Your Man in the Hague (in a Good Way). 226

I attended the hearing on Thursday of South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide at the International Court of Justice. I was able to sit in the public gallery and watch all the proceedings. I was, however, handicapped in reporting by the fact that we were not allowed pens or pencils (though we were allowed paper). I asked the Head of Security at the ICJ why pens were not allowed in the public gallery. He told me, with a perfectly straight face, that they could be used as a weapon. So bereft of my deadly ballpoint, this account is less detailed and more impressionistic than I would wish to give you.

I had arrived at the Hague early Wednesday morning on 10 January, having flown in from Indonesia. This had involved four flights, to Singapore, Milan, Copenhagen and finally Schiphol. Wednesday was spent in a frantic search of the charity shops of the Hague for warm clothing, as I had only beach clothes with me apart from a friends’ old ski jacket. I called first at the ICJ to get information on how to attend Thursday morning’s session.

A young lady informed me that I had to queue outside the small arched gate in the wall. It would open at 6am and the first 15 members of the public would be admitted to the gallery. I asked where I should queue exactly. She said she doubted it was necessary, it should be fine to arrive at 6am on Thursday.

I am staying in a hotel just five minutes’ walk away, so at 10pm on Wednesday evening, with the temperature already at -4°C, I went to check if a queue had formed. Nobody was there. I returned to the hotel, but every hour went to check for a queue I should join. Nobody was there at midnight or 1am, but at 2am there were already 8 people, sat around in three very cold little groups. Everybody looked extremely cold, but everybody was friendly and talkative.

The first group, right next to the gate, consisted of three young Dutch women, who sat on a blanket and were well provided with flasks of hot coffee and boxes of baklava. The second group were three young students of international law, all of them Arabs, who had attended other cases and knew the ropes here. The third group were two young women, one Dutch and one Arab, sitting on a bench, looking cold and miserable.

We were soon all talking together and it was plain that every one of us was motivated by support for the Palestinians in their struggle against the relentless occupation. Shortly afterwards, another Arab gentleman arrived, older and authoritative, who rather incongruously had been schooled in Scotland at Gordonstoun. A tall Tunisian man kept walking back and forth making phone calls; he appeared pre-occupied and rather shy.

We had all been given similar information about the number of people who would be admitted, though some had been told 15, some 14 and some 13. Our numbers were stable at 12 for several hours. Then about 4.30am a car drew up and out jumped Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla of Progressive International. She had come as a place-keeper for Jeremy Corbyn and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Others of her organisation arrived bit by bit. Then as 6am approached, there started a small flood of people arriving, many with Palestinian flags and wearing keffiyehs.

It really was seriously cold. After four hours my toes had gone from very painful to having no feeling, and my fingers were becoming unresponsive. As so often, from 5am the cold grew more and more invasive. Mélenchon and Corbyn had arrived at 5.30am to take their places in the queue, Mélenchon as voluble as ever, wide awake, delighted to meet everybody, and lecturing on economics and the organisation of society to anybody who would listen. As my brain had by now frozen, that did not really include me. Jeremy was equally typically Jeremy, concerned that he did not want to take anybody’s position in the queue.

Then as preparations to open the gate began on the other side, things took an unpleasant turn. Those of us who had been there all night knew our order of arrival, but we began to be swamped by latecomers pushing past and around us to get to the gate. I had to be assertive and try to marshal the queue. Activists in the crowd challenged this, suggesting that the criterion for entry should not be time of arrival, but that Palestinians should be given the places.

It all became distressing. One Palestinian lady from Sweden who was just behind 14th in the queue became deeply distressed at the idea of not being admitted, and a couple of Palestinian gentlemen who had arrived after 6am started to determinedly push past the queue. I made a little counter speech explaining that we were all here to help the Palestinians, but none of us knew each other’s stories, and the question of what use someone’s attendance would be to the Palestinian cause was as important as gratifying individual feelings of the terribly aggrieved.

The diffident Tunisian was replaced in the queue by the former Tunisian President whose place he had been keeping – a really pleasant and diffident man, but the timing did not help the situation. In the end we were admitted in groups of five and processed. One of the Dutch ladies who had been the very first to arrive gave up her place to a Palestinian. I left clutching my pass, number 9, and returned to the hotel and straight into a hot bath. The pain from my toes and fingers as they thawed was really unpleasant.

Then it was quickly back for 9am and a lot of excessive security hassle and removal of deadly wallets and pens. Then we were escorted into the public gallery.

The Palace of Peace was built by Andrew Carnegie, the extraordinarily morally complex Fifer, a vicious and incredibly successful capitalist monopolist who also wished to end all war and to improve the lives of the poor everywhere. Its fairytale appearance, with its folly of a tower perched on a tower, belies its steel frame and concrete construction, and inside it could be any grand City Chambers in Scotland, with majolica tiling and solid Armitage Shanks in the toilets. Extraordinarily, the building is still owned and managed by the Carnegie Foundation.

For a building that was built as a world court, strangely it does not appear to contain a court room. The Grand Chamber is just a large empty hall, taking up one side-wing of the building. A comparatively modern, simple and gently curved dais has been inserted across the length of the hall and held a long table and seventeen chairs for the judges, but this structure looked temporary, as if it gets taken away and the building used for weddings. The parties to the case were seated on simple stacking chairs arranged in the body of the hall beneath the dais, again looking more like a wedding than a court. Above the judges spread a mighty stained-glass window, of garish colours and rather dubious quality.

I have written of my faith in the International Court of Justice, in its history of impartial judgment and in its system of election by the UN General Assembly. The ICJ has rather unfairly been tarnished by the reputation of its much younger sister the International Criminal Court. The ICC is rightly derided as a Western tool, but that really is not true of the ICJ. On Palestine alone, it has ruled that the Israeli “wall” in the West Bank is illegal and that Israel has no right of self-defence in the territory of which it is the occupying power. It ruled that the UK must decolonise the Chagos Islands, a cause close to my own heart.

There was every reason for those of us opposing the genocide to have travelled hopefully to the Hague.

