From the River to the Sea: Ibaitik Itsasora (66)

Ibaitik Itsasora

******

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1887980771178070396

******

******

The Hague hears another case against Israel, in what could be a test of Israeli defiance of international law. More than 40 nations argue that the ban on the UN Palestinian rights agency is a breach of the UN charter. But Israel has shown in the past that it has no issue ignoring international law. So, will any decision made in Europe have an impact on the millions of Palestinians in Gaza struggling to find food under an Israeli blockade that’s now lasted nearly two months?

Presenter: Folly Bah Thibault

Guests:

Sam Rose – Senior Acting Director of UNRWA Affairs in Gaza.

Michael Lynk – Human Rights lawyer and Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law at Western University in London, Ontario.

Gideon Levy – Columnist at Haaretz Newspaper.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

the Palestinian people are being

0:03

starved bombed and forcibly displaced by

0:07

Israel they’re unlawful occupier

0:10

the International Court of Justice here

0:12

is another case against Israel in what

0:15

could be a test of Israeli defiance of

0:18

international law more than 40 nations

0:20

argue its ban on the UN agency for

0:22

Palestinian refugees is a breach of the

0:25

UN charter so can the World Court hold

0:28

Israel to account this is inside

0:32

[Music]

0:43

[Music]

0:46

story hello and welcome to the program

0:49

i’m Fib Batibbo on the first of five

0:51

days of hearings at the International

0:53

Court of Justice in the HG Palestinian

0:55

officials have told judges that Israel

0:57

is using humanitarian aid as a weapon of

1:00

war more than 40 countries are arguing

1:02

that Israel’s November decision to stop

1:05

all coordination with the UN agency for

1:07

Palestinian Refugees or UNRA is a breach

1:10

of the UN founding charter but however

1:13

the court rules the result will be an

1:16

advisory opinion that means it’s a

1:18

suggestion non-binding and Israel has

1:21

shown in the past it has no issue

1:23

ignoring international law so can the

1:25

ICJ make a difference this time and will

1:28

any decision made in Europe have an

1:31

impact on the millions of Palestinians

1:33

in Gaza struggling to find food under an

1:35

Israeli blockade that’s now lasted

1:37

nearly two months we’ll get to our

1:39

guests in just a moment first this

1:41

report from Laura Khan

1:45

children among the huge crowds pushed to

1:48

fill their empty plates knowing that

1:50

food is running out in

1:53

Gaza this desperate situation has been

1:56

made worse by Israel’s heavy bombardment

1:58

and more than 2 months of its total

2:00

blockade on food medicine and fuel to

2:03

the strip the coming days in Gaza are

2:05

going to be critical uh today people are

2:08

not surviving in Gaza those that aren’t

2:11

being killed with bombs and bullets are

2:14

being are slowly dying

2:17

everyone is suffering from malnutrition

2:19

especially the children what are the

2:21

children eating they spend all day

2:23

standing in the line at the food kitchen

2:25

to get rice or beans and sometimes there

2:28

is none in stark contrast to the streets

2:31

are these empty distribution centers

2:33

belonging to UNRA the UN agency for

2:35

Palestinian refugees not only is it

2:38

facing severe shortages but also

2:40

Israel’s total ban on its operations

2:43

across the Palestinian territories far

2:46

beyond the blockaded fences of

2:49

Gaza israel is facing legal pressure at

2:52

the International Court of Justice at

2:54

the Hague monday’s hearing goes beyond

2:56

Israel’s blockade of aid and examines

2:59

whether Israel’s ban on UNRA violated

3:01

the UN’s founding charter the court can

3:05

only offer an advisory opinion but can

3:07

carry political weight israel has long

3:10

advocated for the dismantling of the UN

3:13

agency it accuses some of its members of

3:15

involvement in the October 7th attacks

3:18

of its 14,000 members working in Gaza

3:21

UNRA found nine people may have been

3:24

involved and no longer work with them

3:27

now the agency has been forced to shut

3:29

down schools clinics community centers

3:32

and Israel has revoked visas for

3:34

international staff

3:36

66 back in the ICJ Palestinian

3:39

representatives were the first to speak

3:41

in the hearing this campaign of erasure

3:44

was a central hallmark of the Nakba that

3:47

started in

3:48

1947 and whose darkest chapter yet

3:52

unfolding before our eyes and yours

3:57

on three separate occasions in the past

3:59

years the court issued provisional

4:01

measures ordering Israel among other

4:05

things to ensure and facilitate the

4:07

unimpeded flow of humanitarian

4:09

assistance into

4:11

Gaza israel did not comply weaponizing

4:15

food and humanitarian aid and negating

4:18

refugee issue and and their rights

4:22

including by banning onora are

4:24

prohibiting now the focus will be on the

4:26

ICJ and UN states decisions as to

4:29

whether they will defend the UN body or

4:32

whether the hearing will result in

4:34

further Israeli defiance of

4:36

international law laura Insight story

4:40

Alazer now let’s take a closer look at

4:43

UNRA the United Nations Relief and Works

4:46

Agency was created in 1949 to provide

4:49

assistance to Palestinian refugees there

4:51

were 750,000 back then now 5.9 million

4:56

Palestinians are eligible for UNRA

4:58

support the UN agency runs schools

5:01

healthc care facilities and also women’s

5:03

centers and micro financing unra doesn’t

5:06

just operate in the occupied territories

5:08

it’s also in Lebanon Syria and Jordan

5:11

but it’s in Gaza where the small strip

5:14

has been bombed besieged and starved

5:16

that the AY’s operations are most needed

5:18

and most in danger of complete collapse

5:27

well let’s bring in our guests now in

5:29

Oxford in the UK Sam Rose who’s the

5:31

senior acting director of UNRA affairs

5:33

in Gaza in the Canadian city of London

5:37

Michael Link who’s a human rights lawyer

5:39

and professor emeritus f at the faculty

5:41

of law at Western University and in Tel

5:44

Aviv Gideon Levy who’s a columnist with

5:47

the Israeli newspaper Harets gentlemen

5:49

welcome to you all thank you so much for

5:51

being with us on Inside Story sam Rose

5:53

if I can start with you um the UN

5:55

General Assembly first asked the ICJ to

5:58

weigh on Israel’s legal obligations a

6:01

year ago uh since then we’ve had tens of

6:04

thousands of Palestinians killed and for

6:06

the past two months there’s been a total

6:09

blockade of Gaza what are you hoping

6:12

this new case is going to achieve what

6:16

value do proceedings like this one uh

6:19

have in the immediate

6:22

thank you and thanks for for having me

6:24

on look firstly we we hope that that we

6:27

we welcome the case it’s very timely but

6:31

it’s also increasingly and incredibly

6:34

urgent we have been talking to the media

6:39

advocating with member states every day

6:41

several times a day for 18 months now

6:45

about the plight of the civilian

6:47

population in Gaza whose misery uh the

6:51

inhumity and the cruelty and humiliation

6:53

that they face is just deteriorating on

6:56

a daily basis right now things are

7:00

quickly going from very bad to to to

7:04

worse the colleagues that we speak to on

7:05

the ground the refugee communities that

7:07

we speak to on the ground they have they

7:09

have nothing this is beyond any level of

7:13

suffering that we’ve seen in this most

7:15

dehumanizing of of conflicts uh and

7:18

conflicts in Gaza and Israeli

7:21

Palestinian conflicts over the past 75

7:24

years so now is the time for the lawyers

7:27

to deliberate but more than that now is

7:28

the time for for action because we are

7:31

running out of time to meet these needs

7:33

of the population in Gaza which has

7:35

immediate implications for them but

7:37

longerterm implications for everyone in

7:39

the region sam let me ask you what uh

7:42

has the ban meant for UNRA the ban by

7:44

the Israeli Nesset which uh came into

7:46

effect in January last year what have

7:49

been the real life consequences of that

7:51

ban for the people who work for UNRA but

7:54

also for the people who uh depend on on

7:58

UNRA

8:01

yeah I mean the ban had two elements to

8:03

it one was banning UNRA’s activities on

8:06

the sovereign territory of of Israel the

8:09

other element to it was prohibiting

8:11

contact between uh UNRA and Israeli

8:15

officials uh now I work for UNRA and I

8:19

represent UNRA in in inside of Gaza so

8:21

in theory of course the laws do not

8:23

impinge on our activities inside of Gaza

8:27

the the reality is is though that we

8:29

have to coordinate and we have to

8:31

communicate with the Israeli authorities

8:33

on a daily basis to do our our work to

8:36

bring the supplies into Gaza we’re going

8:38

through Israeli controlled borders and

8:40

for our international staff to move in

8:42

and out that has to be done in liaison

8:44

with the Israeli authorities who control

8:46

all the borders right now so I am

8:48

speaking to you from Oxford because I as

8:51

the director of UNRA in Gaza i’m not

8:53

able to enter the Gaza Strip right now

8:55

we still as as you said at the top have

8:57

15,000 colleagues working on on a daily

9:00

basis but it impacts the ability of

9:02

international staff to enter it impacts

9:04

our ability to bring supplies in as well

9:07

that also have to go through through

9:09

Israeli controlled borders and of course

9:11

we can turn to the situation in in the

9:13

West Bank in a bit but the impact on our

9:16

services in East Jerusalem for children

9:19

for patients etc all right Gideon let me

9:21

bring you into the conversation we we’ve

9:23

have yet to hear Israel’s defense in

9:25

this case because it’s absent from the

9:27

proceedings at the Hague but we do

9:29

already have an idea of what it’s saying

9:32

to try and justify uh terminating the

9:34

agreement with UNRA and banning the AY’s

9:37

activities how is this new case first of

9:39

all at the ICJ against Israel being

9:42

viewed in Israel and does Israel’s

9:44

refusal to cooperate with UNRA uh

9:47

represent a legitimate uh security

9:50

concern or is it a part of a broader

9:53

political strategy

9:55

first of all Israel is not concerned at

9:59

all about it because it’s even hardly

10:02

informal

10:04

the hearing in the Hi it took me some

10:06

time to find it in Israeli media out

10:10

israel

10:11

turned toward the world and this is just

10:15

one chain in this behavior in this

10:20

perception that the whole world is

10:22

anti-semitic and therefore we turn our

10:25

back to the world we don’t participate

10:28

in the Pope’s funeral because he

10:31

criticized Israel we are expelling an

10:36

UNRA senior worker who lived here for 17

10:40

years married to an Israeli has three

10:44

Israeli children she came to Israel for

10:46

a short visit and they expelled her from

10:49

the airport israel is doing anything

10:52

possible to turn into a par state even

10:55

by its own policy not only by the

10:58

attitude of the world and this hearing

11:00

now will have no effect on Israelis

11:03

because for Israelis UNRA like the ICJ

11:08

like the UN like any other international

11:12

organization is anti-semitic and

11:15

therefore we can we can only ignore

11:18

their advices you know for so many times

11:21

I asked myself what does Israel want you

11:25

killed 50 55,000 people you destroyed

11:29

Gaza what do you want now why not to

11:33

give human aid to those displaced poor

11:37

people what is the logic yeah it’s an

11:40

important question you ask Gideon no

11:42

doubt michael Link let me come to you

11:44

and and to this ICJ case and these new

11:47

hearings there uh legally speaking

11:49

Michael how does international law weigh

11:53

a state’s right to sovereignty against

11:56

its responsibility to uphold human

11:58

rights and international humanitarian

12:00

law in other words does Israel today

12:03

have any legal basis for blocking UNRA

12:07

no i guess the short answer is and I

12:09

think that’s going to be heard all week

12:10

long by most of the states and

12:12

international organizations who are

12:15

going to be speaking to the court um

12:16

there are two legal issues uh both of

12:19

them related to each other that are

12:21

before the court first is uh what are

12:24

the u privileges and immunities of the

12:26

United Nations and it’s very clear in

12:29

the charter of the United Nations which

12:30

Israel is bound by and but by the 1946

12:34

convention on the privileges and

12:36

immunities of the United Nations that um

12:39

the facilities and buildings and work of

12:42

the United Nations in whatever territory

12:44

uh of a state that they’re in are to be

12:47

absolutely protected and that includes

12:50

obviously uh their presence in the occup

12:52

by territory the West Bank including

12:54

East Jerusalem and Gaza um so that’s one

12:57

of the issues in front of the court the

12:58

other is the one that you’ve uh you’ve

13:00

spoken to with with Sam is what are the

13:04

obligations of an occupying power under

13:06

the international humanitarian law and

13:09

particularly the 1949 Geneva Conventions

13:11

which is the beating heart of uh of IHL

13:15

and basically you know one of the one of

13:17

the absolute fundamental obligations any

13:20

state has particularly in a zone of

13:22

conflict or a zone of occupation you

13:25

cannot harm the civilians who are under

13:27

your control and particularly you cannot

13:30

starve them we thought that was

13:31

something that was all done with uh with

13:34

the end of the second world war the

13:36

creation of a modern body of

13:38

international law and here we are 80

13:40

years uh after the end of the second

13:43

world war and we see vast starvation

13:46

deliberately imposed

13:48

so what happens uh um Michael before I

13:52

come back to you Sam what happens if

13:54

it’s found that Israel is indeed in

13:56

violation of the UN charter what action

13:59

could could the United Nations take i

14:01

mean could the UN General Assembly

14:03

decide to expel Israel as one of its

14:05

members for example that certainly uh is

14:08

something that may be on the table let’s

14:09

keep in mind that Israel is in defiance

14:11

of more than 30 Security Council

14:13

resolutions over the last five decades

14:15

it’s ini in violation of scores of

14:18

resolutions coming from the general

14:20

assembly and the human rights council um

14:23

much less was needed back in 1974 for

14:26

the United Nations General Assembly not

14:28

to recognize the credentials of

14:30

apartheite South Africa and indeed kept

14:33

that state out of the organization for

14:35

the next 20 years if Israel defies this

14:38

again and proceeds with this man-made

14:40

famine um then I think you’re going to

14:42

start seeing action by some members of

14:45

the General Assembly to question whether

14:47

Israel should continue uh its status as

14:49

a member uh of the United Nations all

14:52

right uh Sam uh your thoughts about what

14:55

is likely to happen here and what you

14:57

are hoping this uh uh this new hearing

14:59

is going to achieve some countries like

15:01

the US uh have said that uh uh perhaps

15:05

if if aid is not delivered through UNRA

15:07

that other UN agencies uh could step in

15:10

uh what do you make of that and and

15:12

would that undermine uh UNRA’s mandate

15:16

if other UN agencies were to step in and

15:18

fill uh the void that that is being left

15:21

by UNRA

15:22

thanks i mean look we’re hoping for

15:24

immediate action given the urgency of of

15:27

the situation inside of Gaza we also

15:30

recognize how polarizing this situation

15:33

is as as as as Michael alluded to and

15:37

Gideon as as well uh but ENRA is the

15:41

provider of key basic services in Gaza

15:45

and has been for for 75 years as you

15:48

showed in your in your graphic educating

15:51

in Gaza alone hundreds upon hundreds

15:53

millions over a million children have

15:55

gone through through UNRE schools some

15:57

of the most literate people in in the

15:59

region in including girls everything’s

16:02

been reduced to a supply of aid and

16:05

boxes of aid and and food parcels

16:08

through a border which is both

16:10

incredibly dehumanizing but also uh

16:13

ignorant uh of what people need to to

16:16

live a dignified life and yes WFP could

16:19

quite easily bring the aid in to to Gaza

16:22

they need UNRA’s assistance to get it to

16:24

the people who need it as as quickly as

16:26

possible what we’re talking about here

16:28

are the the 16,000 people a day who go

16:30

to UNRA’s health clinics the 500,000

16:34

people a day who receive uh clean water

16:37

who receive garbage collection services

16:39

from UNRA these are systems that we’ve

16:41

put in place with the support of the

16:44

international community over decades and

16:46

it’s those that will not be easily

16:49

replaced and that’s the plight of the

16:52

civilian population of Gaza if UNRA’s

16:55

services are further constrained gideon

16:57

UNRA as uh Sam said there is the only UN

17:00

agency specifically dedicated to uh

17:03

Palestinian refugees and which

17:05

explicitly maintains the political

17:08

definition of Palestinian refugees so

17:10

are Israel’s attacks on on UNRA also

17:13

part of a broader campaign perhaps to to

17:16

erase not just the Palestinian suffering

17:18

but also uh Palestinian uh identity and

17:22

Palestinian rights altogether that right

17:24

to return uh that is part of Unoir’s

17:27

mandate no doubt that this step is just

17:31

as I said before one chain and it has a

17:34

much broader context namely and above

17:38

all to tyrannize the life of the

17:40

Palestinian and to make them leave

17:43

that’s the wet dream of of Israel that’s

17:46

the way dream of the right-wingers in

17:48

Israel and anything is permitted in this

17:53

anything is legitimate to reach this

17:56

goal i I don’t see any alternative to

17:59

UNRA and you know what let’s say that

18:02

Israel has its own thoughts about UNRA

18:05

and they think that UNRA is destructive

18:08

in the middle of the war after

18:11

destroying Gaza that’s the time to close

18:14

UNRA this shows the real intentions and

18:17

the real intentions is to starve Gaza to

18:20

death not less than this how how

18:23

domestic political dynamics Gideon uh

18:25

within Israel shape its approach to to

18:28

international rulings and and to these

18:30

humanitarian criticism that it’s facing

18:32

right now

18:35

as the late Kissinger Henry Kissinger

18:37

once said “Israel does not have foreign

18:39

policy it has only domestic politics.”

