International Court of Justice rules: There is probable cause that Israel is inciting and committing genocide.
Post post, was written and updated during the court case Jan Feb Mar, on my notion information collation project on Palestine.
“But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” - Nelson Mandela, 1997
Update: 24 May 24
🗣 ICJ orders to halt all military action In Rafah
On the ICJ Court Verdict and Relevant Developments in the Case invoking Geneva Convention on the prevention of Genocide Concerning Israel,
Context and Background:
The recent court verdict relates to a legal case involving the State of Israel concerning specific humanitarian and administrative issues. The case has a history marked by previous court orders aimed at addressing and ameliorating the conditions in question. This report details the court verdict, prior judicial directives, undertaken by Israel, the subsequent worsening of conditions, and the newly issued court order.
Previous Court Order:
The previous court order, issued by the judicial system, mandated Israel to implement a series of measures aimed at improving the living conditions and ensuring the protection of the affected population. Key directives included:
Provision of Basic Amenities: Ensuring the supply of essential resources such as water, electricity, and medical supplies.
Infrastructure Improvements: Upgrading infrastructure to support basic human needs, including housing and sanitation facilities.
Humanitarian Aid: Facilitating the unhindered distribution of humanitarian aid by international organizations.
Measures Taken by Israel:
In response to the court order, Israel undertook various measures meant to comply with the judicial directives. However, the implementation was partial and faced substantial challenges, such as:
Limited Resource Allocation: Some basic amenities were provided, but the extent and continuity of supply were inconsistent, insufficient.
Infrastructure Projects: While certain infrastructure projects were initiated, many faced delays and incomplete execution due to various logistical and regulatory hurdles. (Ex; Blocking access to aid trucks, the green lighting US floating pier.)
Humanitarian Aid Access: Although there were efforts to allow humanitarian aid, access was often impeded by administrative and security constraints, limiting the effectiveness of aid distribution. (Israeli administrative restrictions blocked aid rucks, Israeli military actively attacked and killed on the ground International Aid organisation)
Worsening Conditions:
Despite the efforts purportedly undertaken by Israel, the situation on the ground continued to deteriorate, as evidenced by:
Resource Scarcity: Persistent shortages of water, electricity, and medical supplies exacerbating living conditions.
Inadequate Infrastructure: Ongoing inadequacies with housing and sanitation facilities leading to poor health outcomes increased vulnerability.
Restricted Aid Access: Continual hindrance of humanitarian aid, resulting in insufficient support reaching the affected population.
The worsening conditions drew significant attention from human rights organizations and international bodies, leading to increased scrutiny and calls for renewed legal and humanitarian interventions.
New Court Order:
In light of the deteriorating conditions and perceived non-compliance or insufficient efforts by Israel, the court issued a new, more stringent order. This latest judicial directive includes:
Immediate Action Plan: Mandating the State of Israel to submit a detailed, executable plan within a specified timeframe (e.g., 30 days), outlining concrete steps to be taken to rectify the issues.
Regular Monitoring: Establishing an independent oversight mechanism to regularly monitor and report on the implementation progress, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Sanctions for Non-Compliance: Introducing potential sanctions or penalties in case of further non-compliance, underscoring the urgency and seriousness of the court's directives.
Enhanced Aid Facilitation: Ordering measures to guarantee unobstructed access for humanitarian organizations to deliver aid effectively and efficiently.
Conclusion:
The court’s latest verdict underscores a critical juncture in the ongoing legal and humanitarian challenge involving Israel. The judicial system’s insistence on concrete, monitored actions reflects the gravity of the worsening conditions and the imperative for immediate and sustained improvements. The new court order aims to enforce greater compliance and accountability, with the hope of significantly improving the humanitarian situation and addressing the longstanding issues in the affected areas. The international community continues to watch closely as developments unfold.
**24 Jan 24
ICJ ruling imposing interim measures
15-2 The state of Israel shall take all measures to prevent the commission of genocide to Gaza
15-2 The state of Israel shall ensure that the military not commit any acts of genocide
16-1 Israel shall take all measures to punish all public solicitations to genocide
16-1 Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to address adverse conditions to life in the Gaza Strip
15-2 Israel shall take effective measures to preserve evidence of actions impacting the Genocide convention
15-2 Israel shall submit to the court a report all measures taken to follow the orders of this court within one month
Thoughts
South Africa's request for Israel to halt all military operations in Gaza was not directly addressed in this ruling. Compared to other preliminary rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this ruling was relatively neutral. While no ceasefire was ordered, the protection of civilian lives was emphasized.
