Open letter to the Assembly of State Parties regarding the OTP’s engagement with Situation in Palestine

Open letter to the Assembly of State Parties regarding the OTP’s engagement with Situation in Palestine

Open letter to the Assembly of State Parties regarding the OTP’s engagement with Situation in Palestine

By : Jadaliyya Reports

We, the undersigned scholars and practitioners of law, international relations, and politics express our grave concern over the integrity of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The conduct of the OTP under Karim Khan's mandate has prompted urgent concerns about its adherence to impartiality and non-discrimination. During the mandate of former chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, the Office has allocated efforts and resources in an attempt to address the fierce criticisms of the OTP’s selective accountability, with a view to correcting the shortcomings that characterized its performance during its early years. Recalling that the criticisms referred-to had contained claims about anti-Global South bias especially in relation to the standards applicable to situation and case selection, we are concerned that the international community is witnessing the erosion of years of dedication to ensure that the ICC is indeed international, impartial, and independent. The possible negative impact that informs our concerns pertains to the future of international criminal justice as a whole, and to the perception that the Court is the last resort for victims of international crimes.

OTP’s Visit to Israel & Palestine: Breach of Impartiality and Non-Discrimination Principles 


The Prosecutor’s Duty of Impartiality and Non-Discrimination 

According to Article 42 (5) of the Rome Statute “neither the Prosecutor nor a Deputy Prosecutor shall engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with his or her prosecutorial functions or to affect confidence in his or her independence.” Confidence in the independence of the Prosecutor is reliant on upholding impartiality and non-discrimination, among other principles. 

In accordance with theICC Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor, the OTP and all its members are guided by principles of independence; professional ethics and integrity; fair, impartial, effective and expeditious investigation and prosecution; non-discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, among others. Impartiality, one of the core principles governing the work of the OTP, includes “refraining from expressing an opinion that could, objectively, adversely affect the required impartiality, whether through communications media, in writing or public addresses, or through any other actions outside the context of the proceedings before the Court”. As such, the OTP should conduct their internal and external dealings impartially, abstain from being directly or indirectly in conflict with the discharge of their official duties, and uphold the highest standards of integrity. 

The ICC Prosecutor, as an international civil servant, is contractually required to comply with the relevant standards of conduct, inter alia, the ICSC Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. Thesestipulate the need of international civil servants to “work without bias with persons of all nationalities, religions and cultures; it calls for constant sensitivity as to how words and actions may look to others. It requires avoidance of any expressions that could be interpreted as biased or intolerant.” In reaffirming the principle of non-discrimination, the Standards of Conduct reiterate that “[i]nternational civil servants are expected to respect the dignity, worth and equality of all people without any distinction whatsoever”. 

The Prosecutor’s Public Communications visit 

During the course of Khan’s mandate thus far, there have been a number of questionable decisions on the Situation in Palestine. These include considerabledelays,lack of responsiveness, as well as policies ofunderstaffing and under-resourcing. No more problematic is Khan’s latest meetings, visit and subsequent statement. The Courtannounced on 30 November 2023 Prosecutor Khan's visit to Israel at the invitation of victims, after havingmet with some of them in the Hague previously. In doing that, the Prosecutor has neglected the longstanding pleas fromUN special rapporteurs,scholars and international lawyers,NGOs, and Palestinian victims who haveardently requested the Prosecutor's visit to Palestine and meetings in the Hague for years. The Prosecutor explicitly asserted that the visit, which was carried out without a publicly accessible agenda or transparent funding, is non-investigative, and intended solely to express sympathy and engage in dialogue, acts which fall outside of his mandate as a prosecutor. A lack of transparency also shrouded his subsequent visit to Ramallah. These actions raise serious concerns about the OTP’s commitment to its mandate underlying which are the principles of non- discrimination, and impartiality. 

The Prosecutor’sstatement further demonstrated selective application of international criminal law, and an extralegal interpretation of its principles. While addressing Israel’s conduct of hostilities, Prosecutor Khan refrained from making any conclusive statements at this stage. In this, he followed the Office’s prosecutorial standards and the language satisfying the evidentiary standards specific to each of the investigation’s stages, and adhered to his announcement that the mission was “not investigative in nature.” However, Khan seems to have already concluded that international crimes have been committed by Palestinian armed groups, thereby undermining thefundamental rules, including on the presumption of innocence and relevant standards.

Prosecutor Khan has used alarming extralegal, political notions, in contravention of the ICSC Standards of Conduct. The Prosecutor has used the term 'terror organization’ to describe a Palestinian armed group . The terms “terrorism” and “terror organizations” appear nowhere in the Rome Statute or international humanitarian law. Further, in some of the Prosecutor’scommunications, Khan uses the adjective ‘innocent’ to describe Israeli civilians. While he does not use the same adjective to refer to Palestinians, this choice of extralegal wording – which was popularized in the U.S. “War on Terror” –  insinuates that some civilians deserve more protection than others, and undermines the cardinal principles of international humanitarian law, including the principle of distinction and that civilians cannot be the target of an attack.

In his references to Israeli victims, the Prosecutor has repetitively emphasized the necessity of holding those responsible for the crimes to account. However, when referring to Palestinian victims, he avoids using terms like 'accountability' or any equivalent. It appears as if the victims are presented without a corresponding crime or criminal. Notably, he did not make any reference to the risk of genocide in Gaza, which required special procedures under his mandate, despite warnings by theUN andAcademic experts. Instead, the Prosecutor hasinsisted several timeson describing Palestinian population and victims in Gaza as civilians “caught in the crossfire”, seemingly concluding that the Israeli military’s conduct of hostilities has respected the principles of “distinction” and “proportionality”. This framing has formed the core of the Israeli official discourse since the 7th of October, but also during the 2014 Gaza War. By adopting it, the Prosecutor seems to have abruptly accepted Israeli officials’ framing, and to have undermined reports on various crimes committed as part of state plans or policies. Further, Prosecutor Khan’s hasty insistence on the “caught in the crossfire” framing stands in opposition to thefindings that the Office itself has announced after five years of preliminary examination activities on the 2014 Gaza War, where it found a reasonable basis to believe that members of the Israeli forces have been “intentionally launching disproportionate attacks” and “wilful killing and wilfully causing serious injury to body or health”. Such basis was strongly affirmed in reports bythe UN Independant Mission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict, among others. 

Further, we observe a noticeable acceleration in the work and activity of the Office of the Prosecutor since October 7. While we commend this step, we are concerned that the Prosecutor, in view of his consecutive statements, is acting according to a belief that crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court have taken place only since this date, and is thus “deprioritizing” the crimes that have formed the object of the Office’s activities for almost a decade. We recall the Prosecutor’s controversial “deprioritization” of US personnel conduct in Afghanistan as we observe that Prosecutor Khan has mentioned nowhere in his statements any alleged crimes committed by Israel, including in relation to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Instead, he consistently maintains that Israel, with its legal experts, “should be able to justify its actions.”

Finally, the Prosecutor’s statement refers to the West Bank and Gaza, while ignoring East Jerusalem. Here it is important to note that in publicizing the Prosecutor’s visit to Israel, the Court posted aphoto on X of Prosecutor Khan in occupied and annexed East Jerusalem. Annexation is a grave violation that is supposedly at the center of the Court’s investigations. This lack of foresight in this regard is not acceptable for an office tasked with investigating this context.

In view of this, the prosecutor’s approach to the case of Palestine as exemplified in the extra-legal wording of the statement and the parallel social media publication are in infringement of the prosecutor’s duty to respect the sensitivity of how words and actions may look to others (Para. 14 of the ICSC Standards of Conduct), and poses questions as to whether or not the prosecutor or members of his office were expressing their personal opinion (Para. 9 of the the ICSC Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service).

Our requests to the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, 


In leading up to the 22nd Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (ASP), human rights and civil society organizations, including
Amnesty International,Human Rights Watch and theAnti-Apartheid Movement, have called on States to vehemently oppose double standards, selective justice, and any obstruction of the ICC's investigation in the Situation in Palestine. Amnesty International warned that the legitimacy of the Rome Statute and the ICC is in jeopardy due to this approach, while emphasizing that the "ICC’s legitimacy and effectiveness depend on the OTP demonstrating – without fear or favour – that it will pursue accountability equally in all situations, including situations where perhaps only its intervention will ensure that certain crimes, perpetrators or situations are investigated." 

