World Socialist Web Site – February 28, 2024
Biden claims Gaza ceasefire in sight as Palestinians starve
By Thomas Scripps
A day of speculation about a ceasefire in Gaza sparked by US President Joe Biden has exposed the vicious cynicism of all involved.
Biden told reporters, “My national security adviser tells me that we’re close. We’re close. We’re not done yet. My hope is by next Monday, we’ll have a ceasefire.”
The US president made these claims involving the lives of millions of people during a visit to an ice cream store, cone in hand.
He later told TV host Seth Meyers, “Ramadan’s coming up, and there’s been an agreement by the Israelis that they would not engage in activities during Ramadan as well, in order to give us time to get all the hostages out.”
Media commentators were quick to report this “optimism”, but it soon became clear that an agreement was not “close” at all. The Israeli media was widely briefed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government did not know what Biden was talking about and that Netanyahu himself had been “surprised.”
Hamas sources told Reuters the comments were “premature” and that there were “still big gaps that need to be bridged.” Its opposition in based on the fact that the “ceasefire” being discussed is strictly time-limited and acceptable to Israel on the basis that its ground forces can begin their final assault on Rafah the day after it ends. Its purpose would be to possibly minimise the conflict during Ramadan, beginning March 10, to forestall an explosion of anger across the Middle East which would threaten the anti-Iran war coalition assembled by the US.
An agreement of this kind is not impossible, given Hamas’s weak position, but Biden made his comments when he did to also bolster his chances in the Michigan Democratic primary elections—where “Genocide Joe” faces heavy opposition for his complicity in Israel’s mass murder and ethnic cleansing.
On the ground the reality is that the Palestinians are being starved to death, and Israel is expanding its war.
Within hours of Biden’s comments, the Times of Israel published “No longer afraid of sparking war, Israel takes gloves off against IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] in Syria”. It cited Carmit Valensi, head of the northern arena program at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), who observed, “It seems that Israel is taking advantage of the war momentum to increase its activity against Iran in Syria.”
Valensi “noted that before fighting began in Gaza, killing members of the Quds Force—the IRGC’s expeditionary unit—or Hezbollah operatives, would have been considered a red line, liable to spark a war,” but were now being carried out in a “methodical and brazen way”.
On Israel’s northern front with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the United Nations has warned of a “disturbing shift in the exchange of fire… we are now witnessing an expansion and intensification of the strikes.”
Meanwhile, the war in Gaza is reaching new levels of criminality. In an interview with the Guardian Tuesday, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Michael Fakhri called the situation a “genocide”.
Fakhri explained, “Intentionally depriving people of food is clearly a war crime. Israel has announced its intention to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part, simply for being Palestinian. In my view as a UN human rights expert, this is now a situation of genocide.”
He continued, “The speed of malnourishment of young children is also astounding. The bombing and people being killed directly is brutal, but this starvation—and the wasting and stunting of children—is torturous and vile. It will have a long-term impact on the population physically, cognitively and morally…
“There is no reason to intentionally block the passage of humanitarian aid or intentionally obliterate small-scale fishing vessels, greenhouses and orchards in Gaza—other than to deny people access to food.”
Israel has repeatedly bombed food warehouses, mills and bakeries during its assault, leaving just 15 of 100 bakeries in operation. A quarter of farm holdings in the north have also been destroyed, and access denied to those that remain.
“We have never seen a civilian population made to go so hungry so quickly and so completely, that is the consensus among starvation experts,” said Fakhri. “Israel is not just targeting civilians, it is trying to damn the future of the Palestinian people by harming their children.”
Al Jazeera reported the death by starvation last Friday of two-month-old Mahmoud Fattouh, brought to al-Shifa hospital in an emaciated state, gasping for breath. Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, head of Kamal Adwan Hospital, told the broadcaster, “Many kids have died in the past weeks… if we don’t get the proper aid urgently, we will be losing more and more to malnutrition.”
Over 90 percent of children aged 6-23 months and pregnant and breastfeeding women are in severe food poverty, eating two or fewer food groups per day—and food of the lowest nutritional value. With their immune systems weakened, 90 percent of children under 5 have at least one infectious disease. Roughly 70 percent have had diarrhoea in the last two weeks.
