One Country Is All It Takes

 

Image created by Tom Page, featured in "Genocide, Nationalism and International law," Ayaan Institute.  Used with permission.

One Country Is All It Takes Will no country call what is happening right now to the Palestinian people of Gaza what it is: genocide?  Is it a genocide, or not? It most certainly is. By definition. See here, here, and, surprisingly and somewhat reluctantly, here. Is there no government of any country on Earth that will accuse the Israeli government of genocide in the International Court of Justice? Will it make any difference right now? Yes. Charging Israel before the ICJ will make more of a difference than anything — short of either the use of military force, or the prevention of the flow of money or weapons – that a country or group of countries can do.  No one doubts that Hamas' actions — on October 7th alone — were enough to convict them of genocide. Israel's genocidal actions (and expressed genocidal intentions), however, are overwhelmingly greater, in quality, quantity, extent, and lethality. More importantly, they are ongoing.  They can still be stopped.  If tomorrow a nation-state were to announce its intent to prosecute in the ICJ, it would make Netanyahu and his cabinet have to figure this into their calculations; it would make them have to change how they carry out the remainder of their planned genocide.  Unless Netanyahu want to be prosecuted for genocide as Milosevic was.  The U.S. would not be able to protect the Israeli government leadership from prosecution in the ICJ. A veto by the United States (or any other permanent member of the UN Security Council) cannot stop it, because the Security Council has no say in whether the case goes forward.  The ICJ has the power to decide if a genocide was committed. Parties to cases in the ICJ are countries. Any country that is a signatory to the genocide convention (there are 149 of them) can bring the case. If the ICJ decides that a genocide was committed, then the International Criminal Court only has to decide who the guilty individuals were. A veto by the U.S. would never get to have an effect. The genocide of Srebrenica was prosecuted. Milosevic was prosecuted. At least one of the international lawyers who helped in that prosecution, Francis A. Boyle, compares this genocide to that one. (He sounds as if he would be willing to see to it that any country willing to bring the case would have the legal know-how to do so.) Will the leadership of any country follow the Srebenica playbook to see that this horror is stopped, to make sure that those responsible are prosecuted? Some countries will not for historical reasons (e.g. Germany). Some will not, because they may currently be similarly engaged themselves (e.g., China, Russia, Azerbaijan, India, Zimbabwe, etc.) — although it may be argued that this renders them more qualified to recognize a genocide as it unfolds. Mahmoud Abbas surely knows that he, as the leader of the Palestinian Authority, can bring a case against Israel in the ICJ, but it has not happened. A stunning and disappointing lapse in ethics with reasons at which we may only guess. Some countries are afraid of crossing the U.S., but maybe some country, perhaps even an international pariah, will be willing to do it merely in defiance or to form alliances:  North Korea talks a lot. North Korea is a signatory. Kim-jong Un’s relationship with a lot of the world could be changed for the better with just this one act.  How about Venezuela? The U.S. government is already opposed to Venezuela’s government and has already tried to bring it down. Is what they stand to lose that important for what they would gain? What about Armenia? Azerbaijan is currently ethnically cleansing Armenians. They need the world to pay attention to that. This could help.  What about Ireland? The Irish have long stated their solidarity with the Palestinians. The government of Ireland can act in accordance with their words and their sympathies. What about Türkiye? Erdogan has already called out the current slaughter for the genocide that it is, labeling Netanyahu the “Butcher of Gaza.” He could do it officially, if he means it. Unless one is willing to call it genocide before the ICJ it is self-aggrandizing posturing, and cowardly, to exploit such an accusation without doing so. It does no matter how. Maybe some country will be willing to secretly bribe the leader of some small poor country to do it. Heaven knows that enough leaders of small poor countries are bribed to do evil things. How about a bribe for good? If not a country, then some multi-billionaire could do some good for the world with just a fraction of their billions.  Maybe someone reading this has few enough degrees of separation from their government that they can get the suggestion to their country’s leadership to prosecute for genocide. Maybe that's you. Or are you a reporter? Your colleagues are being targeted in Gaza, and have been killed by the scores. Do you know a reporter from another country with access to ask the leadership why they are not bringing a case in the ICJ?  Tomorrow is a world-wide strike for Gaza. You can at least buy nothing, skip school or work. Can you think of anything else? Is there a protest or a call for immediate ceasefire in your area? Can you demonstrate at an embassy or consulate? Can you speak to a friend or colleague in another country? Can you think of something to do? Can we stop a genocide while it is still happening? Please?  by Corporanon & a female Faust December 10, 2023

Be seeing you.