© United NationsFull Stop Cop • Still from a U.N. film strip on the 1948 Genocide Convention, circa 1949.
In the event that another state party disputes the claim of genocide — and Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all states party — then the International Court of Justice is required to adjudicate on "the responsibility of a State for genocide."
These are the relevant articles of the genocide convention:
Article VIIINote that here "parties to the dispute" means the states disputing the facts of genocide, not the parties to the genocide/conflict. Any single state party is able to invoke the convention.
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Article IX
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute."
There is no doubt that Israel's actions amount to genocide. Numerous international law experts have said so and genocidal intent has been directly expressed by numerous Israeli ministers, generals and public officials.
Definition of Genocide
© Alisdare Hickson/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0Palestine solidarity march in London • October 9, 2023
"Article III can see no room to doubt whatsoever that Israel's current campaign of bombing of civilians and of the deprivation of food, water and other necessities of life to Palestinians amounts to genocide under articles II a), b) and c).
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
It is also worth considering Articles III and IV:
Article IIIThere is, at the very least, a strong prima facie case that the actions of the United States and United Kingdom and others, in openly providing direct military support to be used in genocide, are complicit in genocide.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
The point of Article IV is that individuals are responsible, not just states. So Israel's Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak bear individual responsibility. So, indeed, do all those who have been calling for the destruction of the Palestinians.
It is very definitely worth activating the Genocide Convention. A judgement of the International Court of Justice that Israel is guilty of genocide would have an extraordinary diplomatic effect and would cause domestic difficulties in the U.K. and even in the U.S. in continuing to subsidise and arm Israel.
Relationship of ICJ & ICC
The International Court of Justice is the most respected of international institutions; while the United States has repudiated its compulsory jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has not and the EU positively accepts it.
If the International Court of Justice makes a determination of genocide, then the International Criminal Court does not have to determine that genocide has happened.
This is important because unlike the august and independent ICJ, the ICC is very much a western government puppet institution which will wiggle out of action if it can.
But a determination of the ICJ of genocide and of complicity in genocide would reduce the ICC's task to determining which individuals bear the responsibility. That is a prospect which can indeed alter the calculations of politicians.
It is also the fact that a reference for genocide would force the Western media to address the issue and use the term, rather than just pump out propaganda about Hamas having fighting bases in hospitals.
Furthermore a judgement from the ICJ would automatically trigger a reference to the United Nations General Assembly — crucially not to the Western-vetoed Security Council.
All this begs the question of why no state has yet invoked the Genocide Convention. This is especially remarkable as Palestine is one of the 149 states party to the Genocide Convention, and for this purpose would have standing before both the U.N. and the ICJ.
I am afraid the question of why Palestine has not invoked the Genocide Convention takes us somewhere very dark. Anyone who, like George Galloway and myself, cut their political teeth in left-wing politics of Dundee of the 1970s has (long story) their experience and contacts with Fatah, and my sympathies have always very much lain with Fatah rather than Hamas.
They still do, with the aspiration for a democratic, secular Palestine. It is Fatah who occupy the Palestinian seat at the United Nations, and the decision for Palestine to call into play the Genocide Convention lies with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
© State Department/Chuck KennedyU.S. Sec. of State Antony Blinken • Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
Muqata in Ramallah, West Bank • Nov. 5, 2023
Muqata in Ramallah, West Bank • Nov. 5, 2023
By invoking the Genocide Convention he could put himself and Fatah back at the centre of the narrative. But he does nothing. I do not want to believe that corruption and a promise from the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken of inheriting Gaza are Mahmoud's motivators. But at the moment, I cannot grab on to any other explanation to believe in.
Any one of the 139 states party could invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and its co-conspirators. Those states include Iran, Russia, Libya, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ireland, Iceland, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and Qatar. But not one of these states has called out the genocide. Why?
It is not because the Genocide Convention is a dead letter. It is not. It was invoked against Serbia by Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ICJ ruled against Serbia with regard to the massacre at Srebrenica. This fed directly through to ICC prosecutions.
Some states may simply not have thought of it. For Arab states in particular, the fact that Palestine itself has not invoked the Genocide Convention may provide an excuse. EU states can hide behind bloc unanimity.
But I am afraid that the truth is that no state cares sufficiently about the thousands of Palestinian children already killed and thousands more who will shortly be killed, to introduce another factor of hostility in their relationship with the United States.
Just as last weekend's summit in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic countries could not agree an oil-and-gas boycott of Israel, the truth is that those in power really do not care about a genocide in Gaza. They care about their own interests.
It just needs one state to invoke the Genocide Convention and change the narrative and the international dynamic. That will only happen through the power of the people in pressing the idea on their governments. This is where everybody can do a little something to add to the pressure. Please do what you can.
Hat tip to the indefatigable Sam Husseini, the independent journalist who has been pressing the Genocide Convention on the White House.
About the Author:
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Comment: Abbas has always played safe - a reaction in which he obviously excels. Proven useful, he's still around.
Some question his interests, where his loyalties lie.
And before Abbas came to prominence, a light for the Palestinians, Yassir Arafir, suddenly died, under mysterious circumstances. I remember,. the news report of the time, where in a state of what would happen with the PLO, because Arafat was in a state of medical coma, some said he had a massive stroke. He was in negotiators with BP on the oil reserves discovered off the coat of Gaza.
This documentary from Al Jazeera
The results of a nine-month investigation into what killed the late Palestinian leader. Al Jazeera has spent nine months investigating the cause of Yasser Arafat's death, which after more than seven years still had not been positively identified.
The material presented here includes the late Palestinian leader's medical file from the final weeks of his life; it includes reports from doctors in both Ramallah and in France, where he ultimately died.
Al Jazeera was also given access to his final belongings, everything from his slippers to his iconic kaffiyeh. All of this was reviewed by some of the top forensic pathologists in the world, in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Their investigation found abnormal levels of polonium, a rare and highly radioactive substance, on Arafat's belongings, most of which were stained with his bodily fluids - suggesting that the radioactive substance might have been inside his body.
Those interested in international affairs my find this interesting..reads and looks to me like something out of a playbook of US CIA intervention.
[Link]