Declarations by Mr. Raji Sourani, Palestinian lawyer in the indictment against Israel brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice, in The Hague

Declarations by Mr. Raji Sourani, Palestinian lawyer in the indictment against Israel brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice, in The Hague

Question: “Do you think Israel will comply with precautionary measures ordering a halt to the offensive against Gaza?

Answer: Of course not. They [the leaders of the Zionist entity] are arrogant and feel that they are above international law and human rights. But this would be a key situation for the European Union and the USA, and would force them to have to choose between the law of the jungle and the rule of law. They would have to make a decision on the selectivity and politicization of international law. [Because,] How can they treat Bosnia and Herzegovina in one way, and Palestine in another? How can they deal with the war in Ukraine in one form, calling for a ceasefire and to stop crime, and not do it with Gaza?

“The world’s gravest crime is being committed in Palestine: a genocide broadcast live to the whole world, and so far they [Western “democracies”] have done the opposite of what they are doing in Ukraine and Bosnia, that is: support Israel’s right to self-defence; which is totally insane and stupid, because the criminal belligerent occupation has no such right.” Etc. (Translation from his statements published in Spanish by ElDiario.es, January 22, 2024.)

On the aggression of Russian imperialism against the Ukrainian People, see our text Agudización de la actual crisis geo-política: agresión del imperialismo ruso contra el Pueblo Ucraniano y su Estado. Regarding the sad reality that Mr. Sourani’s words reflect, we reproduce a few paragraphs from our texts of reference:

[...]

“The United Nations Organization (UNO): an instrument of the victorious States in World War II (excluded the 'States enemies'), set forth the principles of this New World Order of contemporary International Law. It thus recognized the right of self-determination or independence inherent to all Peoples; condemned as imprescriptible and international crimes the aggression, the 'right' of conquest, State Terrorism, and imperialism and colonialism in all their forms; and defined the difference between aggression and legitimate self-defence, and between terrorism – individual or of State – and the legitimate struggles of Peoples’ liberation, carried out by their “fighters for freedom and self-determination”.

“In this way, the international, fundamental and inherent rights of independence, free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples, and of their legitimate self-defence against imperialistic aggression, as well as those of INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THEIR STATES LEGITIMATELY CONSTITUTED AND ‘CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES’ (UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 [1970]): an essential part of International Law, were formulated, voted, formally recognized – not constituted – and inscribed in the UN Charter since 1945 (that is, under the conditions of the post-World War II and after the abortive attempt of the League of Nations carried out after the First one), on the initiative of the USSR – which did not annul the domination of Russian imperialistic Nationalism over its subjugated Peoples and States – but under the pressure of the Peoples and States of the so-called Third World.

“From its founding Charter of San Francisco there follow the rules constantly formulated and not implemented by the UNO; without having the multiplication and profusion of declarations, resolutions, decisions and conventions – either sincerely or hypocritically repetitive but deliberately and stubbornly mocked and betrayed – been able so far to achieve the suppression and eradication of the imperialistic plague: shame of the 'civilized' world and first source of conflicts and threats to the peace and freedom of Humanity.

“Imperialistic aggression consists of criminal, original, unilateral and eminent Violence; and the crimes committed in that imperialistic aggression, namely: crimes against the laws of war, crimes against the peace and security of Peoples and – where appropriate – of their legitimately constituted States, and crimes against Humanity, are imprescriptible and unforgivable, if we truly wish to seek their eradication.

“In the face of all this, the international right of legitimate self-defence: recognized in Article 51 of the Charter, is timeless and permanent, and its realization does not imply a violation of peace but a restoration of the conditions of peace, which must necessarily be based upon the indefeasible human rights that were violated by the original aggression of imperialism. This is a permanent aggression and a continuous, endless and immanent chain of crimes, conflict, oppression, persecution and Terrorism that can never be prescribed. Therefore, the repression of the aggressor against the timeless right of legitimate self-defence of the attacked People is a continuation of the original crime of aggression, and in no way 'self-defence'.

“Yet, nowadays, the practice and – increasingly more – even the theory of the UNO deny the existence of the Peoples, as the most radical means of fighting their freedom and their rights of self-determination or independence and of legitimate self-defence; attribute those rights to the recognized States (which makes of the right 'of the Peoples' a mere rhetorical reference); recognize the imperialism and fascism – homologated under a crude and cynical label of 'democracy' – as legitimate forms of international policy; and describe those who resist them – in the exercise of their right of legitimate self-defence – as bandits, thieves, murderers and terrorists in the ad hoc, reductive and super-extensive sense that, according to its convenience, the dominant imperialistic and fascist ideology attribute to such qualification.

(On this ideological and terminological manipulation, see our work ‘Violence and Terrorism.- Their ideological mystification at the service of imperialism’. And on the unfortunate background that has led to the present situation in Palestine, see in particular Chapter 15 thereof: Introduction to imperialism.)

“The UNO has abandoned its own principles of International Law. Thus, the affirmation of the right of Peoples’ self-determination: incorporated in the Charter by 'We, the Peoples of the United Nations' as a right 'of all Peoples', could lead into error. Indeed, the principle that reads 'All Peoples have the right of self-determination' did never intend to translate the truism: 'Do have right of self-determination all the Peoples which have the right of self-determination'. However, the practice of that Organization leads to interpreting it in this way and to recognizing this principle only to some Peoples – which would be Peoples in the strict and full sense of the word – but to denying it to others; thus being the right of self-determination constitutive only of some Peoples, and not attributive of all Peoples.

“In short, in the practice currently observed by the imperialistic conglomerate on a global scale: made up of the hegemonic Powers – or aspiring to be so – and their Allies, the admission of the Peoples’ right of self-determination as well as of its inseparable right of legitimate self-defence 'is selective, it is reserved to those with whom one sympathizes'; which ultimately depends on the respective interests and affinities of the States.

“On the international geopolitical chessboard, the small, weak and isolated Peoples and States are of no strategic importance, even though they may reach to be tactically, provisionally and locally taken into some consideration by the great Powers if the former manage to become inserted in the latter’s organizational charts of contradiction, conflict and balance; thus giving rise to more or less diverse or narrow variants of satellites, clients and protectorates.

“Ultimately, a People can only rely on its own resources. Every Nation confronted to its aggressors must abandon the illusions in this regard, and know that it can only count on its own Resistance in order to preserve national freedom or to reach to it: the precondition to gain access to all the others; a Resistance based above all on the ABSOLUTE rejection of any recognition/acceptance of the legitimacy of the imperialistic regime of military occupation. There is no other strategic basis for alliance or negotiation.

“In the reality of the International Law and the UNO law, not all Peoples are admitted or recognized, and in fact, for that Organization there only have rights the Peoples that are strong and capable enough so as to impose themselves upon the others or resist imperialism and colonialism; either by themselves, or with the alien assistance, protection or suzerainty. The others exist only as objects of policy and positive monist 'law' of the State or States that have dominated them. Under such conditions, and whatever their values and material and cultural contributions may be, those dominated Peoples are discarded, repudiated and condemned to be persecuted, destroyed, assimilated and replaced by their 'great' predators, with the blessing and assistance of those international institutions.

“Thus, the original aspiration to found the law for all the Peoples of the world has been discredited by the incapability of this international Organization to establish, develop and implement it. In its absence, the international political relations are founded on the antagonistic violence between Nations and States, without any 'higher' instance of order and power. The alleged protecting 'international laws' do not exist or protect any one, because no one imposes them and the States interpret them as it suits them better. Under such conditions, the 'international community' does not and cannot exist.” Etc.

(Excerpt from Chapter XVII: ‘Imperialistic reaction: involution of International Law’, from our general work: ‘EUSKAL HERRIA AND THE KINGDOM OF NABARRE, OR THE BASQUE PEOPLE AND ITS STATE, AGAINST FRENCH-SPANISH IMPERIALISM’.)