Pearls and Irritations

Chris Sidoti, an International human rights lawyer from Australia working as a UN investigator along with former International Criminal Court judge Navi Pillay, has slammed Benjamin Netanyahu for the Gaza conflict. He also shut up an Israeli reporter, who made a desperate attempt to question the latest findings on Israeli excesses by these two UN experts. This video has the best bits from the press conference that both Sidoti and Pillay held on 30 October.

Australian UN expert lashes out at Netanyahu, shuts up Israeli reporter | Janta Ka Reporter

Transcript
At least as of last week 13,31 19 children have been killed in Gaza of whom 786 were under the age of one and in addition 165 children have been killed in the West Bank now that’s the only statistic I want to give you and it’s a statistic that to me says everything.

Kids aren’t terrorists. Kids aren’t terrorists.

UNRWA has investigated and dismissed as I understand at nine staff um I’m I’m not um you need to check that with them but I think it’s nine staff um that’s more than the number of staff that the Israeli Defence Forces have dismissed for violations of international humanitarian laws such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. UNRWA at this stage is doing far better than the IDF.  UNRWA has saved Israeli taxpayers billions of dollars over the last 57 years. Billions because Israel as the occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention is responsible for the care protection and the provision of services to persons under occupation.

Israel should have been providing hospitals medical support schools, universities, social security, employment programs, and it hasn’t. The International Community has been doing that by its financial support for UNRWA, so if UNRWA is kicked out the cost for the Israeli taxpayer is going to be ginormous.

Journalist: So when an end comes weeks, months from now.

Chris Sidoti: Weeks? Months? This has been going on for 100 years. Weeks? Months?

Journalist: Gaza has been occupied for 100 years?

Chris Sidoti: No, the war has been going on for a 100 years. When we were here a year ago today, I certainly didn’t anticipate that we would be back now and this killing would be continuing.

There has never been a period in this 100-year war in which the fighting has gone on for so long resulting in the deaths of so many people. It is a period without precedent in a war that has been going for a century.

We shrug our shoulders our because the war has been going on so long and it’s understandable but regrettable that the impact of the killing of the last almost 13 months is is lost on us as a result. I mean, the statistics are overwhelming, you know the statistics, I only want to give you one one set.

Of all the killing, the killing that gets me most is the killing of kids and I’m reflecting the fact that I’m a father, a grandfather and in about a month I’ll become a great-grandfather for the first time.
Kids mean something to me.

On on the 7th of October, 38 Israeli children were killed, one of them under the age of two years.

Since then at least as of last week, 13,3i9 children have been killed in Gaza, of whom 786 were under the age of one and in addition 165 children have been killed in the West Bank.

Now that’s the only statistic I want to give you and it’s a statistic that to me says everything.

Kids aren’t terrorists. Kids aren’t terrorists.

And yet between what happened in southern Israel on the 7th of October and what has happened since then, we have had thousands and thousands of kids killed and that’s not even including those who are injured, those who are under the rubble, those who have lost limbs.

It is said that the amputations of limbs of children is the greatest in any conflict in recorded modern warfare. Kids who have lost parents.

You know I wonder when the current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu talks about finishing off Hamas I wonder about what the 1 million children in Gaza will be doing in 20 years time.

The conflict in Gaza is an Israeli terrorism-creation factory – and there is no sign of it finishing.

Navi [Pillay] has referred to the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that this is a landmark event for us lawyers. An extremely significant event to have a legal determination of the status of the current situation and it’s a way forward because it provides the basis upon which any peace discussions, if they ever occur, can occur can be built. The law provides the foundation and peace negotiations cannot alter that foundation. The foundation is the law but that decision provides the foundation upon which bricks can be built, and I’m very pleased that our reports have contributed to the decision taken by the International Court of Justice. But I’m also acutely aware that our reports, the decision of the International Court of Justice, four resolutions passed by the Security Council in the last 13 months, resolutions part of the General Assembly, none of those have resulted in a single child not being killed.

So we can take a lot of pride in the decision of the International Court of Justice, and we do, member states of the Security Council can cheer because they have actually managed to achieve consensus on four resolutions, when mostly they can’t. But regrettably, not a single child has not died because of all of these actions and that’s the reality that confronts the whole United Nations system today.

