Connect with us

eHalal Berlin

🇵🇸 Endgame – The State of Palestine Will Come

Avatar

Published

on

The following text by Peter Vonnahme provides a comprehensive overview of the issues in the Middle East combined with specific proposed solutions. Therefore, despite its length, we recommend your attention to this text. Peter Vonnahme served as a judge at the Administrative Court in Munich and, from 1982 until his retirement in 2007, as a judge at the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeals. A.M.

Tally of Horror

Gaza lies in ruins. There have been over 25,000 casualties, with approximately 70 percent being women and children. In the first three months of the Gaza war, more than twice as many people have died as in two years of the Ukraine war (about 10,000). Nearly 70 percent of buildings are destroyed or uninhabitable. The population has been displaced to the southern part of the region by the Israeli military, where the bombardment continues.

People wander aimlessly – homeless, weakened, and desperate – in constant fear of another Israeli military strike. Escape from the “open-air prison of Gaza” is almost impossible as Israel monitors the borders.

Internally, there is a shortage of everything – drinking water, food, medical care, electricity, fuel. The UN has warned that more than a million people are threatened with starvation.

Gaza is hell on earth, and an end is not in sight. All appeals to spare the civilian population fall on deaf ears. Netanyahu stereotypically emphasizes that the war must be pursued until Hamas is completely destroyed.

Israel has long ceased conducting a defensive war against Hamas; it has now become a war against the civilian population. Israel justifies its bombings by claiming that Hamas has hidden its weapons depots under schools and clinics. However, this does not justify the cruelty of military strikes against civilian facilities. To put it bluntly, if Hamas had the bombers, rockets, and tanks of the Israeli military, it would not need such hiding places.

The Invasion

Attempting to contextualize the events is difficult. There is only agreement that the brutal terror attacks by Hamas on October 7 are heinous crimes.

However, this date is not the beginning of the rift and certainly not a turning point. It is also only half the truth to claim that the Hamas attack was surprising and completely unprovoked. In reality, there has never been peace since the founding of Israel in 1948. There have been several costly wars. Moreover, in all the years of occupation, there have been recurring brutal acts of violence on both sides. Recently, settler attacks on the civilian population in the West Bank have increased. Just on the eve of the Hamas attack, Israeli settlers attacked the Huwara market, killing a young man.

But again, all this is not a justification for October 7.

Self-defense or Retribution?

Israel has the right to self-defense under Article 51, Paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. Originally applicable only in the case of an armed attack by a state, this norm has expanded to cover acts of violence by non-state actors, such as Hamas, since the Al Qaeda terrorist attack on the USA (“9-11”) according to UN Security Council Resolution 1368. It is widely accepted that Israel, in the course of self-defense, may also attempt to rescue hostages abducted by Hamas.

Advertisement

However, international law sets clear limits. One massacre does not justify the next. This means that a state defending itself against terrorists must not resort to terrorist methods. Otherwise, it becomes a terrorist state. International law recognizes only the right to defense, not the right to revenge. Regardless of how brutal and malicious Hamas’ attacks on civilians may have been, they do not legitimize indiscriminate bombings of the civilian population.

There is no doubt: the civilian population in Gaza is being collectively punished. Homes and public facilities are destroyed. A disproportionate number of children and women are killed, and hunger is used as a weapon. This does not serve self-defense; these are war crimes. In 2017, a UN report concluded, “Many measures violate international law as they affect the entire population of Gaza without regard to individual responsibility, thus amounting to collective punishment.”

At a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on October 24, UN Secretary-General António Guterres initially strongly condemned the attacks by the Islamist Hamas. Then, referring to the 56-year-long “crushing occupation” by Israel, he stated, “It is important to recognize that the attacks by Hamas did not take place in a vacuum […] Protecting the civilian population does not mean ordering more than a million people to evacuate to the south, where there is no shelter, no food, no water, no medicine, and no fuel, and then continuing to bombard the south.” With this legal classification, the crimes of Hamas are not “relativized,” as Israeli government representatives repeatedly claim. Instead, Guterres aligned with existing law.

Genocide?

Whether genocide is being committed or has been committed in Gaza must be determined by the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. They have the opportunity because South Africa has sued Israel there. South Africa claims that Israeli military actions have genocidal characteristics. According to Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, these are acts committed “with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” The lawsuit by South Africa is now supported by many states, especially from the Global South, who accuse Israel’s supporters, especially the USA, UK, and Germany, of hypocrisy. In the USA, 800 jurists had expressed concern about genocide before the lawsuit was filed. Israel denies the jurisdiction of the ICJ and rejects the allegations. The German federal government stated that it would support Israel in the legal proceedings. However, since Germany unequivocally supports Israeli military actions and has almost increased its arms deliveries to Israel tenfold compared to 2022, the outcome of the proceedings will also have serious consequences for Germany.

The Decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

On January 26th, under the chairmanship of American judge Joan Donoghue, the 17 judges of the ICJ made a groundbreaking decision. Initially, they affirmed the court’s jurisdiction for South Africa’s lawsuit and rejected Israel’s request to dismiss the proceedings. Subsequently, they determined that the accusation of genocide raised was plausible. The situation in Gaza was described as devastating, with the lives of its inhabitants under threat. With a significant majority (15:2 or 16:1 judge votes), the judges ordered several immediate measures to protect the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. Israel was instructed to cease violence against Palestinian civilians promptly and facilitate extensive humanitarian aid, specifically ensuring the transportation of food, water, and medication into the Gaza Strip. Additionally, incitement to genocide was to be prosecuted criminally, and evidence was to be safeguarded from destruction. The court based its decision on dehumanizing statements made by Israeli government officials, suggesting a genocidal intent. Israel was required to report to the ICJ on remedial measures within a month. However, the court did not follow South Africa’s request to impose a formal ceasefire.

Today’s court decision does not constitute a final judgment on the actual genocide lawsuit. The conclusive judgment is expected to take months or even years, given past experience. Nevertheless, the decision is unappealable and binding for all parties.

The ICJ does not have the power to compel countries to behave lawfully, as it lacks its own enforcement agencies, unlike national courts. It relies on the cooperation of states and the UN.

Despite this, the practice demonstrates that ICJ judgments are not mere blunt instruments. The very fact that a trial takes place lifts the veil of silence and puts the warring state in the spotlight of the international community. This is generally not well-received. The significance of the lawsuit is evident in the presence of renowned lawyers representing Israel before the ICJ. The decision increases political pressure on Israel. In other words, the international community’s approval of military actions will diminish further, and Israel’s reputation will suffer. In the future, it will be harder to dismiss the genocide accusation as antisemitism or “blood libel.”

The German government, political parties, and pro-Israel lobbying groups will need to reconsider their positions. This particularly applies to arms deliveries, and the question of sanctions is now on the table. What was deemed effective in the case of Russia cannot be categorically rejected concerning Israel.

Even before the court’s ruling, German-Israeli policy was perplexing. There was a tendency to apply double standards over the years. For instance, while calling for a judicial condemnation without detailed fact-checking in Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the German government spontaneously defended Israel’s military strikes on Gaza without scrutinizing the facts listed in South Africa’s 84-page complaint. A more professional approach would have been to study the files first and then make a statement.

Advertisement

German Media Failure

Unfortunately, once again, our mainstream media has failed – from ARD to ZDF and from Bild and FAZ to SZ, taz, and Welt. They reported with bias and selectivity, lacking the courage to clearly identify the egregious misconduct of a partner belonging to the “Western values” camp. In the current war in Gaza, they appeared as if they were the guardians of what former Chancellor Merkel, in 2008 at the Knesset, referred to as the “German raison d’État.”

The restraint of many media outlets is completely incomprehensible, as Israeli politicians and military officials did not mince words.

Prime Minister Netanyahu openly talked about flattening Gaza. Literally, on October 8th: “We will turn Gaza into an island of ruins.” Defense Minister Gallant said on October 9th on television: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel… We are fighting against human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” The spokesperson for the Israeli army, Daniel Hagari, said on October 10th in Haaretz: “We are dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on Gaza. The focus is on destruction, not precision.”

Such words require no editorial interpretation. They clearly describe the strategy of eradicating life in the Gaza Strip and permanently destroying civilian infrastructure. One can only imagine the hysterical outcry that would have echoed through German news studios if the favorite enemy of the German mainstream, Putin, had expressed himself in this way.

But when the highest representatives of Israel proclaim such madness to the world and act accordingly, state-affiliated news presenters speak of Israel’s struggle for survival and the right to self-defense; it is embarrassing. From free, independent, and law-oriented journalists, one would expect them to stand their ground and label Israel’s bombardments for what they are: war crimes.

The question arises: Can all the perplexities be justified by Merkel’s commitment that the security of Israel is the “German Staatsräson” (national raison d’être)? My answer is no. For one, nowhere is it defined what exactly this Staatsräson means. The term oscillates between different levels of meaning. The ambiguity became apparent recently when there was a debate about whether a duty to supply weapons or even military support could be derived from the pledged Staatsräson.

Even if one assumes that Merkel’s promise in 2008 was justified, it can no longer be upheld today in the face of Israel’s evident violations of international law. Because even a Staatsräson has clear limits. It would end at the latest where the norms of international law and the imperative for peace in the Basic Law (preamble and Article 1(2) GG) begin. As a constitutional rule-of-law state, Germany is committed to the strength of the law and not the law of the strongest. Moreover, a rule-of-law state must never apply double standards. What is right for one side must be fair for the other. Specifically, this means that those who demand that Palestinian terrorist groups cease their rocket attacks on Israeli territory must simultaneously call on Israel to refrain from disproportionate air strikes on residential areas, schools, and clinics in Gaza.

From our historically grounded special responsibility for Israel, friendship obligations naturally arise. However, true friendship is not demonstrated through silent acceptance or support of misconduct. It is rather manifested in the courage to intervene when a friend is about to make serious mistakes. Otherwise, one is a comfortable and thus unreliable friend. A true friend must take away the car keys from a drunken drinking buddy if they are about to get into the car and drive. The same applies to the behavior between states.

However, Germany traditionally remains silent in the face of Israeli misconduct. Reactions from German politics are often signs of oppressive one-sidedness and lack of perspective. The statement recently made by Chancellor Scholz, “Our responsibility arising from the Holocaust makes it an eternal task for us to advocate for the existence and security of the State of Israel,” is a simple update of Merkel’s Staatsräson. While it sounds noble, it is, in reality, thoughtless and toxic. It is, in a way, a blank check that empowers Israel to do whatever it wants, with Germany obligated to assist. In doing so, the Chancellor leaves international law and the Basic Law far behind. Moreover, he makes himself a pawn of Israel.

Similarly simplistic is the statement from German Foreign Minister Baerbock, “In these days, we are all Israelis.” Such words have nothing to do with diplomacy and a well-understood friendship. Instead, they cast Germany into suspicion of being an accomplice to genocide.

Advertisement

A wise friend would at least consider whether such pandering truly serves Israeli interests. It is doubtful whether Israel’s policy of toughness towards Palestine in recent years has reduced threats to its own population. The blood toll of recent weeks speaks against it.

Is there a special relationship between Germany and Israel?

Clear answer, yes. This is not about personal guilt but rather a historical legacy. Legacies do not fade with the passage of time. Many people today argue that a “line should finally be drawn.” This debate is not helpful because crimes on a massive scale cannot be undone or “erased.”

From historical responsibility, it follows that Germany must stand by Israel in the dispute over its right to exist. The establishment of the State of Israel – however contentious it may have been at the time – is a closed historical fact. Based on this trust, several generations and millions of people have made existential decisions, choosing a life in Israel. This trust must be protected. Israel has a right to exist – unequivocally. There can and should be no rollback to the status before the founding of the Israeli state in 1948. Anyone promising otherwise is misleading. This is understood even by thoughtful Palestinians. Today, discussions can only revolve around questions of how two peoples can coexist, such as border delineations, settlement and compensation issues, and models of statehood.

German responsibility for Palestine as well?

Again, a clear yes. German foreign policy must finally understand that Germany has a historical obligation not only to Israel but also to the Palestinians, who were innocently displaced from their homes and those who remained in the country.

The Palestinian drama of the last three-quarters of a century has its deep roots in the Holocaust. This was primarily responsible for the wave of immigration of disenfranchised and traumatized Jews to Palestine from the mid-1930s. But, most importantly, the horrific images of the Holocaust facilitated the hasty founding of the State of Israel. All of this came at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population, including nomads, landowners, craftsmen, traders, and workers. Simplified, these native people are the victims of our victims. Or as Alfred Grosser expressed it: “The Palestinians are the last victims of the Holocaust.”

The Holocaust, mass exodus, and immigration are attributable to Germany. This implies a special responsibility for the fate of the Palestinians – ethically, politically, and legally.

For three-quarters of a century, the Palestinians have been unsuccessfully striving for the establishment of their own state. The idea remains only on paper. So far, Israel has thwarted a Palestinian state with great audacity. In full view of the international community – supported by the tragic history of the Jews and its military power – Israel has expanded its territory and, on the West Bank, built numerous settlements in violation of international law.

The “values-based West,” which vehemently invokes international law and human rights in the face of misconduct by adversaries, has been passively watching for decades. Meanwhile, the demand for a Palestinian state has become an empty phrase. Looking to the future, it must be revitalized, especially in the policies of the international community and, most importantly, Germany.

Intermediate Conclusion: The immense guilt that Germans have incurred towards the Jewish people must not lead Germany to, in a sense of compensation, support unjust policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people and turn a blind eye to human rights violations. Such a stance would not diminish or heal past injustices but rather add to a significant historical burden.

Endgame: The ongoing bloodshed was triggered by the Hamas terrorist act on October 7, 2023. Therefore, it must be concluded first. Hopes have been increasingly placed on the International Court of Justice (IGH) since January 26. However, a final verdict from the IGH may take time.

Advertisement

Even with a ceasefire in Gaza, the ultimate goal of peace in the Middle East remains elusive. The rift between Israel and Palestine did not begin in October 2023, nor with the major wars of 1967 and 1973. The search for a solution must reach back to the “Israeli War of Independence” in 1948, referred to by Arabs as “al-nakba,” the Catastrophe.

After the Holocaust, the world envisioned a solution to the pressing Jewish question through the model of two states, one Jewish and one Arab, in the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The Romans named this province Palestine over 2000 years ago. The UN General Assembly adopted a partition plan in 1947 (UN Resolution 181). Despite its flaws, the idea of a “Two-State Solution” remains viable 75 years later. The alternative, a “One-State Solution,” was always untenable due to the differing narratives and identities of Jews and Palestinians.

The world has not stood still since 1947. Therefore, a comprehensive concept is still sought today to consider the interests of both peoples and permanently lead the Middle East out of the spiral of violence. This requires new thinking from both conflicting parties.

Israel must understand that without a peace solution, it will continue to live under the constant threat of terrorist attacks. This is especially true today, given the vulnerability revealed on October 7. Another military victory for Israel would not heal but exacerbate the deep-seated bitterness of Palestinians. The region would not move forward. While weapons can be destroyed and organizations like Hamas disbanded, dark thoughts in the minds of the losers cannot be erased. Hence, a mutually formed Palestinian state is in Israel’s vital interest. It is tragic that large segments of the Israeli population have not yet come to this realization.

Conversely, Palestinians must recognize that a return to pre-1948 conditions is unrealistic. Most countries worldwide have recognized Israel’s existence. Additionally, a violent relocation of an estimated 500,000 settlers from the West Bank is practically impossible. The challenges during the relocation of “only” 9,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza in 2005 (the “Sharon Plan”) serve as a reminder.

Modified Division Plan 2024

The core of a solution could be to adapt the architecture of the two-state solution to the necessities of the present. Such a concept was – incidentally – advocated by the PLO many years ago, but it failed primarily due to the resistance of settlers. However, the situation in 2024 is different. From this, the following basic model emerges:

Stage 1: Settlers in the occupied territories are offered the option to stay in Palestine under the condition that they recognize the authority of the new State of Palestine – with all rights and responsibilities.

Stage 2: Those unwilling to accept this condition must relocate to Israeli territory.

Concrete elements of such a solution would include, among others, international recognition of the State of Palestine, full membership in the UN, clear borders, full citizenship rights for all people in both states, a prisoner exchange, release of all hostages, renunciation of internal military violence, disarmament of settlers, reconstruction of Gaza, reparations, etc.

Achieving this goal is not simple; it requires realism and support from the international community. The United States, in particular, will be challenged, and they must acknowledge their responsibility for Israel. Warning words alone will not suffice. The U.S. must act as a serious peacemaker. This could mean making military and financial support for Israel contingent on conditions, thus exerting pressure. Naturally, the same applies to Germany’s aid to Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has emphasized multiple times in recent days that Israel must retain full control over Palestinian territory. He may believe this, but what will be crucial is how international support for Israel evolves. It is evident that the patience of the U.S., the EU, and the Arab world with Israeli blockade policies is running out. These mentioned countries are now pushing for the formation of the State of Palestine. As a result, the chances of reaching an agreement are increasing, especially considering the growing risk of the local conflict escalating into a global nuclear war day by day. Everyone must consider this.

Advertisement

It is regrettable that some of the mentioned states may have initially disqualified themselves as mediators due to their past partiality; they must first regain trust. Therefore, the initiative should come from other institutions, particularly the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Personal Thoughts in Conclusion

I have experienced multiple instances where political dreams can come true – and often faster than the boldest optimists can imagine. I recall an elderly veteran from World War I, slightly intoxicated with beer and laden with memories, mumbling, “Jeder Schuss a Russ’, jeder Stoß a Franzos’” (Every shot against the Russians, every thrust against the French). For the child writing these lines 80 years later, it was scarcely understandable. Several years later, a French general named Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer entered my simple childhood world, and overnight, the “archenemy France” became Germany’s closest ally. Many decades later, a charismatic Russian president named Mikhail Gorbachev visited Germany, and the hearts of German women and men warmly embraced him. A few weeks and a popular uprising later, Germany was reunified, and Russian soldiers departed from Germany’s East to cheerful marching music.

Two episodes. Miracles? No, vibrant life!

Why shouldn’t something similar be possible in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan? The key players in this scenario may not be Charles, Konrad, or Mikhail, but rather Adnan, Hassan, Ruben, or Moshe.

The day will come. Because, soberly viewed, there is no viable alternative for the future.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Select Language

Our Projects

Buy Halal Food

Buy Halal Food

Global Food Brands

Muslim Friendly Travel & Tours

Halal B2B Marketplace

Halal Data Research

Updateted Travel Guides

Muslim Friendly Hotels

eHalal Crypro Token

Buy Halal Food

Buy Halal Food

Popular Halal Food

Halal Food Categories

eHalal.io Google News

Follow us on Google News
Advertisement