Världsdomstolens folkmordsingripande mot Israel kan även komma riktas mot Sverige.

Den svenska regeringen riskerar genom sin passivitet gentemot Israels övergrepp på palestinierna att få även Sverige och svenska befattningshavare anmälda för att ha bidragit till folkmord. Enbart regeringens besluade indragning av Gazabornas försörjning genom UNRWA eller fortsatt vapenhandel med Israel räcker för det, men särskilt om Sverige eller går in militärt på Israels sida i deras krig med Jemen om sjötrafiken i Röda havet. Alla länder har skyldighet att ingripa mot ett pågående folkmord och kan anmäla de länder som medverkar till det, nu när Världsdomstolen i Haag har bestämt sig för att ta upp frågan om Israel begår folkmord till en domstolsförhandling.

Det var en historiskt viktig seger att Internationella Domstolen i Haag (Världsdomstolen) såg det som så trovärdigt att Israel begår folkmord i Gaza att man beslutade att upp målet till behandling i domstolen. Med Sydafrikas initiativ har Globala Syd tagit den moraliska ledningen i världen. Domstolen har med sitt utslag återupprättat internationell rätten. Den har återtagit sin roll att bestämma vad som internationell rätt. Bara det är den stor seger eftersom internationell rätt bygger på de eviga, mänskliga oförytterliga rättigheterna, som även kallas naturrätten. Medan Västvärldens så kallade “regelbaserade världsordning” däremot bygger på godtyckliga uttalanden med syfte att arrogant främja angloamerikanska intressen att upprätthålla sin världshegemoni. Inte så konstigt att Västvärlden ständiga tal om den “regelbaserade världordningen” på en gång nästan helt har tystnat.

Domstolen som är FN:s högsta rättsinstans, återupprättade också FN:s och dess medlemsnationers roll i världspolitiken när man hänvisade till uttalanden från de många FN-institutioner som arbetar med frågorna och därför har förstahandskunskap om vad som händer i Gaza och vad som måste göras för människorna där.

Medan detta mål behandlas vilket kan komma att pågå i åratal, beslutade domstolen dessutom att Israel måste vidta omedelbara åtgärder om skydd av liv, tillförsel av humanitär hjälp m.m.  Det kan domstolen göra eftersom den i väntan på att den juridiska prövningen i sakfrågan blir klar, har rätt att genomdriva omedelbara ”provisoriska åtgärder”, för tills vidare skydda offen från pågående övergrepp och se till att bevismateral inte förstörs. Israeliska militären ålades att (a) inte döda människor som hör till gruppen, (b) att inte orsaka allvarlig kroppskada eller mental skada på människor i gruppen; (c) inte avsiktligt förorsaka villkor för gruppens levnadsförhållanden som beräknas leda till gruppen fysiska undergång helt eller delvis; och (d) utsätta gruppen för åtgärder som avsiktligt skall hindra att barn föds inom gruppen (preliminär översättning).  (Alla bör läsa och maximalt sprida hela domstolens utlåtande som det lästes upp av chefsdomaren Joan E. Donoghue och finns nedan här på engelska.)

Dessa provisoriska åtgärder om de genomdrivs begränsar Israel så mycket att det i praktiken innebär ett eldupphör sa Sydafrikas utrikesminister Pandor direkt på plats i domstolen efter dess beslut. Man kan jämföra det domen i Shakespeares drama “Köpmannen i Venedig” som tilldömde Shylock att få sitt skålpund människokött i betalning för en skuld, “men utan att spilla en droppe människoblod”.