Considering the above, it appears that accountability for grave breaches that constitute international crimes committed in Palestine is unforeseeable under the current Prosecutor’s mandate, his actions and policies, as outlined. 

Furthermore, we demand the Assembly of State Parties to:

  • Provide adequate political and financial support to the Court, ensure that the Prosecutor disburses resources on the basis of investigative needs as opposed to politically-motivated prioritization, and urge it to expedite its investigation into the Situation in Palestine. 

  • Investigate the adherence of the Prosecutor’s Office to ICSC Standards of Conduct, particularly in relation to impartiality, and non-discrimination.

  • Investigate the conduct of the current prosecutor of the international criminal court, Karim Khan, and take appropriate measures in accordance with the mandate of the Assembly derived from Article 112 of the Rome Statute.



  1. Raji Sourani, Human Rights Lawyer, Palestinian Center for Human Rights

  2. Darryl Li, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Associate Member of the Law School, University of Chicago

  3. Dr. Lex Takkenberg, Senior Advisor on the Question of Palestine, Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development

  4. Dr. Luigi Daniele, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Law School (NTU)

  5. Dr. Ata Hindi, Lecturer at Birzeit University

  6. Susan M. Akram, clinical Professor and Director, International Human Rights Clinic, Boston University School of Law

  7. Dr Alice Panepinto, Reader in Law, Queen's University Belfast

  8. Dr. Shahd Hammouri, Lecturer in Law, The University of Kent

  9. Maha Abdallah, Graduate Teaching Assistant & PhD Researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp

  10. Ihsan Adel, Chair, Law for Palestine

  11. Mandy Turner, professor of conflict, peace, and humanitarian affairs, University of Manchester, UK

  12. Nicola Perugini, Associate Professor, University of Edinburgh

  13. Jessica Whyte, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales

  14. Laleh Khalili, Al Qasimi Professor of Gulf Studies, University of Exeter

  15. Mohammad Shahabuddin, Professor of International Law & Human Rights, University of Birmingham

  16. Rania Madi, Law for Palestine

  17. Dr.Christopher Gevers, University of KwaZulu-Natal

  18. Sadhvi Dar, Reader, Queen Mary University of London

  19. Eric Loefflad, Lecturer in Law, University of Kent

  20. Dr Marina Velickovic, University of Warwick

  21. Jo Bluen, PhD candidate, London School of Economics

  22. Khalil Dewan, Head of Legal Investigations at Stoke White Law Firm

  23. Ryan Glauser, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan

  24. Gerhard Kemp, Professor of Criminal Law (UWE Bristol); Extraordinary Professor of Public Law (Stellenbosch University)

