This past week, the world held its breath as South Africa's top legal team pressed its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The lawyers argued that the state of Israel is guilty of genocide by prosecuting its war against the people of Gaza.
On Thursday, the South Africans made their case in exquisite detail. It cited chapter and verse proving, the lawyers said, that Israel not only committed acts of genocide, but that according to its leaders' own admissions, Israel did so with full genocidal intent.
On Friday the Israeli defense team gave their reply. It basically held that all of Israel's actions including the deaths of 30,000 Palestinians (at least half of them children and women) are justified by the Hamas attacks of October 7th, 2023.
Final resolution of the case may take months or even years. Now however, we await the court's preliminary directives.
Whatever those judgments and injunctions might be, the very fact that the world was forced to listen to the South African case against Israel represented a victory for the Palestinians and an education for the world at large - especially for the United States. That's because the U.S. mainstream media (MSM) has largely excluded the Palestinian viewpoint from public awareness. In fact, to give sympathetic voice to the Palestinian perspective has been all but criminalized here.
Accordingly, since October 7th, Americans have been subjected to nonstop Israeli propaganda that presents the conflict in Gaza as though it began on October 7th -- as though it was initiated without provocation by blood thirsty terrorists driven by irrational anti-Semitism.
So understood, that scenario gives to Israel the right to overlook international law and to follow a "morality" of revenge, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. It is a "morality" completely supported by the United States.
The argument here is that such morality can have only highly disastrous effects.
To show what I mean, allow me to (1) summarize the case so eloquently argued by the South African legal team, (2) lay out Israel's exceptionalist morality, (3) put the entire case in historical perspective, (4) apply Israel's logic to that case, and (5) conclude with specific recommendations about legal responses to Israel's policies.
South Africa's Case
The case of the South African legal team was argued convincingly. It was founded on international law. The argument implied and/or specifically held that:
- Illegal occupiers enjoy no right to self-defense.
- Neither does any regime practicing apartheid. Apartheid is a war crime.
- On the contrary, it is the illegally occupied who have the right of self-defense against their occupiers and any system of apartheid. That right includes taking up arms against the perpetrators in question.
- No provocation, no matter how egregious justifies direct attacks on civilians.
- In all cases, any response to terroristic attacks must observe the principle of proportionality. That is, Article 51 Section 6 of the UN Charter states that revenge attacks against civilian populations are strictly forbidden.
- So are forced relocations of entire populations, deprivation of food and water to civilian populations, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, schools, refugee camps, places of worship, and members of the press.
By ignoring such legal restrictions, the South African lawyers argued, Israel is guilty of genocide defined in law as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The lawyers bolstered their case with statements from Zionists all the way from soldiers in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to the country's prime minister declaring their genocidal intentions.
Israel's Syllogism of Genocide
In reply to the accusations just cited, Israeli lawyers laid out their case arguing that Israel's right to self-defense justified all the actions listed by the South African barristers. The Israeli case and exceptionalist "morality" implies the quasi-syllogism immediately below:
- Following unprovoked violent attacks on civilians by an enemy, the right to retaliate in self-defense overrides all moral principles and international law.
a) More specifically, it exempts the offended from all legal strictures against killing civilians including babies, infants, children, women, and the elderly in any way connected with attacks by the enemy in question.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