Over 80 percent of households lack safe and clean water, and the average household has to make do with just one litre per person per day, versus the recommended minimum of 15 litres. This is especially concerning given the increased number of babies now reliant on formula milk.
UNICIEF’s deputy executive director for humanitarian action Ted Chaiban warned last week, “The Gaza Strip is poised to witness an explosion in preventable child deaths, which would compound the already unbearable level of child deaths in Gaza.
“We’ve been warning for weeks that the Gaza Strip is on the brink of a nutrition crisis. If the conflict doesn’t end now, children’s nutrition will continue to plummet, leading to preventable deaths or health issues which will affect the children of Gaza for the rest of their lives and have potential intergenerational consequences.”
The UN’s findings were based on screenings carried out in late January, meaning the reality is already substantially worse. Since then, Israel and its international partners have tightened the noose.
Over a dozen countries have suspending all funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini has explained, “The last time UNRWA was able to deliver food aid to northern Gaza was on January 23.”
Last week, the World Food Programme (WFP) suspended aid deliveries to northern Gaza after its last two met with violence. Shane Low, for the Norwegian Refugee Council, told Al Jazeera, “There is no guarantee of the safety of humanitarian staff, either because of Israeli targeting of convoys, Israeli targeting of police who are there to protect convoys, and of course due to the desperation because of the lack of aid that’s getting in.”
Roughly half of planned aid convoys to the north were blocked by Israel between January 1 and February 15. Israel Defence Forces checkpoints have also been reducing the amount of aid allowed into Gaza overall. Just 55 trucks have entered the enclave daily on average since February 9, barely half the 100 the UN warns is a minimum to cover urgent needs, and a fifth of the level of assistance provided before the war.
Israeli government lies that its soldiers are not restricting the flow of aid are exposed by aerial photos showing over 2,000 trucks waiting on the Egyptian side of the border and the statement of the WFP that there is enough food on Gaza’s borders to feed the entire population.
February 9 was the date of the International Court of Justice ruling ordering Israel to take steps to increase the delivery of humanitarian aid. Since then, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the number of trucks allowed into Gaza has declined by a third. UNRWA says there has been a 50 percent reduction comparing February with January.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/02/27/pdbk-f27.html
Counterpunch – February 27, 2024
US Airman Aaron Bushnellﾒs Self-Immolation Outside the Israeli Embassy In Washington D.C.
By Alfred De Sayas
The live-streaming and subsequent videos of US active duty airman Aaron Bushnell’s extreme sacrifice in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. on Sunday 25 February 2024 should make us reflect on the complicity of our governments in the on-going genocide being perpetrated by Israel on the hapless Palestinian people. 30,000 dead – overwhelmingly civilians, women and children.
The self-immolation brings back memories of the Vietnamese monks who self-immolated in the 1960s in protest against the oppressive Saigon government and the US aggression of their country. Further self-immolations took place in the United States, including on 16 March 1965, Alice Herz, an 82-year old peace activist, in front of the Federal Department Store in Detroit, Norman Morrison, a 31-year old Quaker pacifist, who poured kerosene over himself and set himself alight outside the Pentagon, and Robert LaPorte in front of the United Nations.
It reminds us of the Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi who in 2010 self-immolated in protest against the police brutality of the Tunisian government, and whose sacrifice was the occasion that triggered what came to be known as the “Arab spring”, and which I consider more like a neo-colonial effort on the part of the US and Europe to cement their control in the MENA region. Of course, there were real home-grown grievances against authoritarian and corrupt governments, but the US-driven “colour revolutions” made a chill come over the region, an Arab winter with perpetual wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.
Aaron Bushnell, a young man of 25 with all of his life before him, performed the ultimate protest to make the point against the indifference of the world in the face of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, a continuing tragedy which Professor Norman Finkelstein has documented in his comprehensive book GAZA[1] and in his numerous articles and television appearances.
On the video, minutes before setting himself ablaze, Bushnell said with a quiet, measured, resolute voice: “I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all.” Bushnell was a respected and loved cyber defence operations specialist with the 531st intelligence support squadron at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
In an interview with Newsweek Senator Bernie Sanders said “It’s obviously a terrible tragedy, but I think it speaks to the depths of despair that so many people are feeling now about the horrific humanitarian disaster taking place in Gaza, and I share those deep concerns…. The United States has got to stand up to Netanyahu and make sure this does not continue.”[2]
Yes, a genocide is unfolding before our eyes. Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention are clearly engaged, and the issue of “intent” is overwhelmingly established in pages 57-69 of the legal brief submitted by South Africa to the ICJ. On television and the internet we watch the bombardments of hospitals, schools, UN shelters.
While the entire world is clamouring for a cease-fire, the U.S. government abused the veto power in the Security Council three times to block the three draft resolutions on a cease-fire. The United States and other countries that continue delivering lethal weapons to Israel, weapons that have been used and are being used to perpetrate the genocide, are complicit in genocide under article III e of the Convention. Any state party to the Convention can refer the matter directly to the ICJ pursuant to article 9 of the Convention. Accordingly, not only Israel, but also the US, UK, France and Germany should be on the dock[3].
On 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice issued a comprehensive order of “provisional measures”[4] of protection, an injunction, which is legally binding under article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ, and which Israel has systematically violated, as it violated the ICJ’s earlier Advisory Opinion on the Wall, dated 9 July 2004[5].
On 16 February the ICJ published a decision on the South African second request for additional measures of protection:
“The Court notes that the most recent developments in the Gaza Strip, and in Rafah in particular, ‘would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare with untold regional consequences’, as stated by the United Nations Secretary-General (Remarks to the General Assembly on priorities for 2024 (7 Feb. 2024)). This perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and does not demand the indication of additional provisional measures. The Court emphasizes that the State of Israel remains bound to fully comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and with the said Order, including by ensuring the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”[6]
Notwithstanding the ICJ proceedings and the proceedings before the International Criminal Court, Israel’s onslaught on 2.3 million Palestinians continues.
While I understand Aaron Bushnell’s motivation and his noble hope that his self-immolation would make an impact on our politicians, I fear that the deep-seated cynicism in the US and Israeli governments and the cavalier attitude of the mainstream media will effectively give carte blanche to Biden and Netanyahu, who will continue ignoring all calls for a cease-fire and will very soon “cancel” the memory of Bushnell’s sacrifice.
In our modern world, Aaron Bushnell’s extreme protest appears to be anachronistic, from a distant bygone era. We read about it, and it almost sounds like fiction. It may not accomplish anything, because our politicians are committed to war – in Gaza as in Ukraine — no matter what the majority of the world thinks, no matter what the International Court of Justice will rule on the 1948 Genocide Convention and its concrete application in the case of the Gaza genocide.
It is rare to see someone today actually following his principles and going through to the ultimate (and excruciatingly painful) sacrifice. In my opinion, and in that of many peace activists, it would have been more sensible to live for the cause of peace and not to die in protest against a criminal war. Peace-making is work-in-progress, a daily commitment.
The deconstruction and desacralization of Western society have made gestures as Aaron Bushnell’s harder to relate to than in the past, because our society has lost its moral compass, its capacity for empathy. Indeed, Western society is impregnated with cynicism to such a degree that a sacrifice for a cause greater than oneself seems incomprehensible, a far harder concept to grasp intellectually — let alone feel — for modern rootless materialists.
Ms. Lupe Barboza of the Care Collective in Texas said that Bushnell had developed deep friendships with people living in encampments and would regularly purchase blankets, sweaters and snacks from a store on base to give out. In the days before his death, Bushnell wrote his will detailing his final wishes that he shared with close friends. “He took all the steps he needed to make sure that everything he had would be cared for, like his cat, he designated that to his neighbour. … So yeah, that to me is all the sense of someone who was measured and knew what he was doing.”[7]
I urge fellow Americans and the US military, especially Bushnell’s Air Force comrades, to demand that the US government stop supplying arms to Israel immediately and that the US cease blocking the Security Council when a resolution is tabled by Algeria or any other country.
We know that the world stood and watched when Pol Pot massacred his own people in Cambodia in the 1970s, the world did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Today it is up to us to demand accountability. We must all stand together against the genocide in Gaza.
And if we really mean it, we should also pray for the victims of this senseless slaughter in Gaza, we should pray for the soul of Senior Airman Bushnell. I would like to see a bronze monument erected to him, exactly where he self-immolated himself. His extreme sacrifice must not be forgotten.
As a practising Catholic, I will have Masses read for his soul. I also extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends. God bless his soul. Requiescat in pace.
Notes.