In addition to the normal fifteen judges of the court, each of the parties to the dispute – South Africa and Israel – had exercised their right to nominate an additional judge. After the judges filed in to the court, proceedings started with these two judges taking an oath of impartiality, which gave us the first Israeli lie of the case before it had even started.

The nomination of Aharon Barak as the Israeli judge on the International Court of Justice is extraordinary, given that as President of Israel’s Supreme Court he refused to implement the ICJ judgment on the illegality of the wall, stating that he knew the facts of the matter better than the ICJ.

Barak has an extremely long history of accepting all forms of repression of Palestinians by the Israeli Defence Force as legal for “national security”, and in particular has repeatedly refused to rule against the longstanding Israeli programme of demolitions of Palestinian homes as collective punishment. That reads across directly to the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza now.

Barak is viewed as a “liberal” in Israel in the constitutional struggle between the judiciary and executive. But that is about the ability of Netanyahu’s corruption to go unchallenged, not about Palestinian rights. By appointing his apparent opponent Barak to the ICJ, Netanyahu has exhibited typical cunning. If Barak rules against Israel, Netanyahu can claim his domestic opponents are traitors to national security. If Barak rules in favour of Israel, Netanyahu can claim Israeli liberals support the destruction of Gaza.

I expect it is the latter claim we shall be seeing.

I was seated in the public gallery, and watching the seventeen judges occupied much of my time throughout the hearing. Acres have been written about which way who will jump. There is a too-easy assumption they will be swayed by their domestic governments. That varies from judge to judge.

The President of the court, Joan Donoghue, is a US State Department, Clinton hack who has never formed an original idea in her life, and I should be astonished if she starts now. I half-expected her strings to actually be visible, emerging from holes in the hall’s magnificent deep relief-panelled wooden ceiling. But others are more puzzling.

There has been no more rabidly anti-Palestinian national elite than that of Germany. Rather than channel feelings of inherited guilt into opposition to genocide in general, they seem to have concluded that they need to promote alternative genocides to make amends. Added to which, the German judge on the ICJ, Nolte, does not come preceded by a liberal reputation. But friends in Munich tell me that Nolte has a particular interest in the law of armed conflict, and is a stickler for intellectual rigour. Their view is that his professional self-esteem will be the key factor, and that only points one way with regard to what the Israeli Defence Force has done so blatantly to the civilian population in Gaza.

On the other hand, there is a Ugandan judge on the ICJ who you might assume would align with South Africa. But Uganda, for reasons which frankly I do not fathom, joined the United States and Israel in opposing Palestine’s membership of the International Criminal Court, on the grounds Palestine is not a real state. Similarly India you might expect to support South Africa as a key member of BRICS. But India also has a Hindu Nationalist government prone to hideous Islamophobia. I haven’t found any evidence of Judge Bhandari’s domestic record on inter-communal issues.

But it has been suggested to me that in this case before the World Court now, the UN General Assembly may have shot itself in the foot in replacing a particular British judge with the Indian, an election viewed at the time as a triumph in the UN for the developing world. My point is this: that these questions are very complicated, and much of the analysis I have seen, including from some dear colleagues, has been simplistic mince.

Not only is the Great Hall of Justice not fitted out as a courtroom, for a World Court the public gallery is minuscule. Running along one side of the hall, high enough to kill you if you fell over the balcony edge, it is just two seats deep. Furthermore the fitted theatre-style seats are a hundred years old and in a state of near collapse. Your arse is eight inches off the ground and the seats now tilt so your thighs are four inches off the ground and the whole contraption is throwing you forward and over the edge. Rather than fix the seats, the Carnegie Foundation have fixed a strong cable from wall to wall above the balcony rail, acting in effect as a second rail giving six inches more protection.

With one third of the public gallery screened off to house the audio-visual projection and webcasting facility, there were just 24 available seats in the public gallery. There were us 14 from the queue and the rest were for representatives of key NGOs and UN organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organisation. They were allowed pens, obviously being judged respectable enough not to kill anybody with them. I may in fact have acquired a pen from one of them at some stage, purely of course to assist them. Or I may not – it is very difficult to know what counts as terrorism these days.

South Africa opened with statements from their Ambassador and their Minister of Justice Ronald Lamola, and they opened with a bang. I rather expected South Africa to start with some soft soap about how much they had condemned Hamas and sympathised with Israel over 7 October, but no. Within the first thirty seconds South Africa had launched both the word “Nakba” and the phrase “apartheid state” at Israel. We had to hang on to our collapsing seats. This was going to be something.

Minister of Justice Lamola came out with the first memorable phrase of the case. Palestinians had suffered “75 years of apartheid, 56 years of occupation, 13 years of blockade”. It was very well done. Before handing over to the legal team, the “agents” of the South African state, in terms of the Court’s statute, were framing the argument. This injustice, and history itself, did not start on October 7.

There was a second important point of framing. South Africa stressed that in order for the request for “provisional measures” to be granted, it did not need at this stage to be proven that Israel was committing genocide. It only had to be shown that actions of Israel were prima facie capable of falling as genocide within the terms of the Genocide Convention.

The legal team then led off with Dr. Adila Hassim. She outlined that Israel was in breach of the Genocide Convention Article II a), b), c) and d).

On a), killing of Palestinians, she outlined the simple facts without embellishment. 23,200 Palestinians were killed, 70% of them women and children. Over 7,000 were missing presumed dead under the rubble. Over 200 times, Israel had dropped 2,000lb bombs into the very residential areas in southern Gaza into which Palestinians had been ordered to evacuate.

60,000 people were seriously wounded. 355,000 homes had been damaged or destroyed. What could be observed was a substantial pattern of conduct indicating a genocidal intent.

Dr Hassim was notably calm and measured in her words and delivery. But on occasion when detailing atrocities, particularly against children, her voice trembled a little with emotion. The judges, who were generally fidgety (on which much more to follow), looked up and paid closer attention at that.