Men även andra länder kan anmälas för folkmordsbrott om de inte hindrar Israel från att strunta i domstolens provisoriska åtgärder för att skydda palestinierna. Inget land får vara passiv mot ett folkmord och absolut inte medverka till att det genomförs genom vapenleveranser eller direkt militär hjälp till förövaren eller medverkan i blockader mot offren. Professor Francis Boyles uttalande nedan visar att det är möjligt enligt Världsdomstolens tidigare praxis att ett beslut om ingripande mot ett land gör det möjligt att även medverkande länder kan föreläggas av domstolen att vidta åtgärder för att folkmordsbrott skall förhindras. För att skydda Bosnien-Herzegovina från pågående folkmord tvingades USA dagen efter domen att införa en flygförbudszon och därmed stoppades terrorbombningarna mot bosnierna.

Svenska regeringen kan och måste ingripa!

Utrikesminister Tobias Billström svarade i interpellationsdebatten i Riksdagen den 23.1 2024 att Sverige inte kan ingripa mot folkmord förrän det bevisats juridiskt i domstol, men det var en undanflykt, eftersom han är en politiker som ständigt ingriper mot annan politik han ej gillar. Nu efter Världsdomstolens beslut har Sverige direkt skyldighet att vidta omedelbara provisoriska åtgärder för att skydda Gaza från ett tillräckligt konstaterat pågående folkmord.  Sverige har skrivit på folkmordskonventionen och den har införlivats i svensk lag. Sverige har också, som ledamoten Jacob Risberg (mp) anförde, skrivit på för att följa FN:s beslut om Responsibility to protect (R2P). Dessutom finns principen Aldrig mer enligt Nürnberglagarna.

 

Enligt Folkmordskonventionen behöver inte ett pågående folkmord bevisas, utan bara göras troligt genom att det både finns exempel på övergrepp, och på uttalanden som visar att det finns en avsikt att genomföra ett folkmord.

”Jag har ögon”, sa Peter Hultqvist i ett odiskutabelt klargörande inlägg i interpellationsdebatten. Det har Billström också, så han kan inte undkomma sin skyldighet att ha sett exempel på övergrepp.

 

Förutom exempel krävs bevis på tydlig avsikt att begå folkmord. Avsikten var tillräckligt klargjord av Sydafrika enligt Världsdomstolens utslag. I många citat som Sydafrika dokumenterat, har israeliska ledare, befattningshavare och soldater vittnat mot sig själva om sina avsikter att begå folkmord mot palestinierna i Gaza.

 

Det borde gjort det tillräckligt troligt att ett folkmord pågår för även ett svenskt ingripande mot Israel. Sverige borde ha understött Sydafrikas anmälan av Israel till Internationella domstolen i Haag. Att komma i efterhand vittnar inte om principfasthet.

 

Passiviteten från Billström gör nu att även Sverige och svenska befattningshavare riskerar att bli prickade, om de anmäls i någon av de båda internationella domstolarna ICJ och ICC för att ha brutit mot skyldigheten att ingripa mot folkmord mot palestinierna.

 

Sverige ska inte militärt stöda Israel i dess krig mot Jemen

 

Risken för att även Sverige i dessa domstolar kan förknippas med folkmord ökar oerhört mycket mer om Sverige militärt, med marinens fartyg eller flygvapnets övervakningsplan, ställer sig på Israels sida i dess krig med Jemen om sjötrafiken på Röda havet. Detta måste omedelbart beaktas innan Sverige ansluter sig till en militär EU-aktion i Röda havet mot Jemen. Inget marknadsintresse från svensk vapenindustri att sälja vapen till regionen får tillåtas påverka detta beslut som kan dra på Sverige anklagelser för underlåtenhet att ingripa mot folkmord.

Sveriges roll i Jemen måste vara att med högsta prioritet fortsätta stöda den svenske diplomaten Hans Grundberg, som leder fredsprocessen där på uppdrag av FN:s generalsekreterare. Sverige borde verka för att dessa fredsförhandlingar blir en del av en fredsprocess för hela Västasien som gynnar alla parter i Westfaliska fredens anda av en fred där alla parter åtar sig att se till ”den andres väl” eller ”win-win” som det heter idag. Det är det bästa bidraget Sverige kan ge för att främja en ny övergripande arkitektur för säkerhet och ekonomisk utveckling där alla konflikter i Västasien, inklusive mellan Palestina-Israel, kan börja lösas.