[1] https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/books/gaza-an-inquest-into-its-martyrdom/
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bernie-sanders-breaks-silence-on-aaron-bushnell-self-immolation/ar-BB1iWaYf
[3] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf?ref=readthemaple.com
[4] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf
[5] https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131
[6] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240216-pre-01-00-en.pdf
[7] https://www.npr.org/2024/02/25/1233810136/fire-man-israeli-embassy-washington
Alfred de Zayas is a law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18. He is the author of twelve books including “Building a Just World Order” (2021) “Countering Mainstream Narratives” 2022, and “The Human Rights Industry” (Clarity Press, 2021).
Countercurrent – February 28, 2024
Being alive is tough and even untenable sometimes …
By Sally Dugman
Recently a person in the US Air Force killed himself in front of the US Isreali Embassy. He ended his life in protest of the genocide of the Palestinians. His name was Aaron Bushnell.
I’m sorry that I didn’t meet with this young man before he chose to kille himself by setting himself on fire … because I, likely, may have been able to dissuade him from his suicide as he is, in my opinion, more of value to serve humanity by interacting with those of our ilk — war resisters like many of my Quaker and Catholic Worker F/friends throughout my life than ending his existence.
I would have loved (and I really do mean that word “loved”) to present to him a model of our necessary service to uplift the world for the benefit of humans and other species as our resolved moral and ethical duty to serve life forward during our brief time on earth.
Oh, I well know his suffering and empathy for Palestinians. I first understood extreme suffering when I at age five tried with my utmost full bodily strength to help Hiroshima Maidens in to their pew seats at my Quaker Meeting in NY as they were hosted by families in my church to get reconstructive surgery at Mt. Sinai as no hospitals yet in Japan had the regenerative knowledge.
They were scared to come to the murderers’ land. So they were put up two per household to keep them feeling safe and since most NY Quakers hosting them didn’t speak Japanese as they housed them and brought them to the hospital.
I would have loved telling Aaron Bushnell about the way that I, alive, could help and physically support them and, thereby, show them love and that life WAS worth living.
I would have loved telling him about my landlord when I was in my twenties, Rudy
Shultz, an old German Jew, an elderly man who I taught about the way to very viscerally hand-make wheat bread and who showed me old fading photos if his utterly gorgeous looking wife and two young girls who were slaughtered in a Nazi concentration camp while he, himself, barely clung to life in a nasty work camp.
I have Catholic Worker, Islamic, Quaker, Baptist, Jewish, Hindu, atheist and agnostic friends. The bunch of us all coming from different ways of looking at the world and why should I care about our variances in religion, skin color, culture, ethnics or other discerning factors that could make us ideationally and viciously antithetical to each other. Instead, I love our commonality to lift each other forward.
Simultaneously, I’m sorry for him.
I’m sorry, too, for all of the others who get horrified and shocked out of our wits that we humans can happily slaughter and sometimes even rape children from other tribes and, some of us are so sickened and devastated by the acts that they kill themselves in protests— giving up the only thing that they have in life — the only thing: themselves.
Morrison, a Quaker pacifist who set himself on fire below McNamara’s Pentagon office; Marlene Vrooman Kramel, an Army nurse whose Vietnam service left her …
I know these self-murdering people as I harbor with total resolute rejection “the bombs bursting in air that gave proof to the night that our flag was still there” — a song refrain chanted on July 4th about the founding of the USA — a land built on the genocide of many millions of Natives that had been already here.
Some of us just can’t stand our ways that our history of ravage and humans in general are. So what are we to do in their aftermath — as we look at the burnt flesh of these overly sensitive and strongly conscionable beings who give up themselves to try to remind the rest of us to behave — to act loving toward life?
My own friend, beloved by me Rudy and whose wife and two lovely little girls were killed just like the Gazans reminds me to stand as I did when five and lift flailing, harmed others — Maidens.
I won’t kill myself in protest of my kind’s killing. Instead, I will resist the overview existent with every ounce of my being even as I get into my seventies and less firm than when younger when I was trying to help Maidens. Even with little chance of changing our species’ murdering ways, I will stand firm until my last breath.
That course seems better than this other way for those good caring folks amongst us:
I do understand them as they are my ideational and extremely morally alike kin. However, I have a different way forward.
I’ll keep lifting others into their seats as best as I can — a broken civilian Maiden, a homeless man to whom I hand a sandwich on a sidewalk or any other who by my sheer process of existing, I can serve. Then when I reviewed my life as I take my last final earthly breaths, I know who I am all along. I devised my identity and purpose with a resoluteness that holds as vastly full as does any resolutely pouring of kerosine over your scalp.
Yes, this is our world. We can’t stop or change it in its patterns. So how will we respond — by ending ourselves via kerosene as so much is unbearable or when we jump up gritting our teeth in horror from a pew seat because we simply can’t stand seeing the harm that some of us inflict upon others.
I’m in my seventies, but my knees are still firm despite that they got somewhat ruined in skiing and once literally saving another person’s life. Personally, I prefer jumping up onto my feet and giving aid over giving up myself as existing. Can you stand firmly with me?
Sally Dugman is a political commentator
https://countercurrents.org/2024/02/being-alive-is-tough-and-even-untenable-sometimes/
Countercurrent – February 28, 2024
Understanding ICJ’s Genocide Ruling and Its Impact
By Dr. Nafees Ahmad
The International of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague declared in its preliminary ruling on January 26, 2024, that Israel as an occupying force must act to stop its armed forces from carrying out acts of genocide, prevent and punish those who incite genocide, and make sure that humanitarian aid to Gaza is increased. During the war that broke out in reaction to the rocket assault by Hamas on October 7, 2023, South Africa accused Israel of perpetrating genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, killing more than 28,473 Palestinians, including more than 10,000 children in Israel’s counter-disproportionate bombing, 1200 individuals died in the attack itself. Israeli soldiers struck 14 homes and three mosques in Rafah on February 12, 2024, the day South Africa made their request, resulting in several casualties and forcing hundreds of displaced families to evacuate. Israel’s military operation in Gaza resulted in over 70% of the deaths. Over 25% of the population is in danger of starving due to humanitarian crisis that has forced over 80% of the people into migration and displacement. Although South Africa had wanted the ICJ to impose an immediate ceasefire, which it did not, the verdict of the International Criminal (ICC) did not declare Israel guilty of having committed genocide; nonetheless, such a determination may take years, and ICJ lacks the enforcement mechanism. Nevertheless, the ICJ continued to find Israel’s military operations and leaders’ remarks to be highly concerning. The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) appears to apply to at least some of the acts and inactions that South Africa alleges Israel perpetrated in Gaza, as per the ICJ. However, Israel does not want the application of the Genocide Convention; instead, it wants to be tried under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), containing the set of rules that govern how war is fought and forbid purposeful damage to non-combatants.
What is the Genocide Convention?
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer, initially used the term “genocide” in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It comprises the Latin suffix cide, which means murdering, and the Greek word genos, which means race or tribe. Lemkin coined the phrase in reaction to past episodes in the history of targeted activities intended to destroy certain groups of people, as well as to the Nazi policy of systematic slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust. Raphael Lemkin later spearheaded the effort to get genocide officially acknowledged and criminalized as a global offence. The Genocide Convention states that genocide is a crime that can occur during both times of peace and conflict. The Convention’s definition of the crime of genocide has been generally accepted on a national and international scale, with the ICC’s Rome Statute from 1998 serving as one example.
Governments signed the Genocide Convention that forbids governments from carrying out genocide following World War II and the Holocaust. Furthermore, it indeed created the term “genocide” in many senses. It also established the notion that the whole or partial annihilation of a group is a crime in and of itself and that this is one of the most horrible crimes that can be done. It’s easy to forget that until shortly before the Genocide Convention was implemented, it was not recognized as a crime. Furthermore, the Genocide Convention designates some actions as acts of genocide, such as the complete or partial destruction of a group. It also necessitates proving that those actions were carried out to wholly or partially destroy the group in question. Furthermore, because of the specific-intent requirement, it is exceedingly difficult to prove genocide because one must demonstrate not only that a large number of people have been killed or that a particular group of people have had their lives severely restricted, if not destroyed, but also that the genocide was intended and carried out.
