The West's Answer To Genocide Case: Bomb Yemen
The West's Answer To Genocide Case: Bomb Yemen
Distraction or opening salvo in the escalation to war
Before Israel’s defence against charges of genocide at the World Court…
the U.S. and UK launched air and sea assault on Yemen
Russia says U.S. and UK violating UN Charter; appeals to Security Council
Media censors South Africa’s blistering criticism of Israel in the Hague
BBC and Sky carry Israel’s defence on day two; after ignoring SA’s allegations
Gaza has given us a new acronym: WCNSF — wounded child, no surviving family
Israel's accepts SA case that they went in, stuff happened; sort it out later
Two timelines: quickly halt actions in Gaza; in longer term determine genocide
Court may order steps to protect Gazans but genocide ruling could take years
See: Israel To Counter Charge Of Genocide In Gaza - A finding in World Court would be blow to moral standing (Jan 10, 2024)
(3,000 words or about 15 minutes of your company.)
Jan 12, 2024
While waiting for Israel’s response to South Africa's allegation of genocide we got the response: bombs away; an attack on Yemen.
The U.S. and UK launched air, ship and submarine strikes against Yemen, targeting ammunition dumps, anti-aircraft installations and transport infrastructure.
The attack seems timed to distract from the World Court hearing and South Africa argument that all countries, not only Israel, have a duty to stop genocide.
British state broadcaster, the BBC — Tweedledum — and Murdoch’s Tweedledee, Sky News, failed to broadcast SA’s argument, even though they knew they would cross live the next day to Israel’s response, which they did.
The U.S. and Britain — which seems to have played a significant role in the air and sea attack — accuse Yemen of blocking shipping in the Red Sea. Yemen says it is only interdicting Israel-bound shipping. Curiously, the globalists have disrupted shipping and supply chains for four years under the pretext of Covid and Climate, but that does not seem to count.
It seems fair to conclude their gripe about disruption to shipping lanes is, at least partly, humbug. If so, perhaps they want war, plain and simple.
The decision was likely taken by U.S. president Anthony Blinken — sorry, secretary of state Blinken — an understandable slip since the Joe Biden character who is meant to be commander in chief is hardly compos mentis. Commander number two, defense secretary Lloyd Austin is in hospital, having gone AWOL for two weeks.
Although the White House says Israel was merely "informed" of the attack, it seems fair to consider that Israel played some role in its planning or timing.
The other main participant, Britain, is also likely to have consulted Israel. Prime minister Rishi Sunak acted without the approval of Parliament, just as Blinken failed to seek Congressional approval. Sunak is thought to be preparing to leave UK, is selling his assets, is married to the daughter of one of India's richest men and panders to Modi and Netanyahu.
U.S. Democrats Ro Khanna and Valerie Hoyle said the president had acted without authority. When Trump killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani the U.S. Democrats said the president did not have authority to attack another country without a vote in Congress.... go figure.
Sectional interests run government. We have been through four year of a a dubious pandemic (the WHO even changed the definition) in which politicians played to sectional, corporate interests (especially big pharma and the weapons industry), traded morality for careers and served whoever paid most.
As if to underline this, after becoming the youngest, at 34, and by far the least experienced French prime minister, Gabriel Attal has just appointed his former husband Stéphane Séjourné (apparently they split last year though neither publicly confirmed it) as Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is the only cabinet change.
You might hire your ex to run your nightclub, assuming you trust him. But foreign minister?
Blinken is likewise part of the Epstein-Maxwell clique through his stepfather Samuel Pisar, who was Robert Maxwell's long time consigliere. Blinken is also thought to be an unofficial member of Israel's cabinet, since he so frequently huddles in Jerusalem with Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
When these functionaries call themselves “the elites” they are laughing at us. It is a clique, no different to a beach club for people with shared proclivities.
The first day of the World Court hearing set out the justification for enforcing the Genocide Convention. All signatories have a duty to stop it.
Former UN human rights rapporteur Craig Mokhiber comments: "All states have a duty under international law to act to stop genocide. Yemen did so by blocking shipping to the offending regime. The US is now bombing them for daring to interfere with the US-supported genocide in Gaza. There is your 'rules-based order'.”
Once Sky, BBC and state corporate media remembered to cover the World Court it was, sadly, a drag; in terms of pazzazz and pace, the SA presentation was much better viewing.
Israel's lawyers were the legal adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry Tal Becker, and British jurist Malcolm Shaw.
Becker asserted that SA's case is curated, decontextualised and manipulated; delegitimising Israel's existence, using the same rejectionist rhetoric as Hamas.
He repeated the allegations of rape and said Israel's team would play the "private video" that gets select screenings but which has not been released to the public.
Becker cast doubt on allegation that more than 23,000 Gazans have died and says court does not know how many were Hamas fighters. Israel estimates there are more than 30,000, aged from 15 upwards. He said the court does not know how many buildings were booby trapped,
SA, he said, had offered a blindfold instead of a lens. The court should perceive it is not a war on a civilian population but a terrorist organisation. "Israel is in a war of defence against Hamas, not Palestinians. No accusation could be more false than genocide."
Malcolm Shaw told the ICJ that if claims of genocide were to become common currency the essence of genocide would be diluted and lost.
His main argument was a technical objection based on jurisdiction. He said that a dispute must be opened before proceeding to court, and alleged that SA had not allowed Israel to develop a dialogue in Dec 2023 — papers had been filed over a holiday and Israel did not have time to respond. Shaw cited the cases of Myanmar and Marshall Islands that parties must be afforded an opportunity to respond before resorting to litigation, especially in a grave allegation such as genocide.
Shaw inverted SA's argument to say it had not condemned Hamas and thus had given succour and support, and thus was complicit in genocide. It is the inherent right of any state to defend itself.
Shaw concluded by saying there is no evidence of intent; the right to be protected covers all sides, including the right to defence.
Lawyer Galit Raguan addressed the ICJ on the circumstances of Israel's actions. She said SA had to show that the genocide convention is relevant to what is happening in Gaza. However she relied not on arguments but claims, which are subject to interpretation and even propaganda. The choice to believe these claims is subjective.
How this can be legal evidence is questionable. For example the IDF insists hospitals were bases for Hamas. This is denied by MSF, Red Cross, WHO and individual doctors.
She insisted that Israel monitors food and humanitarian shortages in Gaza; and that there is no limit on food, water, shelter or medical supplies available to Gaza.
Lawyer Omri Sender followed a similar argument: a dozen bakeries have reopened; the delivery of wheat, salt and sugar continues; trucks carrying food is 109 trucks a day in past two weeks, compared with 70 per day before Oct 7.
Water supplies continue; piped and bottled. A new pipe to southern Gaza began a few weeks ago. Israel has established four field hospitals and is allowing medical teams and vaccinations.
Summary
The Israeli case is based on its right to self defence; there is no intent of genocide and if there are excesses they will be addressed after the war. It also relies on the technical argument that the court does not have jurisdiction because SA did not properly initiate a dispute with IL.
Effectively, therefore, Israel's lawyers accepted the SA case: that they went in, that what happened happened. The finding of genocide, or not, will take months.
Thomas Macmanus of London University told Al Jazeera that Israel's delivery was not particularly strong, and based primarily on jurisdiction; sometimes one felt it was Hamas in the dock. Historically the ICJ takes a very broad definition of dispute, so it is difficult to see that Israel's argument can throw this case out of court.
Media coverage
The blackout on the Hague hearing continued even after an Israeli politician Ofer Cassif announced his support for the lawsuit and almost 200 prominent Israeli figures, from scholars to reserve officers joined him.
Tasteless comments don’t reflect a whole people but many Israeli reactions to South Africa’s presentation was vehement and racist... one example: "It is important to note that Africans are a people of slaves, and a slave is invalid for testimony. Monkeys, liars, supporters of terrorism, please name them."
First rate team
Malcolm Shaw lost his papers twice. On style points, the SA lawyers won hands-down with brevity and organisation, each lawyer addressing a specific topic.
Some of South Africa’s leading government critics are part of its legal team against Israel, but also Irish and British lawyers.
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, for example, represented the State Capture Inquiry in its successful application to have former president Jacob Zuma jailed for contempt of the Constitutional Court.
Blinne Ni Ghrálaigh KC started her career as a legal observer at the inquiry into the events of 1972 known as Northern Ireland’s Bloody Sunday. She would later represent many of the families of those killed.
"The first genocide in history where the victims are broadcasting their destruction in real time in the vain hope that the world might do something," said Ni Ghrálaigh.
Genocide
Adila Hassim, opening, made the case for genocide: "This is a case that underscores the very essence of our shared humanity as expressed in the preamble to the Genocide Convention."
The facts, she said, are more stark than the Rohingya case in Myanmar, including:
Displacement
Denial of basic staples so that more may died from deprivation than air strikes
Military assault on healthcare system
“Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has over 13 weeks seen a pattern of behaviour of genocidal acts.”
This constitutes genocidal intent — weaponry that uses large scale destruction, targeted sniping of civilians, designating safe zones then bombing these, depriving people of food, fuel, sanitation and communications, destroying infrastructure homes, schools, hospitals, and killing and leaving large number of children orphans.
Intent
Lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi addressed the prior declaration of intent by political leaders, and the repetition and implementation of those words by soldiers.
Israeli officials have declared their genocidal intent; repeated on the ground by soldiers in Gaza.
This is rooted in the belief that the enemy is embedded in the fabric of Palestinian life in Gaza.
Ngcukaitobi then brings attention to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments on October 28, 2023 urging ground troops preparing to enter Gaza to “remember what Amalek has done to you“.
“This refers to the Biblical command by God to Saul for the retaliatory destruction of an entire group of people.”
“The genocidal invocation to Amalek was anything by idle. It was repeated by Mr Netanyahu in a letter to the Israeli armed forces on November 3, 2023”
The genocidal appeal to Amelek was anything but idle. He repeated it more than once. The deputy speak of the Knesset called for the erasure of Gaza from the earth. The defense ministry said he had lifted all restraints in the attack on human animals. "We will eliminate everything; reach all places." Another minister called to find ways more painful for Gazans than death.
