Some of us didn't need
an ICJ ruling to see the obvious
COUNCIL
ESTATE – 20/07/2024
The International Court
of Justice has ruled that Israel
is an apartheid state, because, well, that’s exactly what it
is. Hands up everyone who has been accused of “outrageous
anti-Semitism” for correctly using the word “apartheid” to
describe Israel. That’s quite a lot of you…
Israel is so afraid of
the term apartheid, it has banned
groups that call Israel an “apartheid state” from speaking at
schools, which is interesting, considering the fit Zionists had about
“cancel culture” when British students protested
a university appearance by Tzipi Hotoveli. In the Middle East’s
only democracy, school pupils are not allowed to hear correct legal
opinions. No wonder they grow up to be so brainwashed.
A former Mossad agent
broke
down how Israeli apartheid functions, but if you try to have this
conversation in the west, you will probably lose your job. Katie
Halper was sacked
from The Hill for describing Israel as an apartheid state and giving
compelling reasons why. Britain’s second richest man is cancelling
TV shows at the request of Netanyahu, but if you highlight
concerns over Zionist influence on our media, you’re the problem?
Pretty much every
organisation in the world that monitors human rights agrees Israel is
an apartheid state, including Israeli
human rights group B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, the United Nations, and now the world’s highest
court. I’ve been involved in conversations where Zionists have
scathingly told me the above groups have been taken over by
anti-Semites.
“All the human rights
groups have decided to hate all Jews”, say the anti-Palestinian
conspiracy theorists.
While Zionists can accuse
every credible human rights body of being taken over by anti-Semites,
you had better not dare accuse your government of being bought by a
Zionist lobby. That would mean you fall foul of IHRA guidelines or
something. Strangely, we have no such guidelines about
anti-Palestinian racism.
One weapon the
establishment uses when it has no moral argument left is stigma. If
someone refuses to tackle arguments and instead resorts to smears,
they know the moment they stop resorting to smears, they will lose
the argument. This is important to understand because once you can
identify what is taking place, you can easily see the correct moral
positions.
Climate protesters are
now “terrorists”, human rights campaigners are now
“anti-Semites”, anyone who calls out government corruption is an
“extremist” who is “endangering the lives of politicians”.
Remember, it’s only
16 years since the US kindly removed Nelson Mandela from a
terrorist watch list…
If you join in with the
stigmatisation from your government, there is a good chance you are
on the wrong side of history. We should all focus on the strength of
our arguments. As much as we can call those supporting apartheid
terrible people, a better framing is they believe in a terrible idea
and have been conditioned to do so.
Remind your audience bad
ideas are the problem and then argue why you think a particular idea
is bad, then let the other side do the same. Dare Zionists to abandon
smears and then have a conversation about the Nakba
when 750,000 natives were ethnically cleansed so that 56% of
Palestinian land could be given to Europeans colonisers.
Zionists were not given
56% of Palestine because they had a strong historical claim, they
were given that land due to the balance of power. The British
controlled that land and giving it away was the best way to stop
Zionist terrorists from assassinating
our prime ministers.
While Palestinians get
called “terrorists” because they’re not allowed to live freely
on their own land, Zionists resorted to terrorism prior to 1947
because they weren’t being given someone else’s land.
While it would be
unrealistic to force Zionists off all land they’ve stolen, we can
certainly push for a restoration of the 1967
borders. When backed into a corner, even Israel’s apologists
will agree that land annexed since then does not belong to Israel.
We are seeing even
Israel’s supporters give ground because when we debate on
reasonable terms, we win. The UK has restored funding to Unrwa, and
I’m pretty sure Israel is still pretending
Unrwa is Hamas. All Israel has is a baseless smear. When we shift the
conversation to evidence, they have nothing left. This leaves
Israel’s apologists in a tough spot because the more they dig their
heels in, the faster they lose credibility. They’re forced to
choose their battles and the British government has decided the Unrwa
smear is not the hill to die on.
The language from western
leaders is changing because they are finding it increasingly hard to
support Israel’s lies. For example, the EU’s special
representative is saying a two-state solution is possible, despite
Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to it.
Sven Koopmans said
of Netanyahu:
“I think that
recently he was very explicit about rejecting the two-state solution.
Now, that means that he has a different point of view from much of
the rest of the world.”
While you might argue the
EU is stringing us along, note how they are placing the blame on the
Israeli prime minister. While I wouldn’t suggest Netanyahu is the
sole obstacle to peace, in the past, western officials would say a
two-state solution would be possible if not for the Palestinians. The
conversation is shifting in our favour and the actions at the
International Court of Justice are one of the key reasons.
The UK government had
called
South Africa’s genocide case “unhelpful”, not because they have
an argument in support of Israel, because because it exposes their
lack of an argument. Same goes for why we’re now opposing
ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his accomplices. Once those
arrest warrants appear, it will expose how obscene our leaders’
defences of Israel have been.
The official death
toll in Gaza is 38,919 and while that is drastically
undercounted, even if we accept the figure and jail Netanyahu for 25
years for each death, he would be facing jail for just under a
million years. The final death toll could make that more like 5
million years. That is the scale of the bastard’s crimes.
The ICJ
has ruled that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian
territories is illegal and that states must cease all actions in
support of it, which would include selling weapons. In other words,
we have further confirmation that western governments are breaching
international law. This makes a mockery of Sir Keir Starmer’s
argument he is supporting Israel only when it complies with
international law. The prime minister is strangely reluctant to
publish the legal advice the UK government received from the FCDO.
While the ICJ says Israel
must withdraw
from Palestine, Israel has been demanding
control of Gaza’s Egyptian border as a condition of ceasefire.
In other words, the occupiers want to strengthen their illegal
occupation! A ceasefire in which the blockade continues is obviously
no ceasefire at all. Same goes for any ceasefire that allows Israel
to keep fighting until Hamas is destroyed.
Here is the response you
should give to those who pretend this is all self-defence on Israel’s
part:
The court said it had
taken account of Israel’s security concerns, but they could not
“override the principle of the prohibition of the acquisition of
territory by force” and imposing restrictions on all Palestinians
was “disproportionate”.
One argument made by
Zionists is that Israel stopped occupying Gaza in 2005, but the ICJ
ruled that Gaza has continued to be occupied to the present day. The
ICJ stated that Israel must make full
reparations for its illegal acts. ICJ president Nawaf Salam spoke
of “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.
Salam said the ruling
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 territory, as well as
allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return
to their original place of residence.”
The ICJ ruling stated
that Palestinians should be compensated not just for the genocide,
but the occupation too, and that Palestinian refugees abroad have a
right
to return home. It stated that all member states of the United
Nations are under an obligation to recognise the occupation of
Palestine is illegal.
The pathetic response of
Israel’s foreign ministry is that “Israel cannot be an occupier
in its own land”. In other words, these people see Palestine as
their own land. Bezazel Smotrich argued
the ICJ ruling was “contrary to the Bible, morality and
international law”. The only part of that statement that’s
noteworthy is the first part - Zionists think they have a Biblical
right to take that land and kill whoever they want.
Let’s not forget Israel
keeps greenlighting the expansion
of illegal settlements and boasting it will build more
settlements in revenge for October 7th. The ICJ ruled Israel
illegally occupies east Jerusalem - the US and several other
countries have built embassies
in Jerusalem which are also illegal. They must be closed down and
the occupation of East Jerusalem must end.
Personally, I would go
much further than what others have suggested in terms of
compensation: I would give Palestinians Israeli land to compensate
them for the destruction of Gaza.
For every square mile of
Gaza that has been destroyed, Israel should concede a square mile of
its territory. For every home that has been destroyed, Israel must
concede a home. The Israelis who’ve committed genocide can live in
tents until enough new homes have been built to accommodate them.
While some might argue
that’s outrageous, why is it more outrageous than Israel stealing
Palestinian land? Why is it more outrageous than leaving Palestinians
living in tents? Are Palestinians worth less than Israelis? Why
should Palestinians be punished twice for Israeli crimes?
I’m realistic enough to
know there is not a cat in hell’s chance of my suggestions being
implemented, but the very minimum we should see is Israel paying for
a rapid rebuild of Gaza.
Given the rate at which
businesses
are closing as the nation’s economy collapses, Israel is going
to learn there is a heavy price to pay for genocide, even if the
price is nowhere near enough. Germany still pays
reparations to Israel for the holocaust - Israel should certainly
do the same for Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians deserve
compensation for the holocaust they have endured.
★