18:42

And it’s being quoted in the recent

18:45

months again and again many of Israel’s

18:49

steps in Gaza have their sources and

18:53

their rationalization in domestic

18:55

politics and this is this makes it just

18:58

much more outrageous because there is no

19:02

strategic goal right now in continuing

19:04

the war it’s all about satisfying the

19:07

right-wingers in all and the fascists in

19:10

order to keep the government in power

19:13

because otherwise it falls apart but we

19:16

have to remember that it didn’t start

19:19

now it is part of the thought of

19:23

Israel and be it right or wrong you’ll

19:27

ask any Israeli he will tell you the

19:29

whole world is against us no matter what

19:31

we do the world is against us and if he

19:34

is against us it’s his blame not our

19:36

blame and therefore we can do whatever

19:38

we want not to speak about the fact that

19:41

we are the chosen people and nobody is

19:43

going to tell us what to do that’s the

19:45

mindset all right thank you for

19:47

explaining that to us so clearly Michael

19:49

so then given that the ICJ is an

19:52

advisory body and that Israel as we’re

19:54

hearing from Gideon there is unlikely to

19:56

comply with with any ruling what do you

19:59

think are some of the mechanisms or

20:01

international pressure even that could

20:04

be helpful here to to pressure to

20:06

enforce any ICJ guidance that will come

20:10

about as a result of of this latest

20:11

hearing

20:13

well you’re absolutely right i mean the

20:14

ICJ can issue advisory opinions as

20:17

you’ve said these are non-binding but

20:20

they are a very authoritative statement

20:22

on international law by the most

20:24

respected international court that we

20:26

that we have um and the the ability of

20:30

ICJ uh advisory opinions or rulings

20:33

depends upon the political will of the

20:36

security council to fulfill them and

20:38

that’s not going to happen as long as

20:40

the Americans have a veto so I then I

20:42

think we shift our attention to the

20:44

other international court that’s in the

20:46

HEG the international criminal court

20:48

where which actually does have teeth 125

20:51

states in the world are members of the

20:54

uh of the international criminal court

20:56

when arrest warrants are issued all 125

21:00

states are obliged under the Rome

21:03

Statute of the International Criminal

21:04

Court to arrest those but as we saw I

21:08

mean the ICC issued arrest warrants

21:10

against uh the Israeli prime minister

21:12

Netanyahu and the former defense

21:13

minister but that hasn’t led to anything

21:17

no and you’re right with the the one

21:19

trip that um Benjamin Netanyahu has made

21:22

to an ICC member has been to Hungary um

21:25

and not ironically enough Hungary is one

21:28

of the two states along with the United

21:30

States that is appearing before the

21:32

International Court of Justice this week

21:33

on this advisory opinion request likely

21:36

to argue in in protection and in favor

21:39

of um uh of Israel but don’t

21:42

underestimate the uh the scope of the of

21:45

the ICC’s power uh with respect to this

21:48

most just to clarify just to clarify

21:50

Michael could the the IC ICJ’s findings

21:54

contribute to further action at the

21:57

International Criminal Court and other

21:58

courts

22:00

yes of course i mean what the ICJ does

22:03

is paid attention to by the ICC and vice

22:05

versa if and when the ICJ decides on the

22:10

separate advisor advisory matter with

22:13

respect to the application by South

22:15

Africa under the genocide convention

22:17

that is going to be paid by close

22:19

attention to by the ICC with respect to

22:22

the prosecutor’s decision to perhaps

22:24

expand the number of arrest warrants and

22:26

perhaps to expand the number of grounds

22:28

for which uh these Israeli officials

22:31

will be charged with all right Sam let

22:33

me come to you now and you know ask you

22:35

about what next i mean the legal

22:38

ramifications of this case are profound

22:40

but there’s also a real human cost here

22:43

um how do we ensure that the people on

22:45

the ground in Gaza in the occupied West

22:48

Bank are not forgotten in these legal

22:51

debates especially when international

22:54

aid and resources as we’ve been seeing

22:56

for the past two months are being

22:58

blocked by Israel

23:01

i mean it’s a very good question i mean

23:03

this is a conflict that has received

23:05

unparalleled levels of of attention the

23:07

the the pictures the images that we’ll

23:10

never forget said into our minds in

23:11

terms of what’s happening to the people

23:14

we are committed as ENRA and the rest of

23:15

the humanitarian community inside Gaza

23:18

inside the West Bank to continue pushing

23:22

those messages out to make sure that the

23:25

needs the suffering the rights of the

23:28

population aren’t forgotten the civilian

23:30

population and that there is

23:32

accountability for wrongdoing on on on

23:34

on all sides but look this will only be

23:37

addressed through political will if

23:39

there’s political will to open the

23:42

borders now to ensure an orderly and

23:44

respectful immediate release of of

23:46

hostages but to put this conflict on the

23:48

path to to to a solution so that

23:51

Palestinians can enjoy the same rights

23:53

and freedoms as their neighbors in in

23:55

Israel without that uh we’ll just repeat

23:58

this again and again every few years and

24:01

if this conflict and it’s shocking to

24:04

say after 18 months is not yet a wakeup

24:06

call to the world on this then I then I

24:08

I dread to think what what will be

24:11

Gideon Levy in Tel Aviv will that

24:13

political will that Sam talked about

24:16

there will it ever come in Israel

24:20

no it will not come in Israel but the

24:22

challenge the real challenge is for the

24:23

international community There’s a member

24:26

state of the UN which banned which is

24:29

banning a very important UN agency there

24:33

must be some kind of consequences to

24:35

this there is a member state of the UN

24:38

which violates the international law on

24:40

a daily basis there must be some

24:42

consequences to it and the challenge is

24:45

not Israel the churches of the

24:47

international community which is hugging

24:50

Israel again and again and preventing

24:53

any kind of

24:55

accountability and if this will continue

24:58

there will be no solution the solution

24:59

will not come from within Israel

25:01

israelis will not wake up one shining

25:03

morning and say “Oh what’s going on in

25:05

Gaza is not so nice let’s put an end to

25:07

it.” No it will only be when they will

25:10

be taken accountable and will also pay a

25:14

price for it by the international

25:16

community so the challenge is on the

25:19

shoulders of the international community

25:22

michael Link where do you think the

25:23

solution will come from and what will we

25:26

get at the end of this latest ICJ

25:28

hearing and could could also the states

25:31

that provide military support and

25:33

political support to Israel uh

25:35

ultimately be held complicit uh under

25:38

international law if the ICJ were to

25:40

determine that Israel’s blockade uh

25:43

constitutes a serious violation

25:46

yes look um well international law

25:49

doesn’t have its own judges and it

25:50

doesn’t have its own armies that depends

25:52

upon the political will of the UN uh and

25:55

its leading members in order to be able

25:57

to enforce there is a huge amount of

25:59

legitimacy attached to decisions by the

26:02

international court of justice and uh

26:04

the international criminal court so with

26:07

this number of decisions that Israel has

26:10

been defined from the security council

26:12

the general assembly the uh previous

26:15

advisory opinions coming from the

26:16

international court of justice and

26:18

obviously as well these arrest warrants

26:20

that have been issued by the

26:21

international criminal court israel’s

26:23

legitimacy as a fair-minded uh player in

26:27

the international system is taking yet

26:29

more hits uh with respect to this but it

26:32

only will we will only end the

26:35

occupation we’ll only have uh the

26:37

realization of the Palestinian right of

26:39

self-determination uh when the

26:41

international community becomes

26:42

mobilized enough to u finally impose a

26:45

cost upon Israel israel has had an

26:48

occupation now for 57 almost 58 years

26:51

with virtually no cost at all uh

26:53

politically or economically for this

26:56

only when Israelis wake up and realize

26:58

gee now I need a visa to go to Europe

27:01

gee the prices uh of our goods are now

27:04

becoming much more expensive because of

27:06

the increasing blockades or the

27:08

divestment coming from the international

27:10

community only then I think will you see

27:12

a significant change in Israeli public

27:15

opinion and perhaps then the path to

27:17

Palestinian self-determination

27:20

thank you very much gentlemen for a very

27:22

fascinating discussion sam Rose Gideon

27:24

Levy Michael Link thanks to all three of

27:26

you for joining us on Inside Story

27:30

and thank you too for watching you can

27:31

always watch this program again anytime

27:34

by visiting our website at aljazer.com

27:36

for further discussion go to our

27:37

Facebook page that’s

27:40

facebook.com/jainsidstory of course you

27:41

can join the conversation on X our

27:44

handle is at AJ inside story from me Fib

27:46

Batibbo and the whole team here in Doha

27:48

thanks for watching bye for

27:56

[Music]

28:00

now make sure to subscribe to our

28:03

channel to get the latest news from

28:04

Alazer

oooooo

ooo

Ralph Wilde on the ICJ & why Israeli occupation must end | Centre Stage

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNM0us6EsY)

International lawyer Ralph Wilde joins Centre Stage to talk about the 2024 landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice that deems Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal — and why it must cease immediately. Wilde provides detailed analysis, which he presented to the court, and tells Al Jazeera principal presenter Cyril Vanier what Israel and the international community must do to comply with the ICJ ruling and the UN resolution that endorsed the court’s decision.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

if Israel

0:01

hypothetically decided we want to be in

0:04

full compliance with international law

0:06

what would it have to do in general

0:08

there needs to be an end to racial

0:10

discrimination and the domination by one

0:12

racial group over another from the river

0:15

to the sea

0:20

taking center stage today is Ralph Wild

0:23

a professor of international law at

0:25

University College London he is probably

0:28

best known for serving as senior counsel

0:30

and advocate to the League of Arab

0:32

States before the International Court of

0:34

Justice wild argued before the court

0:37

that Israel’s presence in the occupied

0:39

Palestinian territories is illegal and

0:41

must end immediately ralph Wild thank

0:44

you so much for joining us on Center

0:45

Stage you argued in front of the judges

0:48

of the International Court of Justice on

0:50

behalf of the Arab League that Israel’s

0:53

presence on Palestinian territory is

0:57

unlawful and must end immediately and

1:00

that legal presentation got quite a lot

1:03

of attention online it was described in

1:05

some corners of the internet as a master

1:06

class so we’d like to get the benefit of

1:09

that for people who don’t have a

1:10

grounding in international law but who

1:14

still want to know what the law says and

1:16

what the law doesn’t say can you sum up

1:19

your arguments before the ICJ for us so

1:22

the question that the court was

1:25

addressing ended up being focused uh on

1:28

the situation uh of the territories uh

1:31

captured by Israel in

1:34

1967 which is of course only 22% of

1:38

Palestine so within that uh limited

1:41

framework the issue was what are the

1:44

legal consequences of Israel’s presence

1:48

in that territory so we’re talking about

1:51

the Gaza Palestinian Gaza Strip and the

1:54

West Bank including East Jerusalem and

1:57

the court was

1:59

considering is the presence in and of

2:02

itself lawful does Israel have a legal

2:06

right to even be there and also in the

2:09

way Israel conducts its presence the way

2:12

it behaves in Palestinian territory

2:15

including the way it treats the

2:16

Palestinian people is that lawful and

2:19

the court determined uh uh that in the

2:23

negative on both questions that Israel

2:26

has no legal right to be there in the

2:29

first place and must therefore withdraw

2:33

and also that the conduct of the

2:36

presence the conduct of the occupation

2:38

is also violating international law so

2:41

the opinion of the ICJ was that Israel

2:45

and Israelis cannot be on Palestinian

2:47

land that’s right illegal on the land

2:50

occupied since 1967

2:53

which is not the entirety of Palestinian

2:55

land yes is that now binding

2:58

international law that everyone must

2:59

respect it was already the position in

3:02

international law um the court was

3:05

interpreting the existing law and

3:08

determining what that law means so it

3:11

amounts to an authoritative

3:14

determination of what that law means by

3:17

the uh the most distinguished uh jurists

3:21

uh globally i want to make sure I get

3:23

this right the binding versus

3:24

non-binding because when I interview

3:27

people who speak in defense of Israel

3:30

and I bring up this advisory opinion by

3:32

the International Court of Justice

3:34

invariably they tell me “Oh that’s not

3:35

minding.” Yes the inference being it

3:39

doesn’t need to be respected well the

3:40

law needs to be respected the law that

3:42

the court determined uh uh the meaning

3:45

of which the court determined in the

3:47

advisory opinion needs to be uh complied

3:49

with you opened your presentation your

3:51

statement by saying “Palestinians have

3:53

been denied self-determination through

3:55

and I quote a more than centurylong

3:58

violent colonial racist effort to

4:00

establish a nation state exclusively for

4:02

the Jewish people in the land of

4:04

mandatory Palestine.”

