5. dag af FN's sag mod Israels ulovlige besættelse af Palæstina

På 5. dagen af ICJ's behandling af Israels ulovlige besættelse vidner følgende lande: Namibia, Norge, Oman, Pakistan, Indonesien, Qatar, Storbritannien, Slovenien, Sudan, Schweiz, Syrien, Tunesien.

Vestens terrorregimer har underkastet Den internationale Domstols behandling total censur. De har selv besættelse, krigsforbrydelser, forbrydelser mod menneskeheden og folkemord i bagagen.

“Namibia considers it a moral duty and a sacred responsibility to appear before this court” and address the question of the “indefensible occupation of Palestine by Israel.”
The parallels between Palestine and Namibia are “striking and painful”. Instead of exerting their right to govern themselves, “Palestinians and Namibians suffered the loss of human dignity … and the outright theft of their land and natural resources”.
Namibia still suffers from the effects of a long and unlawful occupation. The ICJ “played a vital role in our liberation struggle”. In its 1971 opinion, the court confirmed the right to self-determination as a “legal imperative”, paving the way to Namibia’s independence in 1990.
Because of Namibia’s experience with apartheid, “we cannot look the other way in the face of the brutal atrocities committed against the Palestinian people”. We ask the court “not to look away either”, she added.

Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem constitute a chief obstacle to any prospects for a lasting peace in the region.
In its advisory opinion in 2004, the ICJ found that the construction of a wall in and around occupied East Jerusalem violates international law.
Numerous UN resolutions assessed that settlements are in flagrant breach of international law and stressed the need to reverse the “negative trends on the ground that are steadily eroding the possibility of a two-state solution”.
Developments on the ground “give reason to ask whether the occupation is turning into a de-facto annexation.”
Annexation is a unilateral act and is prohibited under customary international law.
The legal consequences arising from such a prolonged occupation violate the principle of self-determination and every state has the duty to refrain from any action that deprives people of this right.

The transfer of settlers by Israel over the decades is “designed to perpetuate the occupation and make it permanent”.
The forcible displacement of Palestinians and the transfer of citizens of the occupying power is prohibited under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
“The 75-year occupation and settlement policy of the State of Israel preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state is an affront to international law.”
The court should find that the legal consequences for the government of Israel include the immediate cessation of all illegal acts including settlements and “associated illegal administrative frameworks”.
Third states are under a clear obligation not to recognise or facilitate the illegal situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and ensure Israel’s compliance to international humanitarian law.

“Annexation” now applies to the entire Palestinian territories and this “might have been the intention all along”.
Israel has sought to create irreversible facts on the ground that make it impossible to end Israel’s occupation.
But it is not impossible to reverse the facts on the ground and it has been done before, such as when France withdrew over a million settlers from Algeria in 1962.
French settlers were not only more numerous than Israel’s in occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank, but also better established.
The two-state solution “must be the basis for peace”.
The court’s advisory opinion will assist negotiation efforts “by making it possible for the parties to make process on the sound basis of international law”.

There is growing perception that some basic tenants of international law “apply to some but not to others, that some people are seen as deserving security, freedom and self-determination but others are not”.
“Qatar rejects such double standards. International law must be upheld in all circumstances. It must be applied to all and there must be accountability.”
“Some children are deemed worthy of protection while others are killed in their thousands”.
Israel has “ethnically cleansed and colonised” the Palestinian territories and implemented an “apartheid regime” with the intent of “maintaining the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians”.
Israel’s illegal discriminatory practices are the “tools of a longstanding settler colonial project.” Settler policies are designed for the “permanent colonisation of the [occupied Palestinian territories] for the exclusive benefit of Jewish settlers … and are the root cause of the cycle of violence there”.
Statements by Israeli government members suggest the besieged Gaza Strip may be the next part of the Palestinian territories to be subject to Israeli settlements.
Israel’s occupation is illegal as it violates the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people; the prohibition of apartheid; the prohibition of the use of force; the prohibition of annexation; the obligation for it to be temporary, carried out in good faith and in the best interest of the occupied population.
The court has the “clear mandate and indeed the responsibility to remedy to this unacceptable situation. The credibility of the international legal order depends on your opinion and the stakes cannot be higher.”

“Israel’s unlawful occupation and its atrocities must stop and should not be normalised or recognised. It is clear that Israel has zero intention to abide by international legal obligations.”
No state should be granted “free rein to do anything it wants against weaker states. This is why we have international law.”
There is no ground for the court to decline giving an advisory opinion. Some countries have argued that doing so would undermine the peace process, but this argument is invalid because there are no viable negotiations taking place at the moment and the court is not called on to decide on the conflict as a whole.
All actions that preclude the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination “shall be unlawful”. It is clear that the continuation of Israel’s “apartheid regime” is in breach of international law.

Israeli occupation breaches fundamental human rights, including the right to self-determination.
The need for negotiations is not a compelling reason for the court to decline giving an advisory opinion. On the contrary, negotiations can only achieve a lasting solution on the basis of the court’s legal directives.
A Palestinian state must exist alongside an Israeli state and Slovenia reiterates its support for a negotiated two-state solution.
The right to self-determination is not “some random right” but runs parallel to the equal rights of people. It is a “fundamental human right having a broad scope of application”.
The people of Slovenia were able to establish their own sovereign and independent state and believe this right to be an “indispensable pillar of the international legal order”.
The ongoing Israeli occupation is an impediment to the right to self-determination and the establishment of the Palestinian state.

The ICJ should issue an advisory opinion to “convey a definitive message to both Israel and Palestine that they need to redouble their efforts to achieve peace and security”.
The UN General Assembly has the power to ask the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on any legal question. This request has been made in accordance to the UN Charter and the questions are legal in character.
The court has the discretion to decide whether or not to respond. However, it is an established jurisprudential principle that a request should not be rebuked.
Israel is not cooperating in the proceedings, but lack of collaboration is often the case in UN proceedings and should not be an impediment.

Israel has put in place in the occupied Palestinian territories a “coercive environment” that “cannot be justified under security requirements because it affects the well-being of the population and is discriminatory in nature”.
Swiss representatives argued that Israel, as the occupier, has the obligation to maintain the status quo on the territory and protects the well-being of the population. The Fourth Geneva Convention reaffirms the relevance of human rights in the context of occupation, they said.
The occupier might enforce new laws to guarantee the security of the occupier, the order of public life and the respect of humanitarian law, but the measures adopted by Israel in the occupied territories contravene the previously mentioned criteria and aggravate the risk of forced population transfers and the use of lethal force preventively and disproportionately, said the Swiss representatives.

Representatives of Syria have called on the ICJ to issue an advisory decision in light of the many Israeli violations in the occupied Palestinian territories, including restrictions of movement, the application of a two-tier legal system and the consolidation of settlements and other forms of institutional discrimination.
The delegation reminded the court that a “huge record of UN resolutions” that Israel continues to violate – 180 from the UN General Assembly and 227 of the Security Council – testify to its wrongdoings.
The forced displacement of Palestinians and the confiscation of their land in parallel to the transfer of settlers is prohibited under international law. The court should clarify that Palestinians must be able to exercise their right to self-determination and that Israel must remove all structures that prevent this “without delay.”

Storbritannien afgav også forklaring fredag. Det var en afskrift af Israels og USA's synspunkter: at ICJ ikke kan og ikke må afgive en vurdering, men skal afvise sagen. At den er politisk, ikke juridisk og derfor skal løses politisk. Dvs. gennem forhandling. Koloniregimet ser bort fra, at den foreløbige konsekvens af 76 års besættelse nu er folkemord i Gaza og et zionistisk regime der afviser en palæstinensisk stat. Storbritannien påpegede endvidere, at en ICJ vurdering vil spænde ben for "processen" i Sikkerhedsrådet. Den eneste proces der i 50 år har været i Sikkerhedsrådet er en uendelig strøm af US vetoer, der har spændt ben for enhver løsning. Storbritannien bærer ultimativt ansvaret for kaosset i Mellemøsten, eftersom det var det der lovede zionisterne en stat i et land der ikke var deres. Storbritannien fortsætter 200 års settler kolonial tankegang.