the eradication of Gazans as a People.

Objectively speaking, what Israel has visited on Gazans and their little enclave is not self-defense; but irreparable, wanton mass murder, a “blitzkrieg, by any other name,” combined with ethnic cleansing, and an orchestrated program of starvation against helpless civilians, who are still being indiscriminately and daily bombed, buried—alive and dead—evicted for life.

Even though over 80 percent of the Palestinians of Gaza have been driven from their homes—have no homes to return to; and though over 70 percent of structures in Gaza are gone, pulverized by the same devils—so-called interdiction missions by the IAF, Israeli Air Force, are ongoing, in “flagrant violation of its obligations under international law, both as an occupying power and as a party to the hostilities” (via Gisha), and “in blatant breach of core provisions under the Geneva and Hague Conventions.”

So says an international law consortium out of a Middlesex University London. So say countless reputable human rights organizations, who have submitted amicus briefs in American courts to enjoin President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin from providing weapons and other forms of support for Israel’s Total War on Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Hoping to skirt jurisdictional limitations, “the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights” has been joined by “an esteemed array of individuals and organizations from around the world, including 139 NGOs.”

Evidence of Israel’s trespass is everywhere.

As I write, raids on the Al Shifa hospital, begun on March 19, continue apace. As of March 22, Israel’s fourth raid on what remains of this hospital was in progress. Over 140 doctors, patients, journalists and other refugees had been summarily executed, reports the indefatigable Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” Thousands of refugees crammed into the hospital are currently being turned out, evicted.

All to “thwart terrorism.” Its missionary pursuit of murder in hospitals; Israel blankets with tidy lies.

Israel’s Hamas-made-me-do-it religious doctrine—this concealing of the truth for the faith—insults the intelligence. To listen to the Taqiyyah practiced by these Uncle Sam-sponsored Svengalis; “they are all terrorists.” Or “terrorist accomplices.” “Israel has effectively characterized the whole population in Gaza as human shields or terrorist accomplices as a matter of legal policy,” observed Francesca Albanese, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where she presented her report, “Anatomy of a Genocide.” Ms. Albanese is a scholar, and a UN special rapporteur on the human-rights dispensation in the West Bank and Gaza. On March 27, she issued her report which found “reasonable grounds” to conclude that Israel is culpable of genocide in Gaza.

Gamely repeating Israel’s mantras; Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the United States Department of State, labeled and libeled Ms. Albanese as an “antisemite.” Yes, terrorism. Also, antisemitism if you disagree with Israel, or dare to disbelieve a country’s whose coin of the realm has become state terror.

On March 8, International Women’s Day, the United Nations detailed the warp and woof of survival as a woman in Gaza. At that time, 9000 Palestinian women had been slaughtered by the IDF; 63 women were being slain daily by the same force, including 37 mothers, each and every day.

While the women’s guerrilla movement, stateside, is galvanizing to go to the polls to ensure their right to evict fetuses from their wombs; Gaza’s women are fighting to keep their fully formed babies alive, fed, safe from unguided bunker-buster bombs lobbed by Israel, and provided by America.

Again: Around 80 percent of Gazans have been driven from their homes. More than 70 percent of structures in the Gaza Strip were reported demolished or damaged, three months ago by the Wall Street Journal. More current satellite radar is available, courtesy of researchers like Jamon Van Den Hoek. His March 13 mapped destruction via satellite reads thus:

IN North Gaza, 69.7 percent of buildings have been destroyed or damaged.

IN Gaza City, it’s 73.7 percent.

IN Deir El-Balah, it’s 54.1 percent.

IN Rafah, an Israeli “work” in progress, 29.5 percent of buildings have been destroyed or damaged.

Gazans have no residences or industries—no life-sustaining infrastructure—to return to upon the implementation of a permanent ceasefire. Gone are their homes, places of work and worship—businesses, agriculture, fisheries, food-production industries and the arable land attached. Gone are the roads, power plants, sanitation and drainage-works, water wells and wastewater treatment plants conduits of electricity, potable water, shelter and food distribution.

Mosques, churches and schools (primary, secondary, tertiary) have been vaporized. Most hospitals, too. Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian academic, clinician, and longtime volunteer in the occupied territories, speaks to “never-before-seen viciousness; sadism beyond evil.” Gaza had a network of European-style, teaching hospitals, where evidence-based medicine was practiced. Out of over 30 such hospitals, about four remain in tatters. Hundreds of the Strip’s top healthcare providers, who served heroically until hit, have been murdered, often while ministering to patients. The Palestinians of Gaza are now perishing from sepsis, curable and treatable diseases, starvation and dehydration, overseen by Israel. (According to Gisha, which means access.)

Lost with Gaza’s infrastructure is the very fabric of a society—immeasurable human capital—including indissoluble, extended-family networks, the kind of generational bonds we in the West can only dream of, whittled down and depleted in numbers and in their native energy. A people’s cemeteries and archived history have been decimated, their antiquities and artifacts bulldozed and pillaged; their universities flattened; their artists and intellectuals hunted from house to house and extinguished.

Broken, Tariq Haddad, MD, an American cardiologist, told of 100 members of his extended family eliminated. Images of beautiful people, in the full flowering of their vitality (most were highly educated) flashed across the “Democracy Now!” broadcast’s screen. In February, Dr. Nasser Abu-El-Noor, dean of the Faculty of Nursing at the Islamic University of Gaza, along with seven members of his family, sheltering in their home, were murdered. Dr. Medhat Saidam, a renowned plastic surgeon, is buried beneath a building.

Were the High Court in the Hague ever to do its job and engage forensic electronics to that end—it could easily trace the psychological warfare waged, say, against Dr. Refaat Alareer. He had figured out that, “There’s nowhere safe in Gaza, so he chose to stay in his house.” By guerrilla journalist Max Blumenthal’s telling, Alareer and family were sadistically hounded, telephonically, by IDF officers, as they fled from one abode to the next. The IDF finally assassinated he and six members of his family. Myself, I followed a young journalist , Ayat Al Khaddour, who vlogged heroically from her home in Gaza until she was no more, stopped by an IDF-lobbed “precision” bomb, along with members of her family.

Israel has clearly and systematically eliminated the human capital of Gaza in ways diabolically purposeful, irreparable and unforgivable. The best of Gaza are gone; entire Palestinian family trees truncated forever. Why purposeful? Just as the U.S.-backed Israeli military knows the precise azimuths of their targets, including that of the assassinated Refaat Alareer—in the same vein do Israelis have the GPS coordinates of “major infrastructure projects funded by the U.S. government.” These, reports the Associated Press, have been largely spared.

All this is what Article II of the Genocide Convention means by clause number four: “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” (Amnesty International: Genocide: The Legal Basis For Universal Jurisdiction.)

To Israel’s rap sheet add at least three additional genocidal actions stipulated in Article II of the Genocide Convention, perpetrated “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” (Ibid). These are:

* Killing members of the group.

* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Subscribe to New Columns

* Direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

As after the Holocaust, responsibility for decent reparations—Israelis to the Palestinians of Gaza—will need to be worked out. But how do you compensate a people whose society you’ve cannibalized?

EVERY LAW OF WAR VIOLATED

Genocide is a process, not an act. It is the destruction of a population from its roots ~Francesca Albanese

Four conditions of genocide fulfilled; not one law of war obeyed. In the course of its genocidal campaign; Israel has violated every law of war, codified in Customary International Humanitarian Law:

Israel has violated the law of proportionality:

‘Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.’ (Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, 2012, Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Israel has violated the principle of distinction:

‘The undisputed cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL) is the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, which obliges belligerents to distinguish at all times between persons who may be lawfully attacked, and persons who must be spared and protected from the effects of the hostilities. In order to avoid any ambiguity, these two categories of persons must be mutually exclusive…’ (Ibid)

The law of distinction is an “intransgressible principles of international customary law” (Nils Melzer, The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, 2015)

Israel has violated the principle of precautions in attack:

‘In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.’ (Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (2012), Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Only neolithic beasts like Jonathan Conricus or IDF mouth Keren Hajioff, former IDF spokesmen for Israel’s war of annihilation in Gaza, would have the gall to praise the care uniformed IDF take with human life. In case you’ve missed these Israeli bulwark bureaucrats, Conricus and Hajioff are now fellows at the American Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C., as a perusal of the FDD member page would indicate. Following stints in which these two mindlessly chorused for and covered up the goings-on in Gaza—the two have migrated to an American “think tank,” likely promoting the interests of entities not the United States, and overriding the balancing forces of regionalism in the Middle East.

In any event, it is writ in Customary International Humanitarian Law that “Specifically Protected Persons and Objects” be protected: Medical (“685 health workers have been killed and 900 wounded”), religious personnel and objects, humanitarian relief personnel (196 killed) and objects, personnel and objects involved in a peacekeeping mission, civilian journalists (103), cultural property, and the natural environment. In Gaza, these numbers are rendered obsolete by the hour.

Still, nothing excites shame in Israeli leaders. Very many of them, including the prime minister, have called on IDF soldiers to show no mercy. This, International Law forbids. Quaintly put, prohibited are “directions to give no quarter,” as in “threatening an adversary therewith or conducting hostilities on this basis.” Prohibited.

“Genocide is a process, not an act,” explains Francesca Albanese. It is the “destruction of a population from its roots.” Lara Elborno, another articulate human-rights lawyer, has ventured the following clincher, and I paraphrase:

Had Israel not dropped a single bomb on Gaza, but had done no more than cut off food, water and electricity to its 2.3 million residents—these action alone would suffice to constitute genocide under the treaties.

RAFAH

Devil stretches; devil flexes ~Hilary Mantel

In its ravening appetite for destruction, Israeli leadership had explicitly indicated that it would “not relent in [its] assault on the Gaza Strip until they’ve effectively accomplished the destruction of the entire strip. And their attacks now on Rafah, in particular, demonstrate that the last refuge, the last piece of the Gaza Strip that hasn’t been effectively destroyed, is not only in their sights, but already under their bombs.” (Criag Mokhiber, “Democracy Now!,” March 26)

According to Customary International Humanitarian Law, cited so far, “Directing an attack against a zone established to shelter the wounded, the sick and civilians from the effects of hostilities is prohibited.” (Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (2012), Cambridge University Press, 2012, Chapter 11 – Protected Zones)

In truth, it was mid-February when the Israel Defense Forces had commenced its onslaught on 1.5 million Palestinian refugees, who had been corralled from the north to the south, and now huddle helplessly in Raffah.

Israeli leadership, political and other, pollute the ear with an unbroken stream of genocide-justification jargon. The barbaric nature of their discourse complements their army’s actions. “Conspicuous and ostentatious” about their depredations; the uniformed IDF appear proud to revel in terrorizing and murdering Palestinian civilians forsaken. In general, YouTube runs cover for the IDF. Still, there are countless videos of nauseating brutality, in which IDF soldiers vaporize young men picking their way through rubble, as though in a video game; they mock their victims, invade their homes; filch from their businesses, and rummage through the piteous intimate effects of people dead and dispossessed. Other acts of defilement are too lewd to recount. (See BBC News’ “Israeli soldier videos from Gaza could breach international law, experts say.” Or, watch the Glenn Greenwald’s “Shocking IDF Social Media Videos Mock Gazans—Expose New Atrocities.”)

GOOD PEOPLE: GALLOWAY & BUSHNELL

Wars are a rich man’s affair and a poor man’s fight ~ilana

How many generations of young people can you raise on Big Lies—such as that Israel and its sugar daddy are prosecuting a fair, legitimate war, rather than waging Total War against innocent civilians? ~ilana

“Genocide Joe” and the foreign agents knowns as the “American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose Israel-First focus makes them a fifth column; Trump with Jared Kushner and his better-half: These are America’s 2024 election options.

The Biden-AIPAC bloc has begun whispering sweet nothings in the ears of Benny Gantz (National Unity Party), ostensible rival of Bibi Netanyahu (Likud). The AIPAC-run Biden bloc would like you to believe that a chasm in “Israel’s wartime leadership” has opened up. Biden’s bedroom talk with Benny is intended to impress upon the two squalid Jewish supremacists the danger of approaching some sort of political precipice. In the end, Netanyahu and Gantz, who both officiate in their country’s War Cabinet, are philosophically one, inseparable, spherical Gluteus Maximus.

Or, “two flapping cheeks of the same ass,” in George Galloway’s delightfully ribald language. Galloway was describing the political amalgam arrayed against truth and justice in the United Kingdom. As I noted in 2005, Galloway is a master flyter: the ancient Scottish form of invective for which a quick mind and a masterful command of the English language are a must.

Galloway’s capacity for extemporaneous verbal swordplay is not the only thing that distinguishes this jousting member of the British parliament. MP Gallaway and his Worker’s Party ran on foreign policy, in Rochdale, UK, and, in particular, he secured “thumping majorities” in a protest vote for Gaza—and against our overlords, stateside and in Israel, whose new norm is to be out-and-proud about genocide.

There will be flyting words aplenty to come.

The normalization of genocide is what US Airman Aaron Bushnell was protesting when he set himself alight, February 28. Airman Aaron Bushnell, of blessed memory, self-immolated to protest that upon which Galloway secured his victory in Rochdale: Israel’s war on Gaza.

Bushnell died horrifically, yet heroically, like a man—calm and rational—as he recited his reason for self-immolation: “I will no longer be complicit in genocide. This is what our ruling class has decided is the new normal.” Airman Bushnell was driven not by mental disease, but by a morally depraved society that supports de facto terrorist state Israel, with American moral imprimatur, its money and materiel.

Wars are a rich man’s affair and a poor man’s fight. American soldiers have always served as collateral damage in the nefarious projects of Uncle Sam and client states. Their causes and concerns, unless jingoistic and Fox-News friendly, seldom rate a mention. But, following Aaron Bushnell’s demise; many members of our military symbolically burned their uniforms in disgust, only to be mocked by Conservative Inc (or ConOink, as I call them). But they are right, and “this is wrong,” inveighed Alan Shebaro. “There’s nothing more American than speaking out against what’s wrong.” Like elite soldier Alan Shebaro, “Bushnell decried U.S. complicity in the Gaza genocide.”

At its core, what Bushnell was protesting is something even-more fundamental. For words are symbols. They are used as agreed-upon conventions to make sense of the world. What happens when these shared linguistic constructs no longer correspond to the things they are supposed to describe? Bushnell, who was in-the-know militarily, must have grown angrier and angrier as the symbols his society deploys clashed with the reality these symbols were supposed to signify. Particularly did he appear susceptible to the schizophrenogenic communications transmitted, on an ongoing basis, by the many Orwellian Ministries of Truth.

For how many generations of young people can you raise on Big Lies—such as that Israel and its sugar daddy are prosecuting a fair, legitimate war, rather than waging Total War against innocent civilians? Total War is a term to describe an all-out war against any and all. “What I saw was not war, but annihilation,” lamented Dr. Ifran Galaria, volunteer in Gaza, to MSNBC’s Joy Reid.

CALIGULA KUSHNER

Jared Kushner, the nepotistic scion of a dodgy New York realtor, and an empty husk of a man, is coveting the waterfront property of a conquered and dying people ~ilana

These days, “bloody Blinken, secretary of genocide”—a moniker given to him by the grand ladies of “Code Pink,” who have camped out at the Blinken mansion—has been coming and going to the Middle East. In dizzy rapture over Israel, Blinken shuttles to-and-fro on missions to smooth over Israel’s assault on Gaza; make it more genteel, more sellable.

Sellable as Jared Kushner assesses “Gaza’s waterfront property” to be.

With the fey charm of a state-cutter—a coroner—preparing to carve a corpse; philosopher-king Kushner shrugged a slender shoulder, as he languidly mused:

‘I’m sitting in Miami Beach right now, and I’m looking at the situation [in Gaza] and I’m thinking: What would I do if I was there? … I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there … I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job. … I do think right now opening up the Negev, creating a secure area there, moving the civilians out, and then going in and finishing the job would be the right move.’

This waterfront property “could be very valuable” Kushner let slip, on February 15, to an audience at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Middle East Initiative.

Crooked Kushner, you recall, had been Trump’s point person on foreign policy, the Middle East and much else. Little Lord Fauntleroy had even been entrusted with “preparing a peace plan for the Middle East.”

That Kushner had been invited to regale an audience at an elite American university is all you need to know about the intellectual and moral tenor of discourse in the USA. In this repulsive vignette, Jared Kushner, the nepotistic scion of a dodgy New York realtor, and an empty husk of a man, is coveting the waterfront property of a conquered and dying people.

For once, America’s Fourth Column (media) was in the peculiar position of covering up and finessing Kushner’s unfiltered remarks. After all, his position is that of the legacy media and their political paymasters.

BILL CLINTON: ‘WHO’S THE F–KING SUPERPOWER HERE?’

Gaza is a desert of the dead and the dying. Let the American Super Power ride to the rescue ~ilana

Israel’s contempt for the United States is complete.

Unsatisfied with his butcher’s bill in Gaza, demiurge Netanyahu had, at first, cancelled Israel’s delegation to Washington, furious that the United States of America failed to veto a UN ceasefire proposal.

Subscribe to New Columns

“After his first meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in 1996,” recounts Patrick Theros, of “Responsible Statecraft,” “Bill Clinton vented his fury before his staff about his visitor’s apparent presumptions about the balance of power in the bilateral relationship. ‘Who the f–k does he think he is?’ Clinton reportedly bellowed. ‘Who’s the f–king superpower here?’”

Indeed.

Gaza is a desert of the dead and the dying. Israel, however, is miring humanitarian aid in capriciously sadistic paperwork and protocol. An example is their “dual-purpose” doctrine: “Did you know that syringes, desperately stuck in Palestinian veins deflated by dehydration, can be dual-purpose items?” Yeah! Used for terrorism, found in the tunnels, the lot.

If you can believe it, our “allies” the Israelis are hindering the delivery of American aid to Gaza.

Come again?! You heard me. It now transpires that, in thrall to Bibi Netanyahu, the “Super Power” is planning to construct a floating pier—a run-around around the Israelis, who had also, long ago, tampered with Gaza’s little port, situated as it was, once-upon-a-time, “near the Remal district of Gaza City,” of blessed memory.

Commensurate with Israel’s outrageous excesses, and the crazed riffs coming out of Israeli heads; Israel has established itself as a war criminal. By letting the blood of Palestinians for six months, and showing no intention of letting up; Israel has forfeited its right to protest decisive American intervention. Besides, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Under present conditions, a president who spoke like President Clinton might have made Americans proud. For once, the American Super Power could entertain ordering shabby little Israel, convulsing in paroxysms of evil, to cease and desist.

As easily, and after ordering Israel to stand down; America could… commandeer Israel’s Sde Dov or Ben Gurion Airport. Or, both. This is an emergency.

Fleets of our assorted military and cargo 747 aircraft would land like angels at an Israeli airport adjacent to Gaza.

Great big engines would be gunned.

Out would roar all the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks converted to a mission of mercy.

Into Northern Gaza would rush these life-saving American trailer trucks, carrying supplies and sustenance for the starving.

Down would go Israel’s fences and in would flow non-stop supplies, as though on a loop.

Landing in and delivering life-saving supplies from a well-appointed Israeli facility into northern Gaza, and throughout the Strip: This is the fastest and smartest way to succor a dying people.

Instead, America chooses to fellate Bibi NetanYahoo, his barking mad military and their berserk countrymen, 88 percent of whom “give a positive assessment of the performance of the IDF in Gaza until now. (Tamar Hermann, “War in Gaza Survey 9,” Israel Democracy Institute, January 24, 2024), 58 percent of whom grumble that not enough force has been deployed to date; and 68 percent of whom say “they do not support the transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

************

RELATED READING:

“Hermetically Sealed Indictment Of The Jewish Taliban’s Mass Murder And Ethnic Cleansing In Gaza,” Ilana Mercer, January 4, 2024

“Gaza vs. Fallujah: Barbaric Blitzkrieg Highlights U.S. Marines’ Superiority,” by Ilana Mercer, December 4, 2023

“Bibi Netanyahu May Find Himself In the Dock, In The Hague,” by Ilana Mercer, November 14, 2023

“Bibi Obliterates Memory of Oct. 7 Martyrs, Creates New Martyrs in Gaza,” by Ilana Mercer, November 2, 2023

PODCAST: “Hermetically Sealed Indictment Of The Jewish Taliban’s Mass Murder In Gaza”:

https://rumble.com/embed/v46ks8i/?pub=fyb9t Video Link

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece since 1999. Her new book is ‘The Paleolibertarian Guide To Deep Tech, Deep Pharma & The Aberrant Economy’(February, 2024). She’s the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011)), and other books. Mercer is described as “a system-builder. Distilled, her modus operandi has been to methodically apply first principles to the day’s events.”

Palestine Lights the Way Forward

FEBRUARY 23, 2024

Photograph Source: Marcin Monko – CC BY 2.0

BY WALDEN BELLO

When the first World Social Forum was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2001, it was meant as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Davos was the world of the One Percent. Porto Alegre was the world of the rest of us. Today Kathmandu, the site of the Sixteenth World Social Forum, is the world of the rest of us.

The World Social Forum was meant to convey our resistance to global capitalism and its depredations. It was also meant to be an affirmation of solidarity of all people and networks struggling for social justice and peace. It was also an opportunity to get together to plan for the future, a future where, as the WSF slogan put it, another world is possible.

In his novel about lives entwined with the French Revolution, the novelist Charles Dickens said it was the best of times and the worst of times.

These days are certainly the worst of times. Climate catastrophe threatens the planet. Neoliberalism has failed resoundingly, but it remains even more entrenched as ideology and policy. We are witnessing the rise of fascism globally—indeed, just south of Nepal, we have seen fascism raise its ugly head in India. We are witnessing two genocides. One is taking place in Myanmar, where the military elite is desperately hanging on to power by indiscriminately killing all opposition, a task that is impossible since the resistance now controls 60 percent of the country. The greater genocide is taking place in Gaza, where already the Israelis have killed some 29,000 Palestinians, 70 percent of whom are women and children.  Now they are poised to enter the city of Rafah, promising more slaughter, more sorrow.

I have not had a good night’s sleep since the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Indeed, one cannot enjoy one moment of personal happiness while massive carnage is taking place somewhere in the world. This ability to empathize with others’ sufferings is the basis of human solidarity. It stems from our common humanity.

We ask ourselves, why is Israel so committed to totally destroying the Palestinians as a people? We ask, why is the United States so committed to providing the weapons and ammunition to enable genocide? We ask, why is Europe, which once told us in the global South that it was the pinnacle of civilization, supporting barbarism?

Yes, this is the worst of times. But is it the best of times? That depends on each and every one of us. Are we willing to take on the great challenges of the times?

Are we willing to exert all efforts to save the planet from the climate catastrophe that global capitalism has created?

Will we continue to wage the political and ideological struggle to uproot and dismantle neoliberalism?

Are we willing to put our bodies on the line against the advance of fascism?

Are we going to give everything to the struggle to stop genocide in Gaza and elsewhere?

Let me end by quoting from an interview I made with Usamah Hamdan, the Hamas representative in Lebanon, that I did in Beirut in 2004. I asked him if he did not fear for his life given his being a high-profile leader of the organization. Here was his answer:

I am on two [assassination] lists, one with six names and another with 12 names. But I am living my own life normally. I eat breakfast with my children, I always try to do this because this is when I can talk to them and ask them about their day and their plans. I visit my friends and my friends visit me. I just recently went out with my children to swim in the sea. You just die once, and it can be from cancer, in a car accident, or by assassination. Given these choices, I prefer assassination.

The spirit reflected in Hamdan’s answer is, in my view, the reason why Palestinians, even in the face of genocide, will triumph in the end. Let us gather strength from that spirit. Palestine needs us. But we also need Palestine. And let us thank Palestine for leading the way, for lighting the way for the rest of the world.

Walden Bello, a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus,  is the author or co-author of 19 books, the latest of which are Capitalism’s Last Stand? (London: Zed, 2013) and State of Fragmentation: the Philippines in Transition (Quezon City: Focus on the Global South and FES, 2014).