Journalist: Thank you. My name is [Tisam Asim] newspaper good to see you back here again. I have a few questions including for you in your answer, you talked about the positive steps that countries should take to end the occupation. Could you elaborate on that and in relation to that also the issue of  a third country role in the war and the genocide that’s happening in Gaza including countries that provide weapons to the Israelis , whether they are the US or other countries, their role and their obligation, and if you could comment on the UNRWA ban by the Israeli Knesset and how you see it as part of this efforts to within the war on Gaza.

Navi Pillay: Thank you, you know when it comes to what steps can be taken to to end the occupation. Let’s remember the ICJ said rapid, rapid, rapidly end to the occupation and the judges told member states you have to distinguish, you have to change the way you’ve addressed this matter before, you have to change your attitude in the way you treat these two states Palestine and Israel. You have to distinguish between them, so you know, one is an occupier and the other are occupied and the onus then lies on every state under international law to take steps not to cooperate with the occupation itself.  And so, because that’s the order we then spelled out the various steps, you know I don’t have time to go through all those steps, but it’s the clearest direction coming to every state that you have the responsibility not to continue to support this occupation and that would be any support, you know; militarily, politically  or recognition even about moving their embassies to Jerusalem.  Every step that one can shine the microscope on the situation comes under this; you have to change your traditional way of treating the situation.

With regard to, you know, one of the things you said is the weapons transfer. Now the Human Rights Council last June added two new mandates for this commission and one was to investigate the transfer of arms from states to Israel and the other is to identify settlers who are committing violations. And I’m really sad and disappointed to say that we can’t even begin with those two mandates. We’re expected to report in June next year, we can’t because the funding has not been allocated as yet, and yet I consider those two additional mandates are very urgent and they have to, we have to begin work now. So with UNRWA I’ll hand that to you Chris.

Chris Sidoti: Yes the the the UNRWA decision or the UNRWA legislation has very serious implications, because UNRWA is the principal deliverer of, or vehicle for the delivery of,  aid and assistance to Palestinians, and is also the principal service provider.

There have been allegations made by the Israeli authorities about UNRWA staff. UNRWA has investigated and dismissed as I understand at nine staff, I’m not UNRWA you need to check that with them – but I think it’s nine staff.

That’s more than the number of staff that the Israeli Defence Forces have dismissed for violations of international humanitarian laws such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. UNRWA at this stage is doing far better than the IDF in dealing with allegations and investigations of misconduct by employees and nine staff out of in excess of 13,000, to be perfectly frank, is significantly fewer than what I would have expected and UNRWA has acted.

So the suggestion that UNRWA can be excluded because of some links with terrorism is not supported by any established facts at all. But the interesting contrast though, the the ironic contrast, is that UNRWA has saved Israeli taxpayers billions of dollars over the last 57 years. Billions. Because Israel as the occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention is responsible for the care protection and the provision of services to persons under occupation.

Israel should have been providing hospitals, medical support, schools, universities, social security, employment programs and it hasn’t.

The international community has been doing that by its financial support for UNRWA. So, if UNRWA is kicked out, the cost for the Israeli taxpayer is going to be ginormous.  So this is a decision that is bad for the Palestinians and ridiculous for Israeli taxpayers.

Journalist: Thank you again and good to see you again. I’m Abdul Hamid say from the Arabic Daily Ali. Among your mandate is the root causes and do you see some hypocrisy now especially among western states who think that history started on October 7?  They try not to mention anything before, as if the conflict started that day. So how can you highlight the root causes which  are deeply seated in the occupation which lasted as you know many many years and the atrocities committed not only in in Gaza but also in the West Bank,  so how do you highlight that?

My second question about the issue of the children sir. If you hear the defence minister saying these are human animals and some saying that we will cut off food medicine and water. That create a culture that children and one of them said I can bring you the quote when he said there is no innocent Palestinian if these babies and children grow up they will become terrorists and just let me see today a settler leader she said she will establish new settlement in Gaza and said  the sound of bombardment in Gaza is like music in my ear I am only worried if I only hear the bombardment.

