January 27, 2024
It’s a tool in the campaigns for
cease-fire now underway around the world. But will the President of the United
States pick it up?
Friday morning’s much-anticipated
decision by the International Court of Justice “marks the greatest moment in
the history of the [court],” says Richard Falk, a noted international law
professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory.
“It strengthens the claims of
international law to be respected by all sovereign states — not just some,”
Falk says about the ICJ’s ruling that South Africa’s magisterial presentation
of evidence “was sufficient to conclude” Israel may be committing, conspiring
to commit, or publicly inciting the commission of genocide against Palestinians
in Gaza.
The ICJ decision gave new strength
to South Africa’s groundbreaking accomplishment — demolishing the taboo against
holding Israel accountable for its crimes. As South Africa’s foreign ministry
put it, “Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a
significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.”
“The decision is a momentous one,”
says the foreign ministry, noting how important the determination is for the
implementation of the international rule of law. “South Africa thanks the Court
for its swift ruling.”
Friday’s decision was a significant
victory beyond what most observers hoped for — not only the recognition that
Israel’s actions are plausibly genocidal, but because of the imposition of
provisional measures based on measures South Africa requested in order to stop
Israel’s actions that are continuing to kill and put Palestinians at risk.
The ruling was also particularly
important because of the overwhelming majority of judges who supported it,
including the sole U.S. judge on the court. When the president of the court,
Judge Joan Donoghue, who was a longtime State Department lawyer before being
elected to the ICJ, read out the provisional measures, she included the line-up
of how judges voted on each one. And she was among the 15 or 16 out of 17
judges who supported every one.
While judges serve as individuals
and are not supposed to represent their governments, there is no question that
national allegiances and other political considerations often emerge. In this
case, only the judge from Uganda opposed all the court’s measures while the
temporary Israeli judge opposed four out of six.
It should not have been a surprise
that this preliminary finding recognized that Israel’s war against the entire
population of Gaza may well constitute genocide. The definition, under the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, says that
two things are required to fulfill that definition: a specific intent to
destroy all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or other group (in this case
the Palestinian population of Gaza), and the commission or attempt to commit
any one of five specific acts to realize that intent. South Africa presented
evidence that Israel is already committing — and conspiring to commit and
inciting commitment — of at least four of those acts: killing, seriously
injuring members of the group, creating conditions that make survival of the
group impossible, and preventing births within the group. The ICJ decision was
not a full determination of the facts and the law — as usual, those issues in
international legal venues take years. This kind of initial finding requires a
very low bar, only that it is “plausible” that Israel’s military actions, the
siege and more could plausibly be found to constitute genocide.
It took the court only two weeks to
come to this ruling, though still too long given the numbers of people the
Israeli military is killing on a daily basis. But it still represents a hugely
important step that will play a major role in strengthening the growing,
broadening movement for Palestinian rights that is now playing such an
unprecedented role in U.S. and global politics.
And then the ICJ went further,
imposing six provisional measures to try and ensure that the rights of
Palestinians might be protected from those actions. The measures imposed by the
court say Israel “shall take all necessary measures” to prevent the commission
of any of the five acts named in the Genocide Convention, that it ensure that
its military forces do not commit any of those acts, that it punish any public
incitement to those acts, that it take all measures to provide humanitarian
assistance, to prevent the destruction of evidence relevant to the charges of
genocide, and to report to the court within one month on what Tel Aviv is doing
to abide by the court’s ruling.
The first measure was the only one
weakened by the court. South Africa had requested the immediate suspension of
military operations: a cease-fire. The ICJ language refers only to taking “all
necessary measures” to prevent the five genocidal actions, but without
demanding an actual end to the military assault. However, the Court’s second
measure arguably answers that weaker language by keeping to the South African
request that Israel make sure “that the military does not commit” any of the
relevant acts — meaning that the IDF should stop killing people and be
prevented from doing so. Not just prevented from killing “too many” people, as
President Joe Biden’s administration and others have urged, but prevented from
killing any people.