 

Här är domstolens hela utlåtande som det lästes upp av chefsdomaren Joan E. Donoghue på engelska:

ICJ’s Summary Conclusion on the Issue of Charges of Israeli Genocide

Jan. 27, 2024 (EIRNS)—The following is the final section, “Conclusion and Measures To Be Adopted,” of the International Court of Justice’s Jan. 26, 2024 order “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip,” on South Africa’s suit against Israel for genocide in Gaza. This excerpt begins on the document’s page 22.

74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision.

VI. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED

75. The Court concludes on the basis of the above considerations that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed bySouth Africa that the Court has found to be plausible (see paragraph 54 above).
76. The Court recalls that it has the power, under its Statute, when a request for provisional measures has been made, to indicate measures that are, in whole or in part, other than those requested. Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court specifically refers to this power of the Court. The Court has already exercised this power on several occasions in the past (see, for example, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 28, para. 77).
77. In the present case, having considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by South Africa and the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the measures to be indicated need not be identical to those requested.
78. The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.

79. The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
80. The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
81. Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
82. Regarding the provisional measure requested by South Africa that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to its Order, the Court recalls that it has the power, reflected in Article 78 of the Rules of Court, to request the parties to provide information on any matter connected with the implementation of any provisional measures it has indicated. In view

of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month, as from the date of this Order. The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.

83. The Court recalls that its Orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 230, para. 84).
84. The Court reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel to submit arguments in respect of those questions.
85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.
86. For these reasons, THE COURT,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

1. By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:

1. killing members of the group;
2. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
4. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

2. By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;

IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

3. By sixteen votes to one,

The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;

IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke;

AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde;

4. By sixteen votes to one,

The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;

IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke;

AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde;

5. By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;

IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;

6. By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.

IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;

AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-sixth day of January, two thousand and twenty-four, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the State of Israel, respectively.

(Signed) Joan E. DONOGHU

 

Utlåtande från professor Francis Boyle, expert på internationell rätt

Professor Francis Boyle uttalade sig den 19.1 2024 på ett Zoommöte med Internationella fredskoalitionen. Han slog fast att även andra länder, om de anmäls, kan åläggas att införa provisoriska åtgärder för att skydda palestinierna från pågående övergrepp som riskerar att förvärra folkmordet. Professor Francis Boyles uttalande visar att det är möjligt enligt Världsdomstolens tidigare praxis.

Han var advokat när just ett sådant beslut drevs igenom mot Jugoslaven för folkmordet mot Bosnien-Hercegovina 1993 efter Srebreniza. I sitt anförande pekade han på hur domstolens provisoriska beslut mot Jugoslavien omedelbart kunde följas upp av krav på åtgärder från andra länder. På så sätt lyckades man pressa USA att dagen efter genomdriva en flygförbudszon mot Jugoslavien så bombningarna av bosnierna upphörde.

Ett annat exempel är hur förre presidenten George H.W. Bush inte kunde besöka Schweiz sedan USA:s bortförande av fångar till olika tortyrcenter i världen hade anmälts till den internationella brottsmålsdomstolen. Dessa erfarenheter från Världsdomstolens tidigare beslut, sa professor Boyle, visar att Sydafrikas plädering för omedelbart eldupphör i Gaza troligen kan genomdrivas eftersom andra länder och deras ledare vill undvika att bli medanklagade för folkmord.

 

Här är en utskrift av professor Boyles anförande:

On Jan. 19, Prof. Francis Boyle gave the following lecture to a meeting of the International Peace Coalition regarding his history of having fought and won a case of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, otherwise known as the World Court. Boyle is an American human rights lawyer and professor of international law at the Illinois University’s College of Law. He served as counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina during their case at the ICJ in 1993.

