[News] Humanity vs. 'Israel'; an illegal occupation tried legally

[Anti-Imperialist News]

english.almayadeen.net
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/humanity-vs---israel---an-illegal-occupation-tried-legally>
Humanity vs. 'Israel'; an illegal occupation tried legally
Qamar Taleb
January 11. 2024
------------------------------

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.
[image: ceda3fb4-c9d4-4741-adb1-9b58c678a630.png]

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

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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/s--africa-icj-appeal-says--israel--genocidal--tel-aviv--deno>
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.”

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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/hamdan-urges-icj-not-to-submit-to-us-pressure>
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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/day-94--23-000--palestinian-martyred--58-926-injured>,
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20240111/e793a034/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ceda3fb4-c9d4-4741-adb1-9b58c678a630.png
Type: image/png
Size: 456978 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20240111/e793a034/attachment-0001.png>