In both a national and international
context, the Court’s decision poses a huge problem for the Biden
administration. White House and State Department officials took the absolute
position immediately after South Africa filed their petition to the ICJ that
the claim of genocide was “meritless.” But with a close-to-unanimous court
ruling that Israel’s assault on Gaza is plausibly genocidal — and with the
singular U.S. judge standing with the majority — that dismissive attitude, and
related claims that “the UN is biased against Israel” will not get much
traction.
Just moments after Judge Donoghue
finished reading the court’s ruling, Falk indicated that “this outcome poses
the greatest political dilemma for the Biden presidency.”
“I only hope that Biden will, on
this occasion,” Falk said, “stand up for justice.”
It is important to remember that
while ICJ decisions are binding in international law, there is no appeal, and
they are not self-enforcing. The court has no army, not even a police force to
send around the world to make sure its orders are being implemented. What it
does have, as part of the UN system, is an extraordinary level of credibility.
All countries are bound by its decisions.
The Genocide Convention itself,
unlike most parts of international law, places specific obligations on every
party to the treaty — not only to countries who could be charged with violating
its terms. So Friday’s ICJ decision applies to all 153 governments that are
party to the Genocide Convention — meaning they have specific obligations to
prevent genocide from occurring, to stop it when it does occur, to not be
complicit in genocidal actions, and to punish any incitement to genocide that
might occur in their own countries.
That means that if this decision
goes to the UN Security Council for implementation arrangements, and if, as
would be likely, the United States vetoed those efforts, and it then goes to
the General Assembly, lots of possibilities arise.
This decision fundamentally, even if
preliminary, provides a vital new tool for mobilization and campaigns to force
governments to escalate their pressure to stop Israel’s genocide. It’s a tool
in the campaigns for cease-fire now underway around the world. In the United
States it will likely be a persuasive tool for congresspeople, city councils,
universities and other institutions — as well as the Biden administration — to
support a cease-fire. Because now it’s not only a question of moral obligation
to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents, it’s also about
abiding by the requirements of international law. And for some people, that may
make all the difference.
With this new tool in hand, a U.S.
shift towards supporting — and demanding — a cease-fire may be possible much
sooner.
Pro-Palestinian groups standing up to antisemitism show courage
and empathy
American
college campuses, as well as our society more broadly, continue to be roiled by
incidents of hate targeting Jews as well as Muslims and Palestinians that grow
out of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The conflict has
certainly created tension within our country’s politics as well.
A
recent antisemitic incident at Yale provides an opportunity to explore the
differences between hate and legitimate protest/political expression, and to
highlight and praise a collection of pro-Palestinian groups who drew that line
in a crystal clear fashion. These groups definitively rejected an antisemitic
act that occurred during their protest. One can question the importance of such
an act in the face of so much violence and suffering. However, for some people,
taking heart where they are able to can provide the hope for the future they
need in order to keep going.
On
Dec. 9, a pro-Palestinian rally organized in New Haven, Connecticut, by a
coalition of groups consisting of American Muslims for Palestine’s Connecticut
chapter, Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Connecticut, We
Will Return Palestine, and Yalies4Palestine took place near the Yale campus.
Three
hundred or so people marched, and one rallygoer—whose face was masked by a
keffiyeh (a black and white garment that has come to symbolize the Palestinian
cause)—climbed up a large menorah being publicly displayed to celebrate
Hanukkah, and placed a Palestinian flag over it. Authorities are continuing to
investigate the incident and, well over a month later, don’t know the identity
of this person or whether they are a member of the Yale community. The
coalition of organizers stated that this person was not a member of any of
their groups (more on their very important statement below).
As
you can see, rallygoers ran over almost immediately and demanded that the
masked individual take down the flag. They yelled “get down” and “take it
down,” and one said “that looks bad for us.” Although the video stops before it
happens, the person who put the flag on the menorah did take it down right
after putting it up, as Jake Dressler, who took the video, told reporters.
“hate violence”
Something
else of note occurred during the rally. According to New Haven Mayor Justin
Elicker and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, some people threw eggs at the
pro-Palestinian protesters. Both leaders condemned this action as well, calling
it “hate violence.”
