SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
richard falk
'Horrifying' Footage Shows IDF Killing Two Gazans, Burying Their Bodies With a Bulldozer
"When the Israeli army can do these things and get away with it, it can only then do more of it knowing that it will not meet any punishment," said one analyst.
Mar 28, 2024
Video footage broadcast Wednesday by Al Jazeera shows Israeli soldiers gunning down two Palestinians on the coast of northern Gaza, even as one of them waves what appears to be a piece of white fabric.
The footage shows one of the men walking in the direction of an Israeli military vehicle with both hands raised. Despite the absence of any clear evidence that the man posed a threat, Israeli forces shot him from a short distance away. Another man is seen on the ground not far behind.
Al Jazeera's Tareq Abu Azzoum said the killings took place near where World Central Kitchen recently dropped off food aid.
The video then shows Israeli soldiers burying the bodies with a bulldozer.
"Probably certain words should be invented for this sort of thing," Marwan Bishara, AI Jazeera's chief political analyst, said in response to the footage. "I am not sure we have the sufficient vocabulary to describe this sort of twilight zone of Israel's fantasy of being the world's most moral army."
"It's a fantasy that meets the reality of a genocide," Bishara added. "An attempt to kill or destroy much of Palestine and Palestinians and hide the evidence and lie about it. When the Israeli army can do these things and get away with it, it can only then do more of it knowing that it will not meet any punishment."
Watch:
مشاهد حصرية للجزيرة لإعدام جنود إسرائيليين مدنيين فلسطينيين أثناء محاولتهم العودة لشمال قطاع غزة#الأخبار #حرب_غزة pic.twitter.com/QER98mv2n6
— قناة الجزيرة (@AJArabic) March 27, 2024
Richard Falk, former United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, toldAl Jazeera that the footage provides "vivid confirmation of continuing Israeli atrocities" and spotlights the "unambiguous character of Israeli atrocities that are being carried out on a daily basis."
"The eyes and ears of the world have been assaulted in real-time by this form of genocidal behavior," said Falk. "It is a shocking reality that there has been no adverse reaction from the liberal democracies in the West. It is a shameful moment."
The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, whose board Falk chairs, has documented numerous examples of Israeli soldiers conducting close-range field executions in Gaza since October 7, when Israel launched its latest assault following a Hamas-led attack.
In less than six months, Israeli forces have killed more than 32,500 people in Gaza and sparked one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in modern history.
The video footage emerged just days after the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. The U.S., Israel's leading arms supplier, abstained from the vote and falsely claimed the measure was "nonbinding."
The Israeli government, for its part, immediately signaled that it would disregard the resolution, just as it has ignored orders from the International Court of Justice.
Sophie McNeill, a human rights campaigner, called the footage released Wednesday "horrifying" and demanded that the International Criminal Court "urgently prioritize investigating and charging all those carrying out war crimes in Gaza."
"There just so happened to be a camera here in this moment. What are we not seeing?" McNeill asked. "This impunity must end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICJ Ruling on Genocide Presents 'Political Dilemma' for Biden
It’s a tool in the campaigns for cease-fire now underway around the world. But will the President of the United States pick it up?
Jan 27, 2024
Friday morning’s much-anticipated decision by the International Court of Justice “marks the greatest moment in the history of the [court],” says Richard Falk, a noted international law professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
“It strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign states — not just some,” Falk says about the ICJ’s ruling that South Africa’s magisterial presentation of evidence “was sufficient to conclude” Israel may be committing, conspiring to commit, or publicly inciting the commission of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The ICJ decision gave new strength to South Africa’s groundbreaking accomplishment — demolishing the taboo against holding Israel accountable for its crimes. As South Africa’s foreign ministry put it, “Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.”
“The decision is a momentous one,” says the foreign ministry, noting how important the determination is for the implementation of the international rule of law. “South Africa thanks the Court for its swift ruling.”
Friday’s decision was a significant victory beyond what most observers hoped for — not only the recognition that Israel’s actions are plausibly genocidal, but because of the imposition of provisional measures based on measures South Africa requested in order to stop Israel’s actions that are continuing to kill and put Palestinians at risk.
The ruling was also particularly important because of the overwhelming majority of judges who supported it, including the sole U.S. judge on the court. When the president of the court, Judge Joan Donoghue, who was a longtime State Department lawyer before being elected to the ICJ, read out the provisional measures, she included the line-up of how judges voted on each one. And she was among the 15 or 16 out of 17 judges who supported every one.
While judges serve as individuals and are not supposed to represent their governments, there is no question that national allegiances and other political considerations often emerge. In this case, only the judge from Uganda opposed all the court’s measures while the temporary Israeli judge opposed four out of six.
It should not have been a surprise that this preliminary finding recognized that Israel’s war against the entire population of Gaza may well constitute genocide. The definition, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, says that two things are required to fulfill that definition: a specific intent to destroy all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or other group (in this case the Palestinian population of Gaza), and the commission or attempt to commit any one of five specific acts to realize that intent. South Africa presented evidence that Israel is already committing — and conspiring to commit and inciting commitment — of at least four of those acts: killing, seriously injuring members of the group, creating conditions that make survival of the group impossible, and preventing births within the group. The ICJ decision was not a full determination of the facts and the law — as usual, those issues in international legal venues take years. This kind of initial finding requires a very low bar, only that it is “plausible” that Israel’s military actions, the siege and more could plausibly be found to constitute genocide.
It took the court only two weeks to come to this ruling, though still too long given the numbers of people the Israeli military is killing on a daily basis. But it still represents a hugely important step that will play a major role in strengthening the growing, broadening movement for Palestinian rights that is now playing such an unprecedented role in U.S. and global politics.
And then the ICJ went further, imposing six provisional measures to try and ensure that the rights of Palestinians might be protected from those actions. The measures imposed by the court say Israel “shall take all necessary measures” to prevent the commission of any of the five acts named in the Genocide Convention, that it ensure that its military forces do not commit any of those acts, that it punish any public incitement to those acts, that it take all measures to provide humanitarian assistance, to prevent the destruction of evidence relevant to the charges of genocide, and to report to the court within one month on what Tel Aviv is doing to abide by the court’s ruling.
The first measure was the only one weakened by the court. South Africa had requested the immediate suspension of military operations: a cease-fire. The ICJ language refers only to taking “all necessary measures” to prevent the five genocidal actions, but without demanding an actual end to the military assault. However, the Court’s second measure arguably answers that weaker language by keeping to the South African request that Israel make sure “that the military does not commit” any of the relevant acts — meaning that the IDF should stop killing people and be prevented from doing so. Not just prevented from killing “too many” people, as President Joe Biden’s administration and others have urged, but prevented from killing any people.
In both a national and international context, the Court’s decision poses a huge problem for the Biden administration. White House and State Department officials took the absolute position immediately after South Africa filed their petition to the ICJ that the claim of genocide was “meritless.” But with a close-to-unanimous court ruling that Israel’s assault on Gaza is plausibly genocidal — and with the singular U.S. judge standing with the majority — that dismissive attitude, and related claims that “the UN is biased against Israel” will not get much traction.
Just moments after Judge Donoghue finished reading the court’s ruling, Falk indicated that “this outcome poses the greatest political dilemma for the Biden presidency.”
“I only hope that Biden will, on this occasion,” Falk said, “stand up for justice.”
It is important to remember that while ICJ decisions are binding in international law, there is no appeal, and they are not self-enforcing. The court has no army, not even a police force to send around the world to make sure its orders are being implemented. What it does have, as part of the UN system, is an extraordinary level of credibility. All countries are bound by its decisions.
The Genocide Convention itself, unlike most parts of international law, places specific obligations on every party to the treaty — not only to countries who could be charged with violating its terms. So Friday’s ICJ decision applies to all 153 governments that are party to the Genocide Convention — meaning they have specific obligations to prevent genocide from occurring, to stop it when it does occur, to not be complicit in genocidal actions, and to punish any incitement to genocide that might occur in their own countries.
That means that if this decision goes to the UN Security Council for implementation arrangements, and if, as would be likely, the United States vetoed those efforts, and it then goes to the General Assembly, lots of possibilities arise.
This decision fundamentally, even if preliminary, provides a vital new tool for mobilization and campaigns to force governments to escalate their pressure to stop Israel’s genocide. It’s a tool in the campaigns for cease-fire now underway around the world. In the United States it will likely be a persuasive tool for congresspeople, city councils, universities and other institutions — as well as the Biden administration — to support a cease-fire. Because now it’s not only a question of moral obligation to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents, it’s also about abiding by the requirements of international law. And for some people, that may make all the difference.
With this new tool in hand, a U.S. shift towards supporting — and demanding — a cease-fire may be possible much sooner.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Refusal to Back Cease-Fire Is an Endorsement of Israel's Genocidal Attack on Gaza
By failing to advocate for a ceasefire, western states have given a green light to Israel's agenda of collective punishment.
Oct 24, 2023
In the avalanche of emotionally fraught commentary on the 7 October attack by Palestinian fighters against Israel and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza, media and political leaders appear to have forgotten that from the perspective of international law, Gaza remains an occupied territory subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva IV).
Although Israel unilaterally proclaimed its "disengagement" from Gaza in 2005—withdrawing its troops, dismantling 21 settlements and ejecting 8,000 settlers (somewhat offset by giving each unlawful settler family hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation)—this did not end Israel’s obligations under international law.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has drawn this conclusion on the basis that Israel’s disengagement did not end the existential realities of Israeli control over Gaza, nor did it allow the territory to enjoy the benefits of autonomous political development.
Rather, the process involved an intrusive redeployment of occupying military and police forces on Gaza’s borders, including total control over the entry and exit of Palestinians and goods at border crossings, as well as continuing exclusive dominance over Gaza’s air and sea space.