The next lawyer, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (only South Africa spoke today) addressed the question of genocidal intent. He had perhaps the easiest task, because he could relate numerous instances of senior Israeli ministers, senior officials and military officers referring to Palestinians as “animals” and calling for their complete destruction and that of Gaza itself, emphasising that there are no innocent Palestinian civilians.

What Ngcukaitobi did particularly well was emphasise the effective transmission of these genocidal ideas from senior government to the troops on the ground, who quoted the same phrases and genocidal ideas in filming themselves committing and justifying atrocities. He emphasises that the Israeli government had ignored its obligation to prevent and act against incitement to genocide in both official and popular culture.

He concentrated particularly on Netanyahu’s invocation of the fate of Amalek and the demonstrable effect of that move on the opinions and actions of Israeli soldiers. Israeli ministers, he said, could not now deny the genocidal intent of their plain words. If they did not mean it, they should not have said it.

The venerable and eminent Professor John Dugard, a striking figure in his bright scarlet gown, then addressed questions of jurisdiction of the court and of the status of South Africa to bring the case – it is likely that Israel will rely heavily on technical argument to try to give the judges an escape route. Dugard pointed out the obligations of all state parties under the Genocide Convention to act to prevent Genocide, and the judgment of the court.

Dugard quoted Article VIII of the Genocide Convention and read out in full Paragraph 431 of the court’s judgment in Bosnia vs Serbia,

This obviously does not mean that the obligation to prevent genocide only comes into being when perpetration of genocide commences ; that would be absurd, since the whole point of the obligation is to prevent, or attempt to prevent, the occurrence of the act. In fact, a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent (dolus specialis), it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.

I must confess I was very gratified. Dugard’s argument was precisely the same, and quoted the exact same passages and paragraphs, as my article of 7 December explaining why the Genocide Convention should be invoked.

The judges particularly enjoyed Dugard’s points, enthusiastically rustling through documents and underlining things. Dealing with thousands of dead children was a bit difficult for them, but give them a nice jurisdictional point and they were in their element.

Next was Professor Max du Plessis, whose particularly straightforward manner and plainness of speech brought a new energy to proceedings. He said that Palestinians were asking the court to protect the most basic of their rights – they had the right to exist.

Palestinians had suffered 50 years of oppression, and Israel had for decades considered itself above and beyond the reach of the law, ignoring both ICJ judgments and security council resolutions. That context is important. Palestinian individuals have rights to exist protected as members of a group in terms of the Genocide Convention.

South Africa’s case was founded on respect for international law and was based on law and on fact. They had taken the decision not to show the court atrocity videos and photos, of which there were many thousands. Their case was of law and fact, they did not need to introduce shock and emotion and turn the court into a theatre.

This was a shrewd blow by Du Plessis. The hearings were originally scheduled for two hours each side. The South Africans had been told, very late, that was increased to three because the Israelis insist on showing their hour long October 7 atrocity video. But in fact the court’s guidelines reflect a longstanding resistance to this sort of material which must be used “sparsely”. If 23,000 people are dead it does not add intellectual force to show the bodies, and the same is true of the 1,000 dead from 7 October.

Du Plessis concluded that the destruction of Palestine’s infrastructure that supports human life, the displacement of 85% of residents into ever smaller areas where they were still bombed – all were plain examples of genocidal intent.

But undoubtedly the highlight of the entire morning was the astonishing presentation by Irish KC Blinne Ni Ghràlaigh. Her job was to demonstrate that if the Court did not order “provisional measures”, then irreparable damage would be done.

There are times when a writer must admit defeat. I cannot adequately convey to you the impression she made in that courtroom. Like the rest of the team she eschewed atrocity porn and set out the simple facts plainly but elegantly. She adopted the ploy used by all the South African team, of not using emotional language herself but quoting at length deeply emotional language from senior UN officials. Her outline of daily deaths by type was devastating.

I simply urge you to listen to her. “Each day over ten Palestinians will have one or more limbs amputated, many without anaesthetic …”

I should write more now about the court. The South African delegation sat beside their lawyers on the right of the court, the Israeli delegation on their left, each of about 40 people. The South Africans were colourful with South African flag scarves and keffiyehs draped over shoulders. There was a mixture of South Africans and Palestinians, with Deputy Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority Amaar Hijazi prominent, which I was glad to see.

The South African delegation was buoyant and mutually supporting, with a lot of inclusive body language and comparative animation. The Israeli delegation was the opposite of animated. It appeared severe and disdainful – it was as though the members were all under instruction to get on with some work and not particularly notice the proceedings were happening at all. They were generally youthful, and I think cocksure would be a fair description. When Blinne was speaking they seemed particularly keen to ensure everyone could see they were not listening.

You would not think from the body language it was Israel that stands accused. In fact the only people in the court whose demeanour was particularly dodgy and guilty were the judges. They absolutely looked like they really did not want to be there. They seemed deeply uncomfortable, fidgeted and fumbled papers a lot, and seldom looked directly at the lawyers speaking.

It occurred to me that the people who really did not want to be in the Court at all were the judges, because it is in fact the judges and the Court itself on trial. The fact of genocide is incontrovertible and had been plainly set out. But several of the judges are desperate to find a way to please the USA and Israel and avoid countering the current Zionist narrative, the adoption of which is necessary to keep your feet comfortably under the table of the elite.

What counts more for them, personal comfort, the urgings of NATO, future wealthy sinecures? Are they prepared to ditch any real notion of international law for those things?

That is the real question before the court. The International Court of Justice is on trial.

During Blinne’s talk, the President of the court suddenly took an intense interest in her startling red iPad, the colour of a particularly bright nail varnish. This came out several times during the hearing, and I could never put these iPad appearances together with what had just been discussed – it was not that cases or documents had just been cited to look up, for example.

The final speaker for the South African legal team was Vaughn Lowe, and he had the delicate task of countering Israel’s defence, which they have kept secret from the court until it is made. Countering arguments you have not seen yet is a tricky proposition, and for me this was the legal tour de force of the entire morning. Vaughn Lowe’s performance was outstanding.

