Notable, she again calls out the ICJ for hypocrisy.
π§΅
View Tweet
Here we go again: The dissent by Judge Sebutinde is incredible and eviscerates the @CIJ_ICJ as applying standards never applied to any other states party. I'm going to highlight a few parts because they are quite notable.
Notable, she again calls out the ICJ for hypocrisy.
π§΅
Notable, she again calls out the ICJ for hypocrisy.
π§΅
Judge Sebutinde notes that the @CIJ_ICJ advisory opinion lacks balance and impartiality (not surprising since the President of the Court is the former Lebanese ambassador who bashed Israel every day).
Without balance, the court cannot render an effective opinion. It's lacking.
Without balance, the court cannot render an effective opinion. It's lacking.
She then goes on and notes that the request by the General Assembly ("GA") lacks any objectivity itself, and effectively predetermines what the ICJ was to find. The ICJ mimics those findings.
Notably, she mentions how history is lacking and important. This is where it gets fun!
Notably, she mentions how history is lacking and important. This is where it gets fun!
Judge Sebutinde establishes in her dissent that it is undisputed that Jews have existed CONTINUOUSLY in what is today Israel for at least 3,000 years.
Effectively, Sebutinde recognizes that Jews are indigenous to the land because the historical and archaelogical record says so.
Effectively, Sebutinde recognizes that Jews are indigenous to the land because the historical and archaelogical record says so.
She then rips the court for limiting her timeframe to attach an individual opinion not with the majority. Meaning, again, destroying the ICJ for blatant bias against a member state (Israel).
She notes that the only path forward is through direct negotiations as required under Oslo. Which is what the Security Council has determined and is the appropriate body to do so, not the GA.
Further, re-establishing Jewish connection to the entirety of the land.
Further, re-establishing Jewish connection to the entirety of the land.
Important that she notes precisely where "Palestine" as a term comes from: Syria Palaestina, given to the land by the Romans AFTER suppressing the Jews. Again, this is undisputed historical fact.
Judge Sebutinde also notes that the establishment of borders between what is today Iraq and Jordan was done when Jordan became a sovereign state: but also, the historical record was that Jordan was to be the Arab state including for Palestinians who then identified as only Arab.
Next, Sebutinde details that today's Palestinians were offered a state, multiple times, and it is they who rejected it, not the Jews/Israel.
Important in the context of occupation.
Important in the context of occupation.
She notes the first two rejections of an Arab state, including where the Jews accepted it, and the Arabs attacked the Jews.
Here she goes over the third, fourth, and fifth rejections. Again, noting that the obstacle is the very existence of Jews and a Jewish state in the place Jews are indigenous to.
Finally, Sebutinde gets trhough the sixth and SEVENTH rejection of an independent sovereign Palestinian state by the Palestinians. Not by the Israelis. But for the Palestinians rejecting a state, there would be a Palestine today, is what she is effectively saying.
Judge Sebutinde notes that the Oslo Accords are binding agreements between both the Israelis and Palestinians, and such bilateral framework not only establishes a legal responsibility in the West Bank until such time a Palestinian state exists.
Further, she notes that the Advisory Opinion written by the majority undermines the legal framework of the binding agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Condemning the imposition of the court into that as ineffective and hostile to the law.
Again, she notes that the ICJ's position is to defer to the parties to negotiate (in good faith).
Here she is reiterating that position even more forcefully.
Notably, she mentions that the request for this Advisory Opinion was not done by a majority of the members of the GA. Also noting that the ICJ is not supposed to be a political body, but here it is being abused as one.
Judge Sebutinde states that the ICJ, while having authority, should not have exercised the authority as it reeks of impropriety and places the court into a place acts without sufficient information or evidence - relying purely on hostile parties to Israel.
Moreover, the Advisory Opinion rests on the presumptions of "a one-sided narrative that fails to take account of the complexity of the conflicgt and that misrepresents its legal, cultural, historical, and political context."
Further, noting that this was brougth by hostile states to Israel that reject the right of Israel, a fullmember of the UN, to even exist!
Further, noting that this was brougth by hostile states to Israel that reject the right of Israel, a fullmember of the UN, to even exist!
She also notes that this is a bilateral dispute between a state and a people, which lacks any input from a party to the conflict.
It also allowed the ICJ to establish this opinion absent consent of a party to it which is not the normal practice of the court.
It also allowed the ICJ to establish this opinion absent consent of a party to it which is not the normal practice of the court.
Generated by Thread Navigator
Press β + S to quick-export