Prof. Boyle’s remarks are published in EIR in order that his expert legal opinion regarding the current case by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ becomes a larger topic of discussion internationally. We hope that this knowledge, and the circulation of it among all proponents of a just peace, will greatly reduce the ability by outside political forces to pressure the ICJ judges to ignore the principles of law that govern the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” which was approved by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948.

PROF. FRANCIS BOYLE: Thank you very much, Dennis for having me here today. I want to express my gratitude to Helga Zepp-LaRouche for having me speak at this conference at this critical time in the history of the human race.

I believe that the Republic of South Africa will win an order of provisional measures of protection against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. I’m speaking here as a straight-out legal matter. Obviously, as we speak here today, Israel and the United States are putting massive political pressure on the judges of the World Court to rule against the Republic of South Africa and the Palestinians.

I’m just going to deal with this as a technical, legal matter. As Dennis correctly pointed out, I was the first lawyer ever to win anything from the International Court of Justice on the basis of the Genocide Convention. I won a massive, overwhelming order for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina against the rump Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians. That was in April 1993. Then, I won a second massive overwhelming order for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians on September 13, 1993. This was the first time ever in the history of the World Court that any lawyer had won two such orders in one case since the World Court was founded in 1921. Then, I won a third order—what’s known as an Article 74, Paragraph 4 order to the same effect from the President of the Court which was binding on the parties. So, three orders in under six months.

In addition, on behalf of my clients at the time, the mothers of Srebrenica and Prijedor who survived the massacre at Srebrenica. I convinced the prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to indict my adversary, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for almost every crime in the ICTY statute, including two counts of genocide. One for genocide against Bosnia in general, and the second for genocide at Srebrenica in particular. He was put on trial in The Hague. After the close of the prosecution’s case, he filed a motion to dismiss all the charges. That was denied by the tribunal ruling that there was enough evidence produced by the prosecution to convict him on all charges beyond a reasonable doubt, including the two counts of genocide; and that he should then proceed to open his defense, which was going to implicate all the international officials working in cahoots with him behind the scenes. Whereupon, he mysteriously died; dead men tell no tales.

I don’t have time here to go through the entire application by the Republic of South Africa, the request for provisional measures of protection, and six hours of oral arguments before the World Court by two teams of lawyer on both sides. By the way, if you were following those hearings, I did all those arguments myself for Bosnia-Herzegovina. What I want to point out here, however, is from my perspective, the most critical factor you will note if you listen to the hearings. That was argumentation back and forth over my original order for the Bosnians. The British lawyer representing Israel, [Christopher] Staker, lied through his teeth about the meaning of my first order. He lied. Let me read to you from my first order that I won. He lied about this; he said it didn’t mean what it said it said:

“Unanimously, the Government of Yugoslavia should immediately in pursuance of its undertaking in the Convention of Genocide, take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide.”

He lied about that, and I have been saying all along in my interviews, at a minimum, the Republic of South Africa will win a provisional measure like that on behalf of the Palestinians as precedent.

Second, the British lawyer Staker tried to explain away and minimize another—and by the way, that measure was then reaffirmed in the second order I won before the World Court, which Staker didn’t point out, by 13 votes to 2. Reaffirms the provisional measure indicated in Paragraph 52A1 of the order made by the court in April 1993, which should be immediately and effectively implemented. Only the Russian judge and the Serb judge ad hoc ruled against me. And of course, Russia and Serbia were working in cahoots with each other.

Now, Staker did not lie about this provision here, but he tried to explain away and discount its significance. Let me repeat it: “Unanimously, the Government of Yugoslavia and the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina should not take any action, and should insure that no action is taken which may aggravate or expand the existing dispute over the prevention or punishment of the crime of genocide or render it more difficult of solution.” I believe I got that measure because I figured that we would obey the order, and Yugoslavia under Milosevic was going to grossly disobey it. And I wanted to entrap Yugoslavia in massive breaches of all areas of international law, not just the Genocide Convention. This measure was reaffirmed in the second order I won “By 14 votes to 1 reaffirms the provisional measure indicated in Paragraph 52b of the order made by the court on 8 April 1993, which should be immediately and effectively implemented.” Notice, 14 to 1; even the Russian judge agreed with that, only the Serb judge ad hoc voted against me.