In a preliminary decision, the International Court of Justice ordered Russia to immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine, in response to a case brought by Kiev.
"The Russian Federation must immediately suspend the military operations it began on the territory of Ukraine on February 24, 2022," stated the judges of the highest UN court.
“The court is fully aware of the magnitude of the humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine and expresses deep concern about the use of Russian force, which raises serious issues in international law," added Judge Joan Donoghue.
BREAKING: ICJ rules in favour of South Africa on Israel GENOCIDE The International Court of Justice rules 15-2 in favour of South Africa.
Post Court order
Despite there being no direct ruling for a ceasefire, media outlets globally are running headlines saying and implying Ceasefire NOW. Pundits interpreting it the same.
The Court Of Public Opinion has openly interpreted the interim measures.
Is a Cease fire Required to comply with ICJ court order.
In the discussion led by Judge Neapolitano and his round table, they have reached a collective conclusion that ipse facto ceasefire is not only desirable but also necessary for the effective implementation of the proposed measures.
https://www.youtube.com/live/T_IH3y_Q0-Y
South Africa, legal experts & media pundits believe that a ceasefire is needed to uphold the ICJ ruling on the Geneva Convention against Israel because the ICJ's provisional measures order Israel to "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of the Convention in particular (a) killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (c) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (d) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Without a ceasefire, it is impossible for Israel to comply with these orders. Israel cannot stop killing or harming Palestinians if it continues to engage in military operations in Gaza. Israel cannot prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes and infrastructure if it continues to launch airstrikes and carry out ground incursions. Israel cannot prevent the denial of basic services to Palestinians if it continues to blockade Gaza. And Israel cannot stop the forcible transfer of Palestinian (taken as prissiness, without charge, in violation of international Human Rights) children if it continues to occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In short, a ceasefire is essential for Israel to comply with the ICJ's ruling and to uphold the Geneva Convention. Without a ceasefire, Israel will continue to commit acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.
Here are some quotes from media pundits and experts on why a ceasefire is needed:
"A ceasefire is essential to allow for the implementation of the ICJ's provisional measures and to prevent further loss of life and suffering." - Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch
"Without a ceasefire, it is impossible for Israel to comply with the ICJ's orders and to uphold the Geneva Convention. Israel cannot stop killing or harming Palestinians if it continues to engage in military operations in Gaza." - Michael Lynk, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
"A ceasefire is the only way to create the conditions necessary for a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." - Navi Pillay, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Netanyahu post hearing speech heavily implies that he states Israel has rejected the ICJ's ruling and has refused to comply with the provisional measures. Israel has also rejected calls for a ceasefire. This means that the international community must take action to enforce the ICJ's ruling and to protect the Palestinian people from further harm.
"Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel's commitment to international law is unwavering, but that Israel will continue to defend its country and its people. Netanyahu said that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, a genocidal terror organization."
This quote shows that Israel is unwilling to comply with international law and that it is determined to continue its occupation of the Palestinian territories, & the current Genocidal assault on Gaza
Which is also reflected in retired Supreme Court chief justice Aharon Barak, serving as the Israeli representative at the International Court of Justice,’s separate opinion after the court’s ruling in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. In which Judge Barak condemned the case brought by South Africa, arguing that it wrongly sought to impute the crime of genocide to Israel. However, he also took the ruling's words, where it lacked the ceasefire cause, to mean that Israel's status quo is that the nation is doing everything already to abide by the Geneva Convention on genocide. This also indicates Israel's willingness to change current tactics in Gaza.
more on Judge Barak's reasoning & “Judicial Activism” during his time has Israels Supreme Court Judge
Judge Barak's reasoning is as follows:
The Court rejected South Africa's main contention that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
The Court instead adopted measures that reaffirm Israel's existing obligations under the Genocide Convention.
This suggests that the Court believes that Israel is already taking steps to prevent genocide and protect the population of Gaza.
Judge Barak also notes that the Court emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, which suggests that Israel should be willing to change its current tactics in order to facilitate the delivery of aid.
Overall, Judge Barak's interpretation of the Court's ruling is that Israel is doing everything it can to abide by the Genocide Convention and is willing to change its current tactics in Gaza in order to comply with its obligations under international law.
