eHalal Berlin
🇵🇸 Endgame – The State of Palestine Will Come
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.
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.