International Court of Justice opening statement on behalf of Israel (Connecting the Dots: United Nations, Palestine (Hamas), International Court of Justice, Sidley Austin LLP & Soros Funding, All Networking)
Israel365News
No
weapon formed against you Shall succeed, And every tongue that contends with
you at law You shall defeat. Such is the lot of the servants of Hashem, Such
their triumph through Me —declares Hashem.
ISAIAH
54:17
(THE
ISRAEL BIBLE)
ZAHAVA
SCHWARTZ - GAZA WAR - JANUARY 14, 2024
Proceedings
instituted by South Africa against the State of Israel, presented on Jan. 12,
2024.
Co-agent’s
opening statement
Presented
on Jan. 12, 2024, by Tal Becker, legal adviser to the Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Affairs; previously legal counsel to the Permanent Mission of Israel to
the United Nations from 2001-05 who
has served as vice chairman of the Legal Committee of the U.N. General
Assembly.
Madame
President, Distinguished Members of the Court,
It
is an honor to appear before you again on behalf of the State of Israel.
1.
The
State of Israel is singularly aware of why the Genocide Convention, which has
been invoked in these proceedings, was adopted. Seared in our collective memory
is the systematic murder of six million Jews as part of a pre-meditated and
heinous program for their total annihilation.
2.
Given
the Jewish people’s history, it is not surprising that Israel was among the
first States to ratify the Genocide Convention, without reservation, and to
incorporate its provisions in its domestic legislation. For some, the promise
of “Never Again” for all peoples is a slogan; for Israel, it is the highest
moral obligation.
3.
Raphael
Lemkin, a Polish Jew who witnessed the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, is
credited with coining the term Genocide. He helped the world recognize that the
existing legal lexicon was simply inadequate to capture the devasting evil that
the Nazi Holocaust unleashed.
4.
The
Applicant has now sought to invoke this term in the context of Israel’s conduct
in a war it did not start and did not want. A war in which Israel is defending
itself against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist
organizations whose brutality knows no bounds.
5.
The
civilian suffering in this war, like in all wars, is tragic. It is
heartbreaking. The harsh realities of the current hostilities are made
especially agonizing for civilians given Hamas’s reprehensible strategy of
seeking to maximize civilian harm to both Israelis and Palestinians, even as
Israel seeks to minimize it.
6.
But,
as this Court has already made clear, the Genocide Convention was not designed
to address the brutal impact of intensive hostilities on the civilian
population, even when the use of force raises “very serious issues of
international law” and involves “enormous suffering” and “continuing loss of
life”. The Convention was set apart to address a malevolent crime of the most
exceptional severity.
7.
We
live at a time when words are cheap. In an age of social media and identity
politics, the temptation to reach for the most outrageous term, to vilify and
demonize, has become for many irresistible. But if there is one place where
words should still matter, where truth should still matter, it is surely a
court of law.
8.
The
Applicant has regrettably put before the Court a profoundly distorted factual
and legal picture. The entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated,
decontextualized and manipulative description of the reality of current
hostilities.
9.
South
Africa purports to come to this Court in the lofty
position of a guardian of the interest of humanity. But in delegitimizing
Israel’s 75-year existence in its opening presentation, that broad commitment
to humanity rang hollow. And in its sweeping counter-factual description of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seemed to erase both Jewish history and any Palestinian agency or
responsibility. Indeed, the Application delegitimization of Israel since its
very establishment in 1948 in its submissions, sounded barely distinguishable
from Hamas’s own rejectionist rhetoric.
10. It is
unsurprising, therefore, that in the Applicant’s telling, both Hamas’s
responsibility for the situation in Gaza and the very humanity of its Israeli
victims are removed from view.
11. The attempt to weaponize the term genocide against Israel in the present context does more than tell the Court a grossly distorted story, and it does more than empty the word of its unique force and special meaning. It subverts the object and purpose of the Convention itself—with ramifications for all States seeking to defend themselves against those who demonstrate total disdain for life and for the law.
Madame
President, Members of the Court,
12. On Saturday,
October 7, a Jewish religious holiday, thousands of Hamas and other militants
breached Israel’s sovereign territory by sea, land, and air, invading over
twenty Israeli communities, bases and the site of a music festival. What