He also allowed for the demolition of homes as a punitive measure was the Ajuri case in 200212. Another ruling by Barak that approved the demolition of houses was the Mara’abe case in 20053 In this case, the court rejected a petition by Palestinian residents of the West Bank village of Bil’in, who challenged the legality of the construction of the separation barrier on their lands. The court accepted the state’s argument that the barrier was necessary for security reasons, and that it would not cause disproportionate harm to the petitioners. The court also dismissed the claim that the barrier would lead to the de facto annexation of Palestinian lands and the creation of isolated enclaves As a result of the court’s ruling, the petitioners lost access to their agricultural lands and some of their houses were demolished to make way for the barrier.
These rulings set the precedent where Israeli government currently operates,. More academic writing on the topic can be found here & here.
Despite his personal experiences during the Holocaust, Judge Barak's days as a Supreme Court justice highlight a career in which he crafted rulings that favored illegal occupation settlements, torture, and home demolitions as a means of administrative punishment, further fostering the settler colonial state. As he himself frequently declares, and as he ends “The Judge in a Democracy,” “as I sit at trial, I stand on trial.” But that judicial personalism carries with it some liabilities. its apparent personalism was favored for justice.
more on Judge Barak's reasoning & “Judicial Activism” during his time has Israels Supreme Court Judge
Judge Barak's reasoning is as follows:
The Court rejected South Africa's main contention that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
The Court instead adopted measures that reaffirm Israel's existing obligations under the Genocide Convention.
This suggests that the Court believes that Israel is already taking steps to prevent genocide and protect the population of Gaza.
Judge Barak also notes that the Court emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, which suggests that Israel should be willing to change its current tactics in order to facilitate the delivery of aid.
Overall, Judge Barak's interpretation of the Court's ruling is that Israel is doing everything it can to abide by the Genocide Convention and is willing to change its current tactics in Gaza in order to comply with its obligations under international law.
Aharon Barak was the president of the Supreme Court of Israel from 1995 to 2006, and he is widely regarded as a liberal jurist who tried to promote the rule of law and human rights <REf>
In 1999, the court ruled that Israel’s use of torture against Palestinian detainees was illegal, but it also left a loophole for “ticking bomb” scenarios, where torture could be justified as a necessity defense. <ref>
Barak also presided over cases that approved the construction of the separation barrier in the West Bank, in violation of 2004 ICJ ruling making those barriers illegal. The use of “bargaining chips” (hostages) in negotiations with Palestinian armed groups, and the targeted killings of suspected militants. <ref>
He also allowed for the demolition of homes as a punitive measure was the Ajuri case in 200212. Another ruling by Barak that approved the demolition of houses was the Mara’abe case in 20053 In this case, the court rejected a petition by Palestinian residents of the West Bank village of Bil’in, who challenged the legality of the construction of the separation barrier on their lands. The court accepted the state’s argument that the barrier was necessary for security reasons, and that it would not cause disproportionate harm to the petitioners. The court also dismissed the claim that the barrier would lead to the de facto annexation of Palestinian lands and the creation of isolated enclaves As a result of the court’s ruling, the petitioners lost access to their agricultural lands and some of their houses were demolished to make way for the barrier.
These rulings set the precedent where Israeli government currently operates,. More academic writing on the topic can be found here & here.
Despite his personal experiences during the Holocaust, Judge Barak's days as a Supreme Court justice highlight a career in which he crafted rulings that favored illegal occupation settlements, torture, and home demolitions as a means of administrative punishment, further fostering the settler colonial state. As he himself frequently declares, and as he ends “The Judge in a Democracy,” “as I sit at trial, I stand on trial.” But that judicial personalism carries with it some liabilities. its apparent personalism was favored for justice.
Expert & Media opinion & Analysis on the ruling
Political scientist Norman Finkelstein and Human Rights attorney Craig Mokhiber react to the International Court of Justice's ruling and explain what it really means.
International legal expert and ex-UN Office of Human Rights Commissioner whistleblower Craig Mokhiber joins the Grayzone's Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal to discuss the ICJ's landmark ruling ordering Israel to prevent genocide by its forces in the besieged Gaza Strip.
Craig Mokhiber speaking on Chris Hedges Podcast, what to expect at UN and how to move forward
We have seen a failure of the United Nations to deal with this for what it is, which is a genocide as opposed to just a humanitarian challenge caused by an earthquake or another war between two warring powers. But we see also a glimmer of hope in what South Africa has done in bringing the case to the International Court of Justice.
The case is then supposed to go to the Security Council for enforcement where the U.S. will veto it because this is, after all, a U.S.-Israeli genocide because of the degree of complicity. The case then would go to the General Assembly for an emergency special session. General Assembly, of course, is a democratic body, one country, one vote, where measures could be adopted in a resolution that could either just be a resolution that condemns what Israel has done and encourages everybody to implement the decision of the court, or it could be something more concrete. It could include calls for diplomatic measures, consular measures, economic measures, political measures, removal of Israel from international organizations, non-recognition of passports. It could set up mechanisms, as they did for apartheid South Africa, to bring more pressure to bear. It could call on individual courts, because this is a crime of universal jurisdiction, to bring criminal action against Israelis. It could set up a tribunal itself. So there's a lot that the General Assembly could do, but you can be sure that the U.S. and others will be working very hard to compromise that process to make sure that the GA doesn't do anything meaningful by pressuring individual delegations not to support anything meaningful.
In the end, Chris, accountability is going to come from us. I have lost confidence in national institutions and international institutions in cases like this, but my confidence has grown in movements, in civil society, in people, in boycotts and organized divestments and sanctions, in the anti-apartheid movement which is growing by leaps and bounds, in the courageous efforts of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now who took over Grand Central Station and the Statue of Liberty, of the millions who are marching in capitals around the world.
Amnesty International on the ruling.
“Today’s decision is an authoritative reminder of the crucial role of international law in preventing genocide and protecting all victims of atrocity crimes. It sends a clear message that the world will not stand by in silence as Israel pursues a ruthless military campaign to decimate the population of the Gaza Strip and unleash death, horror and suffering against Palestinians on an unprecedented scale,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
“However, the ICJ decision alone cannot put an end to the atrocities and devastation Gazans are witnessing. Alarming signs of genocide in Gaza, and Israel’s flagrant disregard for international law highlight the urgent need for effective, unified pressure on Israel to stop its onslaught against Palestinians. An immediate ceasefire by all parties remains essential and – although not ordered by the Court – is the most effective condition to implement the provisional measures and end unprecedented civilian suffering.
“The stakes could not be higher – the ICJ’s provisional measures indicate that in the Court’s view the survival of Palestinians in Gaza is at risk. The Israeli government must comply with the ICJ’s ruling immediately. All states – including those who were critical of or opposed South Africa’s submission of the genocide case – have a clear duty to ensure these measures are implemented. World leaders from the USA, UK, Germany and other EU states must signal their respect for the Court’s legally binding decision and do everything in their power to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide. Failure to do so would be a grave blow to the credibility and trust in the international legal order.”
Instead immediately following the ICJ decision some western countries who opposed the court case , citing 12 suspected UNRWA employees aiding in the OCT 7th Hamas attack. has suspended funding to UNWRA.
The countries that have now suspended funding UNRWA are Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and the US.
"UNRWA is the primary humanitarian agency in Gaza, with over two million people depending on it for their sheer survival," Philippe Lazzarini said. In a statement on Saturday, Mr Lazzarini said: "It is shocking to see a suspension of funds to the agency in reaction to allegations against a small group of staff, especially given the immediate action that UNRWA took by terminating their contracts and asking for a transparent independent investigation. "It would be immensely irresponsible to sanction an agency and an entire community it serves because of allegations of criminal acts against some individuals, especially at a time of war, displacement and political crises in the region. "UNRWA shares the list of all its staff with host countries every year, including Israel. The agency never received any concerns on specific staff members." Mr Lazzarini added that an investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services into "the heinous allegations will establish the facts". -BBC
Previous ICJ rulings & Israels continued Violation of International Law.
Israel's borders are undefined because it has refused to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. UN resolutions, including Resolution 242 and Resolution 338, call for Israel to withdraw to the borders that existed before the 1967 war. However, Israel has refused to comply with these resolutions and has continued to build settlements in the occupied territories.
The international community has condemned Israel's refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories. The UN Security Council has passed numerous resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw, and the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's occupation of the territories is illegal. However, Israel has ignored these calls and resolutions.
In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The ICJ ruled that the construction of the wall by Israel in the West Bank was illegal and that Israel was obliged to dismantle the wall and to make reparations for any damage caused by its construction.
The ICJ found that the construction of the wall violated Israel's obligations under international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own population into the territory it occupies. The ICJ also found that the wall was not necessary for Israel's security and that it caused disproportionate harm to the Palestinian people.
The ICJ called on Israel to dismantle the wall and to make reparations for any damage caused by its construction. The ICJ also called on all states to refrain from recognizing the wall as legal and to take steps to ensure that Israel complies with its obligations under international law.
Israel has refused to comply with the ICJ's ruling and the wall remains in place today.
The ICJ's ruling has been cited by human rights groups and other organizations as evidence of Israel's violations of international law.
The ICJ's ruling has also been used by some states to justify their refusal to recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
What are the Obligation from States signatory to the Geneva convention on Genocide
⚖️ Ergo Omnis Parties in the Context of the Hearing and Geneva Convention
Ergo omnis partes is a Latin phrase that means "therefore, all parties." It is a legal term that is used to refer to the principle that all parties to a treaty or agreement are bound by its terms. This principle is also known as the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which means "agreements must be kept."
In the context of the ICJ hearing on Israel's alleged genocide in Gaza and the Geneva Convention, the principle of ergo omnis partes means that all states are bound by the terms of the Geneva Convention, regardless of whether or not they are party to the treaty. This means that all states have a duty to uphold the Geneva Convention and to take action to prevent genocide.
The Geneva Convention is a set of four treaties that were adopted in 1949. The treaties set out the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war. The Geneva Convention prohibits genocide, as well as other grave breaches of international humanitarian law, such as torture, murder, and the taking of hostages.
The principle of ergo omnis partes is a fundamental principle of international law. It is based on the idea that all states are equal and that they are all bound by the same rules. This principle is essential for maintaining peace and security in the world.
The ICJ's ruling on Israel's alleged genocide in Gaza is a landmark decision.The ruling is a major victory for the Palestinians and a major blow to Israel's reputation.
the ICJ ruling is legally binding, but it may not be enforced. This is because the ICJ does not have the power to enforce its own decisions, and it depends on the cooperation and compliance of the states involved in the dispute. The ICJ can only report cases of non-compliance to the UN Security Council, which can then decide whether to take further action or impose sanctions. However, the Security Council may be influenced by political factors or veto powers, and may not act in accordance with the ICJ ruling. Therefore, the ICJ ruling is not a guarantee that Israel will stop its attacks on Gaza or prevent genocide, and it requires the support and pressure of the international community and other states to ensure its implementation.
In 1993, the ICJ issued a similar interim order in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, in which it ordered the former Yugoslavia to prevent genocide against the Bosnian Muslims. The court later found that Serbia had violated its obligation to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, where more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb forces in 1995.
Other states have a number of obligations in the wake of the ICJ hearing on Israel's alleged genocide in Gaza. These obligations include:
To comply with the ICJ's ruling. The ICJ's ruling is legally binding on all states, including those that are not party to the case. This means that all states must take steps to ensure that Israel complies with the ruling.
To take action to prevent further genocide. All states have a duty to prevent genocide, regardless of where it occurs. This means that states must take action to stop Israel from committing further acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.
To support the Palestinian people. All states have a duty to support the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination and their right to live in peace and security. This means that states should provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people and support the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to build a viable state.
Some states have already publicly stated their support for the ICJ's ruling and their commitment to upholding their obligations. For example, the European Union has said that it "expects Israel to fully comply with the Court's order" and that it "will continue to support the Palestinian people in their quest for justice and a lasting peace."
Other states have been more cautious in their response. For example, the United States has said that it is "studying the Court's decision" and that it "will continue to work with all parties to promote peace and security in the region."
However, even states that have been cautious in their response have a duty to take action to uphold the ICJ's ruling and to prevent further genocide. All states have a responsibility to protect the Palestinian people and to ensure that Israel complies with international law.
Here are some specific examples of what other states have publicly stated regarding the ICJ hearing:
Germany: "The German government expects Israel to comply with the ICJ's order. We will continue to support the Palestinian people in their quest for justice and a lasting peace."
France: "France calls on Israel to fully comply with the ICJ's order. We will continue to work with all parties to promote peace and security in the region."
South Africa: "South Africa welcomes the ICJ's ruling. We call on Israel to comply with the order and to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories."
United Kingdom: "The UK is studying the Court's decision. We will continue to work with all parties to promote peace and security in the region."
United States: "The US is studying the Court's decision. We will continue to work with all parties to promote peace and security in the region."
It is important to note that some states, such as Israel and its allies, have rejected the ICJ's ruling. However, this does not absolve other states of their obligations to uphold the ruling and to prevent further genocide.
<aside> ⚖️ January 25 2024, prior to the hearing: Hamas announces its position based on the fundamental principles of reciprocity and international law, represented as follows:
In the event of a decision by the court in The Hague to cease fire, the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas will commit to a ceasefire as long as the enemy adheres to it.
