Archive | Genocide Convention RSS feed for this section

Why a civil society tribunal on Gaza Genocide is necessary.

15 Dec


[Prefatory Note: The questions and responses were made a month ago and now presented in a modified form. The original intention was to cooperate with Aida Naouel Kara Mohammed of The Interviews Office of Aljazeera.net based in Doha Qatar that was gathering  information for a report about the newly formed Gaza Tribunal.]

1-How and when the idea of making “Gaza Tribunal” came?

The idea of a peoples or civil society tribunal on the persisting genocidal assault on the entrapped and blockaded Palestinian civilian population has long been conceived of as a valuable initiative. Yet a specific proposal with adequate funding only came to our attention

when my wife, Hilal Elver, and I were approached in Turkey during May of 2024 by a group of concerned Turkish citizens associated with the Islamic Cooperation Youth Forum inviting  and encouraging us to embark on such a project and asked me to serve as president, and Hilal to act as chief coordinator. We carefully deliberated upon whether we should accept such a proposal given the time-consuming complexities of organizing and carrying out such a project, and considering the political complexities of dealing with an undertaking of this magnitude.

During negotiations we insisted upon a strict pledge of political independence from interference by sponsors and funders, and above all, and by the Turkish Government. As well as independence from all governments. We also made clear that we would only proceed if assured about the exclusion of active politicians or diplomats. Such assurances were given in a persuasive form, and in August 2024, as the genocide intensified and the UN and US seemed in the first case unable and in the second case unwilling to even establish a ceasefire, we accepted this invitation and have been planning the organization, structure, and activities ever since. A successful launch meeting of the Gaza Tribunal Project was held in London on October 31-November 1st with many prominent scholars and activists taking part, including giving great attention to the work of Palestinian civil society grassroots organizations working under harsh conditions prevailing throughout Occupied Palestine.

2-Many nongovernmental organizations participate in this initiative, how do they coordinate and cooperate with each or other?

As a civil society initiative oriented toward lending support to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and other basic rights, we have sought participation from a wide range of Palestinian NGOs, and have been encouraged by their strongly positive response as evidenced by their participation. We have established a Palestinian Civil Society Working Group as well as Global Civil Society Advisory Council to ensure that there are clear channels for participation and influence. To date there has been excellent cooperation among participating Palestinian organizations and in relation to the global CSOs, and of course we hope this will continue and be reflected in the final

judgment of the Gaza Tribunal. The identity of the Gaza Tribunal is global in its orientation, aiming to mobilize support throughout the world for global solidarity initiatives.

3-What are some of the prominent active organizations?

To varying degrees representatives of many organizations are active and or influential in the work of the GT, including notable Palestinian civil society actors: Al Haq, Palestinian Center of Human Rights,  Addameer, and Al Mezan Center of Human Rights. We have a special working group in the project composed of representatives of Palestinian grassroots and solidarity organizations. We on the Steering Committee of the GTP will turn to them for guidance throughout the entire GT process. We also are responsive to the valuable contributions of such global civic society organizations Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, and other civil society organizations and activists wherever situated, including in Israel. We also intend to involve journalists, observers, and experts with a clear knowledge and experience of the violence that has been directed both toward the people of Gaza, but also toward international health and humanitarian aid workers, and indeed any individual of conscience, including poets, novelists, and artists.

4-What are the main goals that the Gaza Tribunal aspires to achieve?

I think a consensus exists among the conveners and sponsors of the Gaza Tribunal Project that we hope to organize the tribunal in such a manner

that its final judgment gives primary emphasis to the particulars of the crime of genocide as perpetrated in Gaza by Israel delimited by international law and the Genocide Convention. It also seeks to complement the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by acting more quickly and by producing texts that are technically competent yet readable by any concerned person without the obstructions of the sort of obscure legalism and boundaries that tend to be characteristic of ICJ judgments. The GT will operate without the guard rails of normal national and international courts, especially those affecting jurisdiction to decide, the scope of criminality that is to be pronounced upon, and especially the professional discipline of giving equal opportunity to complainants and defendants. A peoples tribunal is activated only by a sense of widespread injustice that is not being adequately addressed by the intergovernmental structures of world and their institutional policy tools for implementation (as center in the UN System).