4:06

When you say racist is that a legal

4:08

determination or is that a political

4:09

statement in international law uh racial

4:12

discrimination is

4:14

unlawful and in general and then the uh

4:18

a particular regime of uh domination by

4:21

one group over another in a system of

4:24

government and authority uh on the basis

4:27

of racial domination is also unlawful as

4:30

apartheite you use the word apartheite

4:33

yes in your

4:35

arguments the court in its advisory

4:38

opinion did not what is the finding

4:41

there the court uh clearly established

4:43

that there was a violation uh of the

4:46

relevant areas of international law uh

4:48

without expressly referencing a partite

4:52

as a a violation but nonetheless uh

4:55

covering that uh without mentioning it

4:57

in terms likewise when it came to um

5:01

aggression in my reading of the opinion

5:04

they did call it discrimination though

5:07

discrimination and then they didn’t

5:08

specify whether it was racial religious

5:11

or ethnic but in the way I read the

5:13

opinion it’s one of those three it’s

5:14

relig discrimination on one of those

5:16

three grounds so the the the way that we

5:19

can understand the court’s decision is

5:23

based on the arguments that were put

5:25

before it which were all rooted in not

5:28

only uh religious um discrimination

5:30

which is also um uh the the situation

5:33

but also discrimination on the grounds

5:35

of race now if I try to cross-examine

5:39

you I’m not going to be very successful

5:40

i’m not a topflight international lawyer

5:42

but what I can do is I can I I have read

5:45

Israel’s uh legal arguments that were

5:47

put forward by uh Israeli the Israeli

5:50

ambassador it’s

5:52

one-sided because it overlooks well

5:56

dominating the other the Palestinians

5:58

are not occupying uh Israeli land so uh

6:01

the

6:02

the by definition if the court’s going

6:05

to be considering the question of

6:06

domination it it isn’t going to be need

6:09

needing to address any issue

6:11

of the other side peacemaking has been

6:15

scuttled on various occasions by the

6:18

Palestinians themselves

6:20

irrelevant to the issue of whether

6:22

Israel has a right to dominate the

6:24

Palestinian people it’s a nonsear that’s

6:27

a uh introducing a consideration that

6:31

has no bearing on the question of

6:32

whether one uh racial group has a right

6:35

to dominate another israel has a duty to

6:37

protect its own citizens again

6:41

uh irrelevant to the question of

6:43

occupying Palestinian territory

6:46

yes a duty to protect but not a duty to

6:50

protect which involves the indefinite

6:52

subjugation of an entire other of the

6:54

racial group israel has valid

6:56

long-standing historical ties to the

6:59

land no legally

7:01

no legally no i mean that’s the claim it

7:05

it doesn’t have any legal foundation in

7:08

in the League of Nations um uh uh

7:10

covenant that was part of the Versail

7:13

treaty the Palestine mandate um uh was

7:17

supposed to be provisionally recognized

7:18

as an independent state a state for

7:21

everyone a single state for all the

7:24

people on that land not a state for a

7:27

particular racial group so the idea and

7:30

Jew Israel is a a Jewish state by

7:33

definition and there is no legal basis

7:36

for a specifically Jewish state on that

7:40

land in international law what is or

7:43

would be Israel’s strongest argument

7:45

before a court of law for

7:49

what to dominate the

7:52

Palestinians to there is no argument for

7:55

for for committing genocide i mean what

7:58

what would be the what needs to be

8:00

justified these come up often when I

8:02

interview people who speak in defense of

8:05

Israel let me let me Okay self-defense

8:08

self Thank you okay you took the words

8:10

out of my mouth this is the first thing

8:11

that comes up yes so so let’s go back to

8:15

1967 so why is Israel there there was a

8:19

war between Israel and three of its uh

8:22

uh neighbors israel started that war and

8:25

it was a war started preemptively

8:28

uh illegally because states cannot uh uh

8:32

use force lawfully in non-immed

8:35

immediately imminent anticipatory

8:37

self-defense as a result of that illegal

8:39

war Israel captures the territory it has

8:42

no right a state has no right to retain

8:45

control over territory simply for

8:48

security purposes

8:50

and the right of self-defense therefore

8:53

is inapplicable to that kind of action

8:56

states have to deal with security

8:59

threats

9:00

nonforcibly when it comes to the extr

9:03

territorial use of force unless they are

9:06

at risk of an actual or an imminent

9:09

attack and Israel was not in

9:13

1967 it used force anyway and of course

9:17

the clue is in the name it was over in

9:19

six days there was no longer any threat

9:22

in so far as there was a threat it was

9:24

it was removed at that through that

9:26

action well they they of course would

9:27

disagree that there was no longer any

9:29

threat but what about in the context i

9:30

don’t think Israel would disagree that

9:32

after the six- day war there was no then

9:35

immediate threat of attack from the

9:38

three Arab states so Israel should have

9:40

withdrawn at that moment

9:43

on the seventh

9:45

day there should have been a

9:48

retreat because there was no legal basis

9:50

to maintain the control over the West

9:52

Bank and the Gaza Strip what about in

9:54

the context of Gaza today and I’m taking

9:55

you beyond obviously uh the the remit of

9:58

the ICJ’s advisory opinion but Israel

10:01

today yes says more than ever that it is

10:04

acting in Gaza in self-defense following

10:07

the attacks uh by Hamas in Israel on

10:10

October the 7th

10:12

so Israel has been using force in Gaza

10:15

since 1967

10:17

continuously and on on uh the on October

10:21

the 6th two years ago Israel was already

10:24

exercising military authority over Gaza

10:27

and as I say illegally in that situation

10:30

when a state is using force illegally if

10:33

there is violent resistance to that

10:35

illegal use of force the state’s use of

10:38

force does not somehow then become

10:40

lawful as a means of defense to that

10:44

defense there is no defense against

10:46

defense if Israel

10:49

hypothetically decided we want to be in

10:51

full compliance with international law

10:53

what would it have to do in general

10:55

there needs to be an end to racial

10:57

discrimination and the domination by one

10:59

racial group over another from the river

11:02

to the sea it needs to be a the return

11:05

of all of the Palestinian people who

11:07

were forcibly displaced and and have

11:09

been displaced from that land um over

11:12

for for a century um that that’s also a

11:15

legal require displaced since when

11:17

you’re talking 1948 or 1967 no return

11:20

since even before 1948 certainly from uh

11:23

you know the Nakba and 1947 1948 and

11:27

onwards a legal right of return uh in

11:30

international law that is vested in all

11:32

of those people and their descendants

11:34

the the remaining uh uh non-Jewish

11:37

Palestinian people who were not forcibly

11:39

displaced in 1948

11:42

uh but who are treated in various ways

11:44

as secondclass citizens within Israel

11:47

around 17% of the citizenry of Israel um

11:51

that’s unlawful and that illegal

11:54

discriminatory treatment that

11:56

constitutes apartheite needs to end

11:58

there needs to be equality and then when

12:01

it comes to the extension of Israeli

12:04

rule into the remaining 22% of mandatory

12:08

Palestine the West Bank and including

12:11

East Jerusalem and and the Gaza Strip

12:13

there needs to be a complete withdrawal

12:16

immediately

12:18

um uh the removal of all settlements and

12:21

settlers and the provision of

12:24

compensation to the Palestinian people

12:26

for all of the um uh the harm that they

12:29

have suffered um since 1948 this part

12:33

gets lost u in discussions about the

12:36

advisory opinion it does mention

12:39

compensation in so far as it addresses

12:41

the occ uh the 67 onwards yes the

12:44

requirement of compensation as well as

12:46

withdrawal so land that has been taken

12:48

again according to international law as

12:50

it is laid out in this advisory opinion

12:52

land that has been taken from

12:53

Palestinians by Israel since 19667 needs

12:56

to be returned to them and where that is

12:58

not materially possible they need to

13:00

there is no excuse for not um uh

13:03

returning uh the control of the land so

13:07

Israel doesn’t have the option to maybe

13:09

uh withdraw from some of the land and

13:12

retain some of the land and then just

13:14

provide compensation that’s not uh ac

13:17

legally permissible what I mean by

13:19

compensation is compensation for all of

13:22

the other loss suffered by the

13:24

Palestinian people as a result of the

13:26

unlawful occupation there are 15 judges

13:28

at the International Court of Justice

13:30

that um rule were that rule on these

13:34

opinions 15 judges had to decide say yay

13:37

or nay essentially they could provide a

13:39

dissenting voice but my point is this

13:41

decision was not close it the judges

13:43

were overwhelmingly yes um in favor of

13:47

saying that Israel’s presence in

13:49

Palestinian territory is illegal and

13:51

must end this was not close it was not

13:54

and likewise there was an overwhelming

13:58

uh support in the UN General Assembly

14:00

affirming the the the finding of the uh

14:03

um the ICJ uh in all key respects so the

14:09

UN General Assembly which represents all

14:11

the countries in the world one country

14:13

one vote passed a resolution at the UNGA

14:16

demanding that Israel respect this

14:18

advisory opinion and that means

14:20

demanding that within a year Israel

14:22

leave Mhm occupied Palestinian territory

14:26

cease all settlements and remove all

14:28

settlers that was voted in September of

14:30

2024 so we’re we’re about The clock is

14:33

ticking yeah the clock is ticking nobody

14:36

thinks this is about to happen and there

14:37

are no signs that this is about to

14:39

happen states were also told in the

14:41

advisory opinion and in the general

14:43

assembly resolution that the illegality

14:46

uh involved in the occupation has

14:49

important consequences for them because

14:52

of the fundamental nature of the rules

14:54

of international law that are being

14:56

violated in international law in a

14:58

decentralized legal system where there

15:00

is no global sovereign who can enforce

15:03

uh the law unlike in a national legal

15:06

system the role of individual states

15:08

becomes much more important as agents of

15:11

enforcement if you are any third party

15:14

not Israel any other country in the

15:16

world yes whether it’s the Fiji Islands

15:18

France or Venezuela how are you supposed

15:21

to put yourself in compliance with that

15:23

opinion and with international law first

15:25

and foremost they must take positive

15:28

steps in so far as it’s possible to

15:30

bring the illegality to an end and then

15:33

they also have negative obligations

15:36

uh not to recognize the illegal

15:38

situation and also not to provide any

15:41

aid or assistance to it concretely what

15:43

does that look like positive steps to

15:46

bring the situation to an end would

15:48

include sanctions against Israel aimed

15:52

at influencing Israel’s behavior

15:55

uh

15:56

non-recognition involves uh states uh uh

16:00

for example uh not doing anything when

16:03

it comes to their diplomatic relations

16:05

with Israel uh which involves expressly

16:08

or implicitly

16:10

um uh recognizing not only that Israel

16:13

isn’t sovereign over this territory but

16:16

even that Israel doesn’t have any right

16:19

to be there in the first place so states

16:21

should not be engaging in diplomatic

16:24

relations with Israel and so that

16:26

includes for example uh the current

16:29

practice of affirming that somehow a

16:32

right of self-defense would justify

16:34

Israel’s continued presence any state

16:38

who affirms that position is violating

16:41

the duty that they have not to recognize

16:45

the validity and the legality of

16:48

Israel’s presence in that territory but

16:51

you’re not saying that countries for

16:52

instance are required by international

16:54

law to shutter their embassies in Israel

16:56

that’s not what we’re talking about they

