this is test


The Unites States’ testimony at the ICJ was a joke. Listen to Daniel Levy, a British-Israeli analyst, author and former peace negotiator, critique the US for cherry-picking International law and only taking what it deems convenient.

The US focused on UNSC resolutions as a basis for how to deal with the Israeli occupation, a ‘sleight of hand’ as described by Levy. This is because the US has vetoed ALL resolutions criticising Israel in the UNSC and continuously defended them from international law.

The world needs a neutral, unbiased mediator for the Israeli occupation.

The US does NOT fit that description.⁣


If you advocate for TRUTH & JUSTICE, SHARE to spread the knowledge.

#FreeGaza #PalestineSolidarity #GazaGenocide #UNRWA #EndGenocide #Palestine #ICJJustice #ceasefirenow #FreePalestine #Interfaith #StandWithUs #Truth #Palestine #Gaza #Humanrights #Israel #فلسطين #اسرائیل #غزة

English Script:
Daniel Levy: The International Court of Justice is meeting in The Hague to consider the legal questions behind Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories. More countries than ever appeared doing so in those hearings, and the United States government has now put forward its position. What the US government seemed to be saying was international law, when it’s convenient and only those bits of international law that are convenient. It leaned heavily into two Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, both more than half a century old. That’s significant for two reasons. First of all, by saying we should only discuss those things that have been passed at the Security Council. This was a bit of a sleight of hand by the US. Let’s remember that on this question, the United States government’s through time, have broken the Security Council by repeatedly using their veto power always to defend Israel from international law. So by saying we can only use what’s passed at the Security Council, it rules out all the things it’s vetoed already and takes that broken system across to the ICJ. The second reason that’s important is that those resolutions predate most of the questions standing before the court. They predate the settlements, Israel’s illegal settlements, the changes to the status of Jerusalem, the de facto annexation and crucially, the structural system of discrimination, which many of now described as equating with the legal definition of a system of apartheid.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *