By VT - Philippa Jane Winkler - July 22, 2024

The United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid.

In its Advisory Opinion on July 19, 2024,  the ICJ found the Zionist State’s treatment of Palestinians similar to that of White-ruled South Africa’s apartheid regime against Black Africans. The regime was dismantled in 1991 under pressure from international sanctions.

The Western media has largely ignored this aspect of the Opinion, focusing instead on the ICJ’s finding that Israel’s occupation of Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1968 is illegal. It was an opinion sought by, and supported by,  the United Nations General Assembly.

In 2022,  Israel’s foreign minister Yair Lapid said he was fearful that the ICJ case on the legality of the occupation would result in a charge of apartheid.

‘We think that in the coming year, there will be debate that is unprecedented in its venom and in its radioactivity around the words “Israel as an apartheid state’,” he told Israeli journalists. ‘…it will be a tangible threat.’

Last Friday the judges at the ICJ made the threat real, by invoking Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) against Israel.

Here are the direct quotes from the ICJ ruling:

Israel accused of the crimes of apartheid and racial segregation

‘The Court further observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.’

Article 3 of CERD says: ‘States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.’

‘Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD.’

Article 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) says: ‘States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races.’

The ICJ states that Israel’s military rule and occupation of the Palestinian Territories since 1968 is illegal. It must end ASAP, the Wall dismantled and settlers evacuated

‘Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible…Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian.’

‘Israel has to a large degree substituted its military law for the local law in force in the Occupied Palestinian Territory at the beginning of the occupation in 1967.’

The ICJ found that Israel violates Palestinians’ right to self determination

‘The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.’

Implications

The ruling opens up a hole in Israel’s argument that it is defending itself against an ‘independent’ territory. As an occupying power, Israel does not have the right of self defence against peoples it is occupying. As well, according to the United Nations Charter, the right to self-defense can only be invoked when the state is threatened by another state.

Particularly damaging to Israel is the finding that it practises racial discrimination and apartheid. This particular ICJ opinion drives a wedge through the conflationary ‘anti Zionism is antisemitism’ argument. Israel cannot plead being a victim of discrimination while itself accused of apartheid.

The charge of the crime of apartheid will make Israel’s worst fear come true: increased fracturing of its support in the United States and elsewhere. Thousands of American and British Jews have been turning against the Zionist state for years. A poll in 2021 found that 25% of American Jews agreed that ‘Israel is an apartheid state.’Only the evangelical Christian Right remain unified and stalwart allies.

The ICJ ruling further legitimizes Hamas’ status as a legitimate resistance movement against an occupying power. Countries that designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation are in the minority. They are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Paraguay, United Kingdom and the United States. The 28-nation European Union controversially keeps Hamas on its terrorist list despite the EU’s General Court view of 2014 that the listing was based on media and internet reports rather than decisions by a competent authority.

Potential Repercussions for Israel

The ICJ’s call to action is an opinion and therefore not binding, but it has the power to trigger actionable measures such as international sanctions against Israel, at the United Nations General Assembly and at the UN Security Council (UNSC.)

Specifically, the ICJ ruling states that countries and international organisations have a duty not to recognize the Israeli presence in the Palestinian Territories and to avoid supporting it. ‘Is of the opinion that international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’

The ruling urges the United Nations to consider steps to end Israel’s occupation. ‘Is of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’

Measures like those that helped to end apartheid in South Africa could be enacted forcefully by individual countries. These would include imposition of trade and arms embargoes, boycotts and sanctions against Israeli individuals, banks, businesses, foreign investments and weapons manufacturers and sellers.

More countries could refuse entry to Israeli citizens, and discourage tourism and investment in Israel.  Israeli embassies could be closed down, and diplomatic relations put on ice. Consumers will have further reason to hold corporations and governments to account for trading with Israel. The International Criminal Court might issue warrants against more Israeli officials than Netenyahu for war crimes. The ICJ could be emboldened to rule that Israel is carrying out a genocide in an upcoming decision.

The United States could still use its veto at the UNSC in favour of the Zionist state, which has shown defiance of all ICJ rulings and UN resolutions. But it looks increasingly bad for the so-called liberal countries to show support for an apartheid state while at the same time espousing human rights.

Live: ICJ Delivers Ruling on Israel’s Policies in Occupied Palestinian Territory – YouTube

This post was adapted from an article that originally appeared in Geopolitics: It’s Not Rocket Science a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Geopolitics: It’s not Rocket Science | Philippa Jane Winkler | Substack

Philippa Jane Winkler

Philippa is a professor of International Relations, with a PhD from the University of Bristol and a BA from the London School of Economics and Political Science. But not just an academic, Philippa is an international activist and music artist as well, having engaged at the United Nations and with governments.   She draws from both left and right critical perspectives.

VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

$ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.