Friday, January 26, 2024

I Refuse to Endorse Zionism, So I Am Resigning From My Leadership Position

I have experienced unrelenting pressure from Florida Atlantic University to disavow my anti-Zionist ethical commitments.
January 25, 2024
Nicole Morse speaks on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace South Florida at a march organized by the South Florida Coalition for Palestine on November 11, 2023, in South Beach, Miami.  GLORY JONES


Today, I submitted my resignation as director of the Center for Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Although it might at first appear that this choice was driven by the ever-intensifying political attacks against gender studies in Florida, these attacks are precisely why I would have wanted to remain as director. As a genderqueer scholar, I have been deeply committed to defending the center and advocating for the value of our research and teaching. However, I am also an anti-Zionist Jewish scholar, and since October 7, I have experienced unrelenting pressure from the university to disavow my religious practice, my religious community and my ethical commitments.

On January 16, FAU administrators made it explicitly clear to me that to be a leader at the university, I must support Israel. I have chosen to resign from the directorship in order to speak out about what I have experienced, and to add my experience to the hundreds of stories of academics and cultural workers who are being targeted in order to silence criticism of the state of Israel amid its genocidal campaign in Gaza.
One of Many Anti-Zionist Jews

Growing up as a third-generation American Jew, I learned about the Shoah and I was taught that Jews have responded to our experience of genocide by understanding that resisting oppression is an ethical and a religious imperative. Although I also grew up immersed in hasbara (Israeli state propaganda), my parents’ values and my commitment to justice led me to the conviction that an ethnonationalist state built on ethnic cleansingoccupation/siege and apartheid is fundamentally contrary to Judaism’s values of tzedek (justice) and shalom (peace).

This is a perspective that is shared by many Jews, whether religious or secular. In fact, until World War II, anti-Zionism was quite common among world Jewry. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the International Jewish Labor Bund rejected Zionism in favor of internationalism, diasporism and socialist solidarity. In response to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the only Jewish member of the British Parliament, Edwin Montagu, described the declaration’s Zionist position as antisemitic.

RELATED STORY

Bills in Georgia Aim to Suppress Cop City, Pro-Palestine Activists
“Don’t sleep on this red clay fascism y’all,” one political theorist said.
By Zane McNeill , TRUTHOUT January 24, 2024

In the 21st century, anti-Zionist Jews include everyone from ultra-orthodox groups like Satmar Hasidim and Neturei Karta, to Jews organizing for social justice with Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), to my home synagogue, Tzedek Chicago. For many Jews worldwide, anti-Zionism is a principled political commitment and an important part of our religious identity and religious practice. 

Prejudice and Repression in the Academy

FAU, however, has deep ties to the state of Israel and any hint of anti-Zionism is swiftly silenced. These dynamics are longstanding and predate October 7. In September 2023, I was pressured by FAU administration not to serve as the faculty adviser for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) because, like myself, some members of the group are committed to the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” in Israel/Palestine. During one meeting, I was told by a horrified administrator that democracy in the region “would mean an Arab majority.” The implication was that racialized people are dangerous, untrustworthy and incapable of participating in civic life, which is a longstanding colonialist trope.

After October 7, the situation at FAU rapidly became untenable for many Palestinian, Muslim and Arab students, as they faced racist harassment, eliminationist rhetoric, death threats and rape threats — all while receiving no institutional support. They were characterized by FAU leadership as violent, even implicitly as antisemitic. Some of these dynamics are chronicled in a University Press story about the repression of pro-Palestinian voices at FAU.

Simultaneously, as I participated in Jewish efforts advocating for a ceasefire (including my synagogue’s weekly Jewish Fast for Gaza and peaceful protests organized by South Florida JVP), I found myself similarly targeted and smeared as “antisemitic,” despite being an observant Jew. To be clear, anti-Zionism should never be conflated with antisemitism, whether it is a position held by Jews or non-Jews, religious or secular. But my experience is inevitably colored by my Jewishness, and by being treated as an antisemite because of my religiously informed commitment to anti-Zionism.
Harassment, Accusations and Investigations

Enquiries into my supposed “antisemitism” have focused on two incidents: my letter to the editor that was published by the Palm Beach Post on October 9, and my arrest for participating in peaceful civil disobedience at the office of Sen. Rick Scott on October 17. These are activities that occurred outside of my work hours and they are unrelated to my responsibilities at FAU. Though these actions made me a target for right-wing doxxing and harassment, they are actions that any participant in a democratic society should be able to take, and which are commonly used strategies in movements for social change.

When I ended up on Turning Point USA’s “professor watchlist,” a few colleagues quietly reached out to me, but I received no support from FAU leaders. Instead, I have endured unrelenting criticism along with intense institutional pressure to change my religious and political views and actions. I have been asked repeatedly whether I will stop participating in protests. I have been required to defend my religious beliefs and to explain how they are not antisemitic. I have been questioned repeatedly about my views on Hamas, despite the fact that I have been clear that I do not support violence against civilians. Although I am director of the Center for WGSS, I have been told not to discuss the consensus in the field, which is reflected in the many statements from the National Women’s Studies Association supporting Palestinian liberation.

As I participated in Jewish efforts advocating for a ceasefire (including my synagogue’s weekly Jewish Fast for Gaza and peaceful protests organized by South Florida JVP), I found myself … targeted and smeared as “antisemitic.”

This pressure campaign was pervasive. After members of the Zionist student organization Owls for Israel harassed me on October 9, I was warned not to put anything about the experience in writing. Although there were many eyewitnesses, including six police officers, I faced stonewalling from the police department when I attempted to report the students’ rape threats, transphobic slurs and shouts of “zonah” (prostitute). When I tried to advocate for Palestinian students facing similar harassment, I was directed into a bureaucratic maze and cautioned that reporting experiences shared with me by students who did not give me their names could constitute a policy violation. Rumors about my pending termination and stories about colleagues being questioned regarding me have circulated, creating an atmosphere of fear that appeared designed to isolate me.

When three Zionist donors claimed falsely in private emails that I was “willing to put lives at stake” through my membership in anti-Zionist organizations and congregations, and then demanded my removal from the directorship of WGSS, I received repeated requests for information about my activities as director, while being kept almost entirely in the dark about what seems to be an ongoing investigation. For months, I have been periodically called into meetings — or, more often, received information third- or fourth-hand, regarding this campaign against me. Many of these conversations have included implicit and explicit pressure to resign from my position with WGSS, including warnings that what happened to Claudine Gay could happen to me. On January 16, I was presented with the choice between taking a leave of absence or disaffiliating from my anti-Zionist congregation.

At no point has any evidence been offered suggesting that I have actually caused harm or neglected my responsibilities as director. Yet I was told that my religious beliefs are only protected as long as they don’t “harm others,” which is aligned with a pervasive pattern of treating Zionists’ feelings as more important than the material well-being of Palestinians. It seems that the university administration has accepted at face value accusations based entirely on dubious information on anti-Zionism proffered by the controversial Anti-Defamation League, which (as pointed out by a coalition of social justice groups) “has a history and ongoing pattern of attacking social justice movements led by communities of color, queer people, immigrants, Muslims, Arabs, and other marginalized groups, while aligning itself with police, right-wing leaders, and perpetrators of state violence.”

A Landscape of Censorship and Silencing

I am far from alone in enduring this kind of pressure. Across the country, institutions of higher education are engaged in a campaign of repression against advocacy for Palestinians while legislatures are passing laws that criminalize criticism of the state of Israel. At Columbia University, both SJP and JVP have been banned, and in Florida, attempts to ban SJP have not yet officially succeeded, but their chilling effect is palpable. In every sector, pro-Palestinian speech is being censored and punished, and Palestine Legal describes the climate of repression as “unprecedented.”

It is vital to remember that this crackdown on freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is occurring in the midst of what many experts describe as a genocide. As of January 22, Israel has killed over 25,000 people in Palestine, including over 10,000 childrenover 100 journalists and over 300 medical professionals. Genocide targets culture as well as people, and Israel has damaged or destroyed more than 100 cultural sites as well as every university in Gaza. Amid my horror and heartbreak, I feel more strongly than ever that anti-Zionist Judaism is a necessary part of the collective effort to build a better world. For my part, resigning gives me the opportunity to speak out and continue to work toward justice and freedom for all, from the river to the sea. As Rabbi Hillel famously said, when describing the ethical imperative to act in the face of injustice, “If not now, when?”


NICOLE ERIN MORSE is a scholar of queer and trans media production and a community organizer in South Florida with Jewish Voice for Peace and the Community Hotline for Incarcerated People. They have published original research in Jump CutCollateral, and elsewhere, and their book Selfie Aesthetics: Seeing Trans Feminist Futures in Self-Representational Art is available through Duke University Press.

DOE Investigations of Campus “Antisemitism” Suppress Criticism of Gaza Genocide



As Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues, Department of Education investigations are chilling dissent at US campuses.

By Arvind Dilawar
TRUTHOUT
January 18, 2024

NYPD officers stand guard as people gather to protest the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) at Columbia University on November 20, 2023, in New York City.
MICHAEL M. SANTIAGO / GETTY IMAGES

Any honest freelance journalist will admit that rejection is simply part of the job. Every story pitch is basically a swing at bat in which the odds of striking out may be higher or lower but are always present. Sometimes the story’s been done, sometimes it’s just too weak — and sometimes it ruffles the feathers of the publisher who is under investigation by the United States Department of Education (DOE) over allegations of supposed antisemitism.

That last circumstance recently happened to me. While it may sound rare, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights currently has dozens of such investigations, which are effectively stifling criticism of Israel at schools across the U.S.
“Label Them Anti-Semitic”

The Smart Set is an online publication covering arts and culture published by Pennoni Honors College at Drexel University. I have been contributing to The Smart Set on and off since 2019, writing about everything from growing meat in test tubes to the politics of W.E.B. Du Bois, but focusing primarily on books.

In that vein, and in light of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, my most recent story for The Smart Set was about George Orwell’s perspective on colonization — that it dehumanizes the colonizer, as well as the colonized — and how that perspective endures in journalist Sylvain Cypel’s book, The State of Israel vs. the Jews. After initial interest from The Smart Set’s managing editor, Erica Levi Zelinger, my draft was summarily rejected by the dean of Pennoni Honors College, Paula Marantz Cohen — a first, coming after more than a dozen accepted submissions. By way of explanation, Zelinger directed me to a statement by Drexel’s president regarding an ongoing investigation by the DOE into the university for reported harassment of Jewish students.

RELATED STORY

OP-ED |
HUMAN RIGHTS
Amid Israel’s Brutality in Gaza, It’s Time to Commit to Anti-Zionism
As Israel devastates Gaza, Jewish anti-Zionists are resisting and insisting that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.
By Brant Rosen , TRUTHOUT December 5, 2023

Contacted for comment for this article, Drexel denied that there was any connection between the DOE investigation and the rejection of my story.

“[Cohen’s] feeling is not that we can’t publish a piece on the conflict, but that this piece does not present a fair and balanced view of this volatile and complex situation,” said Zelinger, who also serves as director of marketing and media for Pennoni Honors College. “As for the U.S. Department of Education’s investigation into the actions of Drexel University, that has nothing to do with our rejection of the piece and that email was shared with you merely to share a general response from Drexel University.”

Drexel’s denial aside, criticism of Israel being suppressed with allegations of “antisemitism” is so prevalent that it is, ironically, a theme of Cypel’s book: “Israel’s ideological influence has never seemed so visible,” writes Cypel. “It effectively silences its critics by threatening to label them anti-Semitic.”
“The University Tries to Suppress and Silence Us”

The episode above would be yet another mundane rejection in a career inevitably filled with them were it not a small example of a much broader trend in higher education.

“Just as young people were at the forefront of the protests against the Vietnam War and the movement to end South African apartheid, young people are once again on the right side of history in standing unequivocally for the freedom and dignity of the people of Palestine,” writes a spokesperson for Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which organizes against Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, at many US universities, in an email to Truthout. “Within the Jewish community, so many young people are challenging the Zionist propaganda that they were raised with and are choosing instead to organize for collective safety and liberation.”

Anti-Zionists of all stripes, including Jews like those with JVP, are increasingly being labeled antisemitic by defenders of Israel. Since at least 2019, the DOE has been considering a definition of antisemitism that includes all criticism of Israel, although that has yet to be formalized. Nevertheless, the DOE previously tried to use such a definition to shut down organizing related to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a movement advocating nonviolent economic opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, at Rutgers University.

Following the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, the DOE appears to once again be using the veneer of antisemitism to stifle criticism of Israel, opening at least 52 investigations into alleged “discrimination involving shared ancestry” at schools nationwide. In a press release, the department describes these “Title VI” investigations as covering both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents but further suggests that the former outnumbers the latter more than two-to-one. A more in-depth review of three of the most high-profile schools — Harvard, Columbia and Cornell — also signals that, like Drexel, the respective investigations all relate specifically to alleged harassment of Jewish students.

The DOE refused to answer questions about the investigations. “The department does not comment further on pending investigations,” said Jim Bradshaw, press officer at the DOE.

Although investigations are just that — inquiries in which wrongdoing has yet to be determined — the DOE appears to already be having an impact on campuses, with everything from attempts at managing criticism of Israel to silencing it altogether in the wake of new DOE probes.

“The Zionist lobby has employed Title VI complaints as a tactic to disrupt pro-Palestinian student organizing on for many years, so the connection between DOE investigations and repression of pro-Palestinian organizing by school administrators is a well-documented phenomenon,” writes the Media and Messaging Committee of National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), that has been organizing against Israel’s occupation of Palestine since 1993, in an email to Truthout. “A recent noteworthy example: Rutgers University-New Brunswick suspended their SJP chapter the same day that the DOE announced it had launched a Title VI investigation into the school.”

In November, Columbia University beat the DOE to the punch, suspending university chapters of both JVP and SJP days before the department opened two investigations into the school. Nevertheless, the administration followed up with a panel on misinformation, discussion on “constructive conversations,” task force on antisemitism and a series of “reinvestments” in values. Students, alumni and faculty responded with open letters and demonstrations condemning the administration’s censorship and continuing to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, where at least 24,285 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, as of this writing.

“The more the university tries to suppress us and silence us, the higher we will rise and the louder we will become,” Mohsen Mahdawi, a member of SJP at Columbia, told campus newspaper Columbia Spectator.

The DOE opened its investigation into Cornell on November 16, after which the administration organized a talk on racism and interfaith dinner. Far from being reassured, students critical of Israel, as well as those of Muslim and Arab backgrounds in general, continued to feel sidelined by the administration, both in regards to threats made against them and their calls for the university to divest from companies connected to Israel’s military.

“The university is still trying to silence any pro-Palestine movements on campus, which is definitely something we’re fighting against,” Sadeen Musa, vice president of SJP at Cornell, told campus newspaper The Cornell Daily Sun.

Nor have university administrators themselves been spared. The most prominent of such cases is undoubtedly that of Claudine Gay, Harvard’s first Black president. The DOE opened its investigation into Harvard in November. Gay was called to testify in front of Congress regarding alleged antisemitism on campus in December. She resigned her post in January.

Gay’s letter of resignation makes reference to the investigations into antisemitism, as well as accusations of plagiarism, which were widely seen as pretext for her ousting. “It has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor,” wrote Gay, “and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.”
“A Movement Starts at a Few Prestigious Universities”

Beyond the implications for First Amendment freedom of speech protections, the DOE stifling criticism of Israel at universities in the U.S. also has a material dimension. U.S. universities may appear disconnected from Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, but that simply isn’t the case. Inspired by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, students are often the first to point out how their respective universities feed the Israeli war machine.

The connections between U.S. universities and Israel are economic, academic and social. The endowments of Ivy League schools are valued at billions of dollars each, and students at Harvard, Cornell and Columbia have been organizing to push their universities to divest from Israel since at least 2002, 2014 and 2016, respectively. U.S. universities also have academic relationships with Israeli counterparts, such as Cornell with Technion Israel Institute of Technology and Columbia with Tel Aviv University. Some student groups even offer free trips to Israel, which have been criticized for obscuring the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

In The State of Israel vs. the Jews, Cypel also notes the immense social power that U.S. universities, especially the most highly regarded, have over U.S. society. His discussion with J.J. Goldberg, former editor of progressive Jewish outlet The Forward, reveals why campuses have become increasingly important sites where Israel must be contested. “In the United States, the process is always the same,” Goldberg tells Cypel. “A movement starts at a few prestigious universities, and then spreads.”