ICJ: ‘Israel’ Must Take Measures to Prevent Genocide in Gaza

January 26, 2024

 Int’l Organizations – Live News – News – Top – World

In an interim judgment, the United Nations’ International Court of Justice on Friday ruled that ‘Israel’ must take measures to prevent genocide in Gaza, but it stopped short of ordering an immediate cease-fire in Israeli war on Gaza. The ICJ ruled that it has jurisdiction to consider the landmark case brought by South Africa against ‘Israel’, and it rejected Israel’s request for the case to be dismissed.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a statement issued quickly after the court’s ruling, slammed the genocide allegation as “not only false, it’s outrageous.”

South Africa says that acts and omissions committed by ‘Israel’ as part of its war on Gaza “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group.”

The court’s president Joan E. Donoghue said Friday in the court at The Hague, Netherlands, that, based on an initial assessment of Israel’s actions and remarks from Israeli leaders, it would not accept Israel’s request to dismiss the case as there were plausible claims of possible genocidal acts. The ICJ did not order an immediate cease-fire, but it did order ‘Israel’ to take some provisional measures.

First, the court said ‘Israel’ must “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the (Genocide) convention” and “ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described” in the above measure. It said ‘Israel’ must do everything it can to ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide.

The court also said ‘Israel’ must “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza strip,” and “take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions” facing Palestinians in Gaza.

Finally, the court ordered ‘Israel’ to submit a report to it “on all measures taken to give effect to this order” within a month.

“ICJ judges assessed the facts and the law, ruled in favor of humanity and international law,” Riyad Al-Maliki, the Foreign Minister for the Palestinian Authority, said in response to the interim ruling, according to the Reuters news agency.

South Africa’s Minister of International Relations Naledi Pandor said, despite the lack of a cease-fire order, that the interim ruling would necessitate a pause in fighting in Gaza.

“How do you provide aid and water without a cease-fire? If you read the order, by implication a cease-fire must happen,” Pandor said outside the court.

Source: Websites  

Related Videos

Military expert Tawfiq Didi: This was Sinwar’s response to the Court of Justice’s decision

The balance of the International Court of Justice in the balance of justice in the court of public opinion – today’s position 1/26/2024

An analytical reading of the decisions of the International Court of Justice against Israel with journalist Rifaat Fayyad Morning country

Related New

• Army Clashes with Political Command over October 7 Investigations: Israeli Circles
• Palestine: A revolution of justice and liberation
• British public protest Gaza genocide
• Hezbollah Resumes Saturday Striking Israeli Border Sites after Overnight Intensive Attacks on Enemy Targets
• Day 113: Palestinian Resistance Heroically Confronting Aggression on Gaza amid New Israeli Massacres
• A New American-British Aggression against Yemen: Targeting the Ras Issa, Hodeidah
• Hezbollah Military Media Releases Video Showing Reconnaissance Footage Captured by Drone over Kfar Blum Settlement
• Iraq’s Islamic Resistance: US Acquiescence to Iraqi Gov’t Request to Schedule Withdrawal Attributed to Resistance Strikes
• Hezbollah Strikes Israeli Barracks with Falaq-1 Missiles
• Islamic Resistance in Iraq Stages More Pro-Palestine Strikes
• 12 Days of Relentless Palestinian Resistance Against Israeli Aggression: Victories on the Battlefield
• Army Clashes with Political Command over October 7 Investigations: Israeli Circles More..
• Al-Qassam Brigades, in collaboration with Al-Mujahideen Brigades, targeted an enemy forces gathering northwest of Gaza City with short-range ‘107’ rockets
• Iraq’s Islamic Resistance Escalates Targeting Israeli Enemy in Support of Gaza, Strikes Ashdod Port: Video
• Sayyed Houthi: Yemeni Forces Launched 200 Drones, 50 Ballistic Missiles in Support of Gaza
• A Bill that Will Be Due:’ Pentagon’s Middle East Buildup Costs $1.6B More..
• Watch How Hezbollah Missile Precisely Hit Israeli Target
• Day 111: Resistance Resilient as Israeli Occupation Commits More Massacres
• When Terrorism and Organ Theft Connect… It’s ‘Israel’
• Day 108: ‘Israel’ Pounds Khan Younis as Families of Hostages Mount Pressure on Netanyahu
• Zionist Entity’s Eizenkot: Talk of Complete Victory in Gaza Unrealistic

ICJ orders ‘Israel’ to halt genocidal acts; fails to order ceasefire

Today  January 26, 2024

Source: Agencies

In the UN’s top court hearing, the World Court stated that it would not dismiss the case despite the Israeli request, calling on the occupation to halt all military action that aligns with genocide.

The United Nations’ highest court meets on Friday to announce its decision on the request presented by South Africa to enforce emergency measures against “Israel” for its war on Gaza, on January 26, 2024. (Illustrated by Arwa Makki; Al Mayadeen English)

ByAl Mayadeen English

The United Nations’ highest court asserted its jurisdiction to act on the emergency measures sought by South Africa in its lawsuit against “Israel’s” actions in the Gaza war.

Despite the Israeli request for dismissal, the World Court stated that it would not dismiss the case.
 
On Friday, the UN’s top court ordered that some rights presented by South Africa in its genocide case against the Israeli war on Gaza are plausible.

As the reading proceeded, the court recognized the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, adding that the Palestinians are a protected group under the genocide convention.  However, the ruling does not deal with the core accusation of the case – whether genocide occurred – but focuses on the urgent intervention sought by South Africa.

Among the measures South Africa requested was an immediate halt to the Israeli military operation, which has laid waste to much of the enclave and killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities.

‘Israel’ expected to take measures against genocide acts

The Court ordered “Israel” to take all measures to prevent genocide acts in Gaza, ensure its forces do not commit genocide, and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation. 
 
“Israel” is required to submit a report to the court within a month, detailing its actions to comply with the order. Furthermore, it must implement measures to prevent and punish direct incitement of genocide in the context of its war on Gaza.
 
“The state of Israel shall…. take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention,” the court said. 

In a comprehensive decision, 15 of the 17-judge panel of the ICJ voted in favor of urgent measures, addressing most of South Africa’s requests, though notably excluding an order for “Israel” to cease military actions in Gaza.

S. Africa takes ‘Israel’ to court 

Last year, South Africa submitted a motion to the International Court of Justice on December 29, 2023, accusing Israeli forces of violating the UN’s Genocide Convention. South Africa’s submission to the Hague-based court reads that the Israeli occupation forces [IOF] operations “are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group.”

