Now I shall turn straight to Professor Richard Falk who is going to be talking to us about genocide self defence under
international law. As I mentioned before, Richard is a renowned international expert, the UN rapporteur on on the Palestine case for the United Nations and he's going to talk to us about the question of genocide, what we're seeing at the moment, question of self defence and where we're going in terms of the International Court of Justice and the South African attempts, so. Richard, thank you Piers.
I'm very honoured and pleased to be part of this panel and I think it's very crucial to link the genocidal events in Gaza and in a sense in all of occupied Palestine to the configurations of empire in the post 911 post Cold War international environment and not forgetting the Ukraine dimension. While we focus on the Middle East.
The Hamas attack on October 7th, which is itself surrounded by suspicious circumstances of Israeli foreknowledge and therefore allowing these horrific events to unfold, and being very slow to respond to the actuality of the attack and the quickness with which it converted a limited instance of Palestinian resistance under Hamas's leadership into the pretext for launching this vengeful and genocidal onslaught on the civilian population of Gaza.
That's a shocking sequence of events on its own. And then when you consider the magnitude of the violence that's been inflicted on Gaza and the population, the whole of the population, you have to understand that this is a horrific, transparent and in a way, original confrontation with the crime of crimes, genocide. In the past, genocides have been known mainly in retrospect and indirectly, and we have not had the experience of the unfolding before our eyes on nightly
television. The imagery of bombing hospitals and refugee camps, of babies being buried in mass graves is something grotesque that not only is occurring as a result of Israeli actions, but enjoys the complicity of important countries in what I would call the settler colonial states of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, plus the main members of NATO which include Germany, UK and France, who are also
colonial powers. And so this has to be seen as part of the post colonial effort by the global white W to maintain hegemonic control over the whole world system.
If we look at the casualties and the damage that has been done in Gaza up to this point, in the three months that these horrendous events have unfolded and multiply them proportionately to the population of country like the United States, which has supported materially and diplomatically at every stage so far, the occurrence of such violence, we would multiply the death totals of over 20,000 by 175 to take proportional account of the relative populations.
That's a shocking total and predominantly civilians, and seemingly having only a marginal connection with Israeli security. If Israeli security was the dominant motive, they would do differently what might prevent some similar act of resistance to take place in the future. They would first of all correct the bureaucratic process that led to this so-called security lapse and that would probably be sufficient to re establish their security.
They would also try to accommodate the needs of the people of Gaza by lifting the 15 year old blockade and make any acts of resistance seem less like a jailbreakout than a
isolated instance of violence. When we look at the Genocide Convention itself, we see that both Israel and the United States and the leading NATO members and those settler colonial states are all parties to that convention, which was viewed as a key element in creating a kind of wall against the repetition of what happened in the Holocaust And what we've seen not only in Gaza now but elsewhere, in Rwanda, in Malaysia, in in Myanmar, not Malaysia, is an inadequate
capacity to implement the intention of the Genocide Convention to prevent its recurrence. But what is clear is that the facts of bombing so indiscriminately and so persistently and disproportionately in opposition to international humanitarian law, the civilian population of 2.3 million Gazans is creates the factual foundation of the genocidal allegation.
And that factual allegation is reinforced by the statements of the highest Israeli leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President Herzog and the Minister of Defense Yoav Galant. All of them have articulated views about the total decimation and devastation of Gaza. The destruction of up to 80% of the housing in northern Gaza, which was, which was part of a deliberate policy of forced evacuation with the evident
intention of ethnic cleansing. In other words, all the evidence we have points to the fact that the October 7th Hamas attack served as a pretext for the completion of the Zionist project by the dispossession of Israelis. Dispossession by Israelis of Palestinians living not only in Gaza, but in the West Bank, which has experienced unrestricted settler violence in this period and has also suffered unusually severe casualties during this time.
So what we have is a transparently evident instance of genocide that has been defended very weakly and without a substantive argument, as in case of self-defense. We know from international law that self-defense does not allow the the the state that claims it to engage in disproportionate and unlimited violence or to commit what would otherwise be crimes under the under the cover of claiming self-defense.
And in this instance, the claim of self-defense is particularly weak because Gaza and the West Bank are occupied territories and under the administrative responsibility of Israel as the occupying power Since 1967. Israel has not implemented the unanimous Security Council Resolution 242 back in 1967, which called upon it to withdraw to the 67 borders, and instead has used that period to engage in unlawful territorial encroachments on the occupied territory of the West Bank
through its extensive settlement network, which has 650,000 Israelis living there. And is really the death warrant of any realistic hope that A2 State solution could be achieved in light of this kind of territorial ambitious
expansionism? So that it's questionable under any circumstances that a claim of self-defense is appropriate in an occupied territory governed by the 4th Geneva Convention. Because in effect, self-defense is only a tactically available if the combatants are both in some sense political actors of an international status. You cannot defend yourself against part of what you are administering within your own territory.
You can make reasonable claims to establish security or to re establish security, but as I've suggested, Israel has not tried to do that. As shocking as these genocidal crimes have been, I find as disturbing the complicity of the these countries in the world that have held themselves before international public opinion as models of democracy, of champions of human rights, of supporters of the rule of law.
For the United States to undermine its own reputation by supporting this sort of transparent genocide should be shocking to the peoples of the world. And it has been if one takes account of the popular demonstrations all over the world. And this these acts of complicity go against the obligations of the Genocide Convention, which require parties to the convention, all of which encompass both Israel and the US, as well as the members of NATO and the settler
colonial states. All of them are expected, as a matter of law, to take what action is reasonably possible in order to prevent or disrupt the continuation of genocide. They are all perpetrating crimes of being accessory to genocide.
And it is an act of shame that they have done little to distance themselves or to actively oppose the the continuation of these developments and to use their leverage at the United Nations to disempower the Security Council that sought, by an overwhelming vote of 14 to 1 to establish a ceasefire weeks ago. This is not only failing to prevent genocide, it's a matter of facilitating genocide.
And that should be taken into our political imagination and our moral imagination when we think about accountability for the crimes that are being committed.
South Africa has recently initiated under Article Three of the Genocide Convention. It's right as a party to the Convention to call for the International Court of Justice to impose provisional measures of a character that would instruct Israel as a matter of. International Court of Justice authority to immediately cease any kind of violent activity that is part of the crime that is being committed and would also consider whether Hamas should fall within the scope of
such a crime. This this is a serious challenge both to the complicit countries to stand aside If the rulings that are expected in the coming weeks of the World Court do uphold the South African application that is calling for
these immediate measures. As a prelude to a decision on whether the allegation of genocide, which is contained in a 94 page document that goes through in agonizing detail the facts of genocide that have transpired in this period, starting with the day after October 7th. There. There is also the question of who will endorse this South African initiative. Turkey so far is the only NATO member that has endorsed it. Jordan and Malaysia have joined in that endorsement.
And we noticed that none of the European colonial powers and none of the settler colonial states have seen fit to uphold a judicial determination of whether action should be taken to prevent this genocide from going on. So what is presented to the world is a crisis of implementation and accountability.
There's no doubt that a crime of a high magnitude is being committed, and indeed is virtually confessed to be committed, despite Israel's record of defiance of international law throughout its occupation. And it's allegations that any criticism, wherever it emanates from, is an instance of anti-Semitism.
It called the International Criminal Court's decision to investigate crimes against Israel Crimes by Israel alleged by Palestine subsequent to 2014. Before these recent events, Prime Minister Netanyahu reacted by saying this is pure anti-Semitism, as if the Internet respected international institution is motivated by such base intentions. Similarly, they've attacked the South African initiative as a blood libel against the Jewish people.
A blood libel was the kind of anti Jewish allegation made in the early Christian period. The Jews were guilty of murdering Christian babies and it and it was genuine anti-Semitism of a extreme sort to make these false allegations. But to but to contradict what we see before our eyes and call that a blood libel is itself something that suggests an unwillingness of Israel to accept any authority that challenges its policies, however unlawful and criminal.
And it's done that throughout the occupation. It has made life miserable for people like myself who acted as special rapporteurs that were expected to report as honestly as we could on violations of human rights associated with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.
So we have a situation where the prospects of implementing A favorable International Court of Justice decision against Israel will depend on the willingness of the Security Council to use its authority and to take the steps necessary to implement that decision. And once again, it will.
That will hinge on whether the permanent five members of the Security Council will either abstain or at least by and thereby suspend their right of veto or actually vote in favor of implementing the findings and the orders of the International Court of Justice. And in the longer run, there seems to be a need for some kind of accountability procedure to address these crimes, both the crime of genocide as perpetrated by Israel, and the crimes of complicity as led by the US and
supported in various ways by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. So this is a crisis of not only conscience, but of law and of the protection of vulnerable people in a world that is beset by a variety of challenges, including the ongoing Ukraine War, and is seeking a new kind of way of managing power and security that doesn't depend on the unipolar imperial authority that has been exercised by the United States since the end of the Cold War and the implosion
of the Soviet Union. A new phase of international relations will emerge out of this crisis. In bringing my remarks to a close, I would also say there's a great danger that Israel will seek to widen the war in the region because it will be cornered politically, which is beginning to be evident in some of the violence beyond the
borders of Gaza itself. And it's cornered, because it can neither prevail and convincingly declare some kind of victory that is credible, nor can it afford to lose. Given the investment it's made in terms of its own law, the lives of Israeli soldiers and citizens, and the damage it's done to its global reputation, it's no longer a legitimate
state. After this form of sustained behaviour, it is condemned almost universally and the peoples of the governments that are condemning it are seeking to exert pressure for some sort of implementation. So there is this moment of crisis and appeal to the peoples of the global W to rise in a way that put exerts pressure on their own governments to take international law seriously to promote, at this late toxic stage, justice for the Palestinian people. Let me stop there.
Thank you, Richard, for that forensic and unequivocal assessment of what is happening at the moment in relation to the question of genocide. We'll also have many questions at the end in the panel discussion. Just strikes me the weaponization of the term. Anti-Semitism I think is wearing thin given what we're seeing in in the Middle East at the moment, but that was a fantastic presentation.