Former United Nations rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, said that the “Gaza Court” works far from the barriers imposed by traditional national and international courts.
Falk added – in an exclusive interview with Tel Aviv Tribune Net – that the Gaza Court, which is an independent initiative based in London, seeks to overcome the obstacles that affect jurisdiction, the criminal scope, and decision-making related to these courts, pointing out that Israel is sensitive enough to the impact of negative rulings before International Court of Justice andInternational Criminal Courtand it uses all its influence to mitigate these effects, including exaggerated defamation, such as calling the United Nations a “vile swamp of anti-Semitism.”
Falk’s statements come at a time when the International Criminal Court on Thursday issued two arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and said that there are “logical reasons” to believe that they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.
Falk is an American Jew, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and a former United Nations rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. He was known for his positions against Israeli policies and in support of Palestinian rights, and the Israeli Foreign Ministry described him as not “welcome in Israel.”
And the details of the dialogue..
-
How did the idea of establishing the “Gaza Court” come about?
The idea of establishing a popular court or civil society court regarding the ongoing assault on besieged Palestinian civilians has long been seen as a valuable initiative, yet it was not until last May that we came up with a specific proposal with sufficient funding, through a group of participants in the Forum for Islamic Cooperation. Youth held in Turkey, and they invited me to be its president.
We carefully considered this proposal, and insisted on a strict pledge of political independence from all governments, politicians and diplomats.
In August 2024, when the genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip escalated, and the United Nations seemed unable to stop a ceasefire, and the United States unwilling to do so; We accepted this invitation and began planning the organization of the project structure from then on.
A successful meeting to launch the “Gaza Court” project was held in London at the end of last October and the beginning of this November, with the participation of many prominent scholars and activists and great interest from Palestinian community organizations working under harsh conditions in occupied Palestine.
The main reason for choosing London as the location to launch the initiative was to confirm our desire to be global rather than seeming like Turks, Palestinians, or whatever.
The diverse background of the participants in London gave full expression to this issue of identity, and London was logistically convenient, as we plan future meetings in several national locations.
-
What are the main objectives of this initiative?
I think there is a consensus that we would like to organize the Court in such a way that priority is given to the details of genocide as defined by international law and the Genocide Convention, in addition to a number of other objectives:
- We seek to complement the efforts of the International Court of Justice, by working more quickly and producing texts that are technically competent and can be read by anyone free from arcane legal complexities.
- The “Gaza Court” will operate far from the barriers imposed by traditional national and international courts, especially those that affect jurisdiction, criminal scope, and decision-making.
- The overall goal is to produce an accurate and comprehensive record of what has happened in Gaza – and the subsequent expansion of fighting regionally – since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
- Establish a civil society model for critically understanding and addressing international law, including the importance of the Gaza experience in the global system in order to develop an alternative educational model for understanding international law that seeks to critique traditional legal methods and approaches, and is more compatible with building links between law and justice.
- In the current situation, although its name contains the word “justice”; The International Court of Justice veers sharply towards a purely legal framework on the issues it is called upon to resolve, while in harsh circumstances such as Gaza, legalistic and populist approaches tend to converge in dealing with international law.
- Explaining and justifying a “judicial” procedure that does not give the accused or opponent due process, thus filling the gap that shortcomings in judicial processes create between governments even when they operate free from geopolitical interference.
-
Can these goals be achieved and bear their fruit?
Yes, if the quality of performance in the various stages of the “Gaza Court” is in line with the diverse aspirations and capabilities. Although the Civil Society Court lacks any direct executive capacity, it can encourage solidarity initiatives that exert pressure, and this appears to have had a decisive role in the case of the anti-apartheid movement, although the Palestinian situation is different – because the UN has exerted a delegitimizing influence.
Organized elements of civil society – including religious groups, trade unions, university protest activities supporting divestment, and a range of anti-racist human rights actors – were also important in delegitimizing the apartheid regime in South Africa.
One such effort embedded in the Palestinian struggle is the Boycott and Divestment (BDS) campaign, launched in 2005 by a coalition of Palestinian activists and civic organizations.
A strong ruling from the Gaza Court will add legitimacy to such community initiatives, and lead to the emergence of other meaningful non-governmental initiatives such as cultural and sports boycotts.
Of course, the success or disappointment of our efforts will reflect the contextual situation, especially if there continues to be widespread concern about Israel’s behavior toward the basic rights of Palestinians, as well as if Israel is to continue under current or similar leadership.
It is possible that if Israel carries out its growing and declared plans to annex the West Bank and denies any possibility of agreeing to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, the impact could be significant.
It is also possible that there will be a counter-reaction led by the Zionist movement against the “Gaza Court” by using its tactic known as “anti-Semitism.”
-
What civic organizations are participating in the initiative?
There are, to varying degrees, representatives of many organizations active and influential in the work of the “Gaza Court,” including prominent representatives in Palestinian civil society, such as: “Al-Haq,” “The Palestinian Center for Human Rights,” “Dameer,” and “Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights.” .
We have a special working group consisting of representatives of civil society organizations in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and we will always seek their help to obtain appropriate guidance throughout the work of the court.
-
How is coordination done with all these organizations?
As a civil society initiative directed at supporting the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and other basic rights, we sought the participation of a wide range of Palestinian NGOs, and were encouraged by their strong positive response as demonstrated by their participation.
We established a Palestinian civil society working group, as well as a global civil society advisory council to ensure clear channels for participation and influence.
So far, there is excellent cooperation between the participating Palestinian organizations, as well as between international civil organizations, and we hope that this cooperation will continue and be reflected in the final ruling of the “Gaza Court.”
-
In the current global context, some people may lose hope in the success of such initiatives, so how do you respond to them?
Such initiatives have always had to swim against the tides of geopolitical power and the mainstream media, which has been disparaging and hostile to them since their serious development at the Russell Court in the mid-1960s.
The “Gaza Court” is not the first case of people’s courts to have a clear impact on the behavior of the United States in the war. Such an initiative had previously revived to some extent anti-war activities in the United States and Europe, and created a model that was applied in many subsequent cases, including These include judicial initiatives related to interventions in the Global South, gender equality, environmental protection, and the wrongdoings of large corporations.
In this sense, this societal form emerged as a civil, educational model for resisting soft power, with educational and media influences and activities varying according to the issue and the general political context.
The Palestinian struggle and the Israeli genocide are in many respects a special case, making the potential impact either less than hoped for or greater.
For Israel’s part, it has learned from apartheid South Africa by using significant resources to shape public discourse regarding its conduct, including resorting to a “distraction policy” to divert attention from substantive allegations and criticisms by launching defamatory attacks on the sender to divert attention from the message.
Moreover, the historical background of the persecution of Jews that culminated in the Holocaust hinders criticism or sympathy for the Palestinian struggle, especially in Germany, but also in the Western democracies that arose after World War II with a guilty conscience because they did little to oppose Nazi anti-Semitism before and during the war. Second World.
This liberal guilt led to a colonial sequel in the post-war context, where Europe’s problems were addressed at the expense of a country from the Global South, making Palestinian Arabs oppressed outsiders in their own homeland.
Even if a direct impact on Israel’s behavior fails, we are confident of the secondary effects of a high-quality court regarding future legal culture, gathering a historical and archival record, in order to contribute to a people-oriented approach to the study and application of international law in global security contexts.
Finally, I suspect that most of those who “lost hope” never had hope for “such an initiative” in the first place.
-
This initiative is “symbolic”… Will it entail legal obligations to punish the perpetrators?
When international law obligations conflict with the powerful strategic interests of geopolitical actors, especially regarding issues of war and peace, the effects of even formal governmental or international institutions are mainly symbolic. Israel defies international law and the United Nations, and there is no political will to confront such behavior.
However, Israel is sensitive enough to the impact of negative rulings by the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the General Assembly, and is using all its influence to mitigate these impacts, including exaggerated defamation, such as calling the United Nations a “vile swamp of anti-Semitism,” and attempting Using its influence behind closed doors to avoid the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants against Israeli leaders as recommended by Attorney General Karim Khan.
As Israeli historian Tom Segev wrote, “Not all criticism against Israel is anti-Semitic (…) The moment you say it is anti-Semitic hatred (…) you withdraw all legitimacy from the criticism and try to quash the debate.” This is an accurate description of Netanyahu’s tactics at the United Nations when he described this organization as the “anti-Israel Flat Earth Society” and described the United Nations as a “swamp of anti-Semitic hatred.”
In this kind of context of geopolitically supported chaos, every law is symbolic, but the symbolic effects of political actors, whether governmental or not, are real.
I have long argued that symbolic arenas of law-making should not be belittled or ridiculed, and I will continue to do so emphatically regarding the existence and activity of the Gaza Court.