He started by asserting that South Africa did have standing to bring the case, repeating Durand’s points about the duty of states to act to prevent genocide under the Genocide Convention. He said there was a dispute in the terms of the Convention, over whether or not genocide had occurred. South Africa had framed this dispute in a series of Diplomatic Notes Verbale sent to the Israeli government and not satisfactorily replied to.

Lowe said it was acknowledged that a series of individual incidents were being investigated by the International Criminal Court as war crimes, but the existence of other crimes did not preclude their being part of a wider genocide. Genocide was a crime which by its nature tends to come along with other war crimes committed in furtherance of the Genocide.

Finally Lowe said that genocide is never justified. It is absolute, a crime in itself. No matter how appalling the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israel or Israeli citizens, a genocidal response was not appropriate and never could be.

Vaughn Lowe stated that South Africa asked for action against Israel and not against Hamas, simply because Hamas was not a state and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. But the fact that the court could not act against Hamas must not prevent it from acting against Israel to prevent the current urgent danger of genocide. Nor must the court be swayed by Israeli offers of voluntary restraint. Israel’s failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever in its actions in “grinding Gaza into the dust” showed Israel could not be trusted in any assurances to adjust behaviour, as it believed it had done no wrong.

The session ended with the South African Ambassador reiterating the provisional measures South Africa now wished the court to impose. These are:

(1) The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza.

(2) The State of Israel shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed, supported or influenced by it, as well as any organisations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to point (1) above.

(3) The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide.

(4) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people as group protected by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular:
 (a) killing members of the group;
 (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group;
 (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
 (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

(5) The State of Israel shall, pursuant to point (4)(c) above, in relation to Palestinians, desist from, and take all measures within its power including the rescinding of relevant orders, of restrictions and/or of prohibitions to prevent:
 (a) the expulsion and forced displacement from their homes;
 (b) the deprivation of:
  (i) access to adequate food and water;
  (ii) access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene and sanitation;
  (iii) medical supplies and assistance; and
 (c) the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza.

(6) The State of Israel shall, in relation to Palestinians, ensure that its military, as well as any irregular armed units or individuals which may be directed, supported or otherwise influenced by it and any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, do not commit any acts described in (4) and (5) above, or engage in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide, and insofar as they do engage therein, that steps are taken towards their punishment pursuant to Articles I, II, III and IV of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

(7) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; to that end, the State of Israel shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by fact-finding missions, international mandates and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence.

(8) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one week, as from the date of this Order, and thereafter at such regular intervals as the Court shall order, until a final decision on the case is rendered by the Court.

(9) The State of Israel shall refrain from any action and shall ensure that no action is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve it.

With that, we closed the argument. Next, Israel responds.



Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

226 thoughts on “Your Man in the Hague (in a Good Way).

1 2 3
  • frankywiggles

    The ZBC chose not to broadcast these world-historic proceeedings. Its apologists claim that is because it had to show the Post Office inquiry hearings instead. Well the Post Office hearings continued yesterday (Friday) but this time the ZBC chose to broadcast Israel’s defence at The Hague instead! ZBC propaganda has necessarily become even bolder and cruder not just to shield the apartheid state but because the UK government and military are also heavily implicated in this genocide.

    • Brianfujisan

      Indeed frankywiggles.. I very much doubt there’s any news broadcaster anywhere on this Earth with more blood on it’s hands than the ZBC .. The NYT’s Second.. Wapo 3rd

      • frankywiggles

        The selective reporting and misinformation could hardly be more blatant at this point. They are unlikely to be fooling anybody with half a brain.

        Edward Snowden: ‘No matter your politics, it should appall you that the media outlets which claim to care the most about “misinformation” suppressed coverage of South Africa’s case against the Gaza genocide, but fully covered Israel’s defense the next day—intentionally denying you the full story.’

        • AG

          following your Snowden lead a few posts below from what you quote was this wikileaks item:

          “A legitimate target”

          A Diplomatic Cable, released by @wikileaks reveals the truth behind Israel’s rhetoric about Hamas… After losing the election, rival party Fatah requested that Israel come to their aid with weapons and military strikes to prevent Hamas from taking control of the strip… As exposed in the cables, the Israeli intelligence chief [ Amos Yadlin ]told the US ambassador [ Richard Jones ] , that they wanted Hamas to take full control of Gaza, telling him that if Hamas managed to take full control, then the Israeli Defence Forces [IDF] would be able to regard Gaza as a hostile territory.”

          p.s. wikileaks nitter channel for those readers who don´t know:

    • Tatyana

      For a Russian ear the name ZBC sounds like a joke. (There’s a common type of Internet jokes, in which the words are typed with vowels missing, so the reader must guess the meaning of the word having consonants only.) For Zee-Bee-See in Russian only one word exists and it is indecent. Means smth like “it was just as good as a f*ck”.

  • Fatima Aghla

    Thank you for reporting on this historic event and immersing us in the experience, by skillfully painting the the picture of the courtroom dynamics.
    I was there outside the court with my fellow pro-Palestine\pro-humanity protest members. We could all have watched it from the comfort of our homes, but being being there in person felt as a duty !
    You know what I found so poignant? And there were so many to choose from, specially in regard to each the fantastic interventions of the South African delegation advocates, it is your humoristique reference to the missing pen! Why?
    Because for me it stand symbol for:
    – Silencing
    – Non-existance
    – Trying to make us forget
    And more.

    This symbolism of a pen being deemed potentially harmful became a subtle yet powerful metaphor. It underscored the significance of words and the potential impact they hold – a reminder that even the seemingly harmless act of writing can be a potent force in the pursuit of justice.

  • Crispa

    Thank you for these reports and much appreciation for the time and effort. I see BBC and similar have been proving their adherence to the propaganda model and adding to its verification by giving scant coverage to the South African case on Thursday and showing live the Israel defence on Friday.

    The media created furore over the Post Office fiasco, which should have occurred many years ago to be done and dusted by now, has served as a useful smokescreen to hide behind all the tragic events in Gaza. Big splash of course over the USA / UK Yemen bombing, another distraction to move the spotlight away from Israeli genocide, and which will surely backfire. That the Houthis are targetting only ships that are Israeli owned or Israeli connected, which John Helmer has shown in his well researched articles on Dancing with Bears with many of the Israeli connections buried in the paperwork, simply adds to American and British complicity in the genocide.

    Again with a few exceptions, notably Jeremy Corbyn of course whose tirelessness in the cause of justice is only matched by Craig Murray, British politicians remain spineless.

  • will moon

    This is a fine piece of writing, evoking a view of a broad, broad vista – the micro in the macro, the macro in the micro

    During the Syriana Analysis livestream yesterday, the host Kevork Almassian lauded your above piece and spent 40 minutes or so, using it as a primer for his audience. Mr Murray if you feel the need for a quick ego boost, listen to his appreciation for your journalism. From 13.30

    “Desiring to take their stand one who is human-hearted helps others take their stand;
    wanting to realise themselves, they help others to realise themselves.
    Being able to take what is near at hand as an analogy is the method of humaneness”
    verse 6.30 Analects, Confucius

  • Faheem

    Thanks a lot for the captivating description of the courtroom and the players on the stage.
    Your short description of the judges and what they were busy with during the proceedings is enough to put cold water on any hopes of justice. You preemptively described the Israeli response to the dot. Israel’s team exactly knows how to scuttle justice. They would certainly have prepped for their body language, however, a lot of it must come from their conviction and belief that the result will be in their favour regardless of the substance of the case.

  • Blissex

    «that Israel has no right of self-defence in the territory of which it is the occupying power»

    That is a popular bit of mindless propaganda (and I think also in many cases of malicious misrepresentation): of course a state has a right of self defense only for attacks against that state, it cannot invoke self-defense when another state is attacked (even if there is also a right to help as part of an alliance to help the self-defense of another state).

    But the Red Cross summarizes international humanitarian law this way:
    In international humanitarian law, a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the adverse foreign armed forces.
    The civilians have no obligation towards the occupying power other than the obligation inherent in their civilian status, i.e., not to participate in hostilities. Because of that obligation, IHL allows them neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy. The civilians have no obligation towards the occupying power other than the obligation inherent in their civilian status, i.e., not to participate in hostilities. Because of that obligation, IHL allows them neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means, nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means. […] The occupying power’s only protected interest is the security of the occupying armed forces; it may take the necessary measures to protect that security»

    An occupied nation has a right to raise a military force (chain of command, distinctive signs, carrying arms openly) to fight the occupation (as the people of the Donbas have done), but the civilians cannot do that, if they attack the occupying forces they are war criminals; the occupying forces have every right to defend themselves both against the military forces fighting the occupation and the criminals attacking them.

    To do otherwise invites a chain of massacres.

  • Blissex

    The bad smell of so many posturings about “genocide” comes from some of unpleasant “details”

    * The “standard” definition of “genocide” was designed to be extremely wide, where any act however minor done with the intent to suppress even a small number of an identity-based group counts as “genocide” when most people understand “genocide” as a mass murder aiming to physically extinguish a nation. The “standard” definition in effect makes genocide a “hate crime”, however minor the acts, rather than a “mass crime”, whatever the motivations. There are many less wide definitions:

    * The “standard” definition of genocide seems designed to make any “antizionist” act, however minor, in particular advocating the abolition of Israel, to be genocidal acts.

    * By the “standard” definition of “genocide” the HAMAS attack against many israeli villages and towns seem to me to have been clearly genocidal, because the intent seems to me to have been to kill or inflict harm on people only because of their membership of a national group (israeli citizens) with the intent to suppress that national group (Israel). As other people have remarked the number of israelis killed does not matter under that definition, what matters is the intent, under the Sbrenica precedent (“just” 8,000 deaths).

    * For people who follow the “folk” definition of “genocide”, a collateral damage of “just” (claimed) a few dozen thousand people massacred over several months seems pretty minor compared to the massacres in the Yemen war, or in Libya or South Sudan or Sudan or Myanmar. The misfortune of the Yemenis is that anti-Sauditic feelings are not as common as anti-Zionist ones 🙂 :-(.

    The apologists of the massacres committed by the israeli military point out that massacres during wars are common, and they are not called “genocides” unless committed by israelis, and given the number of previous massacres even in recent history, the israeli military are just following precedent (an argument I find both logical and awful).

    • zoot

      they are relentlessly bombing a captive population whom they are depriving of food, water and electricity. every hospital has been systematically destroyed. senior ministers have publicly spoken of the desirability of spreading disease.

      the average age of the people Israel is murdering is 5.

      only a very distinct type of mind would register all this and react by seeking to downplay it and smear criticism of it.

    • Bayard

      “The bad smell of so many posturings about “genocide” comes from some of unpleasant “details””

      Not half as bad as the smell from the sophistry that tries to prove that it is OK to slaughter 23,000 civilians, including women and children, so long as it’s not “genocide”.

      “* By the “standard” definition of “genocide” the HAMAS attack against many israeli villages and towns seem to me to have been clearly genocidal, because the intent seems to me to have been to kill or inflict harm on people only because of their membership of a national group (israeli citizens) with the intent to suppress that national group (Israel). ”

      This is demonstrably false. Just because all the people killed on October 7th by Hamas were Israeli citizens doesn’t mean that they were killed because they were Israeli citizens. Are you seriously suggesting that, if there had been a group of, say, US citizens shooting at Hamas fighters on that day, Hamas would have not shot back at them? The intent might seem to you that it was to kill or inflict harm on Israelis, but it is perfectly plausible that Hamas only shot Israelis because the Israelis were shooting them and the intent was to take hostages.

      • Andy Dyer

        There’s a powerful case (ignored by everyone, it seems!) that the Israelis (and the visiting foreigners) were engaged in a mass armed trespass on Palestinian land. Both festival goers and Kibbutz residents. (The exception might be Sderot, which is inside the only borders ever declared by Israel – 15th May 1948. However, I don’t think Sderot was attacked.)
        Surprised? Ask any Zionist “Which Israel in what borders do you want me to recognise?”
        You’ll not get an answer .. and you can guess why not.
        Add to your question “Just tell me and I’ll do it and make you happy!”
        Even that won’t bring them out of their shell of denial.

  • Doug Scorgie

    Where are all the world’s peace loving musicians and singers around the globe that could and should speak out and sing loud about the Israeli Zionist fascism that is committing mass murder on innocent people?
    Music is an international language that breaks down barriers of nationalism and speaks of harmony and compassion.
    Where the f**ck are they?
    Too busy keeping their heads down and counting their money?

  • Kgomotso

    Good day. I did not have the opportunity to watch the two days of the court’s proceedings. Hence I thoroughly enjoyed the contents and detail provided in this article.

    There has been voices all over the world but particularly in the global south about how multilateral international institutions like the United Nations and other related institutions have been captured by the United States to further its own interests. This has led to other voices suggesting that it is of no use for particularly less influential and less powerful countries to remain members and participants in these institutions because no matter what their wishes are, they will not be achieved for as long as they are diametrically opposed to those of the dominant United States. This was also the train of the discourse in the South African social media recently, especially those aggrieved by the ICC issued warrant of arrest which eventually resulted in Russian President not attending the BRICS summit in South Africa.

    On the contrary the South African government has in most instances insisted on being part of and to remain a member of these institutions despite their capture by the United States, hoping to influence and change their course from within. Hence there are growing voices that perhaps it would be better to create alternative institutions like BRICS and gradually leave those obviously captured by the US and other dominant powers. Can those institutions be changed from within?

    Will you please consider writing an article on what I have alluded to above. It would be interesting and informative to hear a view on this from that side of the world.

    Lastly, I’m in no position to afford a monthly subscription. However, I’m interested in making a contribution in a form of a once off donation. How do I go about paying that?

    Pretoria, Ga-Rankuwa, South Africa

    • AG

      Do you happen to know anything about internals of how SA´s decision to take this case to the ICJ came about?

      In the final podcast on the hearing Norman Finkelstein and Mouin Rabbani mention that John Dugard probably did some major lobbying with President Ramaphosa after having been a supporter of Ramaphosa before. Besides they of course mention PLO and ANC ties.

      See here in the first half hour of the podcast (97 min.):


      Finkelstein has finally taken notice of a man called Craig Murray!

      Rabbani apparently gave Finkelstein Mr. Murray´s long read of the first day of the hearing and Finkelstein seemed to agree with the text and in fact liked it.
      However he did not have any recollection of the text´s author.

      See the exchange about Craig´s account 26:00-31:00

      I guess this is due to Finkestein´s almost entire focus being on print in contrast to online publication and communication, where I believe much of Craig´s activity is located.

  • Pyewacket

    Every U.S. Senator Takes Israel Lobbyist Money
    Incremental Genocide and Displacement and Replacement in Gaza.

    Copied and pasted the above from Global Research, I guess the UK isn’t very different with its FoI lobby groups.

  • Allan Howard

    I just did a search for something on the CAAs website and was looking through the results that came up, and one of them (from May, 2019) was entitled ‘Hamas issues statement in “salute” to Jeremy Corbyn, noting its “great respect and appreciation” for his support of antisemitic march’, and the article begins by saying the following:

    Hamas, the terrorist organisation which seeks the murder of all Jews worldwide…..

    Yep, they are ALWAYS looking for (bogus) ways to evoke and induce worry and concern and fear in the Jewish population! It’s just PURE evil.

    • Allan Howard

      And The Cradle posted the following article on Friday:

      ‘How Israeli forces trapped and killed ravers at the Nova Festival’

      New evidence points to Israeli security forces, not Hamas, for causing the most fatalities at the music festival – civilian deaths that were then utilized to justify Tel Aviv’s Gaza genocide.

      Such information is slowly getting through to more and more Israelis, but by the time it’s gotten through to the majority of them and they realise they’ve been duped and deceived and manipulated on a gargantuan scale by Netanyahu and his henchmen, and start demanding an end to the death and destruction, how many Palestinians will have been murdered and maimed……. 100,000?, 200,000?, 300,000? It must already be around the 50,000 mark.

    • Allan Howard

      If only Israel had given the Palestinians their own state twenty/thirty years ago it’s highly unlikely anything like October 7th would ever have happened. That said, why did BN and Co ignore the repeated warnings by Egypt in the weeks and months prior to the attack, and all the ‘activities’ by Hamas close to the border their spotters reported to their senior officers during many months prior to the attack?

      • Ebenezer Scroggie

        I doubt very much that Netanyahu “ignored” the highly detailed Shin Beth intelligence reports that the event was going to occur and when it going to occur (50th anniversary of Yom Kippur War).

        Instead he and his henchmen laid plans to “change the Middle East” (his exact words).

        • Allan Howard

          Yes, exactly! As if anyone would ignore warnings from a neighbouring country that Something Big is imminent. Oh, right, but according to BN, such warnings never happened, and he vehemently denied it…… Well he could hardly admit that they DID of course!

        • Allan Howard

          ES, I don’t doubt that it’s true, but is there anything in the public domain to that effect – ie actual proof? Because if there is, that would be dynamite, and dynamite that blows BN and Co to hell, metaphorically speaking, where he/they belong.

      • Tom Welsh

        If only the Zionists had stayed at home in Europe, North and South America, and wherever else they lived. In 1948 Europe had just been thoroughly rid of the Jews’ ideological enemies, and was safer for the Jews than it had ever been (since medieval times at least). Why would they rush off to Asia to conquer, kill, evict and expropriate people some of whom had been living there since the Jews were (supposedly) expelled? (Actually, quite a few Palestinians are probably descended from the great majority of Jews who stayed put after the Romans killed the troublemaking minority among them).

        There have always been Jews living in Palestine – peacefully and in harmony with their neighbours (or, at worst, ignoring them to concentrate on their elaborate and time-consuming rituals). Just as there are still are today in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia… and Britain, if I can get away with saying that.

        The Zionists caused all the trouble and bloodshed with their supremely arbitrary, purely ideological, immoral, and completely unjustified demand for a state limited to Jews. The “Israeli entity” should never have existed. Incidentally, take a look at how it came into existence. In the court proceedings so brilliantly described by Mr Murray, notice the allegation that the Palestinians have no standing (or, ideally existence) because they do not have a “proper state”. Well, who says that Israel is a proper state? The Zionists, that’s who – immigrants from everywhere BUT Palestine. They simply declared that a new state of Israel had come into existence. And, if you please, the UN “recognised” it. Well, who asked them? Palestine is not the home of any member of the UN – so how come they had standing to approve of it?

    • will moon

      For Context

      There must be a big section on that site for the many 100’s of Israeli citizens murdered by the IDF aka “the most moral army in the world” on the 7 Oct.

      Of the 1200 Israelis killed, Israel may have killed, according to some emerging sources, up to 1000 of it’s own citizens.

      Is killing one’s own citizens a crime under international law?

  • Nota Tory Fanboy

    Happy to be corrected on the following if what Owen Jones has understood turns out not to be true but on the basis that it is true…

    A question that journalists should be asking the IDF spokesdrones is:
    “When is the Supreme Court of Israel going to convict Israeli Government Ministers, Ambassadors, Military Generals, footsoldiers, prominent pop-culture with incitement to genocide and inflict a sentence of the death penalty upon them?”

    I have no desire whatsoever for anyone to be sentenced to death – ever – but as Owen Jones explained recently after checking with an Israeli legal expert, the way the Israeli Government integrated the Genocide Convention into Israeli statute is that specifically the “incitement to genocide” part of the definition of genocide is a capital offence in Israel.

    So until the Israeli Supreme Court makes such rulings in line with that statute, it is literally not possible to take seriously the Israeli Government line that they are suitably punishing (by their own legal standard) any representative of the Israeli State who incites genocide.

    If the State allows the inciters to live then it must logically follow that the State approves of and is complicit in the incitement to genocide.

    Thus being in breach of the Genocide Convention.

  • Roy Ratcliffe

    Thank you so much for this report. I am a retired teacher and long term activist. I funded my own visit to the West Bank to support the Palestinian olive harvest in 2003 and I fund my own blog and book publications out of my pension so I will be unable to donate to your site. However, I do support your efforts and thank you for taking the time and trouble to keep supporters informed.

    Regards, Roy

    • will moon

      Hi Roy, when I click on your name, my browser generates an error message

      I found a website called “creating socialism” with an ezine called “critical mass” is this the site you maintain?

    • Salim Haidrani

      Thank you. Am much impressed that you provided this account with detailed information of the court and the case against Israel.

      Whenever you are in London please me know I want to meet you,

      I live in Camden – Central London.

      Thank you 🙏

  • glenn_nl

    All this endless commentary, and acres of newsprint talking about the Houthis, what we can do about them, the effects their actions have on shipping and our economies – very little said about _why_ they are undertaking this action, apart from some vague notions about solidarity with Palestine.

    Specifically, they’re demanding that aid be allowed into Gaza. By ‘aid’, we’re talking about the basic necessities of life – mentioning that is obviously too much for our corporate media. They’re allowing in a few lorries a day, for a population greater than Northern Ireland. That’s it! There is nothing else for that size of a population to eat, drink, have medical supplies and _everything else_ necessary for basic survival.

    And even then, we have Zionist protestors trying to block this minimal amount of sustainance, with the lorries being fired on by the IDF (the Indiscriminate Death Force).

    Very strange that we’re not even getting any discussion about what might make the Houthis stop – apart from war-ships, bombing runs and sanctions against them, of course. Because that’s our answer to everyone who dares to resist.

    • Allan Howard

      Glenn: Two or three days ago – when the US and UK decided to get involved – I was checking out GB News (although it may have been Talk TV), and someone or other said in passing (as they often do when they want to rewrite ‘history’), that they, the Houthis, have been attacking ships in the Red Sea ‘for the past three months’. I knew straght away that it was a lie, and knew that it wasn’t anywhere near three months since they started attacking ships, but couldn’t recall exactly when they started doing so. Anyway, reading your post reminded me of the GB News (or Talk TV) falsehood/deceitfulness, so I just did a search re >when did the Houthis start attacking ships<, and in the first articled I checked out – a CNN article – it said the following:

      « There are fears that the Houthi drone and missile attacks against commercial vessels, which have occurred almost daily since December 9, could cause an even greater shock to the world economy. »

      So that’s just five weeks ago. Anyway, what with first Ukraine, and now Israel/Gaza, the conflict in Yemen gets very little coverage, not that the MSM ever gave it very much coverage anyway, and reading the CNN article (posted Jan 12th) reminded me how horrific it's been. Here are some passages from it:

      « Today, more than 24 million people – over 80% of the population – are in need of humanitarian aid and protection, according to the UN. Some 3 million people have been displaced from their homes, hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs, and more than half of the population is now living in extreme poverty.

      « The conflict has killed up to round 377,000 people, according to a 2021 report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), more than half of whom died from indirect causes associated with the conflict, such as lack of food, water and healthcare.

      « So far, only 38.9% of Yemen’s humanitarian funding needs are being met, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says, with a funding gap of $2.7 billion still direly needed. »

      'Who are the Houthis and why are they attacking ships in the Red Sea?'

      What a totally fucked up world we live in!

  • harry law

    Asked if he thinks Israel has a case to answer in the ICJ, Lord Cameron said: “No, I absolutely don’t. I think the South African action is wrong, I think it is unhelpful, I think it shouldn’t be happening.

    “Now, of course I am not a lawyer, but they are talking here about genocide, they are taking this case on the basis on genocide, and to prove that you have got to prove that there was intent.
    “I take the view that Israel is acting in self-defence after the appalling attack on October 7.

    “But even if you take a different view to my view, to look at Israel, a democracy, a country with the rule of law, a country with armed forces that are committed to obeying the rule of law, to say that that country, that leadership, that armed forces, that they have intent to commit genocide, I think that is nonsense, I think that is wrong.”

    There we have the weasel words of our Foreign Secretary, similar in contempt as John Kirby [for the US Government] ridiculing the legal and moral case set out in South Africa’s ICJ case. He must be oblivious to the well-documented accusations of intent uttered by Netanyahu and his fellow cabinet members. Cameron is a disgusting lying POS who should be treated with contempt everywhere he goes.

    • AG

      It´s exactly the same in Berlin. Friday´s government press release:

      On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists brutally attacked, tortured, killed and kidnapped innocent people in Israel. Hamas’ goal is to wipe out Israel. Since then, Israel has been defending itself against Hamas’ inhuman attack.

      In view of Germany’s history and the human crime of the Shoah, the Federal Government feels particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide. This convention is a central instrument of international law to implement the “never again” principle. We are firmly opposed to its political instrumentalization.

      We know that different countries have different assessments of Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip. However, the German government firmly and explicitly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel before the International Court of Justice. This accusation has no basis whatsoever.

      The Federal Government supports the International Court of Justice in its work, as it has done for many decades. The Federal Government intends to intervene as a third party in the main hearing.

      What can you say? Nothing.
      Perhpas go make a couple of cream puffs and throw them into their faces next time.
      That´s about the intellectual level these people understand.
      Sure in the 1970s some might have suggested to shoot them.
      But does it help? Not here and not under these circumstances.
      How do you resist power? And even more difficult, how do you force power to act differently?

      And now Germany is defending Israel as a secondary party at the ICJ. How degenerate can you actually be?
      While everybody knows that even countless state officials of the Biden administration are protesting internally!?

    • Bayard

      “Lord Cameron said: “No, I absolutely don’t. I think the South African action is wrong, I think it is unhelpful, I think it shouldn’t be happening.”

      Yes, how dare the South African be unhelpful?

  • harry law

    In my comment above Cameron claims there was no intent in Israel’s actions in Gaza. Here Gareth Porter spells out some of the Genocidal words documented from Netanyahu and his Ministers:

    « … the South African document systematically catalogues a large number of the most explicit statements of genocidal intent imaginable from the part of top officials of the Israeli government and military.
    Far from being secretive about the intention, these officials were eager to tell their own people and the world that that they were going eliminate the Palestinians by force, and do so in a way that was thorough and complete.
    The Palestinians were dehumanized and demonized by Netanyahu and other top officials as enemies that could and should be dealt with as animals rather than as humans, reflecting a long-time popular Zionist theme that has surfaced increasingly in recent years. But Oct. 7 presented the opportunity for the civilian and military leadership to encourage an orgy of genocidal hatred for the Palestinians.
    Most of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statements on Israeli war aims were carefully coded messages about “a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle”, and a “war between sons of light and sons of darkness.”
    But on Oct. 28 and again on Nov. 3, he invoked the biblical story of the Israelites’ total destruction of “Amalek”, by which he was referring to an ancient nomadic tribe or group of tribes, said in the Old Testament to be longtime enemies of “Israel.”
    In the first of those references Netanyahu said: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our holy Bible. And we do remember.”
    He again referred to Amalek in a letter to Israeli soldiers on Nov. 3. He was referring to a biblical passage that said:
    “Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.”
    The message could hardly be clearer to the Israelis: the war was not just targeting Hamas; the target was the Palestinian population.
    President Isaac Herzog, on the other hand, was quite direct: on Oct. 12, he declared:
    “It’s an entire nation out there, that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. … and we will fight until we break their backbone.”
    Similarly, on Oct. 9, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared, “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”
    In a televised address on Nov. 10, Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir declared:
    “When we say that Hamas should be destroyed, it also means those who celebrate, those who support, and those who hand out candy — they’re all terrorists, and they should also be destroyed.”
    Israeli Minister of Heritage Amichai Eliyahu posted on Facebook Nov. 1:
    “The north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes ….”
    In a statement at a meeting of the Israeli Cabinet on Oct. 8, Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich declared, “We need to deal a blow that hasn’t been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza.”
    The document includes half a dozen more examples of clear-cut expressions of genocidal intentions from military officials, but the message from Netanyahu and his ministers is unmistakably clear: the Israeli government intends to destroy the Palestinian society of Gaza and make it impossible for them live there. »

  • Liz Edwards

    Thank you Craig, from the bottom of my heart, for providing us with your (as usual) accurate and lively and
    Compassionate account of the proceedings.

  • SleepingDog

    So for state/imperial genociders, the more genocide the merrier, so they can claim everybody does it? And if ICJ throws out the South African case, they can add “and nobody worth mentioning cares either”?

    I was amateurishly searching for Jewish cultural attitudes to law (apparently Noah’s sons, representing all surviving human lines since the flood, were given injunctions including establishing courts of law), when Wikipedia provided a link to the 2016 occasion when the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League condemned the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel:

    for stating that “non-Jews shouldn’t live in the land of Israel.”

    And that this might happen if Israelis were firmer and more powerful. I guess the ADL were concerned that statements like these could be evidence of genocidal or ethnic cleansing intent in later cases if normalised. It seems that rabbi has made other problematic statements, and it made me wonder just what the standard of public debate has been like recently in Israel before Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post put it under the microscope.

  • C Castle

    Have never heard anyone ask Hamas to stop lobbying rockets at Israel…..just remind me again who started the 7 Ootober war……

    • glenn_nl

      CC: “just remind me again who started the 7 Ootober war……

      Israel started it, with its cruel 70-year long occupation. Happy to clear that up for you.

  • Dave Mitchelmore

    A remarkable and thorough exposition of the presentation of the South African case. Thanks to Craig and to all members of the South African legal team and delegation members. A semblance of justice for the Palestian people most surely be the result of such a presentation

1 2 3