Israeli Breaches of International Law

May 20

The conscience of the world: circumventing the P5

Synopsis The ICC Prosecutor issues intention to seek arrest warrants for Israeli leaders AND Hamas leadership. Fully supportive. Meaning this in the most positive sense - I define the ICC as the “Trade Union against the P3” - a way of getting around the non-signatory blockers in the UNSC - Russia, China, US.

⚖️👩‍⚖️ ICC: Nov 2023: Israel indiscriminate bombing War Crimes in Gaza Investigation

CNN Report on the ICC Referral (17 Nov 2023) here

South Africa and four other countries formally referred Israel to the ICC for its current actions since Oct 7 as being potential war crimes on 17 Nov5.

Noting that it took SIX YEARS from referral to active case to investigate the 2014 Indiscriminate bombing (IC-01/18 below) not worth holding one’s breath here - instead immediate ruling requested from ICJ case above way to go.

⚖️👩‍⚖️ ICC: 3 March 2021: Indiscriminate bombing War Crimes Investigation from Israel’s 2014 actions - case ICC-01/18

ICC Case ICC-01/18 3 Mar 2021 🔗👉 link to page on the ICC website here

The International Criminal Court from 3 March 2021: has an active investigation into potential war crimes through indiscriminate and disproportionate bombing in June 20146.

Source: BBC Report on the ICC case opening (3 Mar 2021) - here

10 Israeli Human Rights Organisations wrote to the ICC in December 2022 ahead of prosecutor Karim Khan’s visit to Palestine in 2023 offering to contribute to the investigation with their findings7.

This investigation is also formally gathering evidence from October 7th via the UN8.

⚖️👩‍⚖️ INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) INVESTIGATIONS

Ongoing investigations from the International Court of Justice, the legal advisory body of the United Nations. They can be requested via the Secretary-General via any member state to make a ruling. In the cases of clear and present danger to the peace they can make rulings rapidly with interim recommendations such as on Ukraine and more recently Gaza.

Though rulings can be given, they can be ignored - as have the interim rulings from active cases on Israel during the Gaza genocide to address the emergency of plausible genocide and also those against Russia on Ukraine.

The difference is in the case of Russia on the plausible genocide advise a regime of international sanctions were put in place.

⚖️👩‍⚖️ ICJ: 24 May 2024 - ICJ orders Israel to stop Rafah invasion

As the situation in Gaza has deteriorated over time South Africa has sought further additional measures to protect against genocide that there is a plausible case for.

With the “red line” that all allies of Israel had previously set - of invading Rafah - being breached (to not effect) South Africa again appealed to the ICJ to intervene.

Finally listening.

The ICJ delivered a judgement that Israel’s invasion of Rafah significantly increases the risk of genocidal behaviour to the tightly packed Palestinian civilian population and for them to cease the operation.

Source: ICJ Website Ruling on case 193 : “APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP“ 24 May 2024 - here

This has been presented to the UNSC - to take a vote. I wonder if the US will veto?…

⚖️👩‍⚖️ ICJ: Mar 2024 Complicity in Genocide Investigation 2024 Germany supporting Israeli actions in Gaza - case 193

ICJ Case 193 1 Mar 2024 🔗👉link to page on ICJ website here

On 1st March 2024 Nicaragua brought a case before the ICJ claiming that Germany - due to its continuing to supply Israel with arms - was complicit in plausible genocide, and requested interim measures for the Court to rule that Germany desist.

There were hearings on 8th and 9th April on the accusations and with Germany’s response.

In addition to international law the case cited a national precedent when a Dutch Court ruled in February 2024 that the Government must ban arms exports to Israel in view of F-35 fighter parts being manufactured in the country9.

Germany noted in its response in particular a “special obligation” to Israel after the historical injustices its past Governments had committed. This is reflected in changes to German law requiring prospective Citizens to first acknowledge the right for Israel to exist as a sovereign state before becoming a German Citizen.

A special obligation is not an excuse to break international law.

It is ironic and terrible at the same time that Israel is accused of genocide and Germany accused of complicity in genocide in an international court in 2024.

The Court declined to impose interim measures on 1st May 2024 the main argument being that Germany proved that the number of arms dropped by March 202410.

However the case still continues.

⚖️👩‍⚖️ ICJ: Dec 2023 Genocide Investigation 2023 Israeli actions in Gaza - case 192

ICJ Case 192 29 Dec 2023 🔗👉link to page on ICJ website here

Source; The Guardian 30 Dec 2023 “**South Africa launches case at UN court accusing Israel of genocide**“- here

South Africa on 29 Dec 2023 referred Israel to the ICJ to investigate Israel for the crime of genocide11.

Why? Because all attempts at ceasefire have failed due to the UN continued blocking of UNSC and this offers a legal route with precedent to ruling in the interim for a ceasefire ahead of the whole case being prosecuted.

Since this is such a critical case (and at the time of writing, live) I’ve put into a separate article here:

ICJ Case against Israel Jan 2023:

Case 192 - International Law on Trial

Jan 12

Summary A review of the case against Israel - background, legal teams and analysis of both the South African Applicant case and the Israeli Respondent defence. ICJ Case 192 29 Dec 2023 🔗👉link to page on ICJ website here It must be a clear cut case of genocide IN PARTICULAR with precedents from multiple other cases on the Court.

Update: On 28 March - in view of the worsening situation in Gaza - the ICJ issued further interim measures to Israel to begin opening up border crossings to increase aid to Gaza12.

Israel’s response was to do nothing …. UNTIL 1st April 2024 in response to world outrage at the IDF killing of 7 Western aid workers in the World Central Kitchen convoy.

The following day they opened up another crossing.

No respect for an international Court - only taking humanitarian action when shamed.

Furthermore - despite Israel insisting for months there were no restrictions or delays imposed by them at Gaza crossings, David Cameron confirmed to Alicia Kearns in March in writing that there in fact were delays being imposed by Israel.

⚖️👩‍⚖️: 19 Jan 2023: Consequences of Israel’s policies on occupied territories: ruling requested - case 186

ICJ Case 186 19 Jan 2023 🔗👉link to page on ICJ website here

The ICJ is currently undergoing an active case giving an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories13.

When the UN passed a motion to ask the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion, Israel imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority (PA) at the first meeting of the new current right-wing Government.

When 90 countries (including France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and Germany) signed a petition against the sanctions imposed on the PA14, Israel dismissed them as “meaningless statements”15.

The Court was still gathering evidence - most probably augmented with the evidence provided to the ICC from the UN (as below case) in the current crisis.

February 2024: Hearings

As at February 2024 the Court had received submissions of 50 different countries.

Hearings were given in oral presentations 50 countries approx.30m each after initial 3 hr from Palestine for 6 days from 19 Feb 202416.

July 2024: Ruling

On 20th July 2024 the ICJ delivered its advisory opinion and recommendations on the case.17

There was a huge majority in the 15 person judging panel with only Vice-President Sebutinde of Uganda being the constant voice of dissent (although she agreed with all judges that the Court has jurisdiction despite Israel’s claims).

Legality of Occupation

Israel’s occupation is unlawful
Israel must bring to end its occupation as quickly as possible

Settlements

Immediately cease all new settlement activities
Evacuate all settlers
Make reparation payments to Palestine

Next Steps

States must recognise occupation as illegal
States must NOT assist Israel in any way to continue occupation
UN must now decide what measures to impose to bring to an end the occupation as rapidly as possible

Voting Pattern:

✅ Carried 14 to 1 - Against: Sebutinde (Uganda)

5. the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory

6. the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

✅ Carried 12 -3 - Against: Sebutinde (Uganda), Aurescu (Romania), Abraham (France)

7. all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

8. international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

9. the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

✅ Carried 11-4 -Against: Sebutinde (Uganda), Aurescu (Romania), Abraham (France), Tomka (Slovania)

3. the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;

4. the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;

⚖️👩‍⚖️ ICJ: 28 Sep 2018: Relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v US) - case 176

Source: Sky News 6 Dec 2017 “Trump to move US embassy to Jerusalem, recognising it as Israel's capital“ here

ICJ Case 176 15 Nov 2018 🔗👉 link to page on the ICJ website here

After Donald Trump announced the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem in 2018, Palestine announced a challenge in the ICJ18.

Note that Australia’s PM at the time Scott Morrison announced support for a similar move without actually moving the Embassy (a key policy of the local Australian pro-Israeli lobbying group) but the new Labor Government under Albanese rescinded this in October 202219.

This is an ongoing case in the ICJ - in place as a reference should further countries seek to do the same.

🇮🇱⚖️👩‍⚖️ INTERNAL LEGAL OPINIONS - ISRAELI SUPREME COURT

It is interesting to review how human rights abuses are appealed in Israel in the highest appeals court of the land, the Israeli Supreme Court.

As an aside - it is worth noting that the current ultra-right wing Government (from Nov 2022) passed legislation that would have limited the Supreme Court ability to judge “reasonableness” of Government decisions to hold them to account - thus enabling further right-wing reforms and decisions.

In the face of protests Jan 2023 the Bill was then passed leveraging the Governments 64 seat majority in the 120 seat Knesset in July 2023.

On appeal - this was struck down by the Supreme Court itself on 1 Jan 202420 as a telling sign of the rogue direction of the most ultra right-wing Coalition Government (formed out of necessity) in history. It is also telling that this Bill was introduced immediately within the first month of the coalition forming as one of its first acts.

It is unfortunate that this Government was at the wheel in response to Oct 7 attacks and this sort of law attempted to be introduced shows its overall intent.

🇮🇱⚖️👩‍⚖️ 2011 Ruling on Disproportionate Force IDF / Gaza (from 2000 actions, filed in 2003 by B’Tselem Israeli Human Rights NGO)

This is an interesting precedent case where two Israeli Human Rights NGOs (“Petitioners”) filed a petition against the Government (The Chief Military Advocate - “Respondent”) against Israel’s disproportionate use of force in the Gaza Strip in 2000-2003 in the wake of Hamas attacks (this would have been during the most brutal 2000-2005 attacks of the Second Intifada).

The Court published it’s ruling on 21 Aug 202121 stating:

[on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005] - arguing no longer occupation; "a new legal situation had arisen due to the cessation of belligerent occupation in that area and the seizure of power there by Hamas. According to the Respondent, the armed conflict in that area is being conducted against an administrative entity equipped with armed forces and, accordingly, it is no longer combat involving civilian or partially civilian forces”
[after commentary on Hamas human shields] Still, the difficulty caused by the circumstances and the terrorist entities does not detract from the IDF’s obligation to distinguish between terrorists and Palestinian civilians who are not involved in the fighting, and to act in such a way as, insofar as necessary and possible, harms only the former and protects the latter against unnecessary harm.
[In dealing with terrorist action] - “there is no justification for considering every fatality of a Palestinian civilian as initial evidence of conduct that justifies a criminal investigation”
[collateral damage] “the laws of warfare also recognize the existence of collateral damage – damage sustained by civilians as an indirect result of an offensive that was aimed at enemy military objectives. The acknowledgment of collateral damage is derived from the understanding that any requirement to refrain entirely from harming civilians in times of conflict would nullify the ability to engage in hostilities in the modern era. Such damage does not constitute a violation of the laws of armed conflict, even if it is foreseeable, as long as it complies with the aforesaid principles of proportionality and distinction.” [surely Israel’s actions to date in 2023 Crisis MUST be indiscriminate and CLEARLY in proportionate]

So whilst there is was then still an obligation to investigate - the fact Israel considers the territories not to be under their control gives them flexibility - however, international law recognises that the territory IS under their control (ports etc.).

This case took 8 years to reach a ruling on activities over 10 years hence so there was a concern on the Statute of Limitations and lack of ability to investigate during the case.

This is not appropriate for the current conflict. Indeed - the ways the IDF has removed ALL independent scrutiny of the battlefield and producing evidence of Hamas tunnels, atrocities without independent in situ investigation in troubling.

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court - now with its power restored - will manage appeals post the current crisis (though I suspect the Justice will be more at an international level).

🇮🇱⚖️👩‍⚖️ Israeli Discriminatory Laws for Arabs (Israeli Citizens or not)

There are a number of internal Israeli laws that clearly discriminate against Palestinians - whether Israeli Citizens or whether living in the Occupied Territories.

Whilst not contested in the Supreme Court, they are worth mentioning here as the Law of the Land.

NGO Adalah - The Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel maintain a database listing some 65 laws which discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinians - purely on the grounds of race.

Adalah Discriminatory Laws Database - here (Hebrew, Arabic and English)

The article was written in 2017 so would not include radical laws passed since then - such as the 2018 Basic Law declaring Israel essentially a Jewish land.

The B’Tselem section of this article further down the page lists in detail the issues with this law - see here.

⚖️👩‍⚖️ EXTERNAL LEGAL OPINIONS

There have been a number of international lawyers providing an informed external legal opinion of Israel’s actions, in an attempt to influence the Attorney-General or equivalent of their country and hence their vote at the UN on Israel or domestic unilateral actions.

🌎🎓⚖️👩‍⚖️ 15 May 2024: Global University Legal Human Rights Network: “most thorough legal analysis yet” report concludes genocide

A global University Network for Human Rights of legal academics across the world produced the most comprehensive report on Israel’s actions to date concluding:

Genocide is being committed in Gaza
other nations are legally obligated to refrain from recognizing Israel's breaches as legal or taking any actions that may amount to complicity.

This is bound to be a reference point for other proceedings - including that of the ICJ and ICC22.

Contributors included:

Boston University School of Law
University of Pretoria
Yale Law School

The 105 report can be found at this link.

🇬🇧⚖️👩‍⚖️ 26 October 2023: UK Lawyers Open Letter - Legal Analysis of Israeli action and recommended actions

Over 1000 UK law professionals wrote a letter on 26th October to the UK Government detailing the illegal nature of Israel’s actions under international law, and calling on the UK Government to fulfil its obligations and call for a ceasefire23.

The letter was signed by former judges, barristers, legal professors, legal academics, solicitors, lawyers and 62 eminent Kings Counsel

https://lawyersletter.uk

The letter outlined a number of points

Illegality of Israeli actions under International Law: Legal opinion confirming the illegality of the Israeli actions in Gaza with respect to International Law
A case for genocide - noting intent in stated policy positions of Israel prior to the action
Calling for Securing a Ceasefire in the West Bank
Calling for Securing immediate relief of hostages
Calling for immediately halting export of weapons from UK to Israel - to avoid complicity in war crimes

After limited response from the Government, on 14th November the lawyers sent the letter on to every member of the UK Parliament and the devolved Parliaments on Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The letter contained updated death and casualty rates, and further illegal actions since the situation had considerably worsened over three weeks to the risks and pattern outlined in the original letter.

🇦🇺⚖️👩‍⚖️ 6 November 2023: Australian Lawyers Open Letter - Legal Analysis of Israeli action and recommended actions

1000+ lawyers sign an open letter to get Canberra to lobby for Israel-Gaza Ceasefire24

https://lawyersletter.au

There is mounting evidence that atrocity crimes have been committed. Atrocity crimes are considered to be the most serious crimes against humankind. Their status as international crimes is based on the belief that the acts associated with them affect the core dignity of human beings,” the letter read.
“The well-accepted limits of international law, human rights law, and the law of armed conflict have been exceeded.”

🇺🇳🕊️ 15th November UN Special Rapporteur - Israel does NOT Have the right to defend itself

UN Special Rapporteur (an international Human Rights Lawyer) delivered the Statement to the Australian Press Club with detailed legal reasons why.

🇦🇺🕎⚖️👩‍⚖️December 3rd - Australian Jewish Lawyers Response: Why Israel has the responsibility to defend itself

Source: The Australian 4 Dec 2023- “**Lawyers tell Anthony Albanese: Israel has ‘responsibility’ to defend itself, ceasefire would let Hamas thrive**“ - here

Key organisers (comment: clear vested interests):

Mark Leibler (Arnold Bloch Liebler) - Chairman of the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC - which frequently organises trips for MPs and Journalists to Israel - including most recently the Liberal MP Simon Birmingham delegation); Board Member of the United Israel Appeal (UIA) the local arm of the international Israeli fundraiser Keren Heysod, which funds the Zionist Federation of Australia.
Jeremy Leibler (Arnold Block Liebler) - son of Mark Liebler, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia - “to promote Zionism in Australia” with an office in Israel.
Gregory Rose - international law professor
David Knoll - Barrister
Eli Bernstein - Perth solicitor

Other notable signatories:

Philip Mandie - Retired Judge
Nigel Rein - Retired Judge
Selwyn Selikowitz - Retired Judge
Susan Blashki - Retired Magistrate
Greg Levin - Retired Magistrate

Sydney lawyer David Singer wrote an article detailing why he wouldn’t be signing the letter of 8th November, but is not a signatory of the December 3rd letter25.

https://www.lawyersreply.au

🇦🇺⚖️👩‍⚖️19 December 2023: Forum discussion by lawyers on Israel, Palestine & International Law

There is an excellent video of a discussion on Israel, Palestine and International Law including Australia’s responsibilities, hosted by the Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad (APHEDA or Union Aid).

Participants:

Rawan Arraf (Executive Director & Principal Lawyer, The Australian Centre For International Justice)
Melanie O’Brien (A/professor Of International Law, President Of The International Association Of Genocide Scholars)
Greg Barns SC, Barrister
Lizzie O'Shea, Lawyer and Writer

🇦🇺⚖️👩‍⚖️ 4th April 2024 - 600 prominent Lawyers and Supreme Court Judges advise UK Government - “Israel breaking international law”

On January 9th 2024 UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron was grilled in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee on the UKs involvement in Gaza. He was directly asked several times if he had been advised by UK Government lawyers that in their opinion Israel was breaking international law - and obfuscated his reply:

Yet in the same breath Cameron noted a clear war crime from Israel restricting the water supply.

It was critical Cameron didn’t reply that he had received the advice - otherwise the UK Government themselves knowing this and continuing to provide arms and military assistance to Israel would in turn be in breach of international law.

But the plot thickens with a revelation by the fellow Conservative Chair of the Parliamentary Committee, Alicia Kearns.

According to the Observer and Guardian newspapers of 30th March, it turns out that Alicia Kearns HERSELF knew from at least March 13th that the Government HAD received legal advice Israel was committing war crimes26.

Quoting Kearns on 13 March at a private Conservative fundraiser in Hampstead, London:

“The Foreign Office has received official legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law but the government has not announced it.”
“They have not said it, they haven’t stopped arms exports. They have done a few very small sanctions on Israeli settlers and everyone internationally is agreed that settlers are illegal, that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing, and the ways in which they have continued and the money that’s been put in.”

The following day on 1st April 2024 the world opinion began to turn with the IDF attack on the NGO World Central Kitchen killing 7 western civilian aid workers.

On 4th April a 600 UK lawyers and Supreme Court judges wrote a letter to the UK Government advising that in their opinion Israel was breaking international law27.

How could UK Government lawyers be advising differently in particular with Kearns’s revelations?

⛑️ Amnesty International: Application of International Law to the Gaza Strip (2009)

Amnesty International authored a report in 2009 examining in detail the issues for international law in Gaza28.

An occupying and CONTROLLING power has certain inalienable responsibilities under International Humanitarian Law (IHL - Hague, Geneva Conventions).

Israel seeks to circumnavigate these responsibilities by claiming “the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 means effectively they have ceded all control of the strip and therefore are not an occupying power and not subject to IHL.”

However by maintaining a blockade and full control of anything going into / out of Gaza, Israel is effectively an occupying and controlling power.

Manipulative semantics.

Even if that were true - Human Rights Law protects the similar human rights of the individual v. conventions for war.

🇺🇳 UN SECURITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS

The UN over the years has issued multiple resolutions and motions with respect to Israel’s behaviour - all of which have been blatantly ignored or watered down to the point of uselessness by the US, as we have seen in the current crisis.

When these are listed mostly chronologically below - highlighting the actual original text direct from the UN library actual minutes - the hypocrisy is indisputable.

‼️COMMENT 7 Jan 2023: Due to the unfolding nature of UN Resolutions (despite the 🇺🇸US Veto of anything that would actually entail action!) this section is being updated periodically - true work-in-progress

🇺🇳 22 Dec 2023: UN Security Council Resolution 2720 - Humanitarian Access at Scale

Source: NPR News Dec 22 2023 “**U.N. Security Council calls for expanded humanitarian aid in Gaza, as U.S. abstains**“- here

The UNSC was desperately asked to provide a legally binding Ceasefire Vote - reflecting the non-legally binding will of the international community from a UN General Assembly Ceasefire Resolution on 12 December (UN General Assembly Resolution (A/ES-10/L.2729). This was passed 153 to 10 with 23 abstentions. Notably 30 nations switched from a previous abstention vote to YES for this vote, including AUKUS ally Australia.

It took 10 days to pass Resolution 272030 - with the US ensuring the language was watered down from “ceasefire” to calling for humanitarian aid so they would not veto, then abstaining.

Russia attempted to add in an amendment to call for an urgent suspension of hostilities to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian access, and for urgent steps towards a sustainable cessation of hostilities. The vote was 10-1 but vetoed by a single permanent member vote - the US ( 4 abstentions - Albania, Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom). Russia then abstained from the final vote, which it knew was (yet again) toothless31.

The final wording of S/RES/272032 has key points:

Reiterates its DEMAND that all parties to the conflict comply with their
obligations under international law
Reaffirms the obligations of the parties to the conflict under international
humanitarian law regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, DEMANDS that they allow, facilitate and enable the immediate, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale directly to the Palestinian civilian population throughout the Gaza Strip, and in this regard…
CALLS FOR urgent steps to immediately allow safe, unhindered, and expanded humanitarian access and to CREATE THE CONDITIONS for a sustainable cessation of hostilities;
- Comment: weak language on taking action to pause or even cease conflict; net result IDF can pause at a time of its choosing when military goals met
Requests the Secretary-General, with the objective of expediting the
delivery of humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, to appoint a Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator with responsibility for facilitating, coordinating, monitoring, and verifying in Gaza, as appropriate, the humanitarian nature of all humanitarian relief consignments to Gaza provided through states which are not party to the conflict
- Comment: UN take on task of streamlining aid and checking that it is not being taken by Hamas (will the Israeli’s allow this?)
- Notable on 26 Dec Sigrid Kaag of the Netherlands was appointed33 - to mixed reaction - she is married to a Palestinian34. She takes up her post Jan 8th.
DEMANDS the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well
as ensuring humanitarian access to address medical needs of all hostages;
- Comment: Hostage release but also Red Cross access (important)
CALLS FOR all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law and in this
regard deplores all attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism;
- Comment: Notably does not mention Hamas by name - continued complaints by US and also France
Reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State
solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority;
- Comment: very interesting - Gaza/West Bank under Palestinian Authority - no room for Hamas (implied)
DEMANDS implementation of previous resolution 2712 in full

🇺🇳 15 Nov 2023: UN Security Council Resolution 2712 - Humanitarian Pauses

UN Security Council 271235 (legally binding) finally passed on 15 November 2023 with respect to the Gaza Conflict which commenced on Oct 7

all parties comply with international law (of conflict), humanitarian pauses, increase aid, cease blockade, release hostages, do not attack critical infrastructure.

Whilst watered down from “demands” to “called for” so that the US and UK would not veto (reducing the legal action available for non-compliance) and on the surface of it was just about “humanitarian pauses” there are actually some key legal points now on record.

The document importantly reminds Israel on record of their obligations under International Law, 4th Geneva Convention and very importantly and specifically the Additional Protocol 1977 on proportionality.
It also specifically lists infrastructure and areas Israel should NOT attack and humanitarian relief that MUST be provided - essentially outlawing collective punishment. This is now officially on legal record rather than the lip service verbal press conference “call for, reminds” to date.
Whether or not this is watered down and unfortunately the continued failure to comply - this document will be key evidence in the timeline of the ICC investigation (a more detailed breakdown is available here). This is a very good outcome - and not one that the US wanted to see.

The UN Security Council did not (voluntarily) meet to discuss the Gaza crisis since this weakened resolution.

The UN Secretary General himself invoked a little used UN Article 99 on 6 Dec to force the UNSC back to the table36.

At that meeting, the US vetoed a ceasefire Resolution, causing Egypt and Mauritania (in their capacities as Chair of the Arab League and the Islamic Cooperation Council respectively) invoked another little known UN Article “Uniting for Peace” to force a (non binding) vote at the General Assembly.

The subsequent vote for a ceasefire on 15 December was a unanimous vote for - including Australia and other countries breaking with allies to vote for the ceasefire.

However …. little has come of this, more silence from the UNSC and further calls to reform the UNSC which has become a blocker with the veto constitution reflecting the WWII powers from 1945 and not today’s world.

🇺🇳 23 Dec 2016: UN Security Council Resolution 2334 - Settlements Illegal: Immediately cease

Source: The Guardian 24 Dec 2016 - “**US abstention allows UN to demand end to Israeli settlements**“ here

UN Security Council Resolution 233437 (legally binding) on Israeli Settlements:

“Israeli settlements constitute a flagrant violation under international law … all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, must immediately and completely cease.".

The UN Office of Human Rights during the investigation of the Occupied Territories Human Rights situation outlined in the first point issued a reminder that Israel has continued to ignore this resolution with impunity five years later as at 23 December 202138.

In fact - in 2018 Israel passed a controversial set of Laws essentially redefining Israel as a Nation State purely for the Jewish people39. This:

a) Enforced Apartheid against the already 20% Palestinian Israelis in the Green Line area and b) ALL other Palestinians in the Occupied Terrorise

and

b) Specifically with respect to Resolution 2334 on the illegality of settlements - clause 7 of the law stated:

7 — Jewish settlement
A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

Enshrined in Israeli Law two years after the UNSC finding on illegality.

Chutzpah.

🇺🇳 17 Dec 1981: UN Security Council Resolution 497 - Demanding Israel Rescind annexation of Golan Heights

Israel seized the Golan Heights post the 1967 War. Resolution 242 22 Nov 1967 called for return of Israeli-occupied State Territories in return for peaceful relations. This was rejected by Syria - who then accepted this post the 1974 Yom Kippur War by accepting UNSC Resolution 338 on the Yom Kippur Ceasefire.

On 14 December 1981 Israel - not using the term “annexation” - passed Golan Heights Law extending Israeli administration and law into the territory; annexation in all but name.

The UN declared Israel’s Law as null and void and demanded they rescind this in UNSC Resolution 49740 on 17 December 1981.

UN SC Resolution 497 S/RES/497 - “Security Council resolution 497 (1981) [on annexation of the Golan Heights]“ here

Israel refused - and the UNSC proposed a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter41 “ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION“ to take action against Israel. This was vetoed by the US on 20 Jan 1982.

The General Assembly then took matters into its own hands and passed a strongly worded but non-binding motion on boycotting Israel.

🇺🇳 5 Feb 1982: UN General Assembly Motion A/ES-9/7 - (non-binding) Boycott of Israel (in response to UNSC 497 non-compliance)

In disgust at the US Vetoing any action against Israel’s ignorance of UNSC 497 to rescind its Golan Heights Law - the GA took matters into it’s own hands with a boycott vote on 5 Feb 198242 .

The vote was won 86 votes to 21. An interesting document listing out exactly how to boycott Israel.

UN General Assembly 9th Emergency Session 29 Jan - 5 Feb 1982; “ES-9/1. The situation in the occupied Arab territories“ here

At the follow-up 37th session A/RES/37_123 16 December 198243 as (16) above the GA doubled-down on its (non-binding) calls, but specified what Israel had NOT done. This reads like a case to expel Israel from the UN - due to repeated failures to comply with Charter at that point (16 Dec 1982).

Noting further that Israel has refused, in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the numerous relevant decisions of the Security Council, the latest of which was resolution 497 (1981), thus failing to carry out its obligations under the Charter, Comment: Article 25 of the UN Charter simply: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
12. Determines once more that Israel's record and actions confirm that it is not a peace-loving Member State, that it has persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter and that it has carried out neither its obligations under the Charter nor its commitment under General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 1 May 1949; Comment: 273(III) was the Resolution for Israel’s admission to the UN - on agreeing to honour resolutions with regard to the Palestinians and the UN Charter as a condition of entry

The call for boycott as the previous resolution was repeated.

Since there was no call for a follow-on here - it it assumed in particular since this was a non-binding General Assembly motion that there was no further action.

The expressed will of the majority nations of the UN over-ridden by one protecting member of the UN Security Council.

🇺🇳 10 Nov 1975: UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 - Determining Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination - RESCINDED 1991

10 Nov 1975: UN General Assembly Resolution “This resolution decided that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.“44.

This is a very strongly worded Resolution, which The Australian pro-Israeli Lobby took up as a direct cause lobbying Bob Hawke’s Government to directly lobby against this.

Sixteen years later in 1991 the Resolution was Rescinded45. The drivers behind this were:

Seeking a long lasting peace post the end of the Gulf War early 1991 - where clearly a strong Israel based in the Middle East would be a buffer to future terrorism (as the idea)
Setting up a Peace Conference on Israel/Palestine in Madrid Oct/Nov 1991
Israel conditioning its participation in the conference on the UN Rescinding Resolution 3349

President Bush personally introduced the motion to rescind 3379 on the floor of the UN, which was passed 88-25 (with 28 abstentions or absences).

🇺🇳 22 Oct 1973: UN Security Council Resolution 338 - Demanding ceasefire post Yom Kippur War (“The October War”), leading to Egypt Peace Treaty 1979

This was an urgent resolution from a surprise attack orchestrated by Egypt and Syria on 6 October on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur and lasted until a ceasefire on 25 October46.

The UN Resolution S/RES/338 references 242 and the clauses therein restated:

“Land for Peace” - withdrawn by Israel to pre-1967 boundaries (now including additional territories taken by Israel in Egypt and Syria)
Palestinian Authority rescind its claim on the whole geographic region of Mandatory Palestine
“Just Peace” for refugees of the 1948 Nakba (wording cannot replace Resolution 194 from 1949

A ceasefire was in place October 22 following the Resolution - however Israel broke this by the PM Golda Meir giving the order to then cross the Suez Canal from the already occupied Sinai Peninsula - which nearly involved the USSR in direct military confrontation. A further ceasefire was then imposed on Oct 25.

Negotiations did begin in December 1973 in Geneva and Israel returned the Sinai territories to Egypt in 1978 as part of the US Camp David Accords under President Jimmy Carter (actual return not completed until 1982).

In 1979 there was an Israeli peace treaty with Egypt - first between an Arab country and Israel - in 1979. The President of Egypt Sadat was assassinated in 1981 as a result of his treaty.

A summary of territorial positions at the end of the Yom Kippur War and status of Return from Resolutions 242, 338):

Returned:

Sinai Peninsula - Returned only 15 years later in 1982 following 1979 peace treaty:"

Sinai Peninsula 1967 - still held by Israel post 1967 War despite Resolution 242 calling for Return
Sinai Peninsula 1973 - additional territory on the other side of the Suez gained by Israel breaking the 22 Oct ceasefire

Golan Heights:

Golan Heights 1973 - additional territory (narrow demilitarised zone returned to Syria in 1974 following ceasefire agreement)

Territories not returned to date:

Golan Heights 1967 - annexed 1982 (see Resolution 497 above requiring Israel to rescind the annexation - ignored)
West Bank (including East Jerusalem) - - under Israeli control, annexed 1967. Partial control by the Palestinian Authority from 1993 Oslo Peace Accords.
Gaza Strip - still under international law occupied since Israel controls the borders and controls flow/in out of goods and supplies - though Israeli troops and settlers withdrew in 2005)

Right of Return (not allowed to date):

To homes within the 1948 borders removed as a result of the Nakba (Resolution 194; a condition of Israel’s admission to the UN)

Source: Palestine Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) - “**THE OCTOBER WAR, 1973”** here

🇺🇳 22 Nov 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 - a Two-State Solution

The Six Day War47 was launched in 5 June 1967 by Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Egyptian airfields. By the end of the War between Israel and Syria, Jordan and Egypt - Israel had taken significant territories, the majority still held to this day despite this Resolution calling for return to pre-1967 borders.

The UN Security Council demanded a ceasefire and produced a UNSC recommended peace treaty key principles A/RES/24248.

Noting non-commmital language - “…AFFIRMS that SHOULD include…”

A key point here - not accepted by the PLO until 1993 Oslo Accords - is the introduction of the concept of a Two-State solution.

Conversely - in addition to Right of Return for 1948 Nakba displaced peoples, a withdrawal to pre-1967 borders is a principal required of Israel which they have not accepted. Superceded by Oslo Accords which accepted the 1967 borders (e.g. NOT a condition of this Resolution).

Key clauses

“Land for Peace” - Israel withdraw completely from territories taken in the War - withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries in exchange for peace with its neighbours; Israel has not done this. (This is a condition of the Arab League Peace Initiative 2002, reaffirmed 2002, 2008, 2017 - though 1993-1995 Oslo Accords accepted 1967 Borders, since rescinded 2018)
Palestinian Authority withdraws its claim over the whole of the geographical region “Mandatory Palestine” - this did not happen until 1993-1995 Oslo Accords when finally the PLO agreed to do this, but rescinded in 2018
“Just Peace” for refugees - from the 1948 Nakba. - Obfuscated wording from the clear previous right of return; cannot replace Resolution 194 from 1949 ( This is a condition of the Arab League Peace Initiative 2002, reaffirmed 2002, 2008, 2017).

Still occupied to this day:

Golan Heights
West Bank (including East Jerusalem)
Gaza Strip (still under international law occupied since Israel controls the borders and controls flow/in out of goods and supplies - though Israeli troops and settlers withdrew in 2005)

Returned 15 years later in 1982:

Sinai Peninsula (only returned to Egypt in 1982 following a peace treaty in 1979)

Source: Palestine Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) - “**THE NEAR EAST AFTER THE JUNE 1967 WAR”** here

🇺🇳 UN Resolutions on the right of Palestinian people to: resist by all means necessary, right to self-determination and right to return

🇺🇳 Rights of occupied people to resist / self defence - UN Security Council Resolution 43 (1982), 17 (1983), 2625 (1970) and 2649 (1970)

Palestine needs to be defined as “occupied” which is clearly the case - with lands referred to as “The Occupied Territories”

UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (1982): Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination by all available means, including armed struggle, specifically referring to the rights of Palestinians.
UN General Assembly Resolution 38/17 (1983): Reaffirms the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and supports the struggle of peoples for their independence from colonial and foreign occupation, which includes the Palestinian struggle.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970): Reaffirms the obligation of States to refrain from forcible action depriving self-determination.

UN General Assembly 25th Session 24 Oct 1970: Declaration of Principles of National Law A/RES/2625 (XXV) here

Regain rights by all means available (within Charter UN)

UN General Assembly Resolution 2649 (197049): Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.