Now, as for the third measure of provisional protection I won for the Bosnians, the Republic of South Africa asked for a modified version of this measure. It’s been modified for the circumstances of the Palestinians’ case. “By 13 votes to 1, the Government of Yugoslavia should in particular insure … do not commit any acts of genocide, of conspiracy to commit genocide, of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, or of complicity in genocide whether directed against the Muslim population of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or against any other national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” At the time, Bosnia had—and still has—about 10 different racial, ethnic, national groups. I got them all protected. Primarily Muslims, but not exclusively, Croats, Jews, Turks, Roma, and others; I got them all protected.

In this case, of course, it’s just the Palestinians, so that’s why that measure has been modified by the Republic of South Africa. And again, in my second order, 13 votes to 2; only the Russian judge and the Serb ad hoc judge voting against me. “Reaffirms the provisional measure indicated in Paragraph 50A2 of the order, which should be immediately and effectively implemented.”

So, that is why, just as a straight-out legal matter, I believe that the Republic of South Africa should win those three provisional measures of protection. But again, as a political matter, massive pressure is being applied. I’m sure those judges of the World Court today are being blackmailed, threatened, bullied, and intimidated by the United States and Israel and their supporters to rule against the Republic of South Africa.

Finally, let me get into the complicity of the Biden administration and the British for sure. This is a complicity to commit genocide in violation of Article 3, Paragraph E of the Genocide Convention that criminalizes complicity in genocide. I was in a similar situation for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Pursuant to my advice, Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović authorized me, on November 15, 1993, to sue Britain at the International Court of Justice for aiding and abetting genocide against the Bosnians; which I set out to do and was fully prepared to do when the British threatened to starve the Bosnians if I actually filed the lawsuit. Though at that time, I was in negotiations with the court for the hearing in my complaint against Britain.

I believe that’s the end of my 10 minutes. I’ve given you my assessment of the current situation. That’s where we stand, and I’m very happy to be here today. I hope I’ve given you something to think about. Thank you, Dennis.

SPEED: Helga, I want to give you a chance to respond, see if there’s anything you wish to ask, or any other remarks you have.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, thank you, Professor Boyle. I remember our cooperation at the time of the Bosnia-Herzegovina and Srebrenica situation. I’m very happy to see you doing well.

I only have one question. What is it that the international peace movement could do to try to make sure that the legal expertise which you presented, which is obviously a factor in the situation, that that becomes more a topic of discussion so that the ability to influence the outcome of the these judges and the ruling of these judges is being minimized?

BOYLE: Well, Helga, I’ve been giving all the interviews I possibly can. But because of Zionist control and domination of Western news media sources, I’ve been blackballed and black-listed out of all mainstream Western news media sources. So, I guess you can just get the message out. For example, the lecture I just gave today. You could get it out around the world as best you can; you have my permission to use this lecture, certainly.

SPEED: Professor Boyle, we have one question that did come in from one of our main people, Jason Ross, who asks you this: “Craig Murray, reporting from the public gallery at the International Court of Justice, wrote that the judges ‘looked visibly relieved’ when attorney Malcolm Shaw raised the issue of the existence of a formal dispute between South Africa and Israel. ‘This gave them a way out,’ writes Murray. The case could be technically invalid, and then they would neither have to upset the major Western powers, nor make fools of themselves, by pretending that a genocide the whole world has seen was not happening.’

“Professor Boyle, was this raised as an issue in your own case against Yugoslavia? Do you think Shaw’s argument holds any weight before the International Court of Justice?”

BOYLE: Look, you say that Craig—I wasn’t there, but this could provide the judges of the court a way not to rule; a technical argument out. As I said, it’s been reported that Israel is bringing massive pressure upon these judges. I would say blackmail, threats, intimidation to rule against South Africa, just like they did to Goldstone on the Goldstone Report. Now as for Shaw’s technical argument legally, look here, President Izetbegović appointed me Bosnia’s ambassador to the World Court on a Friday afternoon at about 4pm. I went back to the hotel, cleared out, got on the 8pm plane from JFK to The Hague, and then sued them. The Yugos had no notice from us that I was going to sue them. There were no negotiations over genocide, there was nothing. I just sued the SOBs. The Yugos were first informed on Monday of my lawsuit. The World Court had no problem with that.

As for the British lawsuit, I appeared with the Bosnian ambassador at UN headquarters in New York at a press conference at the end of July 1993, where I publicly threatened to sue all five permanent members of the Security Council. So, at least the British were on notice, but the Yugos had no notice. What can I say?

I did want to point out one other thing. The world news media is dismissing an order which I believe South Africa will win, saying it will have no significance. Excuse me. After I won my first World Court order for the Bosnians, I walked out of the grand courtroom to hold a press conference right there in the foyer with the entire world news media in front of me. I held up my order and I said, “Look here. The World Court has just ruled that genocide is going on in Bosnia. Under Article I of the Genocide Convention, every state party to the Genocide Convention has an obligation to prevent the genocide by Yugoslavia against the Bosnians. Therefore, I am calling for direct military intervention by the United States and the NATO states to save the Bosnians from extermination by Yugoslavia.” A few hours later, Washington, D.C. and NATO headquarters announced that they were instituting a no-fly zone over Bosnia with their own jet fighters, and they would shoot down any Yugoslav jets, airplanes, or helicopters that intruded on Bosnian air space. The Yugos could no longer murder Bosnians from the sky.

So, if and when South Africa wins this order, it could have very significant consequences for Israel. We’ll just have to see what happens. Again, yes, Murray is right; like Goldstone, the judges might succumb to pressure and rely on Shaw’s argument. But as I said, Shaw’s argument created no problems for me when I successfully sued the Yugos and won those three orders.

SPEED: We have one more question for you: “I also have a question. In case the ICJ decides provisional measures, can this be a sufficient legal basis to pursue then in different countries those who minimize and support genocide?”

BOYLE: Yes. Under the Rome statute for the International Criminal Court, genocide is a crime. And the Rome statute states are required to have domestic implementing legislation for the Rome statute, including genocide. Now, I cannot say precisely what all those Rome statutes say—there are 120 or something—what that domestic implementing statute says. It depends on the law of the state; it does not have to be consistent. But, to give you an example, I filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court against Bush-Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Tenet, Rice, and the rest of them, for a policy of extraordinary rendition, which is a euphemism for the enforced disappearance of human beings and torture of them. Now, Bush, Jr. after he retired, announced he was going to Geneva to give a speech. So, Geneva NGOs contacted a Swiss parliamentarian, and the Swiss parliamentarian publicly demanded that on the basis of my complaint, the Swiss federal prosecutor indict Bush, Jr. when he showed up in Geneva for violating the Swiss domestic implementing legislation for the Rome Statute on torture. That was headlines in the Geneva Tribune. That got back to Bush, and he never showed up in Switzerland. So, yes, this can be done, but again, it all depends on—there is this principle of universal jurisdiction, but it all depends on the law and the procedure of every state in the world.

I was involved in an attempt to prosecute Sharon, Yaron, Elie Hobeika, and Rafael Etan in Belgium under their universal jurisdiction statute for the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. We were doing quite well, and then Rumsfeld publicly threatened Belgium that if they didn’t change that statute, he would move NATO headquarters from Brussels. Whereupon, the Belgians caved in, and changed the statute, and our lawsuit was out.

So, there’s no hard and fast rule. I would have to work with attorneys—I was there working with Belgian attorneys who asked me to get involved, because I had sued General Yaron here in the United States for the massacre of Sabra and Shatila for a group of women who were next of kin. That was the first lawsuit, to the best of my knowledge, ever filed against an Israeli official for a massacre against anyone. So, it all depends on each state; what their laws say, what their procedures are, etc. To do that, I would have to work with experts on international law, constitutional law, criminal law in those countries to see if we can do it.

SPEED: I want to thank you for being with us, and what you’ve been saying and your consistency and your fight on these matters. That’s what our International Peace Coalition is trying to bring to the fore. We’ll certainly welcome you back whenever you’d like to more involved, or as involved as you can be. We want to thank you for being with us today.

BOYLE: I did want to sincerely thank Helga and her associates for providing enormous assistance to the Bosnians in the genocide against them. I remember distinctly going over to Brussels to speak at the European Parliament in a conference organized by Helga and her associates with the Bosnians. I just wanted to acknowledge that before you move on to your next speaker.

SPEED: Thank you very much for that. We’re certainly going to be consulting with you again.

Closing Remarks

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: “I think this was a very productive session. I think a lot of marching orders should come out of that. …”

“Then naturally, I would urge people to take the remarks of Professor Boyle and indeed make them known. Do outreach to other jurists, legal professionals, because I think this is also a wake-up call for all the law professionals to take the question of putting the world back into a legal shape, a legal order.”

 

Se vidare i Schillerinstitutets uttalande om Folkmordet på Gaza fördöms av Världsdomstolen; nu måste vi stoppa det! Uttalande av Internationella Schillerinstitutet på många språk ENGELSKA FRANSKA SPANSKA DANSKA : Algeriets regering meddelade under helgen att man begärt att FN:s säkerhetsråd snarast sammankallas nu på onsdag, den 31 januari, för att ge “bindande verkan” åt Internationella domstolens (ICJ) historiska beslut den 26 januari i frågan om Sydafrikas anklagelser om israeliskt folkmord mot palestinierna i Gaza. https://schillerinstitutet.se/folkmordet-pa-gaza-fordoms-av-varldsdomstolen-nu-maste-vi-stoppa-det/

 

Se Riksdagsdebatten om Israels folkmord i Gaza: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/webb-tv/video/interpellationsdebatt/suspendering-av-israels-associeringsavtal_hb10341/

 

Här finns utskriften och lite mer som sas på Internationella fredskoalionens Zoommöte den 19.1 2024: https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/2024/01/helga-zepp-larouche-og-professor-francis-boyle-taler-til-den-internationale-fredskoalition-den-19-januar-2024/

 

Här är början på professor Boyles uttalande publicerat i EIR; https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/unlisted/2024/eirv51n04-20240126/0c3yGcSwF1NzKsDxWM-xHus/5104-israel_lied_through_their_teet.html?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=EIR%20-%20January%2026%202024&utm_medium=email

 

Se vidare i Schillerinstitutets uttalande om varför Sverige absolut måste avstå från att militärt stöda Israel i dess konflikt med Jemen om trafiken på Röda havet: https://schillerinstitutet.se/sverige-far-inte-stoda-israels-folkmord-i-gaza-nej-till-krig-mot-jemen/

 

Och: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2014406-om-straff-for-folkmord-brott-mot_sfs-2014-406/

 

Lyssna på Diane Sares video där hon har med det avsnitt där Världsdomstolens chefsdomare Joan Donoghue ses läsa upp det domstolen bestämt att Israel måste göra för att skydda Gazas befolkning. “Colonel Macgregor is wrong! America must abide by the ICJ ruling” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXSiGB7wlU

Lyssna på Harley Schlangers genomgång: https://laroucheorganization.com/article/2024/01/30/there-no-rules-based-order

 

För mer information eller intresse att delta i Internationella fredskoalitionens Zoommöte på fredagar kl 17.00, kontakta Ulf Sandmark Ordförande i Schillerinstitutet, ulf.sandmark@nysol.se, 0736937896