Related News

• Israeli captives to Netanyahu: ‘Stop the war… bring us back alive’
• Palestinian Resistance groups comment on ICJ ruling, hail South Africa

The International Court of Justice has the authority to issue “provisional measures,” emergency orders aimed at safeguarding Palestinians in Gaza from potential breaches of the convention. These orders are legally binding and cannot be appealed, though enforcing them poses a challenge.

On December 29, “Israel” rejected South Africa’s launch of a genocide case against it at the ICJ. Despite the sea of war crime evidence, the occupation labeled the case as groundless blood libel lacking legal merit and asserted that its army was adhering to international humanitarian law. 

On that note, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that his government might not adhere to any ICJ order, stating, “No one will stop us – not The Hague, not the Axis of Evil, and no one else,” in reference to the Axis of Resistance.

First ICJ hearing

South Africa’s legal team stated on January 11th – in its opening statement at The Hague – that South Africa has recognized the ongoing Nakba of the Palestinian people through “Israel’s” colonization since 1948, “which has systematically and forcibly dispossessed, displaced, and fragmented the Palestinian people, deliberately denying them the internationally recognized inalienable right to self-determination and their internationally recognized rights of return as refugees to their towns and villages in what is now the state of Israel.”

The team emphasized that South Africa is particularly mindful of “Israel’s” “institutionalized regime of discriminatory laws, policies, and practices designed and maintained to establish domination, subjecting the Palestinian people to apartheid on both sides of the Green Line.”

They also pointed out that the decade-long impunity for widespread and systematic human rights violations has emboldened “Israel” in its recurrence and intensification of humanitarian crimes in Palestine, while simultaneously acknowledging that “the genocidal acts and omissions” by “Israel” “inevitably form part of a continuum of illegal acts perpetrated against the Palestinian people since 1948.”

The ICJ’s limited enforcement capabilities were exemplified when it ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, a directive that went unheeded. If the court rules against “Israel”, it could intensify political pressure, potentially leading to sanctions.

Second ICJ hearing 

During the second day of the hearing on January 12th, “Israel” urged judges to dismiss the genocide case, stressing that the calls to cease its aggression against the Palestinian resistance lacked merit.

“Israel’s” legal adviser argued that halting the genocidal campaign would leave the regime defenseless, citing a cross-border raid by the Palestinian resistance on October 7.

Minister Lamola countered, stating that self-defense is not a valid response to genocide. 

Despite South Africa presenting a comprehensive document citing Israeli top military and political officials calling directly or indirectly for genocide in Gaza, “Israel” urged judges to dismiss the case, claiming that the calls to cease its aggression lacked merit.

The Israeli position was aggressively backed by the United States, which was later joined by Germany which announced it would get involved as a third party in favor of “Israel.” 

Related Stories

• ICJ must force ‘Israel’ to end war on Gaza: Julio Diaz to Al Mayadeen
• Zakharova slams Germany for support for ‘Israel’ in ICJ genocide case
• Indonesia takes ‘Israel’ to court, files lawsuit at ICJ
• US forces in Iraq under attack; explosions dubbed ‘most violent’ yet
• Hamas explains: There was no choice but October 7
• Israeli soldiers returning from Gaza feeling defeated, reports say
• UN diplomats walk out of UNSC session as Israeli envoy speech began
• ICJ orders ‘Israel’ to halt genocidal acts; fails to order ceasefire
• Mediators urging ‘Israel’ on Hamas’ ceasefire demands: Reports
• HO Chief overwhelmed: Tearful account of hellish conditions in Gaza
• Republican governors rally behind Texas in showdown against Bide

---

Operation Al Aqsa Flood

UK’s Cameron opposes ‘Israel’ facing ICJ in Gaza genocide case

January 14, 2024

Source: Agencies

Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron leaves from 10 Downing Street in central London on December 12, 2023, after attending a cabinet meeting. (AFP)

By Al Mayadeen English

UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron has expressed disagreement with South Africa’s move to bring a case against “Israel” at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the genocide in Gaza.

Despite his earlier concerns about potential breaches of international humanitarian law by “Israel” in Gaza, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron stated, on Sunday, that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should not subject “Israel” to accountability in the case raised by South Africa.

Cameron, responding to a question on Sky News, shared his view on whether he backed South Africa’s assertion that “Israel” should face charges in the ICJ saying, “No, I absolutely do not [think that Israel should be held accountable] … I think the South African action is wrong, it’s unhelpful, it shouldn’t be happening.” 

This comes as the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza enters its 100th day, killing 23,968 Palestinians, most of whom are women and children.

"I can't recall every single bit of paper that's been put in front of me."

When questioned by Parliament's Foreign Affairs committee chair, Alicia Kearns, David Cameron, the UK Foreign Secretary, tried to evade her line of questioning, and didn't confirm whether he had reviewed… pic.twitter.com/uiWROZa8Wt

— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) January 11, 2024

The UK Foreign Secretary also recently attempted to evade a question posed by Parliament’s Foreign Affairs committee chair, Alicia Kearns, and refrained from confirming whether he had reviewed any legal advice from the Foreign Office indicating that “Israel” is in violation of international humanitarian law in Gaza.

However, during his appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee in Parliament earlier this month, the former prime minister acknowledged that certain aspects of the Israeli aggression on Gaza had raised deep concerns for him.

Related News

• Euro-Med: On day 100, +100,000 Palestinians lost, wounded
• No interest in conflict with Yemen: White House

“Am I worried that Israel has taken action that might be in breach of international law, because this particular premises has been bombed or whatever?” he said at the time.

“Yes, of course I’m worried about that.”

Read next: UK bans entry for Israeli settlers engaged in West Bank violence

South Africa’s case against ‘Israel’ in the ICJ

South Africa filed a lawsuit in December against “Israel”, in which it stated the occupation’s inhumane actions since October 7 are “genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”

It stated that those actions were clearly in breach of the UN’s Genocide Convention, leading the court to “order Israel to cease killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinian people in Gaza.” 

A legal hearing on Israeli aggression against Palestinians in Gaza took place in The Hague. The legal teams for both sides had equal time to present their cases, approximately three hours each. South Africa presented its case first on January 11, and was followed by “Israel’s” response on January 12. The judgment is reserved for a later date, possibly within weeks.