Returning
to the act of antisemitism, what took place right after the flag went up was a
positive response in the moment from the other participants in the
pro-Palestinian march. Even if one or more of them was motivated at least in
part by concern for any potential fallout for the groups as a result from the
incident, there’s nothing wrong with that. Their immediate concern was getting
the flag taken down, and those words might have been what convinced the
perpetrator to remove it.
It
is, however, the righteous response released by the coalition of organizers the
next day that shows the depth of their empathy. The groups said they
“unequivocally condemn the antisemitic action,” and added, “we are appalled by
this behavior, and are especially disappointed since it comes during the
religious observation of Hanukkah.” The statement continued:
These actions do not align
with our goals of promoting respective [sic] dialogue and peaceful advocacy. As
organizers, we apologize deeply for the hurt this has caused. Moving forward,
we will take further precautions to uphold our commitment to foster an
inclusive and respectful environment for all participants. … Our movement for
Palestine … has no room for antisemitism.
As
a Jew, I greatly appreciate these words. This was no half-hearted statement of
disapproval with a “but …” attached to it. The groups recognized the act was
not only wrong, but named it as antisemitic, apologized for its impact—even
though they themselves didn’t put the flag up—and mentioned taking steps to
prevent future problematic actions. Their words make clear that these
pro-Palestinian activists reject hatred of Jews, and provide a model for how
any group should respond when those claiming affiliation with their cause
commit an act of hate. These things matter.
Yale
University strongly condemned the incident as well, as did political and
religious leaders, again specifically noting that the act was antisemitic. The
reason for that is that it targeted a religious symbol of Judaism, rather than
the Israeli state. The act thus conflated the actions of Israel—which, as a
country, is obviously a legitimate focus of protest—with all Jews worldwide by
attacking a symbol of their faith and peoplehood. Doing so represents a core
antisemitic trope.
the debate over zionism
Those
of us who decry acts of antisemitism that connect in some way to Israel must
also state clearly that not all protests against or criticisms of Israel are
antisemitic. There is a lot of debate over whether anti-Zionism in any form is
by definition antisemitic. The Anti-Defamation League has stated clearly that
this is the case. Separately, Republicans have used the question to divide
Democrats.
My
take is that it is antisemitic to argue that Jews should not have a state of
their own but that it’s fine for other groups to have one. Singling out Israel
in this way doesn’t pass the smell test. What complicates the issue even more
is that the definition of terms like Zionism and anti-Zionism are themselves
debated.
For
me, Zionism simply equates to a belief that Jews not only deserve but need to
have a territory that they govern. There are at least two reasons for this:
first, humanity has shown time and again that they can’t be trusted not to
massacre us in large numbers; and second because millions of Jews have now been
living within the official borders of Israel for three-quarters of a century
(separate from Jews’ indigeneity to the region going back to before their
violent expulsion by the Roman Empire over two millennia ago), and most have no
other land to “go back” to. I’m also a Zionist who profoundly disagrees with
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many of Israel’s policies in recent
decades—in particular regarding West Bank settlements—as do many other
Zionists.
I
have written extensively about Jewish students facing antisemitism on college
campuses, and anti-Jewish hate and violence more broadly. It is a severe and
pervasive problem that has gotten worse in recent years; antisemitic incidents
are up almost 400% since Oct. 7, compared to the same period a year earlier
(even intruding on a high school basketball game). Furthermore, many Jews have
been frustrated by what appears to be, as Len Gutkin wrote in the Chronicle of
Higher Education, “a double standard whereby college administrators encourage
exquisite sensitivity toward every kind of potentially harmful speech except
for the radical chic embrace of, say, Hamas iconography.”
intent vs. impact
The
dominant argument on campus has long been that it’s not the intent behind a
potential microaggression that matters, but rather the impact on those who feel
targeted. Campuses haven’t applied that argument with the same vigor when it
comes to rhetoric that targets Jews. Linguist John McWhorter called this lack
of consistency “almost chilling.”
On
the other hand—and this is no easy balancing act—we cannot allow the fight
against antisemitism to quash legitimate debate on Israel and the right to
advocate without fear for Palestinian rights and liberation, which are goals I
strongly endorse as well. Just as Jews must have a country, so must
Palestinians. I stand with anyone pushing for a two-state solution, the only
solution that can provide freedom and security for both peoples. However, even
though I disagree with them, those advocating for a one-state solution—so long
as they don’t call for or condone violence, or use hateful rhetoric—must have
the right to make their case as well.
As
for those who do spout such extremism, well, Gaza-born Palestinian activist
Ezzeldeen Masri, the U.S. outreach director for OneVoice, whose mission is to
“empower” moderate Palestinian and Israeli voices working for a just peace, has
some words for them:
To all those protesting in
support of the Palestinian people, thank you. But to those who think you are
supporting my people by defending Hamas, please be aware: Your radical
positions aren’t helping us. They are hurting us more.
[...]
By using violence (which
it does not hesitate to inflict upon civilians) to achieve its goals, Hamas is
a terrorist organization by definition. The overwhelming majority of
Palestinians do not condone violence and acts of terror. Those who lump us
together with a terrorist group contribute to misconceptions and stereotypes
about our people that sow anti-Muslim hate.
[...]
To those who were
exhilarated at witnessing Hamas’ acts, I ask whether you have experienced the
centuries of pain my people have suffered. For us, it is not a video on TikTok;
it’s real life. I ask whether you can bring us closer to the ultimate goal of
peace.
Colleges
have to support free speech as well as students on all sides of the
Israel-Palestine question who face hate. When it comes to antisemitism, we’ve
certainly seen instances of failure on the part of colleges, but
pro-Palestinian students and groups believe they’ve been failed as well, as The
New York Times reported:
Radhika Sainath, an
attorney with Palestine Legal, a civil rights group, said her organization has
received more than 450 requests for help for campus-related cases since the
Hamas attack, more than a tenfold increase from the same period last year. The
cases include students who have had scholarships revoked or been doxxed,
professors who have been disciplined, and administrators who have gotten
pressured by trustees.
“It’s truly like nothing
else we’ve ever seen before,” Ms. Sainath said. “We’re having a ’60s-level
moment here, both as far as the repression but also the mass student
mobilization.”
feeling threatened goes both ways
Beyond
what colleges themselves are doing to restrict speech, there have even been
instances of pro-Palestinian activists feeling physically threatened, and one
incident, at Columbia University, where protesters were sprayed with some kind
of liquid, causing nausea and vomiting (not to mention multiple acts of
violence committed away from campuses). A Republican New York City Council
member, Inna Vernikov, went to a pro-Palestinian rally at Brooklyn College
openly carrying a firearm. She declared that the students were “pro-Hamas” and
added, “If you’re here today standing with these people, you’re nothing short
of a terrorist without the bombs.” The councilwoman was arrested and faces
charges for carrying a gun at a rally.
A
number of Brooklyn College students stated that they felt afraid of violence.
“We haven’t been to classes in a week because we feel unsafe,” explained Ruya
Hazeyen, co-president of the campus chapter of Students for Justice in
Palestine. Like-minded students at other colleges have expressed similar fears
after making their views known. I may not agree with everything said at every
pro-Palestinian protest, and some SJP chapters have said things that are
downright despicable. Nevertheless, people peacefully advocating certainly
don’t deserve to feel like their safety is at risk.
Universities
need to support those who are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, however one
defines those terms, by providing space for robust, hate-free debate. Those who
are protesting but not spreading hate must be able to proclaim their views—even
if those views make those on the other side of the issue uncomfortable—and
remain free of punishment and harassment. And universities must do everything
they can to prevent students from being doxxed under any circumstances.
Separate
from protecting students’ right to protest, these institutions must also: 1)
define what kinds of speech represent hate and/or a call for violence, 2) sanction
those who engage in such speech, and 3) provide active support for all
students, of any identity, whom the spreaders of hate and violence target with
their bile.
Yale
has certainly seen some problematic statements since the Oct. 7 attacks.
Zareena Grewal, a tenured professor in the department of American Studies, for
example, justified the Hamas murders as being part of the Palestinians’ “right
to resist through armed struggle,” and characterized the murdered and raped
Israeli victims as “settlers” who are “not civilians”—and thus legitimate
targets of said resistance. Imagine how unsafe Israeli and Jewish students felt
hearing that one of their professors posted such dehumanizing sentiments on
social media.
However,
the response of the pro-Palestinian coalition to the Dec. 9 flag incident near
Yale is so heartening precisely because students who disagree profoundly with
the policies of the Israeli government during this war stood up for the right
of Jewish members of their community to be free from antisemitism.
We
have also seen Jewish groups who identify as supporters of Israel speak out
against Islamophobia and anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian violence and hate. In fact,
162 organizations signed a statement declaring exactly that. It also rightly
noted: “Our communities’ safety is inextricably linked, and only by coming
together and calling it out can we defeat the forces of hate and violence.”
Although
it can’t end the fighting and the bloodshed right now, the kind of empathy
these Palestinian and Jewish groups have shown matters a great deal, and maybe
helps in some small way to contribute to a more peaceful future.
Israel’s Reputation
forever Besmirched by UN Court Injunction to Cease Genociding Palestinians
The International Court of Justice’s
ruling on “provisional measures” regarding the allegation of genocide against
Israel for its behavior in Gaza is what in the US we would call a “preliminary
injunction.” That is, it finds that South Africa in its complaint has made a
plausible case that Israel is committing genocide and the justices want it to
stop immediately. The court won’t make a final determination about the
allegation of a Gaza genocide for some time, perhaps years. But it accepted the
argument that the court can’t just let the current Israeli rules of engagement
and treatment of civilians go on while the justices deliberate.
The court also rebuked Hamas’s
continued holding of Israeli hostages.
Although a legion of newspaper
headlines (intended to run interference for the extremist government of
Binyamin Netanyahu) breathed a sigh of relief that the court did not order a
ceasefire, it did in fact strictly prohibit, going forward,
(a) killing members of the group;
That is, the Israeli military can
fight with and kill Hamas members under the doctrine of self-defense in the UN
Charter, but it has to stop killing innocent Palestinian civilians immediately.
My own guess is that 90% of the Palestinians killed so far are innocent
non-combatants, and the Gaza Health Ministry says at least 70% are women and
minor children.
The wide-ranging and no-nonsense
ruling, which was nearly unanimous, strikes a serious and lasting blow to
Israel’s reputation as a country born from the genocide of the Holocaust. It
now stands plausibly accused of implementing genocidal policies against another
people. In the weird Israeli information cocoon, there may be no Palestinians,
or there may be no innocent Palestinians, or there may be no way for Israel
ever to do any wrong, but the view from the Hague is quite different. There are
millions of Palestinians, and it is plausible that Israel is committing massive
war crimes against innocent noncombatants.
The court writes:
62. South Africa submits that there is a clear risk of
irreparable prejudice to the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza and to its own
rights under the Genocide Convention. It asserts that the Court has repeatedly
found that the criterion of irreparable prejudice is satisfied where serious
risks arise to human life or other fundamental rights. According to the
Applicant, daily statistics stand as clear evidence of urgency and risk of
irreparable prejudice, with an average of 247 Palestinians being killed, 629
wounded and 3,900 Palestinian homes damaged or destroyed each day. Moreover,
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are, in the view of South Africa, at
“immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and
disease as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of
Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the
Palestinian population and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid
while bombs fall”.
The Applicant further contends that any scaling up by
Israel of access of humanitarian relief to Gaza would be no answer to its
request for provisional measures. South Africa adds that, “[s]hould [Israel’s]
violations of the Genocide Convention go unchecked”, the opportunity to collect
and preserve evidence for the merits stage of the proceedings would be
seriously undermined, if not lost entirely.”
So the South Africa case is that A,
the Israelis are killing over 200 Palestinians and damaging nearly 4,000 homes
each day and B, they are destroying the evidence for the ongoing genocide even
as they commit it.
The Court then reviews the evidence
from UN agencies for the devastating situation under which Palestinians in Gaza
are living. It concludes,
70. The Court considers that the civilian population in the
Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable. It recalls that the military operation
conducted by Israel after 7 October 2023 has resulted, inter alia, in tens of
thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical
facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive
scale . . . The Court notes that the operation is ongoing and that the Prime
Minister of Israel announced on 18 January 2024 that the war “will take many
more long months”. At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no
access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential
medicines or heating.
71. The WHO has estimated that 15 per cent of the women
giving birth in the Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications, and
indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to
the lack of access to medical care.
72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the
catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of
deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.
The point about infant mortality and
maternal mortality is brought up because one of the elements of genocide is
preventing births within the group.
The Court reviewed Israeli denials
that things are so bad in Gaza and rejects these assertions out of hand. Lack
of food, water, medicine and protection from the elements (it is cold and rainy
nowadays) are too well attested by UN aid experts to allow Netanyahu and his
Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir to sweep them under the rug. Any
ameliorative steps taken by Israel so far “are insufficient to remove the risk
that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final
decision in the case.”
So here is the meat of the
provisional measures prescribed, which were voted in by 15 to 2 or 16 to 1
(even the ad hoc Israeli-appointed judge joined in supporting some of these
instructions). It is a crushing decision against Israel:
78. The Court considers that, with regard to the situation
described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the
Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures
within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of
Article II of this Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group.
The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of
Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy
in whole or in part a group as such . . . The Court further considers that
Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit
any of the above-described acts.
As for (b), it is estimated that
over 60,000 Palestinians have been wounded by Israeli military action in Gaza
in the past four months. Many of these injured are also women, children, and
noncombatant men. Children have lost hands, arms, feet and legs. Since the
Israelis have destroyed the hospital system, they have often been operated on
without anesthesia or antibiotics. The court says that the Israelis must cease
this carnage without delay.
(c) Addresses the unsanitary
conditions under which Palestinians are living, without access to enough
potable water (the last statistic I saw was that only 7% of available water is
fit for human consumption) and vulnerability to the spread of infection diseases,
including gastro-intestinal diseases that can kill infants and toddlers through
dehydration.
The court went on to address the
shocking statements of genocidal intent on the part of Israeli officials and
members of the Netanyahu government:
79. The Court is also of the view that 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.”
The relevant word here is “punish.”
The Court wants the Israeli Attorney General to charge and try members of the
current government for incitement to genocide (which is a crime under the 1948
Genocide Convention). Large numbers of Netanyahu’s cabinet ministers and other
officials would be hauled off to jail if this instruction of the court were
implemented.
80. The Court further considers that Israel must take
immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed
basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of
life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
In other words, the Israelis
maintain that they are doing enough to get food, water and medicine in to the
Palestinians. The court says, “no, you’re not.” It sides with the UNICEF, UNRWA
and other officials who have been screaming at the top of their lungs about the
danger of large scale death from starvation, dehydration, and disease unless
the conditions for the civilian population, which is now mostly crowded into
Rafah in the far south of the strip.
Finally, the court addresses the
deliberate Israeli destruction of documents:
81. Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction
and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within
the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against
members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
Israel destroyed the central
archives of Gaza City, wiping out property and other records. Its ongoing
targeting of municipal buildings and hospitals has resulted in the Ministry of
Health sometimes losing the ability to document Israeli atrocities against
Palestinian civilians. This cliocide, the destruction of the history of a
people, must also cease, the Court insists.
The Court wants a report back from
Israel on how it has carried out its instructions.
The International Court of Justice
has no means of implementing its rulings. There is no UN police to make arrests
or UN financial official to garnishee income. Israel can thumb its nose at the
court, and Joe Biden will protect Netanyahu in the Security Council, where the
US has a veto.
Still, the reputational damage here
is enormous, and will certainly have serious consequences for Israeli
diplomacy. It also undermines the credibility of the Biden administration,
which is dismissing the ruling. To any extent that Biden goes on giving cover
to Netanyahu and his fascist associates, he risks being tarred with the brush
of genocide himself.
