https://www.normalisland.co.uk/p/icj-rules-israel-is-an-apartheid
Some of us didn't need an ICJ ruling to see the obvious
Jul 20, 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.