Calls for a free Palestine have already spread well beyond the gates of a few prestigious universities, from City Hall in San Francisco to Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, and around the world. As long the Israeli genocide in Gaza, raids in the West Bank, and occupation of all Palestine persist, the student movements’ resilience should be an example for us all.


ARVIND DILAWAR is an independent journalist whose work has appeared in Newsweek, The Guardian, VICE, and elsewhere.n.

Half of Young Americans Say Israel Is Committing Genocide Despite Strong Media Bias

The poll findings are a powerful show of young peoples’ support for Palestinian rights despite widespread repression.
PublishedJanuary 25, 2024People inspect damage to their homes caused by Israeli air strikes, on January 18, 2024, in Rafah, Gaza.AHMAD HASABALLAH / GETTY IMAGES


Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

Despite widespread media bias against Palestine in the West, nearly half of young Americans say that Israel’s months-long assault of Gaza amounts to genocide, new polling reveals ahead of the International Court of Justice’s initial ruling on South Africa’s case charging Israel with genocide expected Friday.

According to polling conducted this week by The Economist/YouGov, 49 percent of people aged 18 to 29 say that they think Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, with 24 percent saying they disagree and 27 percent saying they’re not sure.

This is similar to the proportion of people who identify as Democrats who said that Israel’s assault is genocide, at 49 percent, while only 21 percent disagreed. The group with the highest proportion of people affirming the genocide was people identifying as liberal, with 60 percent in agreement.

The poll findings are powerful considering that major U.S. media outlets maintain an overwhelming bias for Israel and its current massacre, as advocates for Palestinian rights have long pointed out.

Major Western outlets nearly uniformly avoid the word “genocide” in their news coverage on Gaza, despite multiple foreign policy experts saying that Israel’s brutal invasion is a “textbook” case of genocide. And, data has shown that major outlets are reserving nearly all of their most sympathetic language for Israeli deaths rather than those of Palestinians, even as the Palestinian death toll has grown orders of magnitude higher.

RELATED STORY

Biden Approval Hits Record Low in New Poll as He Rushes Weapons to Israel
Biden’s approval has dropped by 10 percent since July.
By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUTDecember 18, 2023


This effect is evident in the fact that only 35 percent of Americans polled overall say they think Israel is committing genocide, compared to 36 percent who say the assault doesn’t constitute a genocide. Though this is still a higher proportion than one might expect given the near-total agreement on the massacre among U.S. institutions like the two major political parties, the media, and universities, it is still reflective of the strong anti-Palestine bias these groups perpetuate.

The polling found that similar proportions of people are concerned over the harshness of Israel’s military campaign, with 30 percent saying it’s “too harsh,” 29 percent saying it’s “about right” and 17 percent saying it’s “not harsh enough.” Liberals were again the most likely to agree that it was “too harsh,” with 56 percent saying as such.

Advocates for Palestinian rights have been pointing out the noted absence of the word “genocide” from Western media, saying that the aim is to lend Israel more legitimacy in order to justify the U.S.’s staunch military support of its massacre, ethnic cleansing and occupation.

“The American media’s hesitance to utter the word genocide in relation to Israel’s assault in Gaza, coupled with their tendency to downplay or outright deny Israeli crimes against Palestinians, signals to Israel that it can continue its killing spree with impunity, and reassures the US administration that it won’t be held to account for its complicity,” Rami G. Khouri, an American University of Beirut fellow and a Palestinian journalist, wrote for Al Jazeera in December. “History will not judge kindly the American media’s failure to recognise and accurately report on this moment.”
Genocide Scholar: ICJ Ruling Is “Beginning of a Process of Isolating Israel”

A panel of experts discuss the highly anticipated ruling from the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Published  January 26, 2024

VIDEO AT THE BOTTOM

LONG READ

In a highly anticipated ruling, the International Court of Justice at The Hague has found that there is a “real and imminent risk” that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and supported “at least some” of the provisional measures South Africa had requested when it brought the case in order to rein in Israel’s military assault. Though the ruling falls short of calling for an immediate ceasefire, analysts say it is nevertheless a significant milestone. We discuss the “unprecedented” decision by the World Court with a panel of experts: Palestinian human rights attorney Diana Buttu, genocide scholar Raz Segal and scholar of colonialism Mahmood Mamdani. “It becomes imperative upon the world community to now act,” says Buttu. “This is the beginning of a process of isolating Israel,” adds Segal.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: In a landmark ruling today, the International Court of Justice found plausible risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and ordered provisional measures but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. The ruling was read out by the president of the court, Joan Donoghue. She began with the finding that South Africa had jurisdiction to bring the case against Israel.

JUDGE JOAN DONOGHUE: In the court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the convention. In light of the following, the court concludes that prima facie it has jurisdiction, pursuant to Article IX of the convention, to entertain the case.

AMY GOODMAN: South Africa had asked the court, as a matter of extreme urgency, to impose emergency measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza. The president of the court went on to read out the findings regarding South Africa’s request for provisional measures.

RELATED STORY

Campaign to Demonize Palestinian Advocacy Shows Cracks at Columbia and in Courts
The double standards have become stark as leaders fail to condemn a chemical attack against a Columbia ceasefire rally.
By Mike Ludwig , TRUTHOUT January 25, 2024



JUDGE JOAN DONOGHUE: In the court’s view, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the convention.

The court then turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested. It considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case — namely, the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found to be plausible and at least some of the provisional measures requested.

AMY GOODMAN: The president of the court, Joan Donoghue, cited the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, mass displacement, deprivation of aid and other charges brought by South Africa, and went on to say the court found a plausible risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.


JUDGE JOAN DONOGHUE: The court considers that there is urgency in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the court to be plausible before it gives its final decision. The court concludes, on the basis of the aforementioned considerations, that the conditions required by its statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found to be plausible.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by three guests. We’re going to begin in Haifa with Diana Buttu, Palestinian human rights attorney, former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In 2004, Diana Buttu was part of the legal team that won the case before the International Court of Justice which ruled Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank is illegal under international law.

Diana Buttu, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can respond to the court’s ruling, that was just released moments before we went to air?

DIANA BUTTU: This is an amazing ruling, because it highlights everything that the South African team and, of course, Palestinians have been saying the entire time, which is that Israel is plausibly carrying out genocide. And so, the fact that the court has indicated to Israel that they have to take measures to prevent genocide, to make sure that soldiers are doing the same, to prosecute those individuals who are inciting, including high government officials, and ensure that there is effective humanitarian aid, is precisely what was sought by Palestinians. It’s now up to the world to make sure that this court ruling is actually enacted.

AMY GOODMAN: But they did not call for an immediate ceasefire, as South Africa asked. The significance of this?

DIANA BUTTU: I think it’s very difficult at this stage for the court to be pushing for a ceasefire. But in the fact that they said, first and foremost, that Israel has to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide is enough for the world to then be pushing for a ceasefire. It’s really up to the international system as we know it to make sure that genocide is not carried out. And so it’s imperative that this be followed up by countries around the world making sure that Israel doesn’t get to do whatever it wants to do with Palestinians in Gaza and continue this genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the woman who we heard delivering the pronouncement of the court, Joan Donoghue, a former State Department official, though she’s not representing the United States in this? She represents the court. She was in the State Department under President Obama.

DIANA BUTTU: Well, yes, and she was the — she was one of the judges, one of 17 judges on the bench — two of them are ad hoc — one of the 15 permanent judges, who ruled in favor of all of the measures that had been sought. Her term actually expires on February the 6th, and so she won’t be with the court after that. But it was very important that this decision not just be a split court. But you can tell by the breadth of it that of the 17 judges, two being ad hoc, that on most of the issues, it was 15 versus 2, one being the Ugandan judge and the second, of course, being the Israeli judge, and in some cases it being 16 to 1, with the one, ironically, being the Ugandan judge.

AMY GOODMAN: Why the Ugandan judge?

DIANA BUTTU: It’s not clear. It’s not entirely clear why. It’s clear why the Israeli judge, obviously. But what’s more important is the fact that we see that this court has overwhelmingly decided in favor of South Africa, has overwhelmingly determined that there is plausible risk of genocide. And it becomes imperative upon the world community to now act. You know, the fact that it’s taken 112 days for the world to finally recognize that this is genocide, and that it had to go to court, says something about the international legal system as we know it, which is that it’s broken. But I’m hoping that based on this, the world will now begin to act, rather than hiding behind all these false claims that Israel has repeated for the past 112 days.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to bring Raz Segal into this discussion, Israeli historian, associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University, endowed professor in the study of modern genocide, co-authored a recent piece for Al Jazeera headlined “Intent in the genocide case against Israel is not hard to prove.” He’s joining us from Philadelphia. Professor, welcome back to Democracy Now! Your response to this ruling?

RAZ SEGAL: Hello. Good morning. Thank you for having me.

I think this is, really, an unprecedented ruling. It signals, first and foremost, the end of Israeli impunity in the international legal system, which is huge, right? Israel has enjoyed impunity in the international legal system for decades in the face of mounting evidence of gross violations of international law, of mass violence, occupation, siege, so on. This is the end of that era.

So it’s just a beginning of a process that, really, I think, now with a ruling that basically recognizes the possibility of genocide, the fact that Israel is likely committing genocidal acts — this is a beginning of a process of isolating Israel, because any university, company, state now will have to consider, moving forward, whether it continues — or doesn’t continue, in many cases, I think — to engage with Israel, because it is likely committing genocide. This also legally triggers third-state responsibility on issues of prevention and complicity with genocide.

And it’s significantly important today, where in a few hours in a court in Florida there will be the hearing in the case that the Center for Constitutional Rights has brought against Biden, Blinken and Austin, indeed, on complicity with genocide, U.S. complicity with genocide, and the failure to prevent a genocide. So, this might have, actually, a certain effect even on this case today in California moving forward.

So, this is really unprecedented. Yes, it is a disappointment that the court did not order an immediate ceasefire. But it did order Israel to cease from any genocidal acts, which de facto is actually an order for a ceasefire.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the issue of getting aid into Gaza, Raz Segal?

RAZ SEGAL: Yeah, the court also issued an order on the urgent need, and it stressed, of course, the really unprecedented scale of destruction and killing, the dire situation in Gaza, in terms of what we know, the levels of hunger and the spread of infectious disease. So it also ordered this, which is, again, very, very important. I mean, we all need to now wait and see what Israel’s response to this will be.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to also bring into this discussion Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University who specializes in the study of colonialism. One of his many books is Neither Settler Nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities. He was previously a professor and director of the Centre for African Studies at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and has been an academic leader in Uganda for years. Professor Mamdani, your response to this ruling? We discussed yesterday, before the ruling, what you expected. What did you see today?

MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Thank you for bringing me in.

Actually, everything that I expected happened. I wasn’t sure they would call for a ceasefire. But now listening to the reasoning of the court, it is clear to me that they couldn’t have called directly for a ceasefire without preempting their future deliberations. At the same time, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it’s a duck. Everything they ordered in terms of preventive measures leads to only one conclusion, which is ceasefire. How do you stop killing people? Ceasefire. How do you ensure that supplies for human life get in? Ceasefire. And so on and so forth.

I think the ball is now in the political domain. The law cannot displace politics. It can open avenues for politics. And that’s where we are now. This ruling is enormously significant in terms of broadening the avenues for politics, in terms of strengthening and accelerating the trend towards a global alliance against settler colonialism. And it has the U.S. on the defensive, Israel on the defensive.

We know that the last time the court ruled against Israel, which was on the question of the wall, Israel just ignored it. But this time, I think it may not be so easy to do. First of all, one has to ask oneself: Why did Israel come before the court? It could have just ignored it. According to its past conduct, that’s what it would have done. So the fact that it came before the court suggests that there are conflicting pressures before the Israeli government. Now what does it do? I think this is one goal in favor of the world, and we continue with the game.

AMY GOODMAN: And your insight into the Ugandan judge of the International Court of Justice? Sometimes the vote was 15 to 2, as Diana Buttu said, the Ugandan judge and the Israeli judge, and sometimes it was 16 to 1.

MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, Judge Sebutinde, she has a — she had a career where she had opposed the Museveni regime on several legal issues in court. Then she was appointed by the Museveni regime on the international stage, thus removing her from the local stage. I haven’t followed her career since then, but she was pretty consistent. There seemed to be no indication that she was making up her mind from issue to issue. I can’t say anything more than that right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to go to break and then come back to our guests. We’re speaking with Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani here in New York; with Raz Segal, the Israeli historian and professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University; and in Haifa, Diana Buttu, Palestinian human rights attorney. We’ll also hear more from the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s highest court. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Masters of War,” Bob Dylan, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

The International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s highest court, has found a plausible risk Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and ordered provisional measures but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. This is the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, reading out the vote of part of the ruling.


JUDGE JOAN DONOGHUE: By 15 votes to 2, the state of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the convention — in particular, A, killing members of the group; B, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; C, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part; and, D, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

AMY GOODMAN: Over a one-hour ruling, the International Court of Justice President Joan Donoghue in The Hague quoted Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, saying that as the war got underway, Gallant had said, “We have removed all restraints. We will eliminate everything,” referring to Palestinians as “animals.” Judge Donoghue continued, Gallant went on to describe Hamas as comparable to the Islamic State. After proceedings concluded today, the South African government said it welcomed the ICJ’s decision.

We’re continuing with our guests right now: Diana Buttu, Palestinian human rights attorney in Haifa, Israel; Raz Segal, Israeli historian and professor of Holocaust and genocide studies, Stockton University, joining us from Philadelphia; and Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University, specializing in the study of colonialism.

Diana Buttu, if you can talk about what exactly the timetable is right now and the true level of enforcement that the ICJ, or even the United Nations, overall, has? Go back to using as a reference your involvement with the 2004 decision, where the ICJ ruled the separation wall that Israel built in the Occupied Territories illegal.

DIANA BUTTU: Well, let’s first start with this particular case. I think it’s important to keep in mind that just last week Prime Minister Netanyahu said that nothing is going to stop him, not the ICJ, not The Hague; nobody is going to stop him; and that he’s going to continue to pursue ahead. And, of course, the reason he’s doing this is, in part, because he is genocidal and, in large part, because he knows that the minute that the attacks on Gaza are over, that his term in office is also over, because of the internal dissent inside Israel.

And the reason that this is important is because it’s — we haven’t heard yet what Israel is — what they’ve said, but judging by that, it means that they’re going to ignore this ruling. And if they ignore this ruling, it then becomes imperative upon the member states to take this decision to the U.N. Security Council to have the ruling enforced at the Security Council level. And it becomes really a question of whether the United States is going to veto or abstain, or what exactly it’s going to do.

I can tell you, in terms of what happened in 2004, 2004 was a very different case. It was an advisory opinion. It wasn’t a case of the same type. And in 2004, Israel took the exact same position, that it wasn’t going to stop the construction of the wall. In fact, it accelerated it. But part of the decision indicated that there are other states, third states, other countries, that are also obliged to make sure that Israel upholds international law. And that was the part where the world failed.

And out of that, this is where we saw the BDS, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, movement end up being recreated or reconstituted on the one-year anniversary of the ICJ ruling, so in 2005. And the reason that it came together was because they expected — we expected — that the world was going to come forward and do something to make sure that the advisory opinion was upheld and enforced. But instead, they did nothing.

So, once again, we’re going to see that — we will likely see that Israel is going to ignore this ruling. It’s then imperative to take it to the U.N. Security Council. But all the while it’s very important that we continue to boycott Israel, to divest from Israel and to push for sanctions, that the global BDS movement should be growing at this point to make sure that the age of Israeli impunity finally comes to an end.

AMY GOODMAN: Raz Segal, if you can talk about the aspects of genocide — you write, “The crime of genocide has two elements — intention and execution” — and what Joan Donoghue, the head of the court, at least for another few weeks, read in terms of the decision for what constitutes genocide, and what this means, as an Israeli historian who lives in the United States, while Israel tried to say this doesn’t matter? The fact is, they participated in this, clearly showing it matters a great deal to them. And also, what it means for the United States’ support for Israel, and what’s happening today with this court finding?

RAZ SEGAL: Yeah, so, I think that it was very important that the court quoted some of the statements of intent. And it’s again important to emphasize that we’re talking about dozens of statements of intent to destroy Palestinians, “intent to destroy” in the language of the U.N. convention, and by people with what’s called in international law “command authority,” so state leaders, war cabinet ministers, senior army officers. And these statements were made over time, so not just a week or two after the 7th of October Hamas-led attack, but over time, actually until today, when we think about what Prime Minister Netanyahu said on 13th of January, when he said that Israel’s attack will continue, whatever happens in The Hague. He also reiterated the portrayal of Palestinians as Nazis, for example, right? Which is basically a mechanism of dehumanization, a mechanism that portrays all Palestinians in Gaza as legitimate military targets. So, these statements of intent, again, dozens of statements, over time, by people with command authority, filled with dehumanizing language — right? — “human animals,” “monsters” — which historically we know are indicators of genocide. So I think it was very significant that the court mentioned and quoted some of these statements to emphasize that it’s not as Israel tried to argue, that it’s not something that we can disregard, that it’s actually a key element of the crime of genocide, and we should be paying attention to this.

But then it also emphasized, a number of times, actually, the really unprecedented scale of killing and destruction on the ground, the catastrophic situation that Palestinians are facing now. And in this context, I think it’s very important to say that the court basically accepted South Africa’s argument that Israel’s, quote-unquote, “evacuation orders” are not actually, as Israel claimed, humanitarian measures, but they’re actually genocidal in essence. That means that they are meant — which is what they did — to displace millions of people, almost 2 million Palestinians, virtually almost all the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and under intensive bombings. And we know that Israel also bombed Palestinians fleeing on routes that it designated as safe. It also bombed Palestinians in the southern part of the strip early on, which it designated as safe. And, of course, under the conditions of the total siege, where we today — indeed, this measure did what it was intended to do, right? It created famine. It created the spread of infectious disease. It created a population that has no access to clean water, has no fuel, has no medical supply. It destroyed all the universities in Gaza. It destroyed a majority of the hospitals. It destroyed agricultural land. It targeted cultural sites. So, everything that we know historically that happens in genocide, and with this massive displacement that is now — we know that even if Israel’s attack stops now, many, many Palestinians will continue to die of these “conditions of life” — again, to quote the convention — that Israel deliberately created in order to bring about the physical destruction of the group, in whole or in part.

So I thought that it was very important that the ruling actually quoted and emphasized both the issues of intent and the dynamics of violence and the conditions that we see now on the ground. This is very, very significant. Again, the court is saying that there is plausibility that Israel is likely — has committed and is committing acts of genocide in Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: And what this means for the United States, Professor Segal?

RAZ SEGAL: Yeah, well, I mean, the —

AMY GOODMAN: And that the deliverer of the message, of course, the head of the court, is an American?

RAZ SEGAL: Yeah, I think that, you know, it’s difficult — it’s difficult to say. And I’m curious to see how the U.S. state will respond. I think that — I’m very curious to see, as I said, in the next few hours, beginning at noon today Eastern time, the case in California. Right? Because now the judge there has the ICJ ruling, so the judge knows that the World Court has ruled that Israel is likely committing a genocide.

I think that there will be growing pressure also on the U.S. in this sense. It’s difficult to say what the U.S. will do, but we do know, actually, that in Europe, there are more and more states — not Germany, but more and more states — that have already said and will, in various ways, need to abide by the court ruling, which may be very significant in terms of obstructing arms deals, refusing to facilitate transfer arms to Israel through Europe, and various other measures. You know, I think that, as I said before, any company, any university, any state around the world now — right? — knows that Israel is likely committing genocide, so the isolation of Israel. And I hope that we’ll also be seeing more and more calls for direct cutting of ties with Israel, academic boycotts in the U.S.

So, while U.S. state will definitely try, you know, to ignore the ruling — and we already see the headline in The New York Times right now, by the way, if people are following — right? — which frames this as the court did not issue an order for ceasefire, right? Which, in effect, it actually did, because if it — you know, as Professor Mamdani said, if it ordered — right? — that Israel should cease from genocidal acts, if it ordered that Israel should facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, it actually said you have to cease fire, because, otherwise, there’s no ways of doing that, right? So, I think that the U.S., if judged by The New York Times right now, will try to ignore this as much as possible, but I think that the pressure is going to be — we’re just at the beginning of the pressure building up on this issue. So I think we might see some significant moves on this front, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: The court case you’re referring to in Oakland today, which will be fueled by the International Court of Justice response from The Hague, the Center for Constitutional Rights brought the lawsuit against President Biden, accusing him of failing to follow his obligations under international and U.S. law to prevent the genocide in Gaza, the complaint brought on behalf of Palestinians, including residents of Gaza, who are asking a federal court — asking a federal court to — let’s see if I can read this — a federal court to intervene to block Biden, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin from providing further military funding, arms and diplomatic support to Israel. Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights and one of the lawyers who brought the case, said in a statement, “The United States has a clear and binding obligation to prevent, not further, genocide. So far, they have failed in both their legal, moral duty and considerable power to end this horror. They must do so.” Now, that’s the court case that’s happening in a few hours in Oakland.

I also wanted to read the response of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I’m reading from an article in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. He said the decision by the ICJ, quote, “’rightly rejected the outrageous demand to deny’ Israel the right to basic self-defense to which it is entitled as a country. According to him, [quote] ‘the very claim that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians is not just false, it is outrageous, and the court’s willingness to discuss it at all is a mark of disgrace that will not be erased for generations.’”

I want to go back to Professor Mamdani, but first play more of the court decision as read out by the chief judge of the International Court of Justice, Joan Donoghue.


JUDGE JOAN DONOGHUE: During the ongoing conflict, senior United Nations officials have repeatedly called attention to the risk of further deterioration of conditions in the Gaza Strip. The court takes note, for instance, of the letter dated 6 December, 2023, whereby the secretary-general of the United Nations brought the following information to the attention of the Security Council.

I quote: “The healthcare system in Gaza is collapsing. Nowhere is safe in Gaza. Amid constant bombarding by the Israel Defense Forces and without shelter or the essentials to survive, I expect public order to break — to completely break down soon due to the desperate conditions rendering even limited humanitarian assistance impossible. An even worse situation could unfold, including epidemic diseases and increased pressure for mass displacement into neighboring countries. We are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system. The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe, with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs,” end of quote.

On 5 January, 2024, the secretary-general wrote again to the Security Council, providing an update on the situation in the Gaza Strip and observing that — I quote — “Sadly, devastating levels of death and destruction continue,” end of quote.

The court also takes note of the 17 January, 2024, statement issued by the UNRWA commissioner-general upon return from his fourth visit to the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the current conflict in Gaza. I quote: “Every time I visit Gaza, I witness how people have sunk further into despair, with the struggle for survival consuming every hour,” end of quote.

The court considers that the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable. It recalls that the military operation conducted by Israel after 7 October, 2023, has resulted inter alia in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale. The court notes that the operation is ongoing and that the prime minister of Israel announced on 18 January, 2024, that the war — I quote — “will take many more long months,” end of quote.

At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating. The World Health Organization has estimated that 15% of the women giving birth in Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.

In these circumstances, the court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment. The court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The court further notes that the attorney general of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offense, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities. While such steps are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the court issues its final decision in the case.

AMY GOODMAN: Joan Donoghue is the chief judge of the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s highest court, reading out the decision of the ICJ at The Hague. When we come back, we’ll continue our discussion with Mahmood Mamdani, with Diana Buttu and with Raz Segal. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Hal Asmar El-Lon,” “My Dear with the Brown Skin,” performed by Lena Chamamyan. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

As we get response to the International Court of Justice handing down its decision today at The Hague, we want to go right now to the State Department, the questioning of Matt Miller, State Department spokesperson, by the Associated Press reporter Matt Lee. This took place last week about Israel’s demolition of Al-Israa University in Gaza.


MATT LEE: I mean, it looks like a controlled demolition. It looks like what we do here in this country when we’re taking down an old hotel or a stadium. And you have nothing to say? You have nothing to say about this?

MATTHEW MILLER: I — I have —

MATT LEE: I mean, to do that kind of an explosion, you need to be in there. You have to put the explosives down, and it takes a lot of planning and preparation to do. And if there was a threat from this particular facility, they wouldn’t have been able to do it.

MATTHEW MILLER: So, I have seen the video. I can tell you that it is something we are raising with the government of Israel, as we do — often do, when we see —

MATT LEE: Well, “raising” is what? Like —

MATTHEW MILLER: When we see — to ask questions and find out what the underlying situation is, as we often do when we see reports of this nature. But I’m not able to characterize the actual facts on the ground before hearing that response.

MATT LEE: Yeah, but you saw the video.

MATTHEW MILLER: I did see the video. I don’t — I don’t know — I don’t know —

MATT LEE: I mean, it looks like people —

MATTHEW MILLER: I don’t know what was —

MATT LEE: It looks like, you know, a bridge being imploded or something.

MATTHEW MILLER: I don’t know what was under that — I don’t know what was under that building. I don’t know what was inside —

MATT LEE: Well, yeah, but —

MATTHEW MILLER: — inside that building.

MATT LEE: But it doesn’t matter what was under the building, because they obviously got in there to put the explosives down to do it in the way that they did.

MATTHEW MILLER: So, again, I’m glad you have factual certainty, but I just — I just don’t.

MATT LEE: I don’t.

MATTHEW MILLER: I just don’t.

MATT LEE: All have is what I saw on the video, right?

MATTHEW MILLER: I — I just don’t. But I can say say —

MATT LEE: And I think you guys saw it, too.

MATTHEW MILLER: We did see it. I can say that we have raised it with the government of Israel.

MATT LEE: And it’s not troubling to you?

MATTHEW MILLER: We are always troubled by the — by any degradation of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s State Department spokesperson Matt Miller being questioned by the AP reporter Matt Lee.

We’re continuing our discussion and talking about facts on the ground in Gaza. We’ll start with professor Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University, the School of International and Public Affairs, SIPA, specializing in the study of colonialism.

You are a professor, Professor Mamdani. If you can talk about the response of professors here to the destruction of universities, cultural spaces in Gaza, and the significance of this, and where you think this preliminary ruling of the ICJ — how you think it will affect what’s being described today?

MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Well, I think the more facts come to light, the more Israel’s actions in Gaza look like a textbook case of genocide. This calculated destruction of a people’s intellectual resources and intellectual legacy is not something which just has a short-term impact or is based on a short-term consideration. It is aimed at a long-term resolution of this question.

Already there is considerable concern amongst faculty at Columbia University. For the last few days, I’ve been seeing emails going around with photographs of this, what the AP reporter called “controlled demolition,” premeditated demolition. And people are asking Columbia University to take action, to declare where they stand. And this will go on.

One thing I am struck by as sort of evidence mounts is that the court ruling relied on two sources of information. One was U.N. commissions. And the second was statements by Israeli leaders themselves. Nothing else. And in doing so, it followed, almost strictly, the South African application, because the South African application also drew its facts not from other sources, but from U.N. commissions.

And now we have got a situation where the court has asked Israel to report back in a month and tell the court what it has done to comply with its decision, and given South Africa the right to comment on this report back by Israel. This is going to be another round of not just PR, because this is going to be a controlled process.

So I think we’re onto good territory. We are onto a territory which will bring more and more facts to light. And therefore we are onto a territory which will permit increased political mobilization based on these facts, especially in the U.S. and Israel, because these are the two countries where there has been minimal information in the mass media on what’s been going on in Gaza. Now this will become open territory.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to bring in Diana Buttu again as we begin to wrap the show. Yesterday, Ryan Grim in The Intercept wrote, “I was at the State Department briefing today and asked if the U.S. would pledge not to veto the International Court of Justice’s preliminary ruling on the genocide charges against Israel.” If you can respond to what that means, what this process is? And again, what’s happening on the ground now in Gaza, with Israel dropping more leaflets in what was a safe space, which was Khan Younis, and this parade of humanity and misery of hundreds, if not thousands, going south from Khan Younis?

DIANA BUTTU: Well, Amy, I’m sure you saw the response. And the response was a typical American administration word salad.

And the reason that I think it’s so important for us to continue to press ahead is because what Israel has had in mind is two things since the beginning of this attack on Gaza. First, it has made it clear that it wants to make Gaza smaller in size, and they’ve made it clear that they want to, quote, “thin out” the population. So it’s the combination of genocide and ethnic cleansing and taking more Palestinian land. And that’s why, from the beginning, it was clear to anybody who was paying attention that Israel was going to begin in the north, but then suddenly, magically, move to the south as everybody had looked the other way. And this is precisely what’s happening.

So, now what Israel is doing is not only just dropping leaflets in Khan Younis. There isn’t a single place that has been safe in Gaza from day one. And the intention is clear. If you want to get medical treatment, even now or a day after the bombing ends, you’re going to have to seek it elsewhere. If you want to get education, you’re going to have to go elsewhere. If you want to have a home and have a normal life, you’re going to have to go elsewhere.

And so, it’s this combination of genocide and ethnic cleansing that Israel has been pushing forward from day one. And the problem is, of course, that the United States has been not only an enabler for Israel, but it’s been blocking any other effort to try to stop this process of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of this court decision — and we just have 10 seconds — going to the U.N. Security Council, if violated?

DIANA BUTTU: Yeah, so, under the rules of the International Court of Justice, states must oblige. They’re obliged to uphold the rules of the ICJ, the decisions. But if they do not, they can go to the U.N. Security Council. And so, I suspect that we will be seeing this at the Security Council. The real question is whether the United States is going to use that veto or abstain.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you all for being with us today. Diana Buttu, Palestinian human rights attorney, former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In 2004, she was part of the legal team that won a case before the International Court of Justice, which ruled Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank is illegal under international law, speaking to us from Haifa, Israel. Raz Segal, Israeli historian and professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University. And Mahmood Mamdani, professor of government at Columbia University.

That does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

AMY GOODMAN is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on more than 1,100 public television and radio stations worldwide. Time Magazine named Democracy Now! its “Pick of the Podcasts,” along with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza: U.N. court


Agence France-Presse
January 26, 2024 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) President Joan Donoghue (C) speaks at the ICJ prior to the announcement of an initial ruling in the genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa, in The Hague on January 26, 2024. 
© Remko de Waal, AFP

The UN top court on Friday said Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza and facilitate "urgently needed" humanitarian aid into the besieged territory, handing down rulings in a case that has drawn global attention.

The court urged Israel to refrain from any possible genocidal acts as it presses its military operation in the Gaza Strip, but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire.

Israel must take "immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians," the court said.

At this stage, the ICJ was not considering whether Israel is actually committing genocide in Gaza -- that process will take several years.

But the court warned Israel to "take all measures in its power to prevent" acts that could fall under the UN Genocide Convention, set up in 1948 as the world reeled from the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.

It also said Israel should "prevent and punish" any incitement to genocide.

The case was brought by South Africa, which has accused Israel of breaching the UN Genocide Convention.

Over two days of hearings earlier this month in the gilded hall of the Peace Palace, where the ICJ sits, lawyers from both sides battled it over the interpretation of this Convention.

South Africa accused Israel of "genocidal" acts that were intended to cause the "destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group."

It urged the court to order Israel to "immediately suspend" its military operations in Gaza and allow humanitarian aid to reach the civiilians there.


'Grossly distorted'

Israel dismissed the case as a "grossly distorted story" and said that if any genocidal acts had been carried out, they had been executed against Israel during the October 7 Hamas attacks.

"What Israel seeks by operating in Gaza is not to destroy a people, but to protect a people, its people, who are under attack on multiple fronts," said Tal Becker, Israel's top lawyer.

The question now is whether the court's rulings will be obeyed.

Although its rulings are legally binding, it has no mechanism to enforce them and they are sometimes completely ignored -- it has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine for example.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already hinted Israel would not abide by any ruling saying "no one will stop us", not even a verdict in The Hague.

But experts believe that aside from the significant symbolic impact of the ruling, there could be tangible consequences on the ground.

"It makes it much harder for other states to continue to support Israel in the face of a neutral third party finding there is a risk of genocide," said Juliette McIntyre, international law expert from the University of South Australia.

"States may withdraw military or other support for Israel in order to avoid this," she added.

The October 7 Hamas attack resulted in the death of around 1,140 people in Israel, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.

At least 26,083 Palestinians, around 70 percent of them women, young children and adolescents, have been killed in the Gaza Strip in Israeli bombardments and ground offensive since then, according to the Hamas government's health ministry.

ICJ Finds It’s “Plausible” That Israel Is Committing Genocide in Initial Ruling


Advocates said that the ruling is a good first step, but it needed to include a ceasefire order.


By Sharon Zhang , 
January 26, 2024

The International Court of Justice delivers an order on South Africa's genocide case against Israel on January 26, 2024, in The Hague, Netherlands.
MICHEL PORRO / GETTY IMAGES


Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that it is “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide in a highly anticipated initial ruling on Friday, ordering Israel to take steps to avoid going even further in its violence in Gaza but stopping short of calling for a ceasefire.

In its decision, the ICJ ordered Israel to abide by its obligations under Article II of the UN Genocide Convention, especially with regard to four of the five convention’s criteria that define a genocide: killing members of the group, causing bodily or mental harm to the group, inflicting conditions meant to cause harm to the group, and preventing births within the group.

The ruling orders Israel to ensure that its military does not commit actions within the criteria, to take immediate action to enable humanitarian aid within Gaza, and to prevent 

The court also orders Israeli officials to punish those who have been inciting genocide against Palestinians and to prevent similar incitements in the future.

The ruling highlighted several statements in October from Israeli officials, like President Isaac Herzog’s pledge for Israel to “fight until we’ll break their backbone” and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s speech to Israeli troops in which he called Palestinians “human animals.” The court then cites a November press release by the UN Human Rights Council calling attention to “discernibly genocidal and dehumanizing rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials.”


Netanyahu Says Israel’s Goal Is to Wipe Out All Possibility of Palestinian State
This is one of Netanyahu’s clearest statements yet about his goals for Palestine amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT  January 18, 2024


Many Palestinians have been disheartened by the order, as Al Jazeera reports, with many hoping that the ICJ would bring an end to Israel’s relentless bombing, disease and starvation campaign in Gaza; indeed, even as the ICJ was delivering its decision on Friday, Israeli forces were dropping bombs in Khan Yunis in Southern Gaza.

“The ICJ forg[ot] to tell Israel in [its] decision today to cease fire against Palestinians in Gaza. We are under fire and under killing; we are under genocide,” said Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda in a video posted on Instagram from Gaza on Friday, with the sound of sirens clearly in the background.

“There is no justice in the International Court of Justice,” Owda continued. “There is no justice in this world. ICJ is a lie…. We’re continuing this alone, as we started this alone, with our own [cell phones] to tell you the truth, to seek for justice. Now, there’s no truth or justice. I’m just stuck out of my home and can’t get back, and no one can get me back to my home, or to stop killing us day after day, for 112 days.”

South African officials celebrated the decision as a “decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people” in a statement. However, they said that the implication of the ruling is that there must be a ceasefire.

Israeli officials have rejected the ruling, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that the court is denying Israel the opportunity to defend itself — an action that apparently involves depriving Palestinians of nearly all humanitarian aid — and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir outright mocking the ruling in a post on social media, saying “Hague shmague.”

Advocates for Palestinian rights say that the ruling is a historic step toward holding Israel responsible for its horror on the world stage. But they are discouraged by the lack of a ceasefire order, which they, like the South African officials, say is the only way to guarantee that Israel follows through on the court’s provisional measures, especially considering experts’ concerns that Israel may not abide by them.

Though the court’s decisions are binding, countries like Serbia and Russia have refused to abide by rulings from the ICJ in the past. And, indeed, Israeli officials have already pledged to defy the orders, saying that no one will stop them, not even the Hague.

“Everything [the ICJ] ordered in terms of preventive measures leads to only one conclusion, which is ceasefire,” said Mahmood Mamdani, a Columbia University professor with a specialization in colonialism, in an interview with Democracy Now!. “How do you stop killing people? Ceasefire. How do you ensure that supplies for human life get in? Ceasefire.”

Human rights attorney and Rutgers professor Noura Erakat said that she was “relieved” when the ICJ’s decision came down because, while it didn’t go far enough, it still provided “vindication” in regards to recognition of the suffering that Israel and the global community have forced on Palestinians. “This court was never going to save us,” and rather could have been “a great source of harm,” Erakat said in a video posted on social media.

Erakat added that the court’s decision should serve as a further call to action for advocates. The court “ordered all of the provisional measures requested by South Africa, stopping short of issuing an order for a cessation of military hostilities, which was already a longshot — and in all cases, even had they provided that order, it wouldn’t have been sufficient to do anything. It would still be in our hands to now take this ruling and to agitate globally,” Erakat continued.

Groups that advocate for Palestinian rights said that the ruling was a crucial first step in ensuring that Israel’s massacre is documented on the world stage, and have said that global leaders’ next moves will be crucial in showing whether or not they are willing to shirk a decision from the ICJ in order to assist Israel in its genocide.

“For over 100 days, the Israeli and the U.S. governments have gaslit and smeared the Palestinian people, denying what the entire world was witnessing: a genocide,” said Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller in a press release. “Now, the highest court in the world has found these claims plausible. President Biden has a choice to make: he can reject the entire system of international law and continue complicity in Israeli genocide, or he can stop arming a genocidal regime and stop attacking the people and movements struggling to build a more just and peaceful future.”


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

SHARON ZHANG is a news writer at Truthout covering politics, climate and labor. Before coming to Truthout, Sharon had written stories for Pacific Standard, The New Republic, and more. She has a master’s degree in environmental studies. She can be found on Twitter: @zhang_sharon.

International Court of Justice Rules That Israel Must Cease Fire

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must cease its warmaking in Gaza — cease committing and inciting genocidal acts — and that the case charging Israel with genocide must proceed.

This was a make or break moment for international law, or rather a break or make-a-first-step moment. There is hope for the idea and reality of international law, but this is only a beginning.

The president of the International Court of Justice, who read the ruling, is Judge Joan Donoghue, former top legal advisor under Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department during the Obama Administration. She previously was the lawyer for the United States in its unsuccessful defense before the ICJ against charges by Nicaragua of minining its harbor.

The court voted for portions of this decision by 15-2 and 16-1. The “No” votes came from Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda and Ad Hoc Judge Aharon Barak of Israel.

The case presented by South Africa was overwhelming (read it or watch a key part of it), and Israel’s defense paper-thin. And the case just grew more overwhelming during the bizarre delay (yes, courts are slow, but this genocide is swift).

People all over the world built the pressure to move South Africa to act and other nations to add their support. Over 1,500 organizations signed a statement. Individuals signed a petition by CODEPINK, and sent almost 500,000 emails to key governments’ United Nations consulates through World BEYOND War and RootsAction.org. Click those links because more emails are needed now. While several nations have made public statements in support of South Africa’s case, we need them to file papers officially with the International Court of Justice. To reach out to additional national governments, go here.

Governments that have made statement in support of the case against genocide include MalaysiaTurkeyJordanBoliviathe 57 nations of the Organization of Islamic CountriesNicaraguaVenezuelaMaldives, Namibia, and PakistanColombiaBrazil, and Cuba.

Germany has backed Israel’s defense against the charge of genocide, which has been denounced by Namibia, victimn of a German genocide. Prominent Jews have denounced Germany’s shameful action.

Mass demonstrations in the streets of the world have continued in support of peace and justice, and to a far greater extent than major media outlets have reported.

Here’s a discussion of this campaign for justice with Sam Husseini on Talk World Radio.

Prior to today’s ruling from the International Court of Justice, the U.S. government pointedly refused to say whether it would comply with ruling, despite insisting that other nations comply with rulings by the ICJ.

Hamas said that it would cease fire if Israel does, and release all prisoners if Israel does

Germany, to its credit, reportedly said that it would comply.

Arming a genocide is complicity in genocide. While Israel gets most of its weapons from the United State, other weaponry comes from Germany, Italy, the UK, and Canada — at least some of which nations also provide parts to U.S. weaponsmakers that provide weapons to Israel. Italian opposition demanded an end to it. And then the Foreign Minister claimed Italy had stopped shipments on Oct 7. Meanwhile, Canada is coming under pressure to cease shipments and prevarications. In Canada, Members of Parliament are among over 250 people hunger striking for an arms embargo on Israel.

People in the United States can tell Congress to stop arming Israel here or here.

President Joe Biden already faces a lawsuit for aiding and abetting genocide in Gaza. In November 2023, Palestinian human rights organizations, along with Gaza- and U.S.-based Palestinians, filed suit in a U.S. federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Biden Administration for failing to prevent genocide, and for aiding and abetting genocide. The plaintiffs seek an order to end U.S. military and diplomatic support to Israel. A hearing to address the government’s motion to dismiss will be held at 9 a.m. PT / 12 noon ET today, Friday. The hearing will be webstreamed to the public. You are encouraged to tune in and witness the U.S. government’s attempts at avoiding accountability and justify its support for the genocide that is happening in Gaza.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and War Is a Crime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. Read other articles by David.



International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine Welcomes Today’s ICJ Order; Demands its Implementation


The ICGSP encourages governments and global social movements to demand that provisional measures are enforced immediately


In its provisional ruling issued today on the South African Genocide Convention case against Israel, the International Court of Justice (ICJ—also known as the World Court) demanded Israel stop killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure and medical facilities; prevent and punish incitement to genocide by its top officials; and permit the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine (ICSGP) applauds the Court’s Order as a crucial first step toward forcing Israel and its primary sponsor and strongest political ally—the United States—to end the months-long brutal assault on Gaza, and the decades-long denial to Palestinians of their rights to self-determination and return.

However, the ICSGP also recognizes that Israeli and U.S. government officials have made repeated official declarations in the past week making clear their plan to ignore the ICJ’s legally binding ruling and rejecting the Court’s process as illegitimate, and that the U.S. has been threatening world governments with sanctions and war—a promise it is making good on already by bombing Yemen—for opposing the ongoing genocide. The ICSGP also recognizes that numerous powerful state allies of the U.S. and Israel, including Germany and Canada, have already made clear their intent to back Israel against an ICJ finding of genocide. The dangerous rejection by the United States, Israel and their allies of this process—which was set up through the United Nations precisely to prevent genocide—undermines the legitimacy of that institution and in particular the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has long used its veto power as a tool to promote war and genocide. The ICSGP calls upon social movements to demand that world governments uphold international law and protect the integrity of the United Nations by ensuring that the ICJ’s provisional measures are immediately enforced, and to hold Israeli war criminals and their powerful U.S. accomplices accountable for genocide.

The ICSGP stands in full solidarity with its Palestinian coalition members, who have emphasized in their own statements today the need for governments and social movements around the world to double down in their efforts to bring the ongoing genocide in Gaza to an end. Dr. Luqa AbuFarah, North America Coordinator for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), an ICSGP member organization, states:

“It’s clear we have a moral obligation to take action and end our government’s complicity with Israel’s Gaza genocide. We must have the courage to speak out and take action to advance the struggle for justice. We must end US military funding to Israel which at $3.8 billion USD a year could instead provide more than 450,000 households with public housing for a year or pay for 41,490 elementary school teachers. I also hope that every person outraged with the blatant disregard for Palestinian life will join and escalate our BDS Campaigns and make sure companies know that complicity with Israeli apartheid and genocide is unacceptable. We must take action now more than ever!”

ICSGP, together with numerous legal and human rights organizations including coalition members The PAL Commission on War Crimes and The Global Legal Alliance for Palestine, held press conferences in New York and Chicago following the Court’s Order on the request for the indication of provisional measures this morning, expressing gratitude to South Africa for its steadfast support, and calling on all organizations and countries to support South Africa’s legal actions against the Israeli military campaign.

Lamis Deek, cofounder the PAL Commission on War Crimes and convener of the Global Legal Alliance for Palestine, states:

“This historic decision changes international and domestic approaches—military, legal, and political—to stopping the genocide in Palestine. This verdict profoundly reshapes the geopolitical and legal topography, regardless of whether Israel complies or not. Following the Court’s decision we must issue calls on state parties to the ICJ and the Genocide Convention as regards their compliance obligations, and address our legal colleagues and our communities regarding the next steps we think will be most critical on the heels of this decision.

The brutal Israeli genocide and torture in Gaza, alongside the targeted assassinations, destruction of civilian infrastructure including all of Gaza’s hospitals and universities, blocking of aid, and use of starvation and spread of disease as a war tactic, constitute a grotesque series of the highest war crimes. We commend the Court’s positive decision. The question now is how to deal with the anticipated US-Israeli obstruction of that decision.”

Monisha Rios, president of SOLI PR, an international network of Puerto Ricans focused on growing solidarity with the Puerto Rican struggle for independence and ICSGP member organization, states:

As Puerto Ricans directly involved in the struggle against U.S.-led settler colonial violence, land grabs and the ongoing neoliberal assault, we have a special obligation to stand in firm, unwavering solidarity with our Palestinian cousins. Not only does the Zionist entity’s genocidal regime in Palestine owe its existence as such to U.S. financial and political backing since its inception, Israel has also directly contributed with military technologies, weapons and police training to the violent repression of peoples fighting for self-determination against the U.S. and its puppet regimes around the world, and of Indigenous Peoples and descendants of enslaved African Peoples subject to structural apartheid within the continental United States. Israeli Zionists themselves have recognized the parallels between Palestine and Puerto Rico, for example with the Minister of Heritage—who publicly called for using a nuclear bomb in Gaza—recently calling for a “Puerto Rican” solution to Palestine. The South African Case at the World Court, and the Court’s decision this morning provide Puerto Ricans and colonized peoples around the world a unique opportunity—in recognizing our common struggle and joining together to fight against Zionist fascism, we have tremendous power to both stop the ongoing genocide against Palestinians, and to contribute to our own liberation by shifting the balance of global power away from the U.S. and toward the Global South.

The ICSGP calls upon the over 2,000 organizational signatories to its original letter, and to social movements everywhere, to hold the profiteers and promoters of the Zionist genocide to account through concrete actions of boycott, divestment, and sanctions; to mobilize to demand the immediate enforcement of the ICJ’s Order of Provisional Measures and denounce accomplices to the genocide; and to continue to pressure all state parties to the Genocide Convention to issue Declarations of Intervention in support of the South African case at the ICJ.

Previous ICSGP press statements are available from January 17January 8 and January 3, 2024.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) seeks to recapture and redevelop the historic anti-war, anti-imperialist, and pro-peace positions of the radical black movement. Read other articles by Black Alliance for Peace, or visit Black Alliance for Peace's website.



Our Lawyers Made Us So Proud at the ICJ


Abahlali baseMjondolo commend the outstanding work by the South African legal team at the International Court of Justice in Hague. Many of us watched with great pride as our brilliant legal team stood in front of the world to protect humanity and end the devastating attacks against the people of Gaza that have led to the loss of more than 23 000 lives, including more than 8 000 children.

We do not see the importance of this case as being restricted to proving to the ICJ that the Israeli state is committing genocide. It is also a statement of conscience to the people of the world, and encouragement to the huge numbers of people around the world who have taken to the streets in solidarity with the people of Gaza.

We welcome the support of progressive governments in Brazil, Bolivia and Colombia for the action taken by the South African government. We also support the very strong statement issued by the government of Namibia condemning the decision by the German government to support the Israeli state at the ICJ.

The western media continues to condone the attacks on civilians in Gaza with its obvious and crude biases towards the oppressors and against the oppressed. They continue to refer to the attacks as a war between Israel and Hamas. This is not a war, it is a cowardly and genocidal attack on civilians by a country with one of the most powerful armies in the world, an army backed by the United States, the most powerful and dangerous state in the world.

Our movement has always been on the side of the oppressed. Until the South African government opened the case against Israel at the ICJ we had never taken a position or issued a statement commending our government in almost twenty years of struggle. We have faced severe repression under the South African government, ranging from illegal and violent evictions to the jailing and assassination of our leaders. However, politics must be guided by principles and when the South African government took the decision to stand up for justice for Palestine we offered our full support for that decision. We will continue to support any further actions motivated by genuine solidarity with the people of Gaza, and with any other oppressed people anywhere in the world.

We have a long and great tradition of radical lawyering in South Africa. Our movement has worked with a number of brilliant and committed radical lawyers since 2005. We were so proud to see this tradition show itself to the world in the struggle to insist that the humanity of every person must be recognised and defended.

The great step that the South African government has taken on the global stage to end genocide must also be undertaken internally to end oppression. They must treat their own people with the same dignity. Brutal evictions, cuts to social spending, corruption and political repression cannot continue to be the order of the day. Singalingisi ihlamvu lona elishanela kude kube kungcolile eduze.

\Abahlali baseMjondolo, or AbM, is a shack-dwellers' movement in South Africa. It campaigns to improve the living conditions of poor people and to democratize society from below. The movement refuses party politics and boycotts elections. It's key demand is that the social value of urban land should take priority over its commercial value and it campaigns for the public expropriation of large privately owned landholdings. Read other articles by Abahlali baseMjondolo, or visit Abahlali baseMjondolo's website.