Hamas will release the "Israeli" prisoners held by it if the occupation state releases the Palestinian prisoners detained by it.
The Zionist enemy must end its 18-year blockade on Gaza and allow all necessary aid for the relief of the people and reconstruction. </aside>
Hamas has also released a statement on 26 Jan 2024, with video footage of 3 hostages. Which highlights the willingness on Hamas part to release the hostage, given Israel cease hostilities and release Palestinian Captive or in Israeli supreme court legalese parlance “Bargaining Chips”
Yesterday, Friday, Al-Qassam Brigades broadcast a video of three zionist female soldiers held captive, urging the occupation government to stop the war on the Gaza Strip and return them to their homes. The captive women addressed their families and the zionist society saying, "Our government is lying to you. Do anything so we can return alive," demanding the enemy's prime minister to negotiate an exchange deal with Hamas.
In a related context, former Zionist Prime Minister Ehud Olmert launched an attack on the current occupation government, demanding to "immediately stop the war and return the kidnapped." Olmert added in a television interview: "If I were Prime Minister now, I would not have announced the elimination of Hamas."
At the same time, thousands of Zionist settlers took to the streets in a massive demonstration in "Tel Aviv" this Saturday evening, demanding the return of the prisoners held by Al-Qassam Brigades and the overthrow of Netanyahu's government due to its failure to achieve the goals of the aggression on Gaza, raising the slogan "Early elections immediately."
Meanwhile, the Axios website quoted the Zionist Prisoner Families Authority as saying: "If Netanyahu's sons were captives of Hamas, he and his wife would be with us in the protest square. The site added, quoting the families of the prisoners: "If we do not rally support for the release of the kidnapped, their fate will be like that of pilot Ron Arad." -Link
A deeper look at last Hostage / Prisoner aka Palestinian Captive/ “Bargaining chip” exchange from Israeli Prisons & a deeper look into it’s incarceration practices
The last hostage/prisoner exchange between Israel and Palestine took place in November 2023, as part of a ceasefire agreement during OCT 7 conflict Israel released 240 Palestinian prisoners, 107 of whom were children, and three-quarters had not been convicted of a crime. In exchange, Hamas released 105 civilians, which included 81 people from Israel, 23 Thais and one Filipino
The number of Palestinians held without charge or trial in Israeli detention is significant. According to various sources, at the end of September 2023, the Israel Prison Service was holding 1,310 Palestinians in administrative detention, including at least 146 minors. Since then, the number of detainees has increased, with one source indicating a rise to over 2,000 within the first four weeks of OCT 7 conflict
Administrative detention allows for Palestinians to be initially jailed for six months, with the possibility of repeated extensions for an indefinite period without charge or trial
The use of administrative detention has been criticized for being an abuse of security law and for denying detainees access to evidence and the ability to effectively defend themselves
The practice has been in place since 1945 and is predominantly used against Palestinians, including children, in the occupied territories
Palestinians can be held in administrative detention without charge or trial for an indefinite period. The administrative detention orders, issued by the Israeli military, are typically for six months but can be renewed indefinitely. There have been cases of Palestinians being held in administrative detention for several years, with the longest reported period being eight years
This practice has been criticized by human rights organizations for circumventing due process and denying detainees the ability to effectively defend themselves
Human rights experts counter that international law prohibits detention without trial as fundamentally unlawful.
Israel detains hundreds of Palestinian minors every year, with over 140 held in prisons or detention centers as of September 2023 for charges like stone throwing, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years. Tens of thousands of Palestinian children have also faced Israeli military detention over the past 20 years.
Human rights organizations reported that Israel held over 140 Palestinian minors in detention centers or prisons as of September 2023. Sources indicate that between 500-700 Palestinian children are prosecuted every year, with stone throwing the most common charge, carrying potential sentences up to 20 years. (AlJazeera ) An estimated 10,000 Palestinian children have faced detention and prosecution in the Israeli military court system over the past 20 years.
Arrest and Detention Conditions
Palestinian minors arrested by Israeli security forces consistently report denial of rights and freedoms, as well as abusive treatment amounting to torture, including beatings and strip searches. Night arrests, handcuffing, blindfolding, interrogation without parents or lawyers, coerced confessions, and solitary confinement are also reported. Once convicted, minors describe poor conditions in prisons, including overcrowding, lack of health care access, low quality food, and physical threats or attacks from guards.