Additional to the text itself and wider than any proceeding before the tribunal is the overall goal of producing an accurate and comprehensive record of what has transpired in Gaza (and spillover combat regionally) since the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, which itself should be contextualized in terms of prior Israeli provocations over the decades, intensified from the time the Netanyahu took control of Israeli governance at the start of 2023. It is a documentation of the criminal course of action free from jurisdictional restrictions on scope of inquire and from legalistic proceedings that impose boundaries on what kind of evidence and arguments are acceptable.

A further objective is to create a civil society template for a critical understanding and treatment of international law, including the world order significance of the GT experience for the development of an alternative pedagogical paradigm for the teaching and apprehension of international law that seeks to be critical of standard approaches and more dedicated to forging linkages between law and justice. As matters currently stand, the ICJ despite ‘justice’ being in its name veers sharply toward a strictly legalistic and positivist framing of issues it is called upon to resolve. Of course, in extreme circumstance such as Gaza legalistic and populist approaches to international law tend to converge, and the professionalism of the judges at the ICJ gives legitimacy and legal prestige to their rulings even if, as here, the obligatory features of their rulings are neither respected, nor observed, by Israel.

A further goal is to explain and justify a ‘judicial’ proceeding that does not accord due process to the defendant or adversary. Such partisan jurisprudence fills the gap created by the shortcomings of intergovernmental judicial processes even if operating free from geopolitical interference.  Again, if competently and objectively done, this mode of populist adjudication deserves respect, and implementation by private sector solidarity initiatives. For instance, BDS or cultural, sporting, and academic steps responsive to calls for populist modes of ‘enforcement.’ The effective of implementation depends on the degree to which a civil society undertaking has a mobilizing effect on people. The struggle against South African apartheid contains many reasons to believe that global expressions of solidarity strengthens the will and prospects on a national struggle for basic rights.

5-Do you think that your efforts will exert a meaningful inflience?

Yes, if the quality of performance at various stages of the GT live up to its diverse aspirations and potential. A civil society tribunal lacks any direct enforcement capabilities, but it can encourage solidarity initiatives that exert pressure. This seems to have been instrumental in the case of the anti-apartheid movement that differed from the Palestinian situation because the UN exerted an important delegitimizing influence, including by way of several Advisory Opinions of the ICJ. Also organized elements in civil society including faith-based groups, labor unions, and university protest movement supportive of divestment and boycott exerted pressure on the apartheid regime. As well, as with Occupied Palestine, an array of anti-racist pro-constitutional human rights actors were active and effective in delegitimizing apartheid South Africa.

One such established effort in the Palestinian struggle along these lines is the BDS Campaign which was initiated in 2005 by a coalition of Palestinian activists and grassroots organization. A strong judgment by GT, if widely distributed will add legitimacy to such civil society initiatives and give rise to other meaningful non-governmental undertaking including cultural and sports boycotts, and cooperative academic projects involving exchange programs and other interactions with Israel’s university.

The success or disappointment of our efforts will of course reflect the contextual situation, especially whether there continues to be widespread concern about the behavior of Israel toward Palestinian basic rights as well as whether Israel will continue under present or similar leadership. It is possible if Israel implements its increasing overt plans to annex the West Bank, Gaza in whole or in part, and deny any prospect of agreeing to the emergence of a Palestinian state of equivalent sovereignty, the impact of our GT Tribunal could be considerable even if indirect.

Also quite possible is a Zionist led pushback against the GT probably under its familiar tactic of weaponizing antisemitism. There exists a substantial prospect that a Trump presidency will encourage the demonization of the GT and those closely associated. So far, such dark prospects have not discouraged participation in its activities by those whose contributions we have solicited, which include persons prominent in the civic life of their respective country. The US as a geopolitical leader and the principal supporter of Israel despite the transparency in real time of the genocide is an important battleground in the Legitimacy War being waged effectively on behalf of the Palestinian struggle but at great costs if measured in terms of human suffering and traumatized alienation endured by the entire civilian population of Gaza. A recent report on the condition of the mental health of children in Gaza reached the conclusions that 96% of children believe that they will soon die, 49% have lost the will to live, and 100% of surviving children will need psychological help to restore their mental health. [Study and Report of Gaza Community Centre for Crisis Management, supported by the UK-based War-Child Alliance.]

6-Some believe that people have lost hope in such initiatives, what do you respond to them?

