<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\nThe International Court of Justice condemned israel on Friday 19th July for \u201cillegal occupation \u201c of the West Bank, Gaza and even the ancient Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The vice president of the Court from Uganda strongly disagreed with the findings. Her ruling follows at the end of this post. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Presiding Judge was Nawaf Salam, he was elected by the United Nations to his position and any judge must be non-biased and non partial maintaining strict neutrality towards any case where he presides. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is his history:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nawaf Salam is a Lebanese diplomat, jurist, and academic. He currently serves as the 27th president of the International Court of Justice. He was elected on 9 November 2017 as judge on the International Court of Justice for the 2018\u20132027 term, having received a concurrent majority of votes in the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.He served as Lebanon's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York from 2007 to 2017, .He was elected as president of the International Court of Justice on 6 February 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During his time as Lebanon's representative to the UN, Salam voted to condemn Israel 210 times<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nawaf Salam, president of the World Court. As Lebanon's UN rep, he voted 11 times for the Islamic Regime in Iran, blocked Security Council action for Assad's victims and backed tyrants Lukashenko and Fidel Castro. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He is not in any way an impartial arbiter. Neither are most other officials elected by the United Nations on matters pertaining to Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is worth noting that the ICJ started their judgement with a preamble. In the preamble the \u201cjudge\u201d stated that their judgement was based on the acceptance that Israel was \u201coccupying\u201d the territories. Of course the conflict does not conform to the norms of warfare where two sovereign nations go to war. The unique war of 1948 where Israel was attacked by Jordan (and its neighbours) who subsequently ceded control of the West Bank makes the status of the West Bank unclear. The Arab world refused to recognise the Jewish state having any borders or legitimacy whatsoever. Israel had to protect herself and self defence is enshrined in the UN charter. This is not an \u201coccupation\u201d, the territories are disputed not occupied. Therefore the entire premise of the \u201cjudgement\u201d is spurious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is the British definition of an eligible judge: If a judge is known to hold strong views on a topic relevant to the case\u2026\u2026.possible disqualification of the judge may have to be addressed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those with strong focus this is what the Vice President states at the summing up:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In her dissenting opinion, Vice-President Sebutinde argues against the Advisory Opinion for several reasons, including the lack of accurate, balanced and reliable information to judiciously arrive at a fair conclusion upon disputed questions of fact. She also criticizes the prejudicial formulation of the General Assembly\u2019s questions and the one-sided narrative in the statements of many participants<\/p>\n\n\n\n
in the proceedings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In her view, the Advisory Opinion not only circumvents Israel\u2019s consent to the Court\u2019s resolution of the issues involved, but also circumvents and potentially jeopardizes the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding negotiation framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In rendering its Advisory Opinion, the Court should have been careful to guard its judicial character and integrity by ensuring that the nuanced and more complex issues that require resolution through negotiation \uf8e7 such as the competing territorial claims of the parties in former British Mandatory Palestine, and unresolved permanent-status issues such as a possible two-State solution, security, borders, refugees and the status of Jerusalem \uf8e7 are left to the negotiation framework already agreed upon by the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vice-President Sebutinde considers that the Advisory Opinion omits the historical backdrop crucial to understanding the multi-faceted Israeli-Palestinian dispute and is tantamount to a one-sided \u201cforensic audit\u201d of Israel\u2019s compliance with international law that does not reflect a balanced and impartial examination of the pertinent legal and factual questions. She also emphasizes the need to grasp the historical nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the competing territorial claims of the parties in former British Mandatory Palestine, as well as the previous and ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict through the negotiation framework identified by the Security Council. In the view of the Vice-President, the Court lacks adequate, accurate, balanced and reliable information before it to enable it to judiciously arrive at a fair assessment and conclusions on the disputed questions of fact. She is further of the view that the Advisory Opinion circumvents the existing negotiation framework, as well as Israel\u2019s consent to the Court\u2019s resolution of the issues involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion also contains several shortcomings, particularly regarding the Court\u2019s answer to question 2. In her view, the timeline proposed by the Court for Israel\u2019s withdrawal from the occupied territories is impracticable and disregards the matters agreed upon in the existing negotiating framework, the security threats posed to Israel and the need to balance competing sovereignty claims. Vice-President Sebutinde also notes that the Court\u2019s application of the principle of full reparation is not appropriate in the circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, Vice-President Sebutinde explains that the Court has misapplied the law of belligerent occupation and has adopted presumptions implicit in the question of the General Assembly without a prior critical analysis of relevant issues. These issues include the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the territory of the former British Mandate, the question of Israel\u2019s borders and its competing sovereignty claims, and the nature of the Palestinian right of self-determination and its relationship to Israel\u2019s own rights and security concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Vice-President, while underscoring the importance of the negotiated agreements for a lasting resolution and the role of the United Nations in supporting peace efforts, emphasizes that the only avenue for a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the negotiation framework set out in the United Nations and bilateral agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BUT THE OUTCOME WAS PRE-DETERMINED BY THE UN , Israel was found guilty by the biased President of the court before the case opened. This was a kangaroo court and its findings will be ignored by the Israeli government and opposition.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following the discovery that UNWRA personnel were involved in the massacre of October7th, the realisation that UNWRA school text books preached hatred of the Jewish people, the discovery that UNWRA schools were used to store weapons and launch rockets against Israel, and that UNWRA PREMISES were used to hide attack tunnels and Hamas fighters, we must now accept that the UN itself has become an enemy of the Jewish State and is one of the active adversaries that Israel faces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thank you Judge Sebutinde for standing up for your principles and for justice and resisting the huge pressures exerted on you to conform to the \u201cfindings\u201d arrived at by the biased President.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-from-israel"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3859"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3859\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3860,"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3859\/revisions\/3860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.shavuatov.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}