The language of systematic dehumanisation is evident, he said. The repeated call for Gaza to be flattened, for Gazans to be wiped out, that the children of Gaza have brought this on themselves, that there are "no innocent civilians" as Israeli soldiers chanted.
The Israeli government has an obligation to punish and discipline calls to genocide. By failing to do so it becomes liable under the Genocide Convention.
Jurisdiction
Prof John Dugard addressed jurisdiction.
Regarded as the "father of international law" in South Africa, John Dugard is a professor who has previously acted as an ICJ judge.
“South Africa and Israel share a history of suffering. It is in a spirit of humanity that SA brings this case.”
To accuse another state of genocide is a major act. However, genocide does not require negotiation prior to reaching for restraint on a state. To concede a time frame for negotiations would merely facilitate genocide.
Rights
Max du Plessis SC spoke on the protection of rights and the method.
SA is obliged to prevent genocide as a state party to the convention. This duty is not only to the people of Palestine but to the common interest of all the parties to the convention.
Gaza is unprecedented because of the scale, the suffering of the entire population, and the severity and speed with which it unfolded, he said. The desire to destroy Hamas does not negate the crime of genocide against the population of Gaza.
Urgency
Blinne Ni Ghrálaigh KC said “a new and terrible acronym” has been coined during the in Gaza: WCNSF — Wounded child, no surviving family. “There is no safe space in Gaza and the world should be ashamed.”
The test of urgency is met when serious acts can occur at any moment before the court completes its findings.
What is happening in Gaza can be compared with other genocides:
In Bosnia the grave risk of acts of genocide. was no greater than in Gaza; likewise in Myanmar.
In Ukraine, the court judged that Russia's destruction of buildings and infrastructure gave rise to risk of irreparable prejudice. “This is happening in Gaza on a larger scale to a besieged, trapped population that has nowhere to go.”
“Homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings… Four out of five people in catastrophic famine are in Gaza right now.”
Action
Vaughan Lowe KC:
“However aggressive an attack, genocide is never a permitted response. The scale of bombardment and deliberate restriction of food, medicine water and power demonstrates the government of Israel and its military — not the Israeli people — is intent on destroying the people of Gaza.”
It is not a matter of disproportion, he said. The prohibition on genocide is absolute however great the threat to Israelis may be.
No exception or provisional orders can be made. Genocide can never be justified in any circumstances.
“The evidence indicates that Israel’s actions violate the Genocide Convention, they continue to violate the Convention, and Israel states that it intends to continue to violate the Convention…
“It is hard to think of a case in recent history that has been so important for the future of international law and of this court.”
He anticipated that Israel’s lawyers would refer to the threat of Hamas. “Hamas is not a state and cannot be a party to the Genocide Convention or these proceedings. There are other institutions that can take action.”
Measures
South Africa’s team listed the measures that SA is seeking for the prevention and punishment of crime of genocide, including:
Suspend military operations
Ensure any irregular armed units or people under its control take no further part in operations
South Africa and Israel to take all measures within their power to prevent genocide; desist from all acts in Article 2, namely killing members of the group, bodily or mental harm, inflicting living conditions that destroy, or measures that prevent births. Prevent expulsion and displacement, lift restrictions on access to food, clothes, hygiene and sanitation
Not act to deny, restrict fact finding measures to Gaza to preserve evidence
Israel to report to court of its compliance within a week
Israel not to aggravate or disrupt the proceedings of the court
Response
Edward Snowden posts:
"When I worked for the Bush-era CIA—down the street from the UN HQ—I learned we were relentlessly infiltrating & undermining UN and IAEA Org (nearby in Vienna) bodies to thwart perceived anti-war 'law fare.' Hard to imagine ICJ won't face similar efforts to prevent justice."
The author on Gaza, historian prof Norman Finkelstein predicts the World Court will be split, as many member countries face their own allegations of genocide, so they are unlikely to open a Pandora's box by finding the case against Israel. The World Court president, who is a former State Department official, has the casting vote.
Since the future of Palestinians and world peace hangs in the balance, the impact for the U.S. and UK has to be negative. The U.S. sits in the middle, clashing ships, aircraft and missiles together, generating chaos from which the owner investors, the finance-military complex aims to profit. Every other industry: big pharma, the surveillance industry, big tech, the press and social media has been shown over the past four years to be a sub-set of either the banks or the military.
The control of politicians has its own apparatus. If Israel was the natural ally of the people in the U.S. or UK, there would be no need for AIPAC or the Conservative/Labour Friends of Israel. It is not hard to see these as infiltration operations.
At the top — call them imperialists, globalists or Zionists — sit the puppet masters in Washington, London and Zurich who will try to use Western countries once again to spill blood for profit, often of women and children — in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen.
Gaza is not an outlier except, we heard at the ICJ, as a matter of intensity.
Yemen is a poor country on which the U.S. and Saudis waged war for seven years from 2015 to 2022, killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. Yet it may be a foe the US cannot defeat, unless it is going to personally escort every ship.