So when you hear this statement and the incitement I want to ask you if you include this in incitement in your report and that would justify killing 13,000 children with no eye blinking thank you

Navi: I agree with you about the double standards in approaching in these halls, especially where member states deliberate and that was the case this morning as well. You know that tired old complaint was made by the state that I expected would say that and that is that they oppose the formation of this Commission because it’s not time bound.

You see I call that a tired old complaint, with thousands of children being killed. You know I also have all these statistics of the deaths that have happened so it’s quite hypocritical to make a speech about why we don’t support you because you, you’re not time bound. I’m very happy that we’re not time bound. We were able to investigate all these matters, we were on the ground, we were the first to address the the situation even on 7th October.

So my answer this morning to member states is yes, history didn’t start on the 7th October and that we have recorded again and again the huge violations that occurred historically and it’s occupation. So it did come up and I responded to that. You know, as a person who was a lawyer in the [international] criminal courts for almost 30 years and a judge as Sherwin said. I’ve yet to find people accused of crimes admitting that. They find ways of denying, denying the crime or diverting attention from that.  You do not expect that at the level of member states discussion, so I was surprised that it’s still there. To avoid addressing the issues – tell us which fact is wrong, give us your own statistics, let us in so we could see for ourselves. None of that comes up, so I just address that to say this commission is very very well aware of the history. I myself got educated reading the number of books. I don’t know how we allowed the what we can do about Colonial Powers ,you know we were victims in South Africa of British colonialism. I see how long ago that started.

All right so as I said to you earlier we stick to the law we try to cut our mind are from the political dimensions but even under the law we’re addressing the facts as as as something that happened long before 7th October.

Your other question related to the children.

Chris Sidoti: Can I just perhaps add one thing to Navi’s answer on on the first question. We have tried at all times to put events into a historical and a legal context, both are important. In 2022, two years ago, when we reported to the General Assembly, we gave our analysis that the occupation was unlawful and indicated why we had come to that conclusion. And, that was the occasion two years ago when we recommended to the General Assembly that a referral be made to the International Court of Justice to answer that question and the questions that flow from it. And that is very much the historical context for the 7th of October.

Understanding and justification are two separate matters and I always get anxious that people try to say that understanding a situation means justifying it when it doesn’t. But it is impossible to understand the 7th of October without understanding the occupation and what that has meant. That doesn’t justify what happened – we have made the legal context having sought that understanding. The unlawfulness of the occupation does not justify the commission of crimes against humanity on the 7th of October nor does the commission of crimes against humanity on the 7th of October justify war crimes sorry, with commission of war crimes on the 7th of October, nor does the commission of war crimes on the 7th of October justify the commission of war crimes every day for the two years since then. So the historical context must be understood and the legal context must then be applied.

On children, if I may go to your second question,  “the the human animals” part and not just that but an enormous number of other statements are directed towards the dehumanisation of Palestinian people – regardless of age – young people, old people, male, female, the lot and we dealt with many of those statements in our report to the Human Rights Council in June this year. We went through the context and we’ll be coming back to those statements because we have much more legal analysis to do as to what the consequences in international law are for statements like that that have been made. We’ll come back to that.

But to revert to where I began kids cannot go through what they have gone through through in the last 12 months without it having a an enormous impact on them for their entire lives. That that is certainly the case physically for kids who have lost arms or legs or both and we we’ve met them we’ve met them in hospitals we we’ve interviewed them, for them this is a lifelong result.

But the kids who were traumatised by the loss of of parents, siblings, aunties, uncles, grandparents, cousins, who have experienced now 13 months of severe food deprivation, leading to a situation that is now described as acute  malnutrition. These kids are going to have this impact throughout their lives. So in one sense I think some of these statements made by some of the Israelis extremist are correct in that how these kids as adults are going to respond to what’s going on should be troubling Israelis. But that’s not the kids fault they can’t go through what they have had to experience without this having a severe impact on them and their lives.

Journalist: I have a couple questions for you number one I’m trying to absorb your assertion or whatever you want to label it about this next generation you say of of terrorists, the terrorist breeding ground that Gaza will become. There have been wars before. I don’t want to compare them but I mean World War II, the the destruction left in Germany, the destruction of Japan these didn’t lead to breeding grounds for a future generation of terrorists so God willing Gaza will emerge ruled by something other than an internationally designated terror group. Why why do you, it seems like an assumption, that Gazan children growing up today are going to be terrorists of tomorrow. Is that not a dangerous assumption?

