Report on Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’
JVL Introduction
Among the many documents submitted to justify the deproscription of Hamas as a terrorist organisation is one by legal expert John Dugard.
Among his many claims to expertise is that he was Professor of International Law at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, from 1998 to 2006 and served intermittently as Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice from 2000 to 2018.
For the case in question he has produced a fascinating paper entitled “Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’”.
He introduces the discussion with these words:
“The right of a State to exist is not a concept recognized by international law. It is not recognized in any treaty, in customary international law or in legal literature. (He continues) A State has a right to its territorial integrity and political independence and not to be forcibly attacked by another State…This, however, is not a right to exist.”
And, at the end of his report he draws a parallel with South Africa and Israel:
“During the apartheid era in South Africa arguments were raised that South Africa should no longer be recognized as a State and should be expelled from the United Nations. Although South Africa was not expelled from membership of the United Nations, the credentials of the South African government were not accepted and it was denied the right to participate in the work of the General Assembly.
“In effect, this meant that many States believed that South Africa no longer had the right to exist as a State because of its policy of apartheid.
“Today the same argument is raised in respect of Israel.”
The bulk of the report Sections C-E are reproduced below. The full report can be found online here.
RK
H/t Robert Jones
This article was originally published by hamascase.com on Sat 2 Nov 2024. Read the original here.
Report on Israel's 'Right to Exist'
Loading article text…
No State has an intrinsically right to exist. States are dynamic creations that change overtime at the will of the political forces at the time.
Rome existed and during its existance over several Centuries its borders changed until it finally stopped to exist.
Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and the South African state of today has, apart from maintaining the same border, nothing in common with the South Africa of 50 years ago.
Wow! What an amazing document! For me, a real eye-opener; for others, it may well bring on an attack of apoplexy! The sooner we see a state whose laws adhere to international standards, the better! (I hope that’s not just wishful thinking.)
I wonder how many people across the world only started looking deeply into the founding of Israel, its behaviour since 1948 and the many wrongs done by Israel to the Palestinians after they’d become appalled by Israel’s current “war” on Gaza?
What opened my own eyes was South Africa’s Dec 2023 written and oral presentation of the case against Israel. It’s clear and detailed; evidenced from many independent sources from many countries; argues fundamental issues our media and politicians have ignored – and it’s DAMNING.
Striving to be just, I went through Israel’s unconvincing, muddled and much shorter defence in the same detail. Israel’s lawyers mostly didn’t even attempt to challenge the accuracy of the facts as agreed by multiple independent sources. They exclusively quoted unsupported contrary claims from Israeli-generated documents. They rehashed legal arguments that had been rejected in previous world court rulings.
The Israeli government’s already partly-completed programme of genocide against the Palestinians will probably do as much to destroy Israel … just a bit more slowly.
A state’s right to exist is a strange concept. What is really at issue is the right of a group of people to constitute a state. Talking about a state’s rights may be a convenient shorthand way of describing people’s collective rights but if taken literally it is absurd. Czechoslovakia, for example, split in two. This might have been what both groups wanted (I do not know). Does it make sense to suggest that ‘Czechoslovakia’ might have had a right to exist taking precedence over their wishes?
We can then ask what sort of state people are entitled to create. If Israel were to change its constitution and laws to implement equality of rights and to remove provisions (e.g. the current Right of Return) privileging Jews most people (including some describing themselves as Zionists) would think that the country continued to exist, in an improved form. To many (perhaps most) Israeli Zionists however ‘Israel’ means a Jewish state founded on principles of racial supremacy. For them Israel would have ceased to exist.
Many states, (e.g. Australia and most in the Americas,) were created through acts of absolute injustice. The same could be said of Israel. This is of limited value in deciding what should follow. What has happened cannot be made to unhappen. There is an interesting comparison with the other great catastrophe of the post -war world, the partition of India. This was another criminal blunder, creating untold suffering and destruction and conflict lasting to this day. It is not, however, going to be reversed. We must start from where we are, not from somewhere else where we might prefer to be.
As John Dugard says, no state has a ‘right’ to exist. Only human beings have a right to exist. Unfortunately this is a right that Israel definitely does not recognise.