  25. Randa Naffa, Director, SADAQA

  26. Santosh Anand, PhD researcher, City University of London

  27. Dr Sheetal Soni (School of Law, University of Kwazulu Natal, South Africa)

  28. Felipe Bley Folly, Research Associate, Law Faculty, University of Tuebingen

  29. Dr Ruth Sacks, University of Johannesburg

  30. Nicola Whitear-Nel, University of KwaZulu Natal

  31. Att. Bassam Abu-Rumman. Founder & managing partner at IQSATLAW

  32. Suhayfa Bhamjee, University of KwaZulu-Natal

  33. Miha Marčenko, PhD, Fellow at the European University Institute

  34. Hala Ahed , lawyer & Human rights advocate

  35. Prof Salim Vally, University of Johannesburg

  36. Dylan Asafo, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland

  37. Emilio Dabed, Lawyer and activist 

  38. Naoual El Yattouti, PhD student, University of Antwerp 

  39. Jared Sacks, Teaching Fellow, Columbia University

  40. Rasigan Maharajh, Chief Director, Institute for Economic Research on Innovation

  41. Saydoon Nisa Sayed, Coordinator of GNRC, South Africa

  42. Professor Nicola Pratt, University of Warwick

  43. John Reynolds, Associate Professor, Maynooth University

  44. Professor Alison MacKenzie, Queen's University Belfast

  45. Nisreen Alaraj, regional advisor on sustainable cities and climate change, freelance consultant

  46. Bana Abu Zuluf. PhD Researcher, Maynooth University

  47. Dr.Fiammetta Bonfigli, University of Vienna

  48. Micòl Savia, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

  49. Dr Thomas Phillips, Liverpool John Moores University

  50. Dr James Allinson, University of Edinburgh

  51. Bana Abu Zuluf. PhD Researcher, Maynooth University

  52. Dr. Fiammetta Bonfigli, University of Vienna

  53. Micòl Savia, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)

  54. Dr Thomas Phillips, Liverpool John Moores University

  55. Dr James Allinson, University of Edinburgh

  56. Fausto Gianelli- ELDH European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights in the World

  57. Dr Lisa Tilley, SOAS, University of London

  58. Dr Souheir Edelbi, Lecturer in law, Western Sydney University

  59. Dr. Nadia Kornioti, Associate Lecturer, University of Central Lancashire - Cyprus (UCLan Cyprus)

  60. Dr Cristina Sáenz Pérez, University of Leeds

  61. Reeju Ray , Associate Professor, O.P. Jindal Global University

  62. Dr Nicola Palmer, Reader in Criminal Law, King’s College London

  63. Rania Muhareb, Irish Research Council and Hardiman PhD Scholar, Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, University of Galway

  64. Selbi Durdiyeva, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Conflict Studies, Philipps University Marburg

  65. Rawan Arraf, Executive Director, Australian Centre for International Justice

  66. Danya Nadar, University of Antwerp

  67. Alia Gilbrecht, Director of Virtual Exchange and Innovative Partnerships, Head of U.S. Programming and U.S. Fulbright Scholars. (Institution) An-Najah National University in the West Bank, Palestine

  68. Mohammad Almoghabat - International Constitutionalization Ph.D. Candidate - Vrije Universiteit Brussels

  69. sahar Francis, director, Addameer prisoner support and human rights association

  70. Claudia Saba, Adjunct Professor of International Relations, Blanquerna School of Communication and International Relations, Ramon Llull University

  71. Kirsten Larson, PhD researcher at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway

  72. Asad Kiyani, Associate Professor, University of Victoria Faculty of Law

  73. Alreem Kamal, Legal Officer, SLDP

  74. Aman, Associate Professor of Legal Practice, Jindal Global University

  75. Palvasha Shahab, Visiting Faculty, Department of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, IBA, Karachi, Pakistani

  76. Felipe Chahuan, Instructor del Departamento de Derecho Privado, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Chile

  77. Fabrizio Clementi Italian jurist - CRED

  78. Dr Tom Pettinger, University of Warwick

  79. Marcela Chahuán Zedan. Lecturer at Faculty of Law, University of Chile

  80. Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR)

  81. Kiran Kaur Grewal, Professor of Human Rights, Goldsmiths, University of London

  82. Anissa Bougrea, PhD Researcher, Ghent University

  83. Thomas MacManus, Senior Lecturer in State Crime, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London

  84. Patrick Bond, Distinguished Professor, University of Johannesburg

  85. Dr. Saajidha Sader, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

  86. Koenraad Bogaert, Associate Professor, Middle East and North African Research Group (MENARG), Ghent University (Belgium)

  87. Dr Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan, Adjunct Professor in Law at Woxsen University (India)

  88. Marie Ruyffelaere, PhD candidate/ FNRS research fellow, REPI/OMAM, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

  89. Samer Aljarousha, practicing lawyer

  90. Dr. Oishik Sircar, Professor, Jindal Global Law School

  91. Joshua M. Makalintal, University of Innsbruck

  92. Dr Simon Robins, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Human Rights, University of York

  93. Sarah Bracke, Professor of Sociology, University of Amsterdam

  94. Avishek Konar, Faculty, O.P. Jindal Global University 

  95. Dr. Lana Sirri, University of Amsterdam

  96. Jan Fermon, lawyer at the Brussels (Belgium) bar, secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers

  97. Fatiema Haron-Masoet  Imam Haron Foundation 

  98. Daniel Stein, Assistant Professor, OP Jindal Global Law School

  99. Dr Jaya Josie Adjunct Professor University of the Western Cape 

  100. José Henríquez Leiva, University of Galway, Ireland

  101. Triestino Mariniello, Professor, Liverpool John Moores University

  102. Aleta Alston-Toure, Cooperative Member of the Parable of the Sower Intentional Community Cooperative, Members of the National Black Liberation Movement Network (NBLMN)

  103. Marie Labussière, postdoctoral researcher, University of Amsterdam

  104. Luis Eslava, Professor of International Law, La Trobe University & University of Kent

  105. Dr Kevin Hearty, SSESW, Queen's University Belfast

  106. Omar Jabary Salamanca, Co-Director Observatory of the Arab and Muslim Worlds, Université libre de Bruxelles

  107. Sujith Xavier, Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of Windsor

  108. Mervyn Bennun, Lecturer in Law, Exeter University (retired); Honorary

  109. Carles Fernández-Torne, School of Communication and International Relations - Ramon Llull University

  110. Amy Strecker, Associate Professor, UCD Sutherland School of Law

  111. Beatrice Canossi Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway, Ireland

  112. Judy Favish, University of Cape Town

  113. Muna musbah ahmed qasem, Practicing lawyer 

  114. Anastasiya Kotova, PhD candidate, Lund University

  115. Emily Jones, Newcastle University

  116. Niloufer Bhagwat Advocate Vice President Indian Association of Lawyers 

  117. Amal de Chickera, Co-Director, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion 

  118. Noha Aboueldahab, Assistant Professor of International Law, Georgetown University in Qatar

  119. Aziza Kaddouri, Talsa Law Firm, Netherlands

  120. Ramy Abdu. Assist. Prof of Law & Finance. Chairman of EuroMed Human Right Monitor

  121. Dr Khawla mattar,  independent writer 

  122. Karinna Fernandez neira, human rights defender, Chile

  123. Jeff Handmaker, Associate Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

  124. Devanshi Saxena, doctoral researcher, University of Antwerp

  125. Dr Haytham Ereifej, Practicing Lawyer

  126. Mahmoud Hanafi - Palestine association for human rights 

  127. Noura Erakat, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

  128. Dr Rose Parfitt, Senior Lecturer, Kent Law School 

  129. Gertrude Lamare, PhD Student, London School of Economics and Political Science

  130. Camilo Pérez-Bustillo: Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild (NLG)-San Francisco Bay Area chapter; co-chair, NLG Task Force on the Americas

  131. Hans Ulrich Jessurun d' Oliveira,Professor emeritus, migration law, University of Amsterdam, migration law, University of Amsterdameritus

  132. Huwaida Arraf, Human Rights Attorney

  133. Jeanne Mirer,  President International Association of Democratic Lawyers

  134. Rob Howse, Professor of International Law, NYU Law School

  135. Jordan Manalastas, practicing lawyer

  136. Oumar Ba, Cornell University

  137. Micaela Frulli, professor of international law, Università di Firenze 

  138. Dr Silvina Sánchez Mera, La Trobe University

  139. Yasmin Omar - International Human Rights Lawyer, Director at POMED, DC

  140. Luis Carlos Moro Secretario General de Asociación Americana de Juristas

  141. Shaheen Khan, MA, North West Unoversity, Potchefstroom

  142. Ahmed Raza Memon, Lecturer, Cardiff School of Law and Politics 

  143. Professor Ziyad Motala, Howard Law School

  144. Ahmed Raza Memon, Lecturer, Cardiff School of Law and Politics 

  145. Edre U. Olalia, Chairperson, National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (Philippines)

  146. Tanvee Nandan, Associate Professor, OP Jindal Global University

  147. Dr Amina Adanan, Maynooth University 

  148. Julie Webb-Pullman, Investigator, Gaza Centre for Human Rights

  149. Dr Ntina Tzouvala, Associate Professor, ANU College of Law

  150. Vanessa Ramos, President-Asociación Americana de Juristas

  151. Halla Shoaibi, Assistant Professor of Law, Birzeit University 

  152. Lana Habash, practicing lawyer


Names with no affiliation or not a practitioner or scholar

Wael mattar 

Mr Justin Winchester, Student, University of Oxford
Vinesh Kumar Ramnarian PAO
Jordanian bar association

Luiz Felipe Peralta

Fatima Aghla
Nadeen Yousef, Full-Time LLM student, University of Galway
Marie Griehl, HR consultant, Palestine solidarity campaign
Mohammad Dweib
Maha thweib
Suleiman Essa

Dr. Salam

Fathima Lakhi 

Souheila yildiz

Nazley Khan

Goolshan E.Gaffoor PSC

Evin Sofia, individual

Walter von Sturler

Guy Slingsby Retired with a disability
Amanda Adams, Activist at BDS

Mrs Madafi Hendricks
Dr. Stephen M. David, retired. 

Hocine Bouchaoui

Jamal Haggi . Financial auditor

Shuaib Manjra

Kutubuddin Dawood Pangarker Mr.

MIREILLE FANONmfmfonu@gmail.com
.

To sign on this statement follow this link

 

Annex: the backdrop of these demands

Nine years at the ICC: Accountability is Still Out of Sight

The Prosecutor opened a preliminary examination on the situation in Palestine in 2015 following the request of the State of Palestine. Following the appointment of Fatou Bensouda, a series of intricate procedures and protracted steps played out, during which Palestinian human rights organizations and victims provided the OTP with thousands of pages of factual and legal analysis and evidence establishing bases to bring concrete cases for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely persecution and apartheid, the international crimes underpinning the settlements, forced displacement and transfer, pillage, and various other crimes arising out of Israel’s unlawful actions and practices, including the 2014 assault on Gaza and the Great March of Return, the Gaza blockade and siege, grave breaches against Palestinian children, amongst others. 

Subsequently, Prosecutor Bensouda, in 2019,concluded that "war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip." Finally, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, in February 2021,declaredits jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, being the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) and encompassing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, dating back to June 2014 - in line with Palestine’s 12(3) declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction in March 2021, Prosecutor Bensouda officially initiated the investigation declaring that the Court’s “investigation will cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed in the Situation since 13 June 2014”. However, since then, the ICC's engagement with the persistent and well-documented violations of international law in the State of Palestine/oPt has been significantly delayed and sluggish in pace without yielding tangible results for thousands of victims, and under the oversight of the current Prosecutor Khan Karim A. A. Khan.

Differential Treatment of Cases: Comparison with the Situation in Ukraine

A conspicuous contrast emerges when comparing Prosecutor Khan’s conduct in relation to the Situation in Ukraine to other situations involving allegations against certain geopolitical actors. In the latter, Prosecutor Khan issued arrest warrants within a year of opening an investigation. By contrast, the preliminary activities on the Situation in Afghanistan lasted for fourteen years, after which Prosecutor Khan decided to drop the conduct of the U.S. forces from his probe, a conduct that brought back to the legal and public debate platforms some of the serious claims against the Office’s impartiality. 

With regards to the Situation in Palestine, the Prosecutor’s engagement and communication with on-the-ground Palestinian human rights organizations and victims have been largely nonexistent 32 months since the investigation began despite numerous submissions and calls by Palestinian, Israeli and international organizations. Further, in a recentreport on outreach to victims and affected communities in Palestine, the Court's Registry delineates the profound disappointment expressed by victims to their legal representatives, noting, "Clients have been profoundly disappointed, even before the current crisis, at the complete absence of the Court." Such discrepancies prompt questions about procedural reluctance that do not meet the requirements of justice. 

Funding Allocation Policies Undermine the Urgency of the Case

While no resources were designated for investigations into the Situation in Palestine in 2022, the mere allocation of approximately one million euro in 2023 signifies progress but raises concerns about its adequacy considering the extensive, intricate, and ongoing grave breaches that may amount to international crimes. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the oPt, Francesca Albanese, hasaffirmed that the Court’s investigation is "understaffed and under-resourced," portraying a situation that appears to be at an impasse. In March 2023, Albanese, along with 31 other Special Rapporteurs, voiced apprehension about the state of the investigation and advocated for increased allocation of resources in light of "solid evidence of allegations of human rights violations that may have been committed intentionally and systematically". 

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 


[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412