Is It Too Late to Make It Official?

ICJ ruling on Israel’s occupation comes after a point where 39,000 Palestinian’s have been confirmed dead since October 7th.

Jul 22, 2024

This type of tragedy begins from within the pages of a 1937 edition of ‘Die Transvaler’ or The New Nationalist Daily, a South African political newspaper commissioned by none other than EIC Hendrik Verwoerd, having been a print notorious for its racism, antisemitism and opposition to South Africa’s entry into the second world war. The newspaper would promote the cause of Afrikaner nationalism within the ANP (Afrikaner-dominated National Party), aiding their win of the election in 1948, where Verwoerd would be appointed as a senator. From this high seat he would take his place as being a figure primarily responsible for much of the apartheid legislation. The term, meaning "apartness" in Afrikaans, refers to a system of racial segregation and discrimination that was formally practiced between 1948 in South Africa until 1994. Subsequently, it has become a term used in international law to describe other regimes of it’s kind, those that institutionalise systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over others.

· According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the crime of apartheid involves inhumane acts committed with the intention of maintaining such a regime.

19 years after the inception of the regime in South Africa, would come the beginning of another apartheid thousands of kilometres away, and despite what became almost a century of terror, this apartheid wouldn’t become recognised as such until 2024, long after thousands had been buried beneath bombshells. Ironically, one of the first people to use the word apartheid in relation to Israel was its first prime minister, David Ben Gurion. Following the 1967 June war, he warned of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territory, which we know many years later that it has done.

19.07.24…

Marked the date that the ICJ would issue its advisory opinion stating that Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, including the settlements in the West Bank, is not only illegal but must be ended. The ruling, which echoes the longstanding claims of Palestinian advocates, also calls for reparations for Palestinians affected by the occupation since 1967. The court characterized Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a form of segregation and apartheid and declared that nations providing aid to support the occupation are in violation of international law. The ICJ also affirmed the Palestinians' right to self-determination and independence. Make no mistake, this signifies a huge win for Palestinian advocates. Prior to now, news outlets everywhere have been afraid to say the obvious truth allowed, and words like ‘genocide’ or ‘apartheid’ have been deemed far too inflammatory for modern day ‘journalism’. Their reliance on the lack of assurance from a powerful international entity allowed for many (both writer & reader) to stay silent under the guise of ‘truth-telling’, where a lack of confirmation for what we’ve all known created room for cowardice more than anything else.

So it’s true the ICJ’s ruling carries significant moral and legal weight and can influence countries' decisions and foreign policies. Jessica Peake, a professor of international law, noted that the ruling could shift the international community's approach to Palestinian statehood and that it exceeded expectations, particularly in addressing systemic abuses by the Israeli government.

But still, with almost 40,000 confirmed deaths having occurred at the hands of the IDF, this decision comes with so many of us wondering ‘why something hadn’t been said before’ alongside the air of gratitude. For those of you that aren’t aware, the ICJ’s advisory are not legally binding and some advocates for Palestinians in the occupied territories expressed less enthusiasm, arguing that the ruling does not immediately change the reality on the ground. Eitay Mack, an Israeli attorney and advocate for Palestinians, emphasized that the situation in the West Bank remains unchanged and that only political will from governments can force a solution. We’re thankful that the ICJ's ruling confirms the illegality of Israel's occupation, but ultimately its impact will depend on the willingness of states to act on the court's recommendations.

Just about the last ones to say ‘apartheid’.

For generations passed, the lack of a shared 'Israeli' nationality and the division of citizens into 'Jewish' and 'Arab' categories with differing rights and privileges contributed to the accuracy of an apartheid narrative. Polices such like the 2018 Nation State Law further entrenched this division by codifying discrimination and creating two classes of citizens in law. Additionally, Israel's actions, such as the forcible transfer of Palestinians, denial of the right of return for refugees, severe deprivation of human rights, restrictions on freedom of movement, and acts of violence, are cited as violations consistent with the UN Apartheid Convention, and these practices haven’t gone unnoticed by those with an authority on politics and international law for years before this latest ruling.

“On the basis of the systemic and institutionalized nature of the racial domination that exists, there are indeed strong grounds to conclude that a system of apartheid has developed in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli practices in the occupied territory are not only reminiscent of – and, in some cases, worse than – apartheid as it existed in South Africa, but are in breach of the legal prohibition of apartheid.” John Dugard 2013
In 2020, over 450 civil society groups across the world, including War on Want, launched a campaign calling on the UN to investigate “Israel’s apartheid regime over the Palestinian people as a whole” and to take “urgent and effective action” to end Israeli apartheid.
In 2009, a study titled 'Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?' was published by an international team of legal scholars under the Human Sciences Research Council in Cape Town, South Africa. The study concluded that Israel has imposed a state of apartheid on the Palestinian people, engaging in practices and policies identified in the 1973 UN Apartheid Convention. These acts were found to constitute an institutionalized and oppressive system of Israeli domination over Palestinians, akin to apartheid. The study noted that Israel has implemented the key pillars of apartheid seen in South Africa: racial categorization, segregation based on this categorization, and a legal system that subjects Palestinians to extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

- Source : ‘War to Want’ : ‘Israeli Apartheid Factheet’.

And yet…

The ICJ when given the chance to state that Israel’s action constituted a genocide back in January, their ruling merely stated that South Africa had a right to bring its case and that Palestinians had "plausible rights to protection from genocide," which were at risk of irreparable damage. The court of course did not determine whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts complained of by South Africa, if proven, could fall under the United Nations' Convention on Genocide. The ICJ's president, Joan Donoghue, clarified that the court did not find the claim of genocide to be plausible but emphasized the risk of harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. The full case, which could take years to prepare and argue, would require clear evidence from South Africa and a defense from Israel.

So far the main criticisms of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict revolve around issues of impartiality, judicial bias, jurisdictional limitations, and enforcement challenges. Many of us have concerns about the ICJ's composition, with judges representing different regions leading to biases influenced by political, economic, and cultural factors, potentially affecting the impartiality of its decisions. The selection process for the President and Vice President of the ICJ was covered by the same air of partiality, which could of easily impacted the court's leadership and decision-making.

Most importantly though, is the fact that the ICJ's jurisdiction is limited to disputes between states that have consented to its authority, either through special agreements or treaties poses a problem. As many have now realised, this consent-based system allows states to opt out of compulsory jurisdiction, weakening the court's ability to address a wide range of international legal matters. Non-state entities, such as individuals and corporations, are excluded from seeking legal redress, which limits the ICJ's capacity to handle contemporary challenges like human rights violations and cybercrime.

With that in mind is the opportunity to sit more comfortably in the truth, that the ‘news’ that Israel has been operating an apartheid regime is not ‘breaking’ for the majority of us. What is more surprising and stands as the real news story here is word that an international authority dared to “make it official,” at all.

Asisa

Is It Too Late to Make It Official?

ICJ ruling on Israel’s occupation comes after a point where 39,000 Palestinian’s have been confirmed dead since October 7th.

19.07.24…

Just about the last ones to say ‘apartheid’.

- Source : ‘War to Want’ : ‘Israeli Apartheid Factheet’.

Discussion about this post