UN GA 25th Session 30 Nov 1970 - A/RES/2649(XXV) - here

🇺🇳 Right to Return (Repatriation) - UN Security Council Resolution 194 (1948) and 3236 (1974) and 153 (2001) v. Israeli Law of Return 5010 (1950) and Nationality Law 5712 (1952)

Palestinians displaced by the 1948 Nakba have always had a right to return to their original homes - as an original condition immediately following the Nakba and reiterated since. Israel has failed to honour the resolution, despite agreeing to all UN Charter & Resolution conditions on joining the UN after Resolution 194 in 1949.

The below lists out chronologically some of the Resolutions with sections as appropriate.

Right of Return (Repatriation)

UN Mediator for Palestine Report Sep 194850 - Count Folke Bernadotte. He proposed a return to the original 1947 borders for Israel (not the expansion from the 1948 Nakba) and was assassinated by Jewish Militants. Israel in counter-response refuses to accept to concept of right of return. Regardless this was adopted in a later UN Resolution 194 (below) which Israel agreed to honour along with the UN Charter on joining the UN in 1949.
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (194851 in the aftermath of the Nakba) - Reaffirms the right to return to their homes of the Palestinian people. Compliance with this Resolution was a condition of Israel’s entry to the UN on 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273 (III) 52. They have not complied.

UN GA 11 Dec 1948- A/RES/194(III) - here.

Note there are many (invalid) arguments made by Israel that Resolution 194 is somehow legally invalid (see 2001 BADIL legal review Conclusion). Arguments that have been refuted are:

❌ Resolution 194 is not binding because the word “should” is used instead of a stronger term, for example the word “shall.”
❌ Israel is not expressly mentioned by name in Resolution 194 and therefore that the call to repatriate the Palestinian refugees is somehow not necessarily binding upon Israel.
❌ Resolution 194 describes the returning refugees as being those who “wish[] to ... live at peace with their neighbors,” and that this somehow implies that Israel has the right to “screen out” returning refugees according to its own internally defined criteria.
❌ Resolution 194 has somehow been superceded, amended or annulled by Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for “a just settlement of the refugee problem” without specifying exactly what would constitute a just settlement.

All incorrect and refuted see BADIL review document.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (197453): Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property.

UN GA 25th Session 29 Dec 1974 - A/RES/3236(XXIX) - here.

2001 BADIL legal review found that the right of return DID indeed exist54.

🇮🇱🚫 Right of Return - Applied to Jews only by Israel (1952) illegal (BADIL report above)

1952 Israel Nationality (Citizenship Law) 571255 - establishes Israeli nationality may be acquired only by “return” - immigration of JEWS and family members under the law of return (1950 - 571056).

1950 Israeli Law of Return 5710 here and 1952 Israeli Citizenship law 5712 here

UN 2001 Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States (A/RES/55/15357) adopted 55th session. This specifically refers to the rights of existing citizens of a state when a succeeding power takes over. Israel has specifically violated two Articles of this Charter by:
- Article 15 - prohibiting Governments practicing discrimination in the conferral of Nationality; Israel has violated this by Israel’s 1952 Nationality Law allowing Jews ONLY the right of return to Israel to become Citizens, whilst treating Palestinian-Israelis with different rights.
- Article 16 - failing to allow Palestinians refugees to re-enter Israel, denying them basic opportunity to be heard in a court of law to challenge legality - particularly under international law - of Israel’s 1952 Nationality Law.
2001 UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/55/153 - “Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States here

☮️⛑️ NGO FINDINGS

⛑️ Amnesty International: Report into 2008 Israeli “Operation Cast Lead” on Gaza

This report by Amnesty International below - relevant specifically to the “accidental” murder of the 3 Israeli hostages by the IDF in the 2023 conflict - despite them being stripped to the waist, shouting in Hebrew and holding a white flag.

The historical precedence is shocking. During 2008 Operation Cast Lead on Gaza, Palestinian civilians were shot at close range, covered in detail in an Amnesty International Report on the conflict58.

Specifically:

On 13 January 2009 a 47-year-old woman, Rawhiya al-Najjar, was shot in the head as she walked ahead of a group of women carrying a white flag near her home in the village of Khuza’a, near Khan Yunis, in the south of Gaza. Her 14-year-old daughter Heba, who was next to her when she was shot, told Amnesty International

The report goes on to talk about everything we are seeing today - indiscriminate attacks, use of white phosphorus, airstrikes targeting people, ‘civilian shields’, ineffective warnings and well worth reading as we see the horror repeat showing absolute precedence.

Furthermore - an article written by Tel Aviv law school Professor Asa Kasher (author of various IDF ethics publications) in the Jerusalem Post 2010 argued in defence of the IDF59.

As specified in a document called “The Spirit of the IDF,” the values of the Israel Defense Forces, much like the values of the American and British forces, are impeccable. For example, there is the basic value of protecting the human dignity of every human being, even the most vile terrorist. How do we protect the human dignity of a terrorist? By considering whether to kill him or capture him or leave him alone.
An additional, uniquely Israeli value is that of the sanctity of human life, both of our troops, our citizens, and other human beings. It appears in an explicit form in no other military code of ethics.

This report could be written word for word post the current crisis…

🌎⚖️🧑‍⚖️ 2010-2012 Russell Tribunal on Palestine

Between 2010 and 2012 a global Civil Society Tribunal on Palestine took place on four continents, with many eminent legal scholars, activists and expert witnesses, culminating in a 2012 presentation to the UN General Assembly by Roger Waters.

The Tribunal was modelled on and named after the “Russell Tribunal”, the original on Vietnam by Bertrand Russell in 1966.

The Tribunal considered a number of areas:

🇪🇸 Barcelona March 2010 - the EU’s failure to meet its responsibilities
🇬🇧 London November 2010 - corporate complicity
🇿🇦 Cape Town November 2011 - applicability to Israel of the Crime of Apartheid (noting South Africa as at 2024 taking Israel to the ICJ for Genocide and submitting strong Apartheid evidence to the ICJ in the separate Occupation Illegality case)
🇺🇸 New York October 2012 - the role of the UN and the United States (with presentation to the United Nations)

An Address was given to the General Assembly and a comprehensive report produced detailing precisely the violations and complicity making charges and recommendations against the UN, Private Companies, State Governments and Israel itself either in committing or aiding violations of international law.