The question of Gaza’s legal status is extremely relevant to the indiscriminate and disproportionate Israeli retaliation, which has been justified by Israel and its supporters as exacting vengeance while pursuing the goal of destroying Hamas.
This post-2005 structure of occupation was reinforced by frequent Israeli incursions, including targeted assassinations of Hamas political and military officials, frightening sonic booms of overflying Israeli fighter jets, and major military operations in 2008-09, 2012, 2014 and 2021, during which Israel committed many war crimes.
In addition, since 2007, a harsh and punitive blockade has left the impoverished population of Gaza facing the world’s highest unemployment rate and a collective experience of life-threatening economic decline.
Israel’s record of criminality towards Gaza was most notably documented in the UN's 2009 Goldstone report, whose policy recommendations were left unimplemented due to political pressures exerted on Israel’s behalf.
This typical experience of condemning Israel’s policies and practices, but taking no proposed preventive or punitive action in response, has been repeated over and over again, which explains Palestinian disillusionment with the UN and international law.
Disproportionate response
The question of Gaza’s legal status is extremely relevant to the indiscriminate and disproportionate Israeli retaliation, which has been justified by Israel and its supporters as exacting vengeance while pursuing the goal of destroying Hamas.
The 7 October Palestinian fighters' operation inside Israel, accounting for more than 1,400 Israeli deaths and the capture of around 200 hostages, was itself a distinct war crime.
Neither the Palestinian fighters' attack nor Israel’s response are free from the restraints of law and morality. In the simplest terms, the crimes committed do not give legal impunity to retaliatory Israeli war crimes.
The central point thus far lost in the public discourse is this: just as the Palestinian armed factions had no authority to commit war crimes because they were intensely provoked by decades of Israeli criminal actions, nor does Israel have the authority to act outside the constraints of law when retaliating.
The proper international framing of the relationship between Israel and Hamas—despite being crucial to interpreting the legal, moral and political issues at stake—has been revealingly absent from most media treatments and the policy postures of influential western political leaders.
By failing to advocate for a ceasefire, western states have given a green light to Israel's agenda of collective punishment
Israel has used the most inflammatory and expansive language to vindicate its retaliatory responses. This lawless Israeli extremism has been blandly endorsed by governments in the US, France, Germany, and the UK. Such pronouncements neglect to mention the obligation of the occupying power to administer the territories under its control in ways that give priority to the protection and wellbeing of the occupied civilian population. The occupier does enjoy a reciprocal right to maintain its security in ways that respect and protect non-combatants.
From such a perspective, it is conceptually misleading and normatively unacceptable for Israel to declare war against an occupied territory, as if the indigenous administrative authority was an enemy foreign government—but this is exactly what Israel has done, including claims of self-defense that do not fit the situation of belligerent occupation.
Genocidal siege
Israel has declared a total war on Gaza, imposing a genocidal siege that has cut off supplies of food, electricity and fuel, making no provision whatsoever to exempt civilians—most of whom have no direct contact with the military activities of Hamas.
Article 55 of Geneva IV sets forth the duty of Israel as occupying power to ensure that the people living in the territory it “occupies” have adequate food, water and medicines. But Israel’s indiscriminate retaliation has included repeated nighttime aerial bombardments of residential areas, alongside the forbidden targeting of hospitals, schools and UN buildings, where many Palestinians have sought shelter under these extraordinary conditions.
Israel has declared a total war on Gaza, imposing a genocidal siege that has cut off supplies of food, electricity and fuel, making no provision whatsoever to exempt civilians—most of whom have no direct contact with the military activities of Hamas.
A 24-hour evacuation order directed at 1.1 million Palestinians living in northern Gaza, without the provision of reasonable time to arrange such a dangerous departure from long-term places of residence, was aggravated by the lack of a safe and habitable place for Palestinians to go, thus intensifying the dangers facing civilians in Gaza - and their suffering. Such a measure amounts to extreme collective punishment, which is prohibited by Article 33 of Geneva IV. It has less to do with security than with driving Palestinians out of Gaza, thereby implementing the end-game visions of Israel’s extremist coalition government.
It is relevant to note that Michael Lynk, the UN’s special rapporteur for Palestine, submitted a detailed report to the agency on why Israel’s authority as occupying power should be terminated, given its failure to comply with applicable international human rights law.
This recommendation was ignored by the UN, but the General Assembly was sufficiently distressed by Israel’s pattern of behaviour in occupied Palestine that it requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the continuing legality of Israel’s status as an occupying power within the framework of Geneva IV. The case is currently under consideration by the court.
If the West continues to endorse the double standards on display during the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, it will serve as a reminder that the post-colonial world retains an ethos of Orientalist racism when it comes to addressing issues of peace and justice in the Middle East.
By failing to advocate for a ceasefire, western states have given a green light to Israel’s agenda of collective punishment, which might itself be grotesque cover for the regime’s end goal of massive dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular