Israel Charged with War Crimes and Genocide. Complete 2013 Judgment of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) versus the State of Israel
This text was first published by Global Research in November 2013, following the indictment.
The government of Israel headed by Benjamin Netanyahu has committed extensive crimes against humanity. President Trump in his “Deal of the Century” has endorsed this criminal agenda directed against the people of Palestine.
World public opinion is largely unaware of the fact that in July 2014, the State of Israel was the object of a historic judgment by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT).
“From 1948 and
continuing to date the State of Israel (hereafter ‘the Defendant’)
carried out
against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely
killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting
conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. … Such
conduct constitutes the Crime of Genocide under international law
including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and
punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes
the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the
Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.”
In enforcing the so-called “Deal of the Century”, the president of the United States is complicit in extensive war crimes.
Below are selected excerpts from the judgment. The full judgment is available in pdf. form.
The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad chaired the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) which led to the indictment against the State of Israel.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WAR CRIMES AND GENOCIDE
“The Tribunal
recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international
publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.”
Please Help us in this endeavour. Forward this text far and wide.
Michel Chossudovsky, Member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), February 10, 2020
***
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) versus the State of Israel
The proceedings directed against the State of Israel were led by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) Members of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) are:
Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad (Chairman), Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr. Denis Halliday, Mr. Musa Ismail, Dr. Zulaiha Ismail, Dr. Yaacob Merican, Dr. Hans von Sponeck.
Working in liaison with their Malaysian counterparts, commissioners Dr. Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization were present in Kuala Lumpur throughout the proceedings.
This important judicial process has received very little coverage in the Western media. Global Research published several reports following this historic judgment against the State of Israel.
“The
perpetrators [State of Israel] had committed acts against the
Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms
and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about
the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.”
“The Tribunal
recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international
publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are
universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to
institute prosecutions.
The Tribunal
deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State
of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International
Law and the institutions of the United Nations.”
THE KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
20 – 25 NOVEMBER 2013
Case No. 3 – CHG – 2013
20 – 25 NOVEMBER 2013
Case No. 3 – CHG – 2013
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Against
Amos Yaron
Case No. 4 – CHG – 2013
Against
Amos Yaron
Case No. 4 – CHG – 2013
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Against
The State of Israel
Against
The State of Israel
..
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
(Tribunal) reconvened on 20 November 2013 to hear two charges against
Amos Yaron (first Defendant) and the State of Israel (second Defendant).
The first Defendant was charged with war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide, whilst the second Defendant was charged with the
crime of genocide and war crimes.
The charge against the first Defendant is as follows –
“The Defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated
War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the
Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he
knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the
Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on
Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948
Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg
Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary
international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International
Humanitarian Law”
The charge against the second Defendant [State of Israel] is as follows –
“From 1948 and continuing to date the
State of Israel (hereafter ‘the Defendant’) carried out against the
Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious
bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to
bring about physical destruction.
The conduct of the Defendant was carried
out with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the
Palestinian people. These acts were carried out as part of a manifest
pattern of similar conduct against the Palestinian people.
These acts were carried out by the
Defendant through the instrumentality of its representatives and agents
including those listed in Appendices 1 and 2.
Such conduct constitutes the Crime of
Genocide under international law including the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’)
in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said
Convention.
It also constitutes the crime of
genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur
Foundation to Criminalise War.
Such conduct by the Defendant as an
occupying power also violates customary international law as embodied in
the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
Land, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
Such conduct also constitutes War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under international law.”
The charges (together with the
particulars of the charges) had been duly served on the Defendants, and
were read in open court by the Registrar as these proceedings commenced.
Neither Defendant was present in these proceedings, but both were represented by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.
Selected Excerpts
2 Prosecution’s Case
The Prosecution’s case against the first
Defendant is that the first Defendant had committed War Crimes, Crimes
Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli
General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in
Israeli-occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly
facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of
those two camps. These crimes were in violation of, inter alia, the
Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the 1948 Genocide Convention, jus
cogens, International Humanitarian Law; and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of
the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
The Prosecution’s case against the
second Defendant is that from 1948 and continuing to date the State of
Israel had systematically carried out against the Palestinian people a
series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and
deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about
physical destruction – with the intention of destroying in whole or in
part the Palestinian people.
These acts constitute the Crime of
Genocide under international law including the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’)
in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said
Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in
Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise
War.
In his opening statement, the Chief
Prosecutor Prof Gurdial Singh said that the Prosecution will adduce
evidence to prove the counts in the indictment through oral and written
testimonies of victims, witnesses, historical records, narrative in
books and authoritative commentaries, resolutions of the United Nations
and reports of international bodies.
6. The Defence case
Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon of the Amicus
Curiae-Defence Team submitted that in the charges against the two
Defendants, the Prosecution had listed war crimes, crimes against
humanity and crimes against peace. Apparently the Prosecution had
abandoned these charges, concentrating only on genocide.
He said that the offence of genocide is
defined in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention 1948, whilst the OED
defines it simply as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people,
especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group”.
He submitted that the charge of genocide
is unique; it means that you don’t like a group, you kill them; you
kill them in a grand manner. Genocide means that at the end of the act,
you have a lesser number of victims than before the genocide started.