Israeli fire kills Palestinians waiting for food aid and at UN
shelter
Israeli
ground forces were besieging the vicinities of two hospitals in southern Gaza
on Thursday after ordering the evacuation of those areas days earlier,
affecting around half a million people.
Twenty
Palestinians were reported killed and another 150 injured after they were fired
on by Israeli troops while awaiting the delivery of food aid in Gaza City on
Thursday.
Israel
has denied UN humanitarian agencies access to the hundreds of thousands of
increasingly starving Palestinians who remain in northern Gaza, including Gaza
City.
“The
food situation in the north is absolutely horrific. There’s almost no food
available and everybody we talk to begs for food,” Sean Casey, a World Health
Organization coordinator, told media.
The
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor condemned the “horrific crime” against
Palestinians waiting for humanitarian aid in Gaza City. It said it documented a
similar incident on Monday, when civilians gathered southeast of Gaza City were
“targeted by Israeli artillery shells as they waited for UN relief trucks,
resulting in several casualties.”
Earlier
this month, quadcopter drones opened fire on civilians waiting to receive flour
from UN trucks in western Gaza City, killing 50 and injuring “numerous others,”
Euro-Med said.
The
organization accused Israel of deliberately creating an unsafe and chaotic
environment to obstruct the delivery of humanitarian aid as it uses starvation
as a weapon of war.
The
systematic dismantling of Gaza’s health facilities is another key strategy of
Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
A
senior UN official said on Thursday that fighting around hospitals and shelters
hosting displaced people in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, had intensified.
“Heavy
fighting near the remaining hospitals in Khan Younis, including Nasser and
al-Amal, has effectively encircled these facilities, leaving terrified staff,
patients and displaced people trapped inside,” deputy humanitarian coordinator
Thomas White said.
“Al-Khair
hospital has shut down after patients, including women who had just undergone
C-section surgeries, were evacuated in the middle of the night,” the UN
official added.
“Thousands
of preventable deaths”
Medical
Aid for Palestinians, a UK charity, said that the hospitals affected by
Israel’s latest evacuation orders “represent 20 percent of the remaining
hospital capacity in the whole of Gaza.”
The
charity called for the protection of hospitals after “world leaders stood idly
by as Israeli forces dismantled the health system in the north of Gaza.”
“Now
we fear the same will be repeated in the south,” MAP added.
The
International Committee of the Red Cross said that Gaza is “at risk of complete
medical shutdown without urgent action to preserve services,” particularly at
Nasser Medical Complex and the European Gaza Hospital, both located in the
south.
If
those facilities cease to function, the ICRC said,
the world will bear witness to untold
thousands of preventable deaths.
The
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs similarly warned that
without a cessation of hostilities and the protection of humanitarian workers,
preventable deaths, including of many women
and children, will continue to wreak havoc on the already devastated population
of Gaza.
UN
shelter hit by tank shells
The
UN said that 12 people were killed and 75 injured, 15 critically, after two
tank rounds hit a training center compound that is being used as a shelter for
nearly 30,000 displaced people on Wednesday.
Some
800 people were in the building that was struck within the training center
compound. Video shows flames filling the top story of the building that was hit
while black smoke billows out and gunfire is heard in the background.
Philippe
Lazzarini, the head of the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA), said that
the compound “is a clearly marked UN facility and its coordinates were shared
with Israeli authorities.”
He
said that the strike was “a blatant disregard of basic rules of war.”
Israel’s
military denied responsibility for hitting the facility and suggested that
Hamas was responsible.
White,
the humanitarian coordinator, said that it was the third direct hit on the Khan
Younis compound and added that “buildings flying the UN flag have been hit at
least twice by tank fire, without warning.”
The
Biden administration in Washington expressed what Reuters described as “rare
outright condemnation,” with State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel stating
on Wednesday that “we deplore today’s attack on the Khan Younis training
center.”
Patel
added that “civilians must be protected, and the protected nature of UN
facilities must be respected.”
A
White House national security spokesperson said that the Biden administration
would “continue to seek further information” regarding the strikes on the UNRWA
facility. But the spokesperson implicitly blamed Hamas for civilian deaths,
accusing them of hiding among the general population.
