Depraved: The Legal Entanglement with Israel
An Israeli soldier checking the IDs of Palestinians at the Huwara checkpoint. Photo by Gary Fields.
Lost in Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the Presidential election, and the now-likely accession of Kamala Harris to Democratic nominee, is the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.* In a searing rebuke to the State of Israel, the Court in its 83-page brief refuted Israeli claims that the Palestinian territories under its control are “disputed,” not occupied. More to the point, the Court determined that the occupation regime established by Israel in these three areas, which it considers to be “a single territorial unit,” [p. 27] is in violation of innumerable statutes of international law.
From restrictions on basic rights of free movement, to special pass laws for Palestinians, arbitrary and systematic demolitions of Palestinian homes, and overt discrimination against Palestinians as a group, the ICJ Opinion catalogs a widespread pattern of abuses by the State of Israel as an occupier and violator of the most fundamental human rights of Palestinians over whom it rules. In conclusion, the Court notes, “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Territories is illegal.” [p. 72ff].
From this ruling, Israel emerges as nothing other than a pariah state, similar to that other notorious violator of human rights, the apartheid regime of South Africa.
According to the Court, in the Territories under its occupation, Israel has created a system of laws, policies, and practices resulting in physical segregation and differential legal treatment for Palestinians. By these measures, such a system is akin to an apartheid system, that is, a regime that subjects people to different sets of laws, policies, and practices according to race, ethnicity or religion.
For several years now, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights have condemned Israel as an apartheid state.
Now, for the first time, the World Court adjudicating the conduct of States, has affirmed this contention about Israeli apartheid, writing in its Opinion of four days ago “that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD” [the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Segregation]. Article 3 of CERD makes reference to the illegality of “racial segregation and apartheid” and obligates state signatories to the Convention to “undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature.” [pp. 64-65] A breach of Article 3 of CERD means that the country is in violation of the international convention on segregation and apartheid.
It is this part of the ICJ ruling that is undoubtedly the most vexing for the U.S. If, according to the world’s preeminent international legal authority, Israel has entered the legal terrain once occupied by South Africa, then members of the international body under its jurisdiction, UN member states are obligated not to aid and abet such regime as was the case with South Africa. The problem for the U.S. is obvious. America is deeply entangled in the probable genocidal activity of a now-designated apartheid regime. At the same time, there is an even more immediate, and in many ways more deeply troubling problem for the U.S.
This week, the embattled Prime Minister of Israel, Benyamin Netanyahu addressed lawmakers in the U.S. Congress. The Israeli PM has performed this role on multiple occasions previously and, as in past appearances, he was feted by a cast of mostly adoring and compliant legislators who accorded him saintly status with multiple standing ovations and raucous calls of approval. There is something truly sordid in all of this. Imagine the leader of a State now carrying the legal designation of a pariah regime and violator of the apartheid convention, who is at helm of a military plausibly committing genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza – with a possible indictment over his own head as a war criminal – being feted and applauded as if he were Mother Teresa. It is difficult to imagine a more macabre kind of spectacle.
Finally, this invitation to the Israeli leader and the relationship with Israel in general poses a daunting problem for the now-likely Democratic Presidential nominee.
Kamala Harris is a lawyer and former prosecutor. She is no doubt familiar with at least the broad outlines of the legal entanglements now gripping America’s most ironclad ally. As a prosecutor, Harris seems certain to grasp the ramifications of aiding and abetting entities and individuals designated as criminals. At certain times, the Vice President has shown that she does have a conscience and some compassion for those abandoned by good fortune. On the moral dimensions of the carnage in Gaza, however, Kamala Harris has been largely silent. Her conscience and sense of moral righteousness are going to be tested in the coming days as this spectacle in the U.S. Congress unfolds as a prelude to November, and perhaps if fate and fortune align in a certain way, into the future as well.
All references come from the ICJ Opinion accessible at this link.