Chris Sidoti: yes it is a dangerous assumption and there is one distinct definitive, determinative difference between the examples that you site. It’s continuing and there is no end in sight.

Journalist: So when an end comes weeks, months from now ..

Chris Sidoti: Weeks? Months? This has been going on for 100 years.  Weeks? Months?

Journalist: Gaza has been occupied for 100 years?

Chris Sidoti: No, the war has been going on for 100 years

Journalist: As well for Israel well for 75 years

Chris Sidoti: I’m not denying that for a minute. I’m saying this war has been going on for a 100 years and there is no end in sight. To help these kids, to help Israel, it’s got to stop, then there is a possibility but until it stops there is no chance.

Journalist: that’s an interesting take. In terms of the report itself, I want to gain some clarity because it seems like a Pandora’s Box. The assertion or the conclusion, one of them, made in your latest report is that anything that helps Israel carry out or continue to carry out what’s labelled as an occupation needs to cease. Any assistance from member states. There’s a few different ways of looking at it and I want to clarify which way you’re looking at it because one can say that anything that benefits settlements in Judea and Samaria in eastern Jerusalem where have you that is helping perpetuate what you label as the occupation. There’s another way of looking at it where anything that goes into Israel proper Sovereign Israel can be put into a proverbial slush fund to enable it to perpetuate this occupation. It’s unclear clear from your report what exactly you mean by that can you please clarify.

Chris Sidoti: The Chair has given that one to me.

First it’s yes, we have defined it as an occupation, so has the International Court of justice. This is now a decision taken by the most authoritative judicial body in the international system. There ain’t no higher than the ICJ and there’s nowhere else to go to get a higher opinion or even an alternative opinion. So, the reason why we made the recommendation in the first place, because we said well we’re pretty good, we’re a commission of inquiry, we’ve got Navi Pillay as our our Chair but we are a commission of inquiry and this is a matter that in our opinion. needed the authoritative decision of the International Court of Justice and that body decided overwhelmingly – it wasn’t a close thing – overwhelmingly that the occupation was unlawful. So, our opinion has been superseded by that of the most authoritative body in the International System. And it was the court that said that states individually and collectively have a responsibility not to aid or assist the continuation of the occupation, the maintenance of the settlements, the establishment of new settlements. The court left it to the Security Council and the General Assembly to put flesh on that ruling, that position and our position paper is designed to do that.

We first indicated that the Court’s decision applies to the occupied Palestinian territory. The court was asked about the occupation and and that was all and it commented on the occupation and that was all. The court did refer to the fact that there should be political distinctions made that there are questions of economics and finances and militarisation or arms and arms trade and so forth and we sought to elucidate that. In our opinion the obligation not to aid or assist relates to the occupation and the Palestinian, sorry, and the Israeli settlements in the occupied territory. Where the complication comes in, relating to your question, is where it is not clear or even more where the Israeli authorities deliberately obfuscate what is done in relation to the state of Israel and what is done in relation to the occupied Palestinian territories.

If, for example, there was one section of the military that was directed only to the defence of the state of Israel against foreign invasion, that part of the military would not be covered by the ICJ decision. But where the military as a whole is used in relation to the occupation, well then the decision applies. If a state decides that assisting the occupation, economically would be the consequence of trading in settlement products, then the state could decide not to trade in settlement products. But if the state of Israel were to stamp all products made in Israel without distinguishing between those made in settlements and those made within the state of Israel, that obfuscation would have much broader implications.

So there is first a due diligence obligation on states to determine what aspects of their relationships either support the continuation of the occupation or the maintenance of the settlements and what do not. And if there is a lack of clarity, then the due diligence obligation shifts to the state of Israel to make those distinctions.

So what we have said in our position paper is very much that the court’s decision applies to the occupation of the territory and the maintenance of settlements within the territory but that requires examination of relationships to determine what does that, and if there is doubt, if there is doubt well then it could be that the implications of the decision are broader.

Republished from Janta Ka Reporter, November 01, 2024