16:57

should not have uh embassies uh or any

17:01

diplomatic representation to Israel on

17:05

occupied territory for example in in

17:07

East Jerusalem they shouldn’t even have

17:09

diplomatic premises in Jerusalem at all

17:12

because the status of Jerusalem as a

17:15

whole not just East Jerusalem but also

17:17

West Jerusalem still is to be uh

17:20

determined and Israel is not sovereign

17:23

in West Jerusalem hence most states who

17:27

recognize Israel as a state do not have

17:30

their embassies to Israel in Jerusalem

17:33

even in West Jerusalem because of that

17:35

legal requirement that they cannot

17:37

recognize uh a an invalid claim uh to

17:41

sovereignty over that city what’s

17:44

international law good for if it doesn’t

17:47

protect people from abuses and doesn’t

17:49

work in the way it’s supposed to or was

17:52

was invented and was dreamed of so it’s

17:55

a limited system

17:58

the new and the importance is not to

18:00

make overblown claims for its

18:03

potential but not to throw the baby out

18:06

with the bathwater and say that it is

18:08

worthless the better approach is modesty

18:12

in the expectations

18:14

um one has for um the significance of

18:19

international law which I think then

18:21

should have consequences in terms of um

18:24

the extent to which time and effort

18:27

should be spent uh utilizing um legal

18:31

avenues of redress as opposed to other

18:34

avenues which may include forcible

18:37

revolutionary avenues news explain

18:40

actually in international law um the

18:43

Palestinian people have a right to

18:45

resist a right of uh to defend

18:47

themselves from their uh uh subjugation

18:50

and oppression and to do so violently if

18:53

necessary people are not of course

18:56

cannot be

18:57

expected to um simply put faith in a

19:02

system that is not protecting them and

19:05

be prevented because of the existence of

19:07

that system the ability to take matters

19:10

into their own hands including through

19:12

violent means so that’s the challenge if

19:15

global society wishes to promote peace

19:19

then it has to enable justice you’re

19:21

saying if international law isn’t strong

19:24

enough or effective enough in

19:26

guaranteeing people’s rights people will

19:28

fight for those rights international law

19:30

permits that actually so for example if

19:32

we think about another situation the

19:35

right uh of self-defense that a state

19:37

the people of a state might have so if

19:39

we think about the discussions around uh

19:42

for example Russia’s uh uh war in

19:44

Ukraine um international law permits the

19:46

rise of

19:47

self-defense if the situation is dealt

19:50

with peacefully and through the

19:53

application of international law then of

19:56

course the Ukrainian people and the

19:58

Ukrainian state would not have a right

20:00

to use uh force against Russia the same

20:02

logic applies to a non-state

20:05

self-determination

20:07

uh uh grouping of people the Palestinian

20:09

people in an analogous situation so

20:12

there is an argument that Israel makes

20:14

and the US sometimes makes it too you’re

20:17

not going to like

20:18

it which is in essence international law

20:21

is getting in the way of resolving the

20:25

Israel Palestine conflict it is because

20:28

it is getting in the way of diplomacy

20:30

politics and dealmaking and that’s where

20:32

a solution is going to be found in those

20:34

arenas not in international law so says

20:38

Israel so stop the

20:41

lawsuits and engage in dealmaking yeah

20:45

but I think the question is what is

20:46

international law preventing when it

20:49

comes uh to to the issue of um ending

20:54

the uh uh subjugation of the Palestinian

20:58

people nothing but what international

21:00

law is preventing is for Israel um

21:04

stealing more of Palestinian land and

21:06

that’s why Israel doesn’t like it people

21:08

within Israel or supporters of Israel

21:10

are against international law because

21:12

international law is against um Zionist

21:15

domination uh on a on a racist basis of

21:19

the Palestinian people and the theft of

21:21

Palestinian land so of course they’re

21:23

against international law when it comes

21:25

to deal making when we drill down on the

21:29

question of these supposed deals what

21:31

they usually involve is a further loss

21:34

of um the land of of the uh the um the

21:39

22% of Palestine that was left after the

21:43

proclamation of the state of Israel in

21:46

1948 that Israel somehow wants even more

21:49

of that land like extending from 78%

21:53

into some of that 22% and the idea idea

21:57

being that the Palestinian people in

21:59

rejecting that are somehow impediments

22:01

to peace did you have any strong

22:04

personal or political views about Israel

22:06

Palestine before you became invested in

22:10

this um as an international lawyer i

22:15

think I approached the

22:17

situation with an open

22:20

mind but also

22:22

perhaps with a um a fairly typical

22:27

European bias through my ed the

22:30

education that I’d had which had not

22:33

taught me anything about the situation

22:37

um and and in general or indeed it’s

22:41

more specifically the British role in it

22:44

whereas I had been taught about the

22:47

shower about the Holocaust and um the

22:51

onesided nature of my education I think

22:55

led to a situation where I um had to

22:59

educate

23:00

myself and what I uncovered was shocking

23:04

in terms of the uh consequences for the

23:08

Palestinian people of the establishment

23:10

of the state of Israel and the role of

23:13

the UK in that and the role of other

23:16

western states in supporting it ever

23:18

since ralph Wild thank you for joining

23:21

us on Center Stage

oooooo

Akunjee @mohammedakunjee

 Geure herriari, Euskal Herriari dagokionez, hona hemen gure apustu bakarra:

We Basques do need a real Basque independent State in the Western Pyrenees, just a democratic lay or secular state, with all the formal characteristics of any independent State: Central Bank, Treasury, proper currency¹, out of the European Distopia and faraway from NATO, maybe being a BRICS partner…

Ikus Euskal Herriaren independentzia eta Mikel Torka

oooooo

---