Such initiatives have always had to swim against the currents of geopolitical hard power and the mainstream media’s establishment alignments that were dismissive or hostile to such populist challenges. Such statist attitudes were present from the inception of civil society tribunals as a policy instrument of persons opposed to the behavior of states and their institutions. The serious development of this populist approach to law goes back to the formation  of the Russell Tribunal in the mid-1960s addressing the alleged crimes associated with the conduct of the Vietnam War. This first instance of a people’s tribunal did not have a discernable effect on the US conduct of the war, although it energized to some extent anti-war activism in the US and Europe, and pioneered a model of legitimacy challenges that has been emulated in numerous subsequent instances, including tribunal initiatives concerned with nuclear weapons, interventions in the Global South, gender equality, environmental protection, and corporate wrongdoing. In this sense, this civil society format has emerged as a pedagogical model of soft power resistance with variable educational, media, and activist impacts depending on the issue, overall political context, and the skills of the organizers in disseminating the outcome of their tribunal. 

The Palestinian struggle and Israel’s genocide is in many ways a special case, which makes its likely effects either less than hoped for or greater. For one thing Israel learned from apartheid South Africa to use major resources to shape effectively the public discourse relevant to its behavior, including resorting to ‘a politics of distraction’ to divert attention from substantive allegations and criticism by mounting defamatory attacks on the messenger to divert attention from the message.  In this respect Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have consistently dismissed UN authority, including of the ICJ, with contrary-to-fact defamatory attacks irresponsibly charging UN antisemitism.

Further, the historical background- of Jewish victimization climaxing with the Holocaust continues to inhibit criticism or identification with the Palestinian struggle particularly in Germany but also in the Western democracies, especially the US, that emerged from World War II with a guilty conscience because these governments did so little to oppose Nazi antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust before and during the Second World War. This liberal guilt led to an Orientalist sequel in the postwar context in which Europe’s long history of extreme persecution of Jews were addressed at the expense of people resident in a Global South nation, making Palestinian Arabs themselves persecuted strangers in their own homeland. This is the deep roots of a process that culminated in genocide when Palestinian resistance persisted despite Israeli apartheid policies and practices. Such a pattern of recourse to genocide is embedded in the experience of settler colonialism that long preceded Israeli genocide. While eliminating or marginalizing the resistance of native peoples, settlers from Europe coupled their state-building operations with genocidal tactics in the breakaway British colonies of North America, Australia, and New Zealand in systematic processes. I have labeled this dynamic as ‘genocide before genocide,’ that is before the word ‘genocide’ was invented by Rafael Lemkin and widely adopted throughout the world in the post-Holocaust, written into international law in a widely ratified treaty, International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (1948).

Finally, we who are devoting time and mainstream reputations to the GT acknowledge the uncertainty as to its usefulness. In part, we make this major commitment in response to Michelle Obama’s pre-election imperative then directed at Democrats in the US 2024 pre-electoral setting: ‘Do Something!’ Also, even if a direct impact on Israel’s behavior fails, we are confident that there will be secondary impacts of a high-quality tribunal in relation to future legal education, especially in the Global South. The compilation of a historical record and archive is itself a contribution to a people-oriented approach to the study and application of international law in global security contexts.

I suspect that most of those ‘who lost hope’ never had much hope or belief in ‘such initiative.’

7- Why was the Gaza Tribunal Project launched it in London exactl

The principal reason for locating the November 1 launch in London was to signal and underscore our intention to be global rather than to appear Turkish or even Palestinian. The diverse background of the London participant in this initial meeting of the GT Advisory Council gave full expression to this issue of global identity. London was also logistically convenient. We plan future meetings in other national settings.

8- It’s known at the international level that such initiatives are symbolic, will be there any legal obligations to punish the perpetrators?

Whenever the obligations of international law clash with strong strategic interests of geopolitical actors, especially in relation to war/peace and global security issues, the impacts of even formal governmental or international institutions has been principally symbolic. Israel defies international law and the UN and there is no political will to counteract or even censure such behavior. At most, a non-judgmental call for a ceasefire and a concern about the humanitarian catastrophe being inflicted on the previously entrapped and abused civilian population of Gaza for over 14 months.