The decisions made by The Hague cannot be enforced, and there is a possibility that “Israel” might disregard an unfavorable judgment. However, such actions would likely intensify international condemnation of its ongoing aggression against Gaza.

Read next: South Africa’s ceasefire request in Gaza difficult for ICJ to dismiss

‘Israel’s’ lawyer lost at the ICJ

Related Stories

• Canada dismisses South Africa’s genocide case against ‘Israel’ at ICJ
• Raisi urges ICJ to make responsible decision regarding Gaza
• South Africa says ‘Israel’ failed to disprove genocide charges at ICJ

Humanity vs. ‘Israel’; an illegal occupation tried legally

11 Jan 2024

Source: Al Mayadeen English

An illustration showing Netanyahu covered in the blood of Palestinians (Illustrated by Arwa Makki; Al Mayadeen English)

By Qamar Taleb

It seems like the law is finally catching up with the Israeli occupation as its atrocities are so flagrant that they cannot be ignored anymore.

For the first time since “Israel” occupied Palestine in 1948, the world is witnessing a historical legal event. South Africa, supported by many countries around the world, from Ireland to Venezuela, has filed a lawsuit against “Israel” before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. “Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza,” states the lawsuit of 84 pages and a variety of evidence; to be accurate, strong incriminating evidence the least of which are 200 statements made by Israeli officials from both political and military levels. Right now, the first hearing is taking place in the presence of a South African legal team led by John Dugard, a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, on the one hand, and a legal team for the occupation, on the other, represented by Malcolm Shaw, a 76-year-old British-Zionist legal expert, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts on international law and has appeared before the ICJ in the past.

Meet the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the UN established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations. Its role is to settle legal disputes submitted by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. The court settles two types of legal disputes: Contentious cases and advisory proceedings.

It is important to note that the rulings of the ICJ are final and legally binding as they aren’t subject to appeal.

Can ‘Israel’ be tried before the ICJ?

Contentious cases, as per the ICJ Statute, are “cases limited to States.” The Statute of the Court defines States as State Members of the UN, other States that have become parties to the Statute of the Court, or States that have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions. These conditions are met either by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court, including a jurisdiction clause that permits the parties or one of them to refer to the Court, or through declarations made by the two states involved under the Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory. 

To answer the question, we need to look into how proceedings may be instituted before the Court in one of these two ways: either through the notification of a special agreement, a bilateral document lodged to the Court by either or both State parties to the proceedings or using a unilateral application, submitted by an applicant State against a respondent State.

To begin with, South Africa and “Israel” are both members of the United Nations, which makes them both bound by the Statute of the Court specifically Article 36(1), stating that the Court’s jurisdiction “comprises…. all matters specially provided for…. In treaties and conventions in force.”

Related News

• Sayyed al-Houthi: We will bravely confront any US aggression
• Cape Town rally echoes support for South Africa case against ‘Israel’

To avoid any legal loopholes, South Africa is building its lawsuit on the 1948 UN Genocide Convention as a jurisdictional basis. Article 9 of the Convention states: “Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”

Hence, as both South Africa and “Israel” are signatories to the mentioned convention, article 9 serves as the provision that allows either party to refer to the court.

Provisional measures vs. a state’s right to self-defense 

Knowing that the ruling of the lawsuit might take several years, South Africa requested the Court to order provisional measures to “order Israel to cease killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinian people in Gaza, to cease the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group, to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and to rescind related policies and practices, including regarding the restriction on aid and the issuing of evacuation directives.”

The Court can take provisional measures without determining whether any Israeli violation of obligations under the Genocide Convention has occurred. Thus, there is no need to wait for the ruling of the lawsuit. What the court is required to do at the stage of making an order on provisional measures is to establish whether the acts complained of are capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention without the need to determine that all such acts are capable of falling under it, thus making South Africa’s claim a solid one for at least some of the acts South Africa says are capable of falling under the Convention. This is known as “prima facie”; a Latin expression meaning “at first sight,” “at first view,” or “based on first impression.” It denotes that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. It is important to note that the claim presented to the Court extensively and accurately backed the argument of the Court’s jurisdiction on the provisional measures.

Unfortunately, once again, those who happen to support occupation and genocide in this world are using “a state’s right to self-defense” as a counter-argument to hinder the one presented regarding provisional measures. But how?

Article 51 of the UN Charter states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

They are claiming that the jurisdiction basis for the provisional measures by South Africa does not rise from the Genocide Convention itself but rather from what South Africa stated regarding the “prima facie” above. In that case, it only has to appear that a “jurisdiction could be founded,” prompting pro-occupation and genocide advocates to claim that the Court may act based on the possibility of jurisdiction that violates “Israel’s” right to “self-defense”.

In 2004, an advisory opinion from the ICJ itself denied that Article 51 was relevant to “Israel’s” construction of a wall in the West Bank allegedly meant to stop what ‘Israel” dubbed “terror attacks”. The Court declared that the attacks against “Israel” did not come from a foreign state as it exercises control in that territory and the threat “Israel” claimed originated from within the territory occupied by “Israel”. In addition, it is highly important to shed light on the fact that the right to “self-defense” only works against states, and Hamas is not a state. Some legal scholars have been trying to argue differently, but as of today, no court or legal precedent has ever given a contradictory opinion.

He who digs a pit for his brother falls into it

Recently in Ukraine v. Russia (2022) and under the same Convention in the South Africa v. “Israel” case, the ICJ approved provisional measures and ordered Russia to “immediately suspend the military operations that commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine.” This will serve as a very important precedent that can be used in the lawsuit by South Africa cornering the Court into accepting the claim or showing the world that the most important court in the world is biased if it refuses to. Who would actually still respect the law after that?

The oppressed of the world unite 

South Africa stated in its case presented to the ICJ that “Israel” is built on a “background of apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination and the ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

Twenty- five countries and an organization of 57 states have shown support for South Africa in this case, several of which had to deal with the terror of imperialism. We can’t know where this case will lead us or if history is going to be made, but one thing is for sure, none of what is happening looks good for the occupation or its allies.