Credible Accusations under the Genocide Convention
Given the amount of evidence that has been demonstrated, it is reasonable to conclude that Israel has committed acts that might plausibly be considered violations of the Genocide Convention. These activities include both genocidal acts and perhaps incitement to commit genocide. Although they haven’t concluded that genocide has occurred, the situation is so severe that the ICJ must impose these temporary limitations. The ICJ is ruling that Israel, a state that was established following World War II to safeguard individuals who had witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust, is facing credible accusations that it violates the Genocide Convention. The Convention was primarily established to denounce and work towards the prevention of genocides such as the Holocaust from occurring in the future. Thus, this is a significant choice. South Africa requested temporary measures in this case, and since the ICJ lacks access to the evidence, it cannot decide whether the merits of the applicant’s claims have been established. Instead, it will decide on the provisional measures. It just has the two sides’ arguments in front of it. Its only task is to determine whether the accusations made have a reasonable chance of being a violation of the Genocide Convention and, if so, whether the situation is serious enough for the ICJ to take action to protect its ability to decide the case on its merits, which is required to protect the rights at stake in the litigation.
Determining the Rationale and Merits
The ICJ concluded that Israel is headed towards genocide. The decision was as good as could be hoped for, or at least as good as could be expected. It was determined, massively, and definitively. The ICJ dismissed all of Israel’s defences, citing the militaryﾒs actions—many of which were captured on camera—and the statements made by Israel’s commanders as indisputable evidence. The ICJ serves yet another example of our era’s helplessness. While our institutions can identify genocide when they witness it, they are ill-equipped to deal with the most severe crimes. The ICJ did not impose—and probably could not—substantial penalties to put an end to the mass murders it has uncovered. In reality, the Israel Defence Force (IDF) struck Khan Younisﾒ Nasser Hospital just hours following the decision. However, the rationale is that the allegations in the complaint will be carefully considered by the ICJ, which will take time since an ICJ case usually takes years to reach a ruling on the merits. In order to safeguard Palestinians, South Africa claims to have requested that the ICJ examine whether Israel’s proposal to expand its attack in the Gaza Strip into the heavily populated Southern city of Rafah calls for the use of further emergency measures. Israel announced its intention to increase the scope of its ground strike into Rafah, where over 1 million Palestinians have taken sanctuary from the onslaught that has destroyed a large portion of the enclave since Hamas rebels assaulted Israel on October 7, 2023. This would constitute a grave and irreversible violation of the January 26, 2024, court order as well as the Genocide Convention.
In such a circumstance, the issue arises; however, if the case drags on for years before a judgment is made, it’s possible that all the harm has already been done, and it will be too late to stop what the applicants and plaintiffs are attempting to do. And it’s evident in the event of genocide. Suppose the ICJ grants a claim of ongoing genocide and states Okay, we’ll take your documents and hold off on deciding for two years. In that case, the genocide will have already occurred, and there is no way to turn back time or bring those who were affected back to life. Thus, this process aims to determine whether South Africa has sufficiently stated here for us to believe that, should these allegations prove true when the case moves forward, there may have been violations of the Genocide Convention. Additionally, are we convinced that the situation is severe enough to warrant the issuance of interim measures to protect the parties’ rights so that, when the matter comes down to it, those rights would not have been so severely violated as to render a merits decision that will have no real-world impact? We are thus in that very preliminary stage, which explains why they were able to conclude in just two weeks, just based on the parties’ arguments and without the inclusion of any form of a proof at all, as one might anticipate.
Framing the Question of Genocide
The ICJ operates according to its protocols. Individuals who are unfamiliar with the ICJ’s workings and are tuning in for the first time may not comprehend how the ICJ makes decisions or that what was going on here was a request for provisional measures, which is a specific procedural process that never involves the ICJ being asked to rule on the existence or absence of genocide. Even someone who listened to the arguments made when South Africa listed every occurrence that it claims to be a genocidal act would have thought, “Oh, this is asking the ICJ to rule that there has been genocide after all.” However, if you pay careful attention to those oral arguments, South Africa clarified that the ICJ was not required to decide whether or not genocide had been proven. All it needed to do was determine if there was sufficient evidence to draw the judgement that there may be and that a strong case had been presented for breaches of the Genocide Convention. This is significant because it is challenging to establish genocide. People may be underestimating the significance of this ruling because they believe it is evident that genocide is occurring here. Hence, it’s a bit of a gape to say that the accusations are credible.
Protection of Palestinians in Gaza
The ICJ draws several significant conclusions, and one of them is that acts taken against the Palestinians may violate the Genocide Convention since they may constitute acts that destroy the group in whole or in part. Since the Palestinians are a protected group under the Genocide Convention, and since a significant portion of them reside in Gaza, such acts may violate the Genocide Convention. The following query is: How can intent to commit genocide be proven? Circumstantial evidence of genocidal acts, which made it unbearable for the locals to live there, might be used to demonstrate intent. The ICJ also looks to Israeli authorities’ remarks to provide some proof that there may have been a particular purpose, even if it does take note of the many sorts of claims made regarding the living circumstances of residents in Gaza. They do not need to establish that it took place here. However, I believe that they included those remarks to make it apparent that the ICJ found sufficient evidence in both the application and the public record to raise the possibility that Israel may be planning to commit genocide.
The most challenging issue for South Africa to do right from the start was to demonstrate that there was a deliberate plan to entirely or partially annihilate the Palestinian community. Mainly because saying, “Look, we are not trying to destroy Palestinians as a group in whole or in part,” is one way Israel can and has defended it. We are attempting self-defence, and Hamas is to blame for innocent people getting in the path and dying as a result. However, we don’t specifically want to damage anything, either entirely or partially. Interestingly, the argument would be persuasive to a few judges; it won over only one of the seventeen judges, who were convinced that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a case of genocidal intent. However, he ruled in favour of some- not all provisional measures along with the other sixteen parties, including the intriguing judge appointed by Israel. This suggests that he thought there was no quibbling about the sufficient allegations to support the notion that some of the acts alleged could, at the very least, amount to genocide, which includes both specific intent and genocidal acts and the same appeared like a startling discovery.
ICJ Jurisprudence in Ordering Ceasefire
In the Ukraine v. Russia case, Ukraine invoked the Genocide Convention to bring legal action against Russia. The case stated as follows: Russia had declared war on us, claiming it had the right to do so because we, the people of Ukraine, were committing acts of genocide in the country’s east. However, we counter that these claims are untrue, and they serve as the foundation for Russia’s invasion. As a result, we are asking the ICJ to rule that Russia’s invasion was illegal and violated international law. Thus, the ICJ stated in its interim orders that there is no credible evidence to support the accusation that Ukraine is committing genocide, and to the degree that Russia’s invasion has been authorized, it must halt the invasion to put an end to the alleged genocide because there was none in the first place. This is a very different sort of case, though, given that there is no meaningful disagreement about Israel’s right to self-defence against Hamas.
It is important to note that this issue is only taken before the ICJ under the Genocide Convention because of a clause stating that disputes about the Convention may be brought before the ICJ. The Geneva Conventions, a different body of law pertinent but not indeed in front of the ICJ, and the IHL are not at issue in this case. The ICJ’s position is that, while it will not impose a ceasefire, Israel must conduct its ongoing fight in a way that complies with the Genocide Convention by taking these particular actions. It outlines many more specific actions that Israel must do to defend itself. There has been no suggestion here that nations do not have the right to act in self-defence following Article 51 of the UN Charter. They can not do it in a way that would be against international law. The ICJ has recognized a new form of standing, which South Africa also invokes in this case. This form of standing means that if there is an obligation owed to all state parties to a convention like the Genocide Convention or the Torture Convention, any state that is party to that Convention can bring inaction in the ICJ if there is an alleged violation of that Convention and hold that state accountable. In Gambia v. Myanmar (2020), the Gambia brought this case against Myanmar, which was also brought under the Genocide Convention. Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic (2023) was another case in which the ICJ found from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria that there were good reasons to think that the Syrian government tortured and ill-treated the people.
This is a reasonably revolutionary move on the part of the ICJ because it allows the applicant to bring the state accountable for its alleged acts of genocide in Gaza before the ICJ, even in situations where the applicant has no connection whatsoever to the events taking place. In this case, South Africa does not assert that it has any connection to the claimed acts of genocide in Gaza. The ICJ can then decide whether the state violates international law. This serves as a potent reminder that this is a new term for the ICJ, and is ready to carry out its task regularly. Furthermore, it is prepared to enter some pretty heated political circumstances and attempt to apply the rule of law, even in situations where you have states with strong supporters—Israel, of course, has strong backing in the US. It may also represent a significant advancement for the law as it provides a means of upholding international human rights responsibilities for which there was previously no apparent means of enforcement.
Grim Picture Ahead
Enforcing the ICJ ruling entails holding the state accountable for those actions, directing them to behave legally, determining that their actions are at odds with their treaty obligations, and providing precise instructions on how the state is to react. One conceivable response from Israel in this situation would be to downplay or ignore it. The next issue that will come up is how other states—and especially how the US—would react to that. Because even without a Security Council resolution, a judgement like this may have a reasonably significant impact on its own. South Africa is requesting that the court impose more sanctions on Israel, claiming that the country has already disregarded the ruling that was promulgated a few weeks ago. In the end, a proclamation that would save Palestinian lives is what South Africa is contending. Even if that doesn’t happen, states that are arming Israel in this conflict, especially the US, which is providing military support, ought to take serious notice of a ruling that there are reasonable allegations that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention in the manner that it is conducting this war. A choice may prompt them to consider whether continuing to provide Israel with military support would put them in breach of their legal duties. Therefore, depending on how other governments react to this judgement, it may still have a significant effect on Israel even if Israel is willing to disregard it.
Nafees Ahmad is a Ph.D. (International Refugee Law and Human Right), LL.M. (International Law), Associate Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi. Contact at: drnafeesahmad@sau.ac.in https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1791-3060
https://countercurrents.org/2024/02/understanding-icjs-genocide-ruling-and-its-impact/
Brendon McCullum Has Ruined English Cricket
By Syed Rifaquat Ali
Kiwi opener of yesteryear Brendon McCullum, now coach of the English team touring India,
foolishly introduced baseball cricket to England team which has produced disastrous results,
evident from England's defeat against India in Ranchi Test played from 23-27 February 2024.
Eventually, England has lost the 5-match series 1-4 with the last Test to be played in Dharamsala,
Himachal Pradesh, from March 7, as a formality.
Ben Stokes's team won the first Test and have lost the last three Tests, replicating Joe Root under whose leadership England won the first Test and lost the next three, three years ago, in India.
In the Ranchi Test played last week, India scored 307 and 192 for 5 against England's 353 and 145.
India won by five wickets. In the second innings of the Test, England were skittled out for 145, putting a question mark on their batting prowess as mentored by Brendon McCullum.
McCullum had inimitable aggressive style of playing and wanted the English batsmen to copy him which boomeranged.
Every great batsman in the world has his own style of batting and it is pretty difficult to copy him. For instance, the greatest opener ever in the world, the late Syed Mushtaq Ali, played so aggressively that the fastest bowlers in the world feared bowling to him.
Don Bradman, Gary Sobers, Len Hutton, Sachin Tendulkar, et al. had their own distinct style of playing. No two batsmen have a similar style of playing. Shahid Afridi of Pakistan played boom boom, while Cheteshwar Pujara of India was pedestrian and dull in approach.
Another instinct the English batsmen have imbibed is the reverse sweep not found in any cricket textbook.
And it proved disastrous for the team as accomplished batsmen like Olive Pope, Joe Root, Ben Stokes and so forth succumbed to reverse sweep.
The England batsmen have forgotten to play in V form as advocated by Sir Donald Bradman, and are not
averse to playing uppishly which is not wise.
There was a time when England had such a strong and formidable batting line-up, that the bowlers were mostly on a leather-hunt. Imagine for a moment that England scored 903 for 7 against Australia at The Oval on August 20, 1938, the late Sir Leonard Hutton scoring 364, Maurice Leyland 187, Joe Handstaff 169.
Today the English batsmen find hard to score beyond 200 in total, even against ordinary bowling.
Likewise, England's bowling is no more penetrative and the batsmen make merry of the fragile bowling attack.
Against Australia, India were bowled out for 36 in the Adelaide Test on 17 December 2020, and 42 all out at Lord's against England on 20 June 1974.
Such powerful was England's batting line-up and bowling attack. And today, England are a mediocre outfit and are no more a force to reckon with.
The English cricket board must think in all seriousness to plug the loopholes in the team, otherwise the future of English cricket looks bleak beyond doubt.
Syed Rifaquat Ali is JoA correspondent in Sydney
|
Published since July 2008 |
Your donation
is tax deductable.
The Journal of America Team:
Editor in chief:
Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Senior Editor:
Prof. Arthur Scott
Special Correspondent
Maryam Turab