And yet, Israel is sufficiently sensitive to the impact of adverse judgments by the ICJ, International Criminal Court (ICC), and the General Assembly as to use all its influence to blunt the effects, including hyperbolic defamation as instanced by characterizing the UN as ‘a vile cesspool of antisemitism’ and trying to use backroom influence to cancel or otherwise nullify the ICC issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders as recommended by the Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan.  As the Israel historian Tom Segev writes, “Not every criticism against Israel is antisemitic…The moment you say it is antisemitic hate … you take away all legitimacy from the criticism and try to crush the debate.” This is exactly descriptive of the Netanyahu tactics at the UN repeatedly referring to this organization of the world peoples and their governments as an ‘Anti-Israel Flat Earth Society’ and calling the UN ‘a swamp of antisemitic bile.’ Indeed, the UN deserves criticism as weak and incapable of upholding its own Charter and exhibiting no capacity or will to challenge ‘the primacy of geopolitics.’ At least, the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has mounted muted criticism of the UN with his catchy slogan ‘the world is greater than five.’

In this sort of context of geopolitically supported lawlessness, the main path leading todd effectiveness for law is symbolic, but the symbolic effects of legitimate political actors, whether inter-governmental or not, are real as evidenced by targeted states doing everything in their power to prevent and discredit them. I have long believed that symbolic arenas of lawmaking should not be trivialized or derided as I argue most emphatically with respect to the existence and activities of the GT. It is always worth remember that the anti-colonial wars since 1945 have all been won by nationalist forces on the symbolic battlefields of legitimacy. In other words, victors in Legitimacy Wars have controlled political outcome in war while competing with militarily superior colonial armies. This is a prime lesson of history, which ‘political realists’ that dominate foreign policy circles and arms merchants wanted banned throughout the lifetime education of their citizenries.

If nothing else, the Gaza Tribunal Project can offer an alternative, TWAIL, or sub-altern pedagogical model of how the interplay of law, morality, and war should be configured and interpreted at this time of planetary danger.

Tags: , , , ,

Probing the Depths: Roots of Unspeakable Crimes in Gaza–Criminality and Complicity

10 Jan

[Prefatory Note: the following interview with an Iranian journalist was completed on 1/9/24, during the week when South Africa puts forth its legal argument before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, seeking ‘provisional measures’ designed to stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Even if Israel refuses to comply should the World Court respond favorably to this emergency request as I expect it will, the decision will have an historic importance: drawing the West into the orbit of legal accountability by indirectly implementing its complicity with the Israeli attack, by an almost certain escalating effect on pro-Palestinian solidarity initiatives around the world, and by conferring on Israel the labels of ‘rogue state’ or ‘pariah state.’]

  1. At first, there’s a need to contextualize for our readers Israel’s urge to silence pro-Palestinian voices and the voices of the critics of Israel, both in the US and globally. As someone who has experienced it firsthand, can you please explain that urge?

Israel is very sensitive to international criticism, especially by critics associated with its base of support in the colonial settler and European colonial states, which together comprise the White Global West. It is also sensitive to pro-Palestine lawfare associated with international institutions, especially the UN, International Court of Jusstice (ICJ), International Criminal Court, and the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) because its legitimacy as sovereign state partly rests partly claim to be the only democratic state in the Middle East, a (mis)perception reinforced by US at the highest levels of governments pointing to ‘shared values’ that were at the core of ‘the special reliationship,’ overlooking the crimes against the indigenous majority Arab population of Palestine involving massive expulsion in 1948 and exploitative dominance since at least 1967 over the Occupied Palestinian Territories of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza.

I was the target of Israeli smears and defamatory attacks during the period I served as Special Rapporteur on Israeli Violations of Human Rights in Occupied Pallestine in the period of 2008-2014. The attacks involved slanderous accusations of antisemitism on my part, and also sharp criticism of the UN as biased due to its disproportionate attention given to alleged Israeli wrongdoing. The UN responded defensively doing whatever it could to distance itself from me, especially during the time that Ban Ki Moon was Secretary General. He explained my remaining as Special Rapporteur by reminding Israel and the world that I, as an unpaid appointee of the Human Rights Council, was not part of the UN civil service and hence beyond his disciplinary reach. This was a virtuall admission that the Israel defamatory criticism were justified. Attacking its critics became a policy tool used by Israel and its Zionist support structure in Global West countries with increasing frequency for two reasons: the weakness of Israel’s substantive position creating an incentive to shift the conversation from a focus on its severe violations of law and morality to the credibility of the critics a process that I have called ‘the politics of deflection’ in which the attention of the media is diverted to the messenger rather than the substantive message about Israel’s violations, and the related intimidation directed at activists and others who dare promote nonviolent solidarity initiatives such as BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions). No comparable effort was made to stifle such criticism or activism of South Africa during the apartheid period even though the governments of the US and UK were strategically aligned with apartheid South Africa during the Cold War years. The presence of a pro-Israeli Zionist network that shields Israel from criticism by ‘weaponizing antisemitism’ in varying ways that cause imbalances in the media and infringements upon academic freedom within educational institutions of the West.

  • How can we explain Israel’s tight grip on public discourse on Israel-Palestine issue for so long? How could it accumulate so much power and influence within different states and international entities? If there is a financial aspect to it, how powerful is it?

This is a complex, fundamental question. Israel established its legitimacy as a new state shortly after World War II in the twilight of the European colonial order, imposing its sovereign claim on a resident majority Arab majority that identified as belonging to the nation of the Palestinian people. The Zionist project of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine was a dream of a small dedicated movement in late 19th century Europe that became a political project when the UK pledged its support in the Balfour Declaration (1917) for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, a purely colonial interference with the self-determination rights of people. The statehood of Israel became an attainable goal during the British mandate period in which the UK administered Palestine as an International Mandate on behalf of the League of Nations, and encouraged Jewish immigration, a process accelerated in response to the rise of fascism in Europe, climaxism of lethal antisemitism in the Holocaust that put to death as many as six millions Jews in Europe, and caused a sense of guilt on the part of Western liberal democracies for their meager efforts to oppose such genocidal behavior.

The British ended their mandate, partly in reaction to Zionist anti-British terrorism dumping on the newly formed UN the daunting challenge of finding a solution to the surging internal conflict in Palestine between settler Jews and indigenous Arabs. The UN relied on British experience with its divide and rule style of colonialism. It established a commission that made recommendations centering on a proposed partition of Palestine into two states with Jerusalem as both their common capital and an international city. The Zionist Movement accepted partition, the representatives of the Palestinian people rejected it. Against this background Israel was established in the aftermath of a war internal to Palestine between Jewish militia forces and the armed forces of neighboring Arab countries, ending with an agreed ‘green line’ that was treated as a provisional internal boundary between the two peoples that enlarged Israel beyond the UN partition territorial allocations, giving the Jewish state 78% of Palestinian territory rather than the 45% contained in the UN plan, and dividing Jerusalem between the two peoples, leaving the control of Palestinian side of the green line to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt.

Even with its military victory and Western diplomatic and economic support, Israel was founded in a context that contained challenges to its legitimacy as a state from its region and indeed from most of the Global South. From the outset Israel realized that its security and status in international life would be greatly helped if it could control the public discourse that shaped international public opinion. Its fragile security was highlighted by the fact that in its early years it was surrounded by hostile larger states that perceived the establishment of Israel in their midst as a territorial, racial, and religious intrusion, a colonialist solution of a European problem at the expense of the Islamic, Arab bloc of countries.

Israel’s success in discourse control was greatly aided by the extent of Jewish influence in the large media platforms of the West, especially in the US and UK, as facilitated by the wealth of Diaspora Jews mobilized after Hitler to support the establishment and development of a Jewish state as a place of secure sanctuary in the event of future outbreaks of lethal antisemitism. This propaganda tool was used in sophisticated ways to create great admiration for Israel as liberal democracy in the Western mold and a modernizing success in contrast to the supposedly backward, stagnant, impoverished Palestinian society. In contrast, Israel was portrayed as socially progressive, economically successful, and even managed to make ‘the desert bloom.’ At first, there were tensions in the West between support for Israel and maintaining reliable access to the huge oil and gas reserves of the region. Israel was able to resolve these tensions with its victory over its Arab adversaries in the 1967 War, as well as occupying the territories allocated to the Palestinians in 1948. And most symbolically important it unilaterally incorporating Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel, an initiative that to this day is not accepted by many governments. After 1967 Israel shifted its relationship to the US from that of strategic burden to strategic partner, and became a militarily significant actor throughout the region. Israel was allowed to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty arrangements. After the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 Israel becaame even more valuable as the fall of the Shah meant the loss of the only other strategic ally of the West in a region strategically important for energy and control of major trade routes. 

At the same time as Israel’s apartheid regime engaged in dehumanizing modes of controlling Palestinian resistance and Israel became increasingly clear about its unwillingness to reach a political compromise achieved by bilateral negotiations, resulting in new assaults on its legitimacy became more widely questioned even in Western societies, but not by governments. This process was recently further intensified when the Netanyahu coalition government with Regligious Zionism party took over in January 2023, and immediately greenlighted settler violence on the West Bank, violated the sanctity of Muslim sacred sites (especially Al Aqsa Mosque), and displayed maps at the UN and elsewhere with only Israel present between ‘the river and the sea.’ Throughout this period Israel’s control of the discourse, reinforced by the Zionist well funded network in the Global West used its discourse dominance to demonize its critics. It was helped by the adoption of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Asssociation) definition of antisemitism, which treated any sharp criticism of Zionism or Israel, however justified by evidence and reasonable, as antisemitism. With possibly tragic irony such false branding seems to be producing real antisemitism in the world in its authentic form of hatred of Jews as an expression of hostility towards the behavior Zionism and Israel.

  • We hear or read a lot these days about the fact that Israel is an apartheid regime; what is apartheid, and how does Israel qualify as an apartheid state?

Most understandings of the nature of apartheid accept the definition set forth in Article II of the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which reads as follows:

Article II

For the purpose of the present Convention, the term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:

(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

(f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

It was made clear in the understanding of the crime that although South African racial system of exploitative subjugation of the African indigenous population was the model for declaring apartheid to be a Crime Against Humanity, it is applicable to any arrangement that satisfies the treaty definition. It is so regarded by the International Criminal Court, see Article VII(1)(j). In Article VII(2)(h)) the nature of the crime is clarified: (h)  “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”;

In the years since 2017 a series of reports sponsored by the UN and issued by widely respected human rights NGOs have confirmed the credibility of earlier allegations that the treatment of Palestinians qualifies in various ways as apartheid. (See detailed reports of UN ESCWA; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; B’Tselem). To some extent, the criminality of Israeli apartheid has been temporarily subordinated to allegations of genoicide following the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. If Israel’s falls short of its current genocidal effort to coerce Palestinians to leave their homeland, then concerns about Israel’s policies and practices of apartheid would undoubtedly be renewed.

  • Given the recent momentum that the pro-Palestinian movement has gained, especially in the US, do you see any chance for a change in the essence or form of the US support for Israel in the short-term?

There has definitely been a shift in public opinion among the citizenry in Global West countries, but the governments, above all the US and UK continue their support of Israel despite spreading opposition to the devastation of the civilian population of Gaza, making the small crowded region totally unlivable without a massive reconstruction and relief effort.

The governments that continue to support Israel even after its recourse to genocide are influenced by a mixture of strategic interests and what might be called identity politics. The strategic and identity issues converge in relation to Israel as it combines strong military capabilities with a civilizational identity as a high-tech modern society with principal ties to the West, and having a series of hostile Islamic countries and non-governmental movements as its adversaries. If a wider war breaks out it will be viewed as ‘a clash of civilizations’ recalling Samuel Huntington’s 1993 prediction of the world after the end of the Cold War. Part of this overall picture of stability of Israel’s relationship with the liberal democracies of the West despite its unabashed endorsement of genocide in addressing the Palestinian people is best explained by the effectiveness of Zionist funding of political opponents of elected officials critical of Israel, and financing of Israel friendly politicians in these countries where donor leverage that remains strong at the national level. Also important, is the absence of organized Palestinian lobbying capabilities in the West that could somewhat diminish pro-Israeli foreign policy biases.

If Israel succeeds in implementing its population transfer scenario in Gaza, forcing surviving Palestinians to become refugees in the region, ethnic cleansing will be added to the criminality of genocide in the form of a Crime Against Humanity. This would almost surely lead to mobilization of anti-Western forces throught the Middle East, adding dangerous new stresses to the fraying bond tying the Global West to Israel. Also, uncertainties as to Israels reaction to being treated as ‘a pariah state’ subject to boycotts and even sanctions, and surging militancy among global solidarity groups dedicated to a humane future for the Palestinian people, including the 7+ million refugees and exiles living nearby and around the world.

  • As you’ve mentioned in your preface to the book, ‘We Will Not be Silenced’, in Israel’s war against Gaza, “’the people’ become the enemy,” and, therefore, to legitimize such a war, one has to dehumanize that people. How has Israel gone on about doing so from 1948 onwards?

As Edward Said pointed out in his book, Orientalism, the colonial intellectual portrayal of the Arab is a prelude to dehumanization and a sense of Western civilization superiority, especially as assessed through an optic of technocratic modernity. As earlier discussed, Israel was established as the European colonial order was collapsing and in the aftermath of a monstrous genocide that the liberal democratic countries in the West did little to stop until Germany and Japan committed aggression imperiling their overall global hegemony. The early Zionist anticipated the current attempts to erase the Palestinians from their homeland as expressed by the dehumanizing saying: “a land for a people without land for a land without people.”

What has complicated life for Israel is that the indigenous nationalism of the Global South as well as the defeat of European colonialism created a sense of the legitimacy of resistance, even armed resistance that has been incorporated to a controversial extent into contemporary international law. The recognition of the inalienable right of a people to national self-determination results in the settler colonial authority movements as being lawless undertakings, the overt enemy of indigenous populations as denigrated as backward or non-existent. If such tactics do not remove such obstacle, then the settler colonialist move by stages until reaching the genocidal conclusion that unless the indigenous population is utterly marginalized, exterminated, or expelled it will prevail over time. In this sense the settle colonial failed projects of South Africa and Algeria are instructive on the central point that superior military capabilities will not bring the settler regime reliable security, nor  will its cruelty and exploitative policies exhibited by its imposed dominance. Despite the darkness of the skies over Palestine at present, it has never been closer to an achieving some kind of victory and liberation that was unimaginable just a few months ago.

  • As my last question, I want to know, in your opinion, what hope is left for Palestinians? They are witnessing, on a daily basis, what seems to be a deadlock, created by the US’s unconditional support for Israel, and they have no recourse to the international law.

The best hope for Palestine at this time is the escalation of civil society activism to stop the genocide, as sought by South African application to International Court of Justice, and to isolate Israel in meaningful ways through cultural, sports, and all types of boycotts. Within the foreign policy of the Global West and in relation to Israel itself there is no basis for a just and sustainable peace being promoted diplomatically and strategically by leading governments or effectively by the UN. Geopolitical primacy in situations of strategic priority, as is the case for the US and Israel, overrides the guidance of international law and the morality of inter-governmental co-existence. This, short of geopolitical reassessment there is no realistic prospect for any sufficient change in the commitment of the West to Israel’s security as it seeks to pursue it.

As mentioned above, only civil society activism can change the calculus of strategic interests in the West and Israel in the short run of 5-10 years. As the transformation of South Africa made clear, the impacts of becoming a pariah state in a variety of international arenas made it willing to transform the state from an apartheid regime to a constitutional democracy that facilitated transition by outstanding African leadership, a sympathetic world public opinion, and a focus on racial issue and political rights, which respecting the economic rights and social status of the displaced white settler elite. While Israel for all sorts of reasons cannot be compared to South Africa, there exists a zone of uncertainty that may generate some comparable solution that is above all able to find a framework based on racial/religious equality and a coexistence based on respect for the rule of law and human rights for all.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

‘Genocide’ in 1915: Law, Language, and Politics

27 Apr

 [This post is supplemental to what was contained in yesterday’s post, seeking to take advantage of the attention given to the events of 1915, to encourage a rethinking of the nature of the conflict. I am arguing that the historical argument should be put to rest, and that the issues that yet need to be resolved relate to the legal questions surrounding the applicability of genocide, as well as the related semiotic and political questions associated what be called ‘the politics of genocide.’]

            The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the American President, Barack Obama, have both been accused of ‘denialism’ by representatives of the Armenian community in response to their official statements issued to commemorate formally the 99th anniversary of atrocities committed in 1915 against the Armenian minority living in Turkey.

 

            The accusations directed at the two leaders are somewhat different as is the tone and substance of their two statements. Obama is essentially being attacked because the Armenian diaspora community in the United States was led to believe during his presidential campaign of 2008 that he would if elected formally affirm that what happened in 1915 to the Armenian minority living in Turkey constituted genocide. Obama’s statement adopts strong language of condemnation: “We recall the horror of what happened ninety-nine years ago, when 1.5 million people were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” He added, “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed,” apparently seeking to console those who expected more, while refraining from crossing the red line associated with the G-word, which is what Armenians were waiting for. Obama calls for a “full, frank, and just acknowledgement” of the facts as being in the interests of all sides, and part of the struggle to “build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future,” and with a nod toward national humility Obama observes that Armenian/Turkish reconciliation should go forward “as we [in America] strive to reconcile some of the darkest moments in our own history.” But this is not enough to satisfy those who articulate the views of the Armenian campaign that will settle for nothing less than the unambiguous avowal that the Armenian ordeal was ‘genocide.’ Any other description of these events is dismissed as unacceptable, being regarded as evasive or denialist in relation to this insistence on the word.

 

            Oddly, the complaints about Erdogan’s response to the 1915 anniversary are rather similar, although his rhetoric is more problematic in relation to how the events in question should be historically understood. For Erdogan many ethnicities suffered unjustly during the final stage of the Ottoman Empire, including Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Armenians and millions of others during this “difficult period.” He calls for an approach that appreciates “all the sufferings endured..without discriminating as to religion or ethnicity.” And further, that no justice is rendered by “constructing hierarchies of pain nor comparing and contrasting suffering.” Erdogan pushes back against Armenian pressures by saying “using the events of 1915 as an excuse for hostility against Turkey and turning the issue into a matter of political conflict is inadmissible.” In effect, Erdogan repudiates the major premise of the Armenian campaign.

 

            Erdogan articulates, as well, an approach that Turkey has more broadly embraced in its sponsorship (with Spain) of the Alliance of Civilizations: “The spirit of the age necessitates dialogue despite differences, understanding by heeding others, evaluating means for compromise, denouncing hatred, and praising respect and tolerance.” More concretely, he repeats the call for “a joint historical commission,” which would have the benefit of an expanded access to the extensive Turkish archives now available to all researchers. Along these lines Erdogan also proposes that the diverse peoples of Anatolia, who lived together peacefully for centuries, “talk to each other about the past with maturity and to remember together their losses in a decent manner.” And somewhat piously at the end, “it is with this hope and belief that we wish the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the early twentieth century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences to their grandchildren.”

 

            As might be expected, the Armenian reaction to such sentiments is one of anger, and feelings of disappointment that can be summarized by the reaction, ‘nothing new.’ Erdogan’s message is the familiar Turkish refrain that refuses to accept the central Armenian grievance—that Armenians were the main target of the lethal Ottoman policies of 1915 to such a deliberate and systematic extent as to justify the label of ‘genocide.’ The Armenian campaign for rectification is centered upon the unconditional demand that governments throughout the world, especially Turkey, and secondarily, the United States, confirm that what took place was genocide. For this reason, although the differences between what Obama and Erdogan had to say are significant, even profound, the Armenian reactions are almost equally dismissive.

 

            To some extent more nuanced Armenian responses to Obama and Erdogan might help lead toward a more constructive approach to persisting tensions. After all, Obama basically subscribes to the Armenian understanding of what took place in 1915, while Erdogan rejects the far more basic idea that Armenian suffering is of such a grave character as to warrant special consideration. It would seem desirable and reasonable for Turkey to move beyond this view of plural suffering to a willingness to accept the historical narrative long convincingly put forward by respected scholars and representatives of the Armenian and international community, and concentrate attention on how this terrible past episode may be properly acknowledged during 2015, a hundred years later. The responsible debate at this time is about the legal status of the 1915 events, taking the historical facts as sufficiently established as to not require further investigation. Indeed if the Turkish government were willing to make this concession it might ease the way toward creating a process with some real prospect of mutual accommodation. From this perspective, it should be possible to start by agreeing with the descriptive accuracy of Obama’s formulation and move beyond what Erdogan proposes while incorporating his remarks encouraging dialogue and tolerance.

 

            What seems most helpful at this time is shifting away from a focus on the historical interpretation of the events of 1915 toward a consideration of how to achieve an agreed rendering of the legal and semiotic issues that are the true residual core of the controversy. Such a shift will at least allow us to understand the overriding importance attributed by both the Armenian community and the Turkish government to whether the word genocide should be treated as applicable or non-applicable in the good faith search by the parties for justice and reconciliation. In the spirit of moderation it needs also to be realized that time has passed, that the hurt of such remembrances can never be fully assuaged, and that the best that can be achieved is some compromise between remembering and forgetting. Such a compromise is essential if the shared objective of the Armenian community and Turkey is to escape finally from the twinned entrapments of embitterment and rationalization.