The Tribunal served to formalise the Court of Public Opinion and brought the realities of Israel’s violations closer to the People rather than some far off forum in New York or Court in Brussels.

Note there is a separate article outlining the Tribunal as below.

See here for a report on proceedings with accompanying video excerpts from the final address to the UN:

May this Tribunal prevent the crime of silence

Mar 31

May this Tribunal prevent the crime of silence

⛑️ Amnesty International: Report into 2018 Indiscriminate Firing into peaceful “March of Return” Gaza Protestors

In 2018 during a peaceful series of protests demanding Israel lift its 11 year blockade of Gaza and allow several thousand Palestinians to return to their villages in Israel the Israeli Military fired indiscriminately on protestors60.

The protestors were within Gaza territory and between 150 and 400m away from the fence as per Israeli instructions when fired on by the IDF.

On the day the US Embassy moved to Jerusalem honouring Trump’s electoral promise to the Israeli Government, also the Eve of the 70th Anniversary of the 1948 Nakba (insensitive timing in itself) 59 Gazans were shot dead, well away from the fence.

In the end over 150 Palestinians were killed and 1500 injured during the Israeli aggression.

See short video six months past the March of Return on Amnesty’s website below:

🇮🇱🕊️⛑️12 Jan 2021 B’Tselem (Israeli Human Rights NGO) - Explanation of why Israel meets Apartheid Threshold - including racist 2018 Israeli Jewish Nation State Law

B’Tselem is a well established Israeli Human Rights organisation based in Jerusalem. Their central tenet is that Israel is an apartheid state61.

The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) an apartheid regime. One organizing principle lies at the base of a wide array of Israeli policies: advancing and perpetuating the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians.
B’Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it).
B’Tselem reached the conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its control over Palestinians.

B’Tselem goes on to note the geographical, demographical and political tools used to ensure Jewish rights are superior to those of Palestinians:

This has been further cemented in 2018 with the introduction of the Jewish Nation State Basic Law62. The law enshrines Jewish supremacy over Palestinian Citizens and requires racist acts as a constitutional value.

There is no democratic constitution in the world that designates the constitutional identity of the state on racial grounds, as serving one ethnic group.

The law guarantees the ethnic-religious character of Israel as exclusively Jewish and entrenches the privileges enjoyed by Jewish citizens, while simultaneously anchoring discrimination against Palestinian citizens and legitimizing exclusion, racism, and systemic inequality.

Source: Adalah summary “The Basic Law: Israel – The Nation-State of the Jewish People“ - Nov 2018 here

This is a further blatant breach of UN Resolution 153 in 2001 (A/RES/55/153) “Nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States” - the rights of existing citizens of a state when a succeeding power takes over. Israel already violated Articles 15 and 16 of the Resolution this by their 1952 Nationality Law allowing Jews ONLY the right of return to Israel to become Citizens.

The 2018 Law are further specific violations of the Resolution - enforcing Apartheid and also of course violating basic Human Rights.

The Law actually puts the legality of Settlement Building as a national value - despite then UNSC Finding this illegal two years earlier in 2016 with UNSC Resolution 2334.

⛑️ Amnesty International: 2022 Report “Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity”

1 Feb 2022 - Amnesty International Report: Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians63.

A simple video summary is here:

The Full Report can be downloaded here: 🔗👉⬇️ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/5141/2022/en/

Antisemitism Accusations & Israeli NGO Response & Defense of Amnesty

The Israeli Government reacted angrily to this report and tried to rubbish Amnesty International with allegations of antisemitism64.

On 3 Feb 2022 - 10 Israeli NGOs got together to write an open letter to the Israeli Government65 expressing their concern at the accusations noting:

they verified with similar findings over a long period with empirical research data and evidence
disagreed the report was “baseless”, “singles out Israel” or worse - displays antisemitism

They then summarised very eloquently the heinous weaponisation of antisemitism in the face of criticism:

Many of the most pre-eminent scholars of Jewish life, history and persecution have warned that the struggle against antisemitism in the world is being weakened by the unbearable, inaccurate and instrumentalized use to which the antisemitism accusation is lodged for political ends, in order to avoid debate about Israel’s oppressive policies towards the Palestinians.
Attempts to distract from Israeli violations and to avoid substantive debate by hurling spurious accusations is the standard and ongoing practice of successive Israeli governments and their echo chambers overseas. We are especially concerned about this approach in an international climate, in which antisemitism and racism are on the rise and human rights defenders are under assault.

This was written in 2022 - and in the current 2023 crisis we are again seeing this same pattern of accusation for political ends.

The key quote:

“Leveling accusations of antisemitism against anyone who criticizes the Israeli regime – including against human rights organizations – is a manipulative assertion, that undermines the crucial global struggle against antisemitism and offends the memory of its victims throughout history”

📚 Related Articles

Substack:

International Law Definitions (Branches of international law, conventions, treaties & resolutions) - with a view to understanding what Israel has breached:

International Law Definitions

Jan 5

International Organisations Glossary (UN, Courts, NGO and their Operation)

International Organisations Glossary

Jan 5

ICC: Seeking Arrest warrants 20 May 2024:

The conscience of the world: circumventing the P5

May 20

ICJ Case against Israel Jan 2023:

Case 192 - International Law on Trial

Jan 12

2010-2012 Russell Tribunal on Palestine - the People’s Court:

May this Tribunal prevent the crime of silence

Mar 31

Pro-Israeli Lobby in the US - Hollywood, Academia, Congress & The UN

🇵🇸🗣️🚫🇮🇱 Iron Grip: Pro-Israeli Influence in the US

Jan 10

Lobbying in the US/Australia:

The Language of Lobbying - US/Australia

Jan 10

Sanctions on Israel: What SHOULD be happening due to the breaches of international law:

🇮🇱🚫 Sanctions on Israel

Jan 5