He further submitted that when one talks
of “massive killing”, it is many hundreds of thousands to millions of
people. To suggest that an isolated event, the unfortunate murder of
3,000 people (Sabra and Shatila) is the same as massive killing is
almost disrespectful of the true horror of massive killing (as in
Rwanda, where 800,000 people were killed in 100 days).
With regard to the Kahan Report, the
Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it also identified other people as
being responsible, with two other names other than Yaron still alive.
The question is why only Yaron was charged? Why was Defence Minister
Ariel Sharon spared?
He also submitted that the PLO had
repeatedly violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement. By June 1982,
when the IDF went into Lebanon, the PLO had made life in northern Israel
intolerable through its repeated shelling of Israeli towns.
On Cast Lead, the Amicus Curiae-Defence
Team submitted that the IDF had come out with two reports. The point is
if you are going to kill people nilly willy, you do not report it.
On the issue of the wall, the Amicus
Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the primary consideration is one of
security of the Israeli settlers. The State of Israel has a duty to
defend their lives, safety and well-being.
On the issue of checkpoints, the Amicus
Curiae-Defence Team said countries have a right to immigration laws.
With regard to Plan Dalet, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it
is subject to divergent opinions, with historians on one side asserting
that it was entirely defensive, while other historians assert that the
plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing.
4. Prosecution’s closing submission
In his closing submission, the Chief
Prosecutor said that he had called 11 witnesses (some of whom had
testified through Skype), tendered 15 exhibits and furnished several
documents and reports to the Tribunal during the course of the
proceedings.
He urged the Tribunal to bear in mind
that this is a Tribunal of Conscience and the case before it is an
extraordinary case, which Winston Churchill used to call as a “crime
without a name”.
He said that the Prosecution had
provided evidence of facts which, examined as a whole, will show that
the perpetrators had committed acts against the Palestinians, with
intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately
inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical
destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.
From the testimony of Prof Pappe (PW8)
the Prosecution had shown that before 1948, before UN Resolution 47,
there was already a plan in place to take over the Palestinian
territory, and this plan would be activated the moment the British
relinquished its mandate over the territory.
At that point in time, the Palestinians
were on 94% of the land, with the Jewish population settling over a mere
6% of the land. Under the UN partition plan, more than 50% of the land
was to be given to the Jews.
Plan Dalet might not legally be
genocidal in form at its inception, but as it took shape the ethnic
cleansing metamorphised into killing, massacre and creating impossible
conditions for life for the Palestinians – either they leave or they
die. The Prosecution submits this is genocide within the meaning of
Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.
On Sabra and Shatila, prosecution
witnesses (PW1 and PW6) had testified that the Palestinian refugees in
those camps had been killed by the Phalangists, aided and abetted by the
Israelis who were in complete control of the two camps.
According to the Kahan Report, all of
Beirut was under Israeli control, and there was clear symbiotic
relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese
Maronite Christian militia or the Phalangists or Keta’ib).
On Operation Cast Lead in 2008, the
Chief Prosecutor said that the Israeli Defence Force had used all kinds
of weapons, including white phosphorus – which is an incendiary weapon.
The use of incendiary weapons is prohibited under Protocal III on the
Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
As a result of the Israeli occupation of
Gaza, nowhere in Gaza is safe for civilians. 1.5 million Palestinians
are now trapped in despair, their fragile economy ruined. Under the
Dahiya Doctrine (October 2008), the complete destruction of Gaza is the
ultimate objective, the whole place must be flattened.
The Prosecution submits that the
cumulative effect of the actions taken by the Israeli government, as
shown by the Prosecution witnesses and the several documents tendered to
the Tribunal, have shown beyond reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty
of the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Charter
of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (The Charter).
Co-Prosecutor Tan Sri Abdul Aziz,
submitting on the first charge against Amos Yaron, said that Amos Yaron
was the commanding officer in charge of the Israeli Defence Force, in
charge of the area of Beirut, and camps Sabra and Shatila. He said there
were two issues which he has to deal with – first, whether or not there
was a large scale massacre of the 10 residents of the two camps, and
second, whether or not Amos Yaron facilitated and permitted such
massacre, in violation of international law and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of
the Charter?
On the first issue, he submitted there
was a large scale massacre, as testified by PW1. She was there, and she
saw the massacre with her own eyes. There was corrobating testimony by
PW6, and further acknowledged in the Kahan Report.
On the second issue, Amos Yaron was in
charge, to ensure that there would be peace and law and order. The Kahan
Report itself concluded that anybody who knew about Lebanon would know
that by releasing the Phalangists into Beirut, there would be massacre.
Surely, Amos Yaron, the General in charge, must have known that by
allowing the Phalangists to go into the two camps, the massacre would
take place. But he decided to do nothing.
He received the reports of the killing
of women and children, but he did not check the report. He did not pass
the report to his superiors. The co-prosecutor submits that by ignoring
all this despite knowing the circumstances, he himself had the intention
of causing the death of the people in the two camps.
10.3 Commission’s Register of War Criminals
Further, under Article 35 of the same
Chapter, this Tribunal recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes
Commission that the names of the two convicted parties herein be entered
and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be
publicised accordingly.
10.4 The Tribunal recommends to the War
Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this
conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for
which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.
10.5 The Tribunal deplores the failure
of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its
crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the
institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all
means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the
Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as
members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an
end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and
its supporters.
The original source of this article is KLWCT and Global Research
Copyright © Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, KLWCT and Global Research, 2020
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment