Español: Carta al Fiscal de la CPI sobre la complicidad del Reino Unido en el genocidio y los crímenes de guerra israelíes
El Reino Unido debe ser presionado por una petición para que la CPI investigue por violar el derecho internacional
Lo que sigue es aplicable y utilizable literalmente por cualquier persona, en cualquier parte del mundo. No importa en qué país vivas ni tu nacionalidad.
Esta página le proporciona un proceso claro y el material necesario para remitir al Reino Unido a la Corte Penal Internacional para una investigación sobre complicidad con violaciones del derecho internacional en la fase actual del conflicto palestino-israelí.
Lea las siguientes notas explicativas que explican:
el Contexto de la remisión;
los Objetivos de la remisión;
Procesos que puede seguir, que explican cómo utilizar el material en los procesos.
Luego, siga el proceso de su elección para enviar una remisión a la Fiscalía de la CPI e infórmenos que la ha completado dejando un comentario en esta página.
Contexto
Desde el ataque de Hamás el 7 de octubre de 2023, Naciones Unidas ha declarado formalmente que está consciente de posibles violaciones del derecho internacional tanto por parte de Hamás como del Estado de Israel. Una posición partidista sobre el conflicto más amplio o esta fase no es el objetivo de este proceso de remisión.
La Corte Penal Internacional ha estado recopilando pruebas de crímenes desde 2014 y ha afirmado que sus acciones continúan en relación con la fase actual del conflicto:
Debido a que la CPI ya tiene expedientes abiertos sobre actores israelíes y palestinos, remitir a Israel o Hamás a la CPI para su investigación no es el propósito de esta página ni su contenido. Hacerlo sería inútil, es decir, inútil porque la CPI ya está investigando a esas partes.
Lo que está claramente claro es que las recientes intenciones declaradas y acciones demostrables del Estado de Israel son identificadas por la ONU y muchos otros observadores, incluidos otros Estados, como una violación directa del derecho internacional. Por lo tanto, cualquier estado miembro de la ONU sujeto a esas leyes que ayude, incite o de otra manera no cumpla con sus obligaciones legales está violando esas leyes.
El Reino Unido es:
miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas y tiene derecho de veto en ese foro;
un Estado Parte, es decir, signatario del Estatuto de Roma, y por lo tanto reconoce la autoridad de la Corte Penal Internacional
Régimen jurídico y facultades;
Competencia sobre los cuatro crímenes de genocidio, crímenes de lesa humanidad, crímenes de guerra (violaciones de los Convenios de Ginebra en el contexto de un conflicto armado) y el crimen de agresión.
El Reino Unido ha afirmado falsamente que “Israel tiene el derecho absoluto a la legítima defensa”, afirmación que sabe que es falsa. Ha expresado su intención de apoyar los objetivos políticos y militares de Israel y ha actuado de acuerdo con esa intención. Lamentablemente, las intenciones y acciones de Israel incluyen violaciones del derecho internacional que equivalen a:
genocidio;
crímenes contra la humanidad;
crímenes de guerra;
crímenes de agresión.
Por lo tanto, el Reino Unido es claramente cómplice, por sus intenciones y acciones declaradas, de las violaciones del derecho internacional por parte de Israel. Además, el Reino Unido no ha cumplido sus obligaciones en virtud del derecho internacional en cuanto a la forma en que ejerce influencia sobre otros Estados.
Esto significa que el Reino Unido ha actuado y continúa actuando ilegalmente y, por tanto, debería ser investigado por la Corte Penal Internacional. Que el Reino Unido haya “respaldado” formalmente a Israel en relación con Hamás es irrelevante. Que el Reino Unido se haya aliado con cualquier Estado que la ONU y la CPI identifiquen claramente por haber cometido actos criminales antes del 7 de octubre de 2023 y desde entonces es la cuestión que nos ocupa. Si el Reino Unido se hubiera aliado con Hamás, a quien la ONU y la CPI también identifican como violador del derecho internacional, lo mismo se aplicaría al Reino Unido. Al no permanecer neutral y buscar una solución pacífica al conflicto actual o más amplio, y a pesar de lo que acepta como obligaciones bajo el derecho internacional y la jurisdicción de la CPI, el Reino Unido es ahora cómplice de los actos ilegales de otro Estado. y debe estar sujeto a toda la fuerza de las leyes y autoridades que reconoce.
Objetivos
Debemos reconocer la realidad. En términos prácticos, es poco probable que la CPI investigue y enjuicie al Reino Unido debido a la corrupción y politización de las Naciones Unidas y la CPI. Esta página y todo lo que contiene lo reconoce.
Por lo tanto, el propósito de todo este ejercicio es el siguiente:
Remitir formalmente al Reino Unido a la CPI para exigir una investigación y obligar a la CPI a actuar, o explicar por qué no actuará.
Presentar una petición a la CPI y, a través de la fuerza de los números, mostrar la fuerza de la conciencia y el sentimiento públicos globales con respecto a la realización de atrocidades recientes e históricas en el conflicto palestino-israelí.
Expresar desprecio público por las acciones y declaraciones deliberadamente ilegales del Reino Unido directamente al gobierno británico a través de esta remisión.
Agregue presión pública con base legal contra el Reino Unido con la esperanza de ejercer alguna influencia sobre él y, por lo tanto, sobre los actores del conflicto del Estado de Israel y el Estado de Palestina, con el fin de ayudar a cesar la guerra en la región.
Utilice este proceso y, con suerte, un número significativo de participantes para atraer la atención de los medios sobre esta petición formal, para aumentar la presión sobre el Reino Unido, la ONU, la CPI y los actores del conflicto.
Proces
Envíe una remisión a través del formulario en línea de la ICC
Descargue la versión PDF de la carta de recomendación del Reino Unido a través del enlace que se encuentra más abajo en esta página, ubicado encima del texto de la carta.
Visite el formulario de presentación en línea de la Oficina del Fiscal (OTP) de la CPI a través de este enlace: https://otplink.icc-cpi.int/
Complete los campos de la siguiente manera:
Investigación: seleccione "Estado de Palestina"
Nombre de contacto: su nombre
Correo electrónico de contacto: su correo electrónico
Teléfono de contacto: su teléfono
Alternativamente, marque la casilla para realizar un envío anónimo.
Nombre del incidente: “complicidad del Reino Unido en crímenes de guerra israelíes”
Resumen de hechos: copie y pegue el texto completo de la carta (a continuación). Tiene el formato correcto para pegarlo directamente en este formulario.
Fecha de inicio: seleccione 10/07/23
Fecha de finalización: ingrese la fecha actual
Idioma del artículo: seleccione inglés
Lugar del incidente: entrar en Israel
Haga clic en el botón "Agregar archivos adjuntos".
Cargue la versión del archivo PDF de la carta.
Haga clic en Enviar.
Háganos saber que ha completado el formulario dejando un comentario en esta página y/o enviando un correo electrónico a reportwarcrimes@proton.me
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo y el esfuerzo de leer esta página y participar positivamente en esta campaña para ayudar a poner fin a la violencia en los Estados de Palestina e Israel, utilizando esta parte del proceso político.
Comparta y publique esta página y anime a otros a participar en este proceso.
Suscríbase para recibir alertas sobre las próximas herramientas para remitir a EE. UU., la UE y otras naciones que han violado el derecho internacional en esta fase actual del conflicto palestino-israelí.
A CONTINUACIÓN ESTA CARTA A LA OTP DE LA ICC (en inglés según las reglas de la ICC):
To:
Office of the Prosecutor
Post Office Box 19519
2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Mr. Khan,
Re: Referral of the United Kingdom to the ICC for investigation into its support, backing and complicity with Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and other illegal activities towards the State of Palestine and its people.
The United Nations has clearly stated that “actions constitut[ing] heinous violations of international law and international crimes, for which there must be urgent accountability,” have occurred in the current phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I understand that the UN and the ICC have opened an investigation into the actions of Israeli and Palestinian forces in this regard.
I wish to formally request that the ICC open an investigation into:
the government of the United Kingdom; comprising
any and all Members of Parliament & Lords; and
its civil and military services;
with respect to the United Kingdom’s deliberate public mischaracterisation of Israel’s rights to self-defense, and the UK’s support for, sponsorship of and therefore complicity in Israeli war crimes (including genocide and ethnic cleansing) and violations of the laws governing warfare including international humanitarian law.
As a State Party of the Rome Statute and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom has no ability to plead ignorance or feign misunderstanding in the these matters of international law, its obligations and those of other States.
Following Hamas’ attack on October 7th, 2023, the United Kingdom’s government, opposition parties and its organs of state immediately declared an unalloyed support of Israel’s political and military actions that superficially and ostensibly stem from the attack. This stance is founded on an unconditional and unqualified assertion that the UK government knew to be misleading and incompatible with international law:
“Israel has an absolute right to defend itself.” - Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, X post, 7th October 2023
Since Prime Minister Sunak made that statement and it cascaded through Parliament and the media, the Israeli government has issued statements, committed acts, and been shown to harbour policy that the UN itself recognises are violations of international law. Meanwhile, the UK has maintained and strengthened its supportive posture and committed armed forces to the region in direct support of Israel’s stated political and military objectives, despite the fact that Israel’s stated intentions and demonstrable, ongoing acts are illegal.
Based purely on the publicly available information cited below, since October 7th the United Kingdom has willingly entered into a de facto pact with Israel to support and legitimise its illegal and genocidal activities. The extent of the UK’s complicity with Israel includes:
Wilfully and knowingly making false claims that, under present and historical circumstances, Israel has “the right of self-defense”, absolute or otherwise, with the express intent of misleading international audiences and the media to skew perception, and diminish scrutiny into Israel’s actions and its accountability;
Nominally recognising that Israel’s actions must be “in accordance with international law” while literally turning a blind eye to or even explicitly backing egregious violations of international law, which include:
Israel’s stated intent to commit genocide and other war crimes;
Israel’s actual commission of genocidal acts against the Palestinian people, including ethnic cleansing;
the wilful and ongoing violation of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of war and armed conflict despite the fact that Israel has declared war against what it now recognises as the State of Palestine and one of Palestine’s democratically governing parties - Hamas - where Israel’s declaration of war invokes the very laws governing armed conflict that it flaunts;
Using political means via its position on the UNSC, in concert with the USA, to stymie global calls for a ceasefire and shield Israel on a historical basis;
Provision of military force in support of Israel’s intentions and acts, despite their illegality, which serves to threaten other regional states.
Therefore, I put it to the ICC that the UK, being a State Party to the Rome Statute, is complicit with Israeli:
genocide;
war crimes;
crimes against humanity; and
other illegal acts;
and should be investigated by the ICC for such.
I lay out the areas where Israel is clearly in violation of international law, all of which is publicly known, proven and completely within the purview of the United Kingdom’s government.
I would appreciate a fulsome reply from your office that details your view of the matters raised herein, and your stated intent and scope of actions regarding the UK and Israel.
Yours sincerely,
[Identified by email/OTP form]
Israel’s right to defend itself
While the UK has claimed that “Israel has an absolute right to defend itself,” it made that claim knowing it to be false. Under international law, rights of self-defense are not absolute and must be qualified.
Longstanding analysis of various and directly comparable aspects of the historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict have repeatedly made clear that Israel’s status and therefore its rights of self-defense preclude Israel’s and the UK’s claim that, under the circumstances arising from the October 7th Hamas attack, Israel’s “right to defend itself” is “absolute” or without context, qualification and limits.