The
Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that Israeli forces are not
deliberately trying to kill civilians, despite an astonishing 25,700 fatalities
in Gaza since 7 October, the vast majority of them women and children.
When
confronted with evidence to the contrary, Biden’s spokespersons have declined
to say whether those were instances of war crimes.
On
Wednesday, Robert Moore, a senior correspondent with the UK’s ITV News, asked
Patel, the State Department spokesperson, about whether the fatal shooting of a
civilian carrying a white flag in a Gaza “safe zone” on Monday constituted a
war crime.
That
incident was recorded on video by an ITV News cameraman who had interviewed the
slain man, clothing merchant Ramzi Abu Sahloul, moments before he was shot in
the chest and killed in al-Mawasi, an area of Khan Younis that Israel had
declared a “safe zone.”
The
U.S. network NBC obtained additional footage from Palestinian cameraman Ahmed
Hijazi showing the incident from other angles. Hijazi said that the fire “came
from one of several nearby Israeli tanks,” NBC reported.
Patel
declined to say whether the apparent field execution was a war crime, saying
that “this is not an American operation” and that “we do not have full
circumstances” of the incident.
Rishi
Sunak, the British prime minister, also refused to say whether the videotaped
killing of the civilian carrying a white flag was a war crime, issuing only
general concern about “the significant impact and loss of life of civilians in
Gaza.”
Palestinians
in Gaza have repeatedly testified that Israeli forces are gunning down
civilians who pose no threat.
Brothers
Ramiz, 20, and Nahed Barbakh, 13, were reported killed in Khan Younis on
Thursday. An image shows the brothers’ bodies in the street next to their white
flag.
In
November, a bystander recorded the apparent execution of Hala Rashid Abd al-Ati
while she was holding hands with her young grandson, who was waving a white
flag, as they and other family members attempted to flee from Gaza City.
In
December, the military killed three young men who were captured during Hamas’ 7
October raid and held in Gaza. The Israeli nationals were shirtless and one was
holding a white flag when they were executed by troops in Shujaiya, east of
Gaza City.
Sarah
Leah Whitson, the director of the Washington-based human rights watchdog DAWN,
said that it was hardly the first time that the Israeli military had gunned
down civilians in Gaza waving white flags.
“Literally
every single Israeli policy we have criticized for [the] past 20 years as a
violation of international humanitarian law is many magnitudes worse today,”
she added.
This is what impunity begets.
ICJ
to deliver decision on provisional measures
That
impunity has been dealt an unprecedented challenge after South Africa invoked
the 1948 Genocide Convention against Israel at the International Court of
Justice.
That
tribunal is set to deliver a decision on Friday regarding South Africa’s
request for provisional measures—similar to an injunction or restraining
order—that could include a cessation of hostilities in Gaza while it considers
the full case.
On
Thursday, Patel, the State Department spokesperson, declined to say whether the
U.S. would respect the International Court of Justice’s ruling.
Meanwhile,
Biden and his secretaries of state and defense are being sued for their failure
to prevent what the plaintiffs say is a genocide unfolding in Gaza, and for
their complicity in the genocide.
A
federal court in California will be hearing the case on Friday.
Sixteen
humanitarian and human rights groups on Wednesday called on UN member states to
immediately halt the transfer of weapons to Israel and Palestinian armed
groups.
The
UN’s human rights office warned on Wednesday that “further intensification of
already relentless Israeli airstrikes and ground fighting” in Khan Younis in
recent days “has exacerbated dangers for civilians.”
The
UN office noted the 21 January statement by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav
Gallant promising that “the mushrooms of smoke will cover the skies of the Gaza
Strip until we achieve our goals.”
Israeli
military operations in Khan Younis have pushed an increasing number of
Palestinians, many of them already displaced, to Rafah, in southernmost Gaza,
where half of the territory’s population of 2.3 million people are now
concentrated, many of them without adequate shelter.
The
UN human rights office raised “grave alarm” over a potential escalation of
hostilities in Rafah “with the attendant risk that people who are essentially
trapped in smaller and smaller areas may be forced out of Gaza.”
No comments:
Post a Comment