Related Stories

• Will ICJ rule ‘Israel’ guilty of Gaza genocide? Let the hearings begin
• Hamdan urges ICJ not to submit to US pressure
• Corbyn to join S.Africa’s delegation at ICJ against Israeli genocide

Operation Al Aqsa Flood

BRICS member South Africa takes Zionism to court

JAN 10, 2024

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Pretoria’s genocide case against Israel is crucial, not just to stop Tel Aviv’s carnage in Gaza, but to plant the first flag of multipolarism in the globe’s courtrooms: this is the first case of many that will seek to halt western impunity and restore international law as envisioned in the UN Charter.

Pepe Escobar

Nothing less than the full concept of international law will be on trial this week in The Hague. The whole world is watching. 

It took an African nation, not an Arab or Muslim nation, but significantly a BRICS member, to try to break the iron chains deployed by Zionism via fear, financial might, and non-stop threats, enslaving not only Palestine but substantial swathes of the planet.    

By a twist of historical poetic justice, South Africa, a nation that knows one or two things about apartheid, had to take the moral high ground and be the first to file a suit against apartheid Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).  

The 84-page lawsuit, exhaustively argued, fully documented, and filed on 29 December 2023, details all the ongoing horrors perpetrated in the occupied Gaza Strip and followed by everyone with a smartphone around the planet. 

South Africa asks the ICJ – a UN mechanism – something quite straightforward: Declare that the state of Israel has breached all its responsibilities under international law since 7 October. 

And that, crucially, includes a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, according to which genocide consists of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

South Africa is supported by Jordan,  Bolivia, Turkiye, Malaysia, and significantly the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which combines the lands of Islam, and constitutes 57 member states, 48 of these harboring a Muslim majority. It’s as if these nations were representing the overwhelming majority of the Global South. 

Whatever happens at The Hague could go way beyond a possible condemnation of Israeli for genocide. Both Pretoria and Tel Aviv are members of the ICJ – so the rulings are binding. The ICJ, in theory, carries more weight than the UN Security Council, where the US vetoes any hard facts that tarnish Israel’s carefully constructed self-image. 

The only problem is that the ICJ does not have enforcement power. 

What South Africa, in practical terms, is aiming to achieve is to have the ICJ impose on Israel an order to stop the invasion – and the genocide – right away. That should be the first priority.   

A specific intent to destroy 

Reading the full South African application is a horrifying exercise. This is literally history in the making, right in front of us living in the young, tech-addicted, 21st century, and not a science fiction account of a genocide taking place in some distant universe.    

Pretoria’s application carries the merit of drawing The Big Picture, “in the broader context of Israel’s conduct towards Palestinians during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-year-long belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory, and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza.”  

Cause, effect, and intent are clearly delineated, transcending the horrors that have been perpetrated since the Palestinian resistance’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October, 2023. 

Then there are “acts and omissions by Israel which are capable of amounting to other violations of international law.” South Africa lists them as “genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”

‘The Facts,’ introduced from page 9 of the application, are brutal – ranging from the indiscriminate massacre of civilians to mass expulsion: “It is estimated that over 1.9 million Palestinians out of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people – approximately 85 percent of the population – have been forced from their homes. There is nowhere safe for them to flee to, those who cannot leave or refuse to be displaced have been killed or are at extreme risk of being killed in their homes.”

And there will be no turning back: “As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Gaza’s housing and civilian infrastructure have been razed to the ground, frustrating any realistic prospects for displaced Gazans to return home, repeating a long history of mass forced displacement of Palestinians by Israel.”

The complicit Hegemon 

Item 142 of the application may encapsulate the whole drama: “The entire population is facing starvation: 93 percent of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger, with more than one in four facing catastrophic condition” – with death imminent. 

Against this backdrop, on 25 December – Christmas day – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on his genocidal rhetoric, promising: ‘We are not stopping, we are continuing to fight and we are deepening the fighting in the coming days, and this will be a long battle and it is not close to being over.” 

So, “as a matter of extreme urgency,” and “pending the Court’s determination of this case on the merits,” South Africa is asking for provisional measures, the first of which will be for “the state of Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.”

This amounts to a permanent ceasefire. Every grain of sand from the Negev to Arabia knows that the neocon psychos in charge of US foreign policy, including their pet, remote-controlled, senile occupant of the White House are not only complicit in the Israeli genocide but oppose any possibility of a ceasefire. 

Incidentally, such complicity is also punishable by law, according to the Genocide Convention.   

Hence, it is a given that Washington and Tel Aviv will go no-holds-barred to block a fair trial by the ICJ, using every means of pressure and threat available. That dovetails with the extremely limited power exercised by any international court to impose the rule of international law on the exceptionalist Washington–Tel Aviv combo. 

While an alarmed Global South is moved to action against Israel’s unprecedented military assault on Gaza, where over 1 percent of the population has been murdered in less than three months, the Israeli Foreign Ministry has regimented its embassies to arm-twist host country diplomats and politicians to swiftly issue an “immediate and unequivocal statement along the following lines: To publicly and clearly state that your country rejects the outrageous, absurd, and baseless allegations made against Israel.” 

It will be quite enlightening to see which nations will abide by the order. 

Whether Pretoria’s current efforts succeed or not, this case is likely to be only the first of its kind filed in courts around the world in the months and even years ahead. The BRICS – of which South Africa is a crucial member state – are part of the new swell of international organizations challenging western hegemony and its ‘rules-based order.’ These rules mean nothing; nobody has even seen them. 

In part, multipolarism has emerged to redress the decades-long shift away from the UN Charter and rush toward the lawlessness embodied in these illusory ‘rules.’ The nation-state system that underpins the global order cannot function without the international law that secures it. Without the law, we face war, war, and more war; the Hegemon’s ideal universe of endless war, in fact.

South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is blatantly necessary to reverse these flagrant violations of the international system, and will almost certainly be the first of many such litigations against both Israel and its allies to shift the world back to stability, security, and common sense.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

MOST POPULAR

• How Israeli forces trapped and killed ravers at the Nova Festival
• Iraqi resistance strikes three US bases in Iraq, Syria
• The West Bank is a ticking time bomb
• US to send 1,500 troops to Syria and Iraq
• IRGC missiles destroy Mossad, ISIS bases in Iraq and Syria