UN Charter Chapter VII Article 51
Regarding the right of self-defense, United Nations Charter Article 51 reads as follows:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Israel and its allies including the UK have repeatedly cited its inherent right to self-defence when justifying its ongoing military operations in Gaza. A 2004 advisory opinion written by the International Court of Justice stated “Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.”
This was in reference to the Israeli construction of the bounding wall. The court stated, “Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (200 l), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence.”
Also, the court concluded “that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall resulting from the considerations mentioned in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.” Thus, Israel cannot cite a right of self-defense as a means to excuse or justify illegal acts, before or after the fact. This conclusion is relevant to the Israel’s present day actions and the way in which it seeks to justify its illegal acts by perverting and deliberately misrepresenting a State’s right of self-defense and whether given acts constitute acts of self-defense.
Regarding the ruling, former British Ambassador, Craig Murray, observes:
“The ruling must imply the Palestinians do indeed have the right of self-defence. Because you cannot have the “right of self-determination”, which the court acknowledges, without the right of self-defence. Because it is impossible to exercise self-determination if somebody else can remove your bodily integrity at whim. That right of self-defence must perforce be exercised by whoever has de facto control of Palestinian territory at the time.”
The UN’s position on Israel’s right of self-defense as an occupying force in Palestine
Professor Alfred de Zayas, a former UN Independent Expert on International Order, told Sputnik News, "Israel's obligation under Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 is to withdraw from the occupied territories and to allow the practical implementation of the right of self-determination of the Palestine People, an inalienable right anchored in articles 1,55, Chapters XI and XII of the UN Charter as well as in Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It is important to recall the ruling of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 9 July 2004 reaffirming the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people and documenting the serial violations of the UN Charter and international law perpetrated by Israel. Notwithstanding the clear language of the ICJ, Israel has not implemented any of the specific ICJ rulings, and has been able to flout the UN again and again because the United States has abused its veto right in the Security Council (approximately 80 times!) to shield Israel from condemnation and UN sanctions."
According to Sputnik News, De Zayas observed that within the framework of the court's rulings, Israel doesn't have the right to self-defense, but should be guided by international regulations for an "occupying power."
On May 21, 2021, UN Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine Riyad Mansour insisted in his letter to the international body that "the principle of self-defense cannot be applied by Israel to itself in the occupied territory of the State of Palestine… As reaffirmed by the Security Council in its resolution 1860 (2009), the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967".
Mansour argued that as an "occupying power" Israel is "bound by the relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and all other relevant provisions of international law, including United Nations resolutions." International law stipulates that "occupying states" have increased responsibilities to protect local populations and are obliged to provide them with the basic health and safety supplies.
In declaring its intent to commit acts of collective punishment hinging around conditions it alone sets (the unconditional surrender of Hamas), Israel has openly admitted that it exercises complete practical control over the electricity, food, water and fuel supplies of the Gaza Strip, and therefore admitted that it exercises the power and control of a dominant and occupying force over what it recognises as another State. It has since gone on to demonstrate its irrefutable power and position as an occupying force in this regard. Therefore, its own statements of intent, admissions and acts further undermine its and its allies’ claims to the “right of self-defense”, absolute or otherwise.
In light of the above, I put it to the ICC that Israel:
does not have an absolute right of self-defense under Article 51;
cannot demonstrate adequately qualified right of self-defense under Article 51;
having been recognised by the United Nations as an occupying force within the Palestinian Territory (of which the Gaza Strip is a part), has no rights of self-defense as defined in Article 51, where self-defense is distinct from “the right and… the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens”;
should be requested to immediately make clear its claim to the right of self-defense under the present circumstances.
Therefore, with respect to the United Kingdom, I put it to the ICC that its will to support Israel, framed within its knowingly false claim about Israel’s rights, makes the UK complicit in the acts that Israel intends to and/or has carried out. Where such acts are illegal, the UK is therefore knowingly complicit in those acts by means of stated and actual/demonstrable support for and/or enablement of them.
Israel’s declaration of war
On October 7th, 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu made a declaration of war:
“Citizens of Israel, we are at war. Not in an operation or in rounds, but at war.”
“Israel is at war… Hamas will understand that by attacking us, they have made a mistake of
historic proportions. We will exact a price that will be remembered by them and Israel’s other enemies for decades to come.”
This declaration and the targeting of Hamas as the primary enemy determines the international law that now applies to Israel’s actions as a UN member state, during its self-declared state of war. It also raises questions about Hamas’ status as a state-level actor and Palestine’s status in the eyes of the UN and Israel itself. All of this may have relevance in further (dis)qualifying Israel’s claim around the right of self-defense and framing its actions since declaring war.
Israel’s intent to commit genocide
In his capacity as Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant stated, “We will change the face of reality in the State of Gaza 50 years from now. What is, will not be. We will act with full force.”
He subsequently declared, “I have ordered a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.”
Through Gallant, Israel has recognised Gaza (and Palestine) as a State. It expressed its clear intention to “change the face of reality” in that State to the point that “what is, will not be.” This implies that the physical and political nature of the State of Palestine, as well as life in it, would be irreversibly changed by Israel’s sole actions. This speaks to Israel’s intent to act outside of or beyond a concept of proportional self-defense.
That intent was reinforced and made specific by Gallant’s and Israel’s intended siege of Gaza, which is an illegal act of collective punishment of the citizens of Palestine and any and all inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, irrespective of their nationality, relationship with Hamas and involvement in the October 7th attacks.
The State of Israel further clarified its intent to commit collective punishment via its President, Isaac Herzog, who in his official capacity stated:
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat… But we are at war with [inaudible]… We are defending our homes, we are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we break their backbone.”
There is no legal or rational basis for such claims, irrespective of a prevailing state of war. By Israel’s own logic then, the German population were entirely and equally responsible for the acts of the Nazi regime under Hitler, and the entirety of the Israeli population is responsible for every single act of the Israeli state, including the innumerable war crimes and acts of terrorism it or its agents have carried out through its short history. Clearly, Herzog’s claims are nonsense and, were the people and State of Israel to be held to the standard invoked by Herzog, both would be found liable for a litany of horrors and that would pave the way for State level retribution against it of the kind Israel now pursues against Palestine under its perverse, idiosyncratic and synthetic logic.
When all of the above is set against the UN definition of genocide, with respect to Palestinians (and wider inhabitants of part of the State of Palestine), Israel has clearly and openly expressed its intent to:
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such; and
commit some or all of the following five acts:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
By the UN definition, “the intent [to commit genocide] is the most difficult element to determine.”
In this instance and on an ongoing basis, I put it to the ICC that Israel has clearly, repetitively stated its intent to:
direct both harmful and lethal methods and force indiscriminately against the Palestinian people while ostensibly pursuing the total destruction of Hamas.
commit genocide of the Palestinian people via its acts of collective punishment and other acts of violence and war (self-declared, legal or otherwise).
Israel’s acts of genocide
Israel has acted in accordance with its stated intent to commit genocide. Israel has:
killed a grossly disproportionate number of innocent Palestinian civilians including women, children, infants and persons incapable of engaging in combat (terroristic or otherwise);
caused serious bodily and mental harm to Palestinian civilians en masse throughout the Gaza Strip;
deliberately inflicted conditions of life on Palestinians that would cause harm and/or death by, for example, laying siege to the Gaza Strip and blocking all essential supplies and thereby inducing starvation, dehydration and the degradation of sanitation;
deliberately interrupted the ability for Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip to safely give birth by damaging and destroying medical and hospital facilities as well as the necessary circumstances in which to peacefully, comfortably and safely give birth absent of specialised medical facilities;
attempted to force Palestinians and by definition Palestinian children out of Palestine and into the custody of the Egyptian and/or Jordanian authorities.
In having carried out all of the above and continuing to do so, Israel has committed and continues to commit the UN definition of genocide against the people of the State of Palestine. This has been explicitly confirmed by the UN’s former Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, in his resignation letter dated 28th October, 2023 in which he states:
“As a human rights lawyer with more than three decades of experience in the field, I know well that the concept of genocide has often been subject to political abuse. But the current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs, and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt or debate. In Gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. In the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Across the land, Apartheid rules.
“This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What’s more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations “to ensure respect” for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel’s atrocities.”
Since resigning his UN position, in an interview with Max Blumenthal, Mr. Mokhiber embellished his professional assessment:
“If you line up the required elements of the convention in its definition and what we've been seeing unfolding in Gaza you will see that there is a prima facie case of genocide here; I think a very clear case of genocide.
“One of the great challenges improving genocide is often finding evidence of intent... In this case it's very easy because you have senior Israeli officials - the Prime Minister, the President, senior cabinet ministers, military officials - who have been quite public in stating their genocidal intent with regard to the civilian population in Gaza. You add to that the particular acts that are required like killing and expelling people and creating conditions that are likely to bring about the elimination of the group… by definition the internment of 2.3 million civilians year after year in Gaza, controlling the amount of food and medicine and water and electricity and everything that flows in preventing people from going out, denying basic economic and social rights, not to mention civil and political rights to the people - there is something that is deliberately calculated to bring out the conditions for their destruction - so all of the elements are there.
“The statements of intent could not be more clear, it seems to me, than they are and yet there is a hesitation to talk about genocide in some official circles. I think we need to do so.”
If someone of Mr. Mokhiber’s experience and standing within the UN itself makes such unequivocal assessments, what doubt should anyone else, including the ICC, have regarding Israel’s genocidal intent and acts?
Israel’s intention and efforts to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its Palestinian population
In direct concert with the USA, Israel has sought to expel Palestinians from Palestine, to be treated as refugees in Egypt and/or neighbouring Arab nations. This objective and sentiment was voiced by former Foreign Minister and diplomat, Danny Ayalon, on Al Jazeera, on October 12th, 2023.
“[We don’t tell Gazans] to go to the beaches or drown themselves … No, God forbid … Go to the Sinai Desert. There is a huge expanse, almost endless space in the Sinai Desert just on the other side of Gaza. The idea is for them to leave over to the open areas where we and the international community will prepare infrastructure … tent cities, with food and with water, just like for the refugees of Syria… we have been discussing [a humanitarian corridor] with the United States then we can guarantee in this corridor that nobody will get hurt. Now again I say there is a way to receive them all on the other side for temporary time on Sinai… Egypt will have to play ball because this is human life is at stake.”
On October 13, 2023 an Israeli Ministry of Intelligence document leaked via Sicha Mekomit news recommended that Israel establish tent cities in Egypt’s Sinai peninsula to accommodate the Gazan population. These tent cities should then be developed into permanent settlements, with a “sterile zone of several kilometers” separating them from the Israeli border. Under the plan, Gaza’s 2.3 million residents would be told that “there is no longer any hope of returning to the territories that Israel will occupy in the near future,” and that “Allah made sure that you lost this land because of the leadership of Hamas.” US support will be vital to the plan’s success, the document states. Washington could put "pressure on Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to contribute to the initiative either in resources or in accepting displaced persons,” it notes, adding that Spain, Greece, and Canada could also be convinced to accept refugees from the strip.
The document betrayed the deliberate intent to ethnically cleanse Palestine on a permanent basis under the guise of what Danny Ayalon dressed up as a “temporary” intent to move potentially millions of civilians into a desert, thereby “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
A document seemingly created on October 17, 2023 by MISGAV - The Insitute for National Security and Zionist Strategy described the war as “a rare opportunity” for the “relocation and final settlement of the entire Gaza population.”
Members of the Knesset such as Ariel Kellner, have expressed the desire to initiate “Nakba 2.0”.
“Turn off the enemy now! This day is our Pearl Harbour. We will still learn the lessons. Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join! their Nakba, because like then in 1948, the alternative is clear.” - Ariel Kellner, X Post (since deleted)
By its own admission and by its actions involving the USA, Israel has tried to displace Palestinians into the Sinai desert for what is reasonable to suspect Israel intends to become a permanent basis. Given the multiple forms of written and spoken evidence of intent, why shouldn’t the UN, ICC, members states and citizens around the world suspect Israel of the will to politically exploit its invoked state of war and destruction to achieve the permanent expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza?
Why should anyone:
Consider it reasonable or legal to move Palestinians into hellish living conditions of a massive tent city in the Sinai desert and thereby commit an act specified in the UN genocide definition?
Tolerate any attempt to bring about such conditions or a justificatory pretext?
Believe that Israel would honour a right to return to Palestine for any citizens who leave voluntarily or under any form of duress or coercive practise, including any aspect of Israel’s combat operations in or around Palestine, given its conduct giving rise to the Nakba and all of its recently stated intentions?
Israel’s violation of the standard set under international humanitarian law
Former US Marine Intelligence Officer and UNSCOM Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, recently set out his understanding of key concepts in international law governing armed conflict that Israel violates:
”The key considerations that distinguish a legitimate act of war from a war crime is the concept of “military necessity.” Military necessity, by definition, “permits measures which are actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. In the case of an armed conflict the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the conflict.”
”The issue of “distinction” becomes paramount when discussing any question of “military necessity.” The notion of “distinction” ensures that parties to an armed conflict must “at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” The distinction prohibits “indiscriminate attacks and the use of indiscriminate means and methods of warfare,” such as carpet bombing, or an artillery bombardment which lacked a specific military purpose.
“Military necessity” and “distinction” serve as the core principles around which the international community has codified specific acts that constitute war crimes in the form of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular Article 8 (War Crimes). These include:
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units, or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; and
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.
“Regarding its offensive operations in Gaza, Israel has been accused of engaging in activity that violates all of the acts described above. Israeli doctrine, both written and spoken, would appear to embrace behaviours that wilfully lead to such violations.
”During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel Defense Force Northern Commander Gadi Eisenkot implemented a military strategy that sought to target and destroy entire civilian areas rather than engage in difficult and dangerous ground combat necessary to capture them. The goal of this strategy was more than simply trying to reduce Israeli casualties—the stated purpose of this new approach was to hold the entire civilian population accountable for the actions of Hezbollah fighters. Eisenkot did away with the requirement under international law to distinguish between military and civilian targets. This new doctrine was first used on the West Beirut Dahiya neighbourhood, and the doctrine took its name from this location—the “Dahiya” Doctrine.
”The “Dahiya Doctrine” specifically calls for the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and civilian infrastructure for the specific purpose of causing suffering and severe distress throughout the targeted population. The goal was to simultaneously destroy any enemy in the targeted area, to intimidate the targeted population into turning on the militants (in that case Hezbollah), and to deter other population centres from supporting Hezbollah. The “Dahiya Doctrine” was used extensively against Gaza since 2008, killing thousands of civilians. In its definition and through its execution, the “Dahiya Doctrine” amounts to nothing less than state terrorism, which means that the Israeli military, through its implementation of this policy, has become a state sponsor of terrorism.”
Israel’s actions to date are known to have included:
the total siege of the Gaza Strip to effect collective punishment against Palestinians;
the deliberate killing of innocent civilians including women, children, infants, and people incapable of being any form of enemy combatant by virtue of age or infirmity by:
deliberately and continuously targeting all manner of civilian structures and installations including residences, schools, a university, hospitals, ambulances, and UNRWA sites; and
using weapons and strike profiles that are grossly disproportionate in scale, duration and lethality to the nature of the attacks on October 7th, 2023;
knowingly and possibly deliberately killing journalists.
In the conduct of these acts, no proof of military necessity or distinction appears to have been provided by Israel to any competent third party observer. Moreover, via its illegal siege of the Gaza Strip, Israel has sought to deliberately diminish the ability for anyone in it to record and report the impact of Israel’s actions by the deliberate cessation of electricity and communications networks over which it has control or influence.
By virtue of the very nature of Israel’s observable, recorded and even self-described and/or admitted acts, Israel is in contravention of international humanitarian law.
Craig Mokhiber gave his view on the “double standards” in the West when it comes to fulfilling obligations under international law:
“There's no doubt of the massive double standards that exist in the West… before you get to double standards you have to talk about complicity. Western governments like that in the US and the UK have obligations under international humanitarian law. Their obligations are not just to respect international humanitarian law in the conflicts in which they're engaged but they have a legal obligation of the Geneva Conventions to ensure respect via other states over whom they have influence.
“It's clear that the United States has done nothing to try to ensure respect for international humanitarian law by Israel and, to the contrary, the United States has been actively funding, arming, providing intelligence support, providing political cover and diplomatic cover using its veto in the security Council to prevent action to remedy the situation as well. That goes far beyond a breach of not ensuring respect that extends into complicity here as well… One only needs to look at the pronouncements of officials in the west with regard to Ukraine and compare them to what you hear with regard to Palestine and you can see the absolute politicization and… frankly dishonesty… that these officials have with regard to the situation on the ground. I have lost faith in official institutions generally to protect human rights because of this politicization I don't see any hope in state institutions doing what needs to be done here. I don't see any hope in international institutions which have been forced to their knees in many respects by powerful states to prevent them from being able to act effectively. I put my hope in Civil Society. I put my hope in movements, in people on the ground who have been responding in real numbers in the United States, in Europe and elsewhere and saying “no, not in our name, not in our time, this is not something that we are going to tolerate,” and I expect those movements are going to grow.”
The hypocrisy of the state sponsorship of “terrorist” Hamas
I observe as an aside the following rather grotesque contradiction. While Hamas is designated a terrorist group by Israel, its Five Eyes allies, Japan, Paraguay and the EU, the UN does not designate it as a terrorist group. Furthermore, Israel is known to have directly supported, influenced and aided in Hamas’ funding, political activities and legitimacy/standing within and beyond the State of Palestine. Moreover, the USA and UK are knowingly strategically, militarily and financially involved and/or allied with Qatar, a known state level sponsor of Hamas.
Following the October 7th Hamas attack, the USA has commenced what it describes as sanctions directly against Hamas, and identified benefactors/agents. This raises the question of why the USA has, until now, not exercised that power and therefore enabled the funding of Hamas via these channels up to the present day.
All of the above appears to be at odds with anti-terrorism funding laws in most of these States, including Israel itself, as well as with the base act of designating Hamas a terrorist group circa 2014.
Therefore, the United Kingdom’s military, financial and political allegiance with Qatar knowingly if indirectly involves it in the funding of Hamas. Its knowing tolerance of the funding channels that the USA has only just sought to sanction is anathema to the prevention of Hamas’ activities. All of this seems hypocritical on the part of the UK, to say the least.
References
https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131/advisory-opinions
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/11/the-right-of-self-defence/
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231102/what-did-russias-un-envoy-mean-by-saying-israel-doesnt-have-right-to-self-defense-1114671823.html
https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AES10867S2021493_240521.pdf
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-october-7-2023/
https://twitter.com/yoavgallant/status/1710732246137676281
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/07/israel-palestine-gaza-latest-news-rockets-tel-aviv-hamas/
https://twitter.com/yoavgallant/status/1711335592942875097
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-13/israeli-president-says-gazans-could-have-risen-up-to-fight-hamas
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24103463-craig-mokhiber-resignation-letter
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/upfront/2023/10/13/are-israel-and-hamas-guilty-of-war-crimes
https://www.mekomit.co.il/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%95/
https://mondoweiss.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/misgav-institute-ethnic-cleansing-report.pdf
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231103/scott-ritter-russia-israel-and-the-law-of-war-regarding-civilians-1114673230.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/