Depraved: The Legal Imbroglio with Israel

Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential election and the now likely ascension of Kamala Harris to the presidency of the United States have overshadowed last week’s decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.* In a scathing rebuke to the State of Israel, the Court refuted in its 83-page memorial Israeli claims that the Palestinian territories under its control are “disputed,” not occupied. Specifically, the Court determined that Israel’s occupation regime in these three areas, which it considers “a single territorial unit” (p. 27), violates countless statutes of international law.

From restrictions on basic rights of free movement to special pass laws for Palestinians, to arbitrary and systematic demolitions of Palestinian homes and open discrimination against Palestinians as a group, the ICJ Opinion lists abuses committed by the State of Israel as an occupier and violator of the most fundamental human rights of the Palestinians over whom it rules. In conclusion, the Court notes that “Israel’s continued presence in the occupied territories is unlawful” (pp. 72 et seq.).

From this judgment, Israel appears as nothing more than a pariah state, similar to that other notorious violator of human rights, the apartheid regime of South Africa.

According to the Court, Israel has established in the occupied territories a system of laws, policies and practices that results in physical segregation and differential legal treatment of Palestinians. This system amounts to a system of apartheid, that is, a regime that subjects individuals to different laws, policies and practices based on their race, ethnicity or religion.

For several years, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights have condemned Israel as an apartheid state.

For the first time, the International Court of Justice, which rules on state conduct, has confirmed this assertion regarding Israeli apartheid, writing in its opinion delivered four days ago that “the legislation and measures taken by Israel constitute a violation of Article 3 of the CERD” (Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination). Article 3 of the CERD refers to the illegality of “racial segregation and apartheid” and obliges states that are signatories to the Convention to “undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature” (pp. 64-65). A violation of Article 3 of the CERD means that the country is in violation of the international convention on segregation and apartheid.

It is this part of the ICJ decision that is perhaps most vexing to the United States. If, according to the foremost international legal authority, Israel has entered into the legal terrain formerly occupied by South Africa, then the members of the international body under its jurisdiction, the member states of the United Nations, are obligated not to aid and abet such a regime as was the case with South Africa. The problem for the United States is obvious. America is deeply entangled in the probable genocidal activity of a regime now designated as an apartheid regime. At the same time, there is an even more immediate and in many ways more deeply troubling problem for the United States.

This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the US Congress. The Israeli prime minister has played this role many times before, and as in his previous appearances, he was greeted by a group of mostly adoring and complacent lawmakers who accorded him saintly status with multiple standing ovations and raucous cheers of approval. There is something truly sordid about this. Imagine the leader of a state now legally designated a pariah regime and violator of the apartheid convention, who is leading an army that is likely committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—with a possible war crimes indictment hanging over his head—being cheered and applauded as if he were Mother Teresa. It is hard to imagine a more macabre spectacle.

Finally, this invitation to the Israeli leader and relations with Israel in general pose a formidable problem for the now likely Democratic presidential candidate.

Kamala Harris is a lawyer and a former prosecutor. She probably knows at least the broad strokes of the legal entanglements that now weigh on America’s most staunch ally. As a prosecutor, Harris seems certain to grasp the ramifications of aiding and abetting entities and individuals labeled criminals. At times, the vice president has shown a conscience and compassion for those whom good fortune has abandoned. On the moral dimensions of the carnage in Gaza, however, Kamala Harris has been largely silent. Her conscience and sense of moral rectitude will be tested in the days ahead, as this spectacle in the US Congress unfolds in the lead-up to November, and perhaps, if fate and fortune align in some way, in the future.

All references come from the ICJ opinion available at this link.

The article Depraved: The Legal Entanglement with Israel appeared first on CounterPunch.org.