Shawan Jabarin wants to know when enough will be enough: When will the death toll in Gaza be high enough for US President Joe Biden to end his unequivocal military and diplomatic support for Israel?
“How many Palestinian civilians will have to be killed until he says: ‘This number is enough’? How much? Two million Palestinians? A million? 700,000? It would be nice if he could tell us which number awakens his human consciousness.”
Jabarin, director general of the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, said Israel’s war against the Gaza Strip would not be possible without U.S. support.
Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 25,000 Palestinians, and United Nations officials and other experts have repeatedly warned of a risk of genocide.
Yet since the war began in early October, the Biden administration has bypassed Congress to greenlight arms sales to Israel and blocked efforts to secure a ceasefire.
That’s why Al-Haq, alongside two other advocacy groups and war-affected Palestinians, filed a lawsuit in the United States late last year, accusing Biden and other senior American leaders of being complicit in the genocide.
The first hearing in this case is set for January 26 in federal court in California.
“Without American support – military and political – nothing like this (this) could have happened,” Jabarin told Tel Aviv Tribune in a telephone interview from Ramallah. “The United States is not indirectly complicit. No, directly. They are helping to commit genocide in Gaza.
The case
Filed in mid-November, the complaint (PDF) accuses the Biden administration of failing to fulfill its responsibilities under international and domestic law to prevent genocide.
The 1948 Genocide Convention, ratified by the United States, states that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which (state parties) undertake to prevent and punish. He also emphasizes that “complicity in genocide” is a punishable act.
Furthermore, obligations to prevent and punish genocide have been recognized as part of “customary international law” – a term that refers to “a general practice accepted as law”.
Relying on these laws, the lawsuit alleges that “the United States has been obliged, from the moment it became aware of the specter of genocide of the Palestinian people, to exercise its clear and considerable influence over Israel to prevent this serious crime to occur.”
The complaint names three defendants: Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. He claims that they “not only failed in the country’s obligation to prevent genocide, but also helped create the conditions necessary for its development.”
The lawsuit also highlights that U.S. leaders were fully aware of Israel’s “genocidal” goals. “Dehumanizing” remarks from senior Israeli officials, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, demonstrated a clear intention to continue the “erasure and destruction of Palestinians,” he says.
Gallant, for example, called Palestinians “human animals” when he ordered a total siege of Gaza in early October. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also declared: “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price,” before ordering the Palestinians to “leave” Gaza.
“These statements were not mere rhetoric. Israeli officials have said what they want to say and (they) do what they say,” said Katherine Gallagher, senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), one of the organizations involved in the case. .
“States that have the capacity to influence a country that is at serious risk of committing – if it has not already committed – genocide must take all measures in their power to prevent it,” she said. at Tel Aviv Tribune. “And the United States didn’t do it. Instead, he offered unconditional military support, financial backing, diplomatic cover and support for Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign.
Gallagher explained that the plaintiffs are asking a district court to declare that the United States failed in its obligations to prevent genocide. They are also seeking a preliminary injunction ordering officials to “take all steps within their power” to carry out their legal responsibilities.
“This would mean cutting and stopping military support for the genocide,” she said.
Defense of the government
But the Biden administration has requested that the lawsuit be dismissed. In a December filing (PDF), he argued that the court was being asked to “interfere in areas within the political branches of government and violate the constitutional separation of powers.”
Since foreign policy is decided by the executive branch and not the courts, the lawsuit “should be dismissed as non-justiciable,” the filing says.
Oona Hathaway, a law professor at Yale University Law School, explained that this argument – known as the political question doctrine – is commonly used in foreign policy cases, particularly in disputes of the use of American military force abroad.
“I think there is a good chance that a court will decide that this case (of American complicity in genocide) is barred by the political question doctrine,” Hathaway told Tel Aviv Tribune.
“I will say that I myself am really not a fan of the political question doctrine because I think it means that violations of the law often go unanswered,” she said. “The truth is that if the courts do not address potential violations of the law, the chances of Congress doing so are extremely slim.”
Hathaway questioned whether the Federal Court would allow the claim to move to the merits stage, where the parties would present reasons why their arguments should prevail. But even if that doesn’t happen, Hathaway said the plaintiffs likely hope to “start a conversation” and draw attention to the situation in Gaza.
“I think this helps raise the profile of these concerns and ensure that lawmakers and the American public are aware that there are potential legal obligations for the United States, not just Israel, that are relevant in this conflict.”
Effort “to stop this genocide”
For their part, the plaintiffs rejected the government’s use of the political question doctrine.
“These are not trivial policy decisions made by the executive branch,” Gallagher said. “This is a law-abiding matter, and no one, including the President of the United States, can have the authority to commit or fail to prevent genocide. »
“There are a lot of big legal issues here,” she continued. “Yes, it is about respecting the obligations of international law, but not in an abstract way. It’s really about trying to save lives and put an end to this genocide.
Al-Haq’s Jabarin said he hoped the Federal Court would rule in their favor, calling the case “unprecedented.”
“It’s important, I think, for the American system, the justice system. And this is important for the victims and for all those who believe in the rule of law… as well as peace, justice and dignity.
