Be part of watching world

Dr Gabrielle Jamela Hosein

I WRITE on day 95 of Israel’s war on Gaza, with Al Jazeera reporting 23,000 Palestinians killed, including more than 9,000 children, and 59,000 others injured, including more than 18,000 children. Save the Children reports that more than ten children a day, on average, have lost one or both of their legs in Gaza in the last three months.

On New Year’s Day, I watched another video of an infant, lying like Jesus in a creche, being pulled from under rubble and carried unconscious to a hospital.

On January 3, the governments of the US, the UK, a range of European countries, and Bahrain, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Singapore issued a statement through the White House condemning Houthi attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea. The statement used words like “unacceptable,” “innocent lives” and “illegal attacks.”

Imagine, said the world, that these governments thought commercial vessels (with 12 per cent of seaborne-traded oil and eight per cent of the world’s liquefied natural gas) deserved stronger words and greater consensus than innocent civilians, including children. This is even though Israeli withholding of water and food from Gaza is predicted to kill even more Palestinians than air strikes.

On January 8, Isaac Herzog, Israeli president, posted about US vice president Kamala Harris stressing US commitment to “Israel’s right and duty to defend itself. This “right” has been challenged on multiple grounds, whether in terms of the status of Gaza as already occupied by Israel; Israel’s shutting down of access to water, food, medical care, humanitarian aid and fuel; its destruction of hospitals, refugee camps and shelters, schools and libraries; its forced expulsion and displacement of Palestinians; and its violation of the principles of international humanitarian law.

Amidst such global hypocrisy and doublespeak comes South Africa’s urgent lawsuit against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

South Africa’s position is that it has an obligation as a state party to the convention to prevent genocide.

It is asking for emergency or provisional measures which order Israel to stop any genocidal acts taking place and to take reasonable measures to prevent genocide and incitement to commit genocide, including suspending its military assault on Gaza, to comply with its own obligations. It is supported by several countries – including, from our region, Bolivia, and by hundreds of human-rights organisations.

Israel will likely be arguing for an inherent right to self-defence, that its military bombardment has been in accordance with international law and that Hamas’s violent capture of hostages and killing of Israelis and others also constitute genocide. Indeed, though not falling under the ICJ’s jurisdiction, the fundamental rule of international humanitarian law is that parties in an armed conflict must never attack civilians.

In 2004, in relation to the construction of what Palestinians call the “Wall of Apartheid,” the ICJ rendered an advisory opinion disagreeing with the argument of self-defence, finding the 708-km West Bank barrier a form of de-facto annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory and a violation of international law. South Africa’s case runs for two days, starting tomorrow.

The decision won’t be delivered for some weeks, but it is important to note that the court does not have to determine whether Israel violated the convention, just whether the acts described can fall under the convention’s provisions. The court’s decision is binding on every member state of the convention, though not enforceable, and has interesting implications.

Other member states are legally required to respect the decision and could launch further procedures.

The decision will further embolden the International Criminal Court prosecutor’s investigation of alleged Israeli war criminals. The US will have to publicly ignore it if it vetoes another UN Security Council resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire, which will further shred its global moral authority, already in tatters.

A decision on provisional measures could take weeks. The broader decision on the merits of the case could take years, and, if the court sides with South Africa that there are gross violations of human rights, it should have implications for the US's (and other member states’) financial and military assistance to Israel, as the court will have affirmed its obligation to take affirmative action to prevent genocide.

The South Africa application makes for dread reading. Its 84 pages document decades of deliberate decimation and dehumanisation of Gaza and of its people. Its facts are overwhelming and indisputable.

Tomorrow, be part of the world that will be watching.

Diary of a mothering worker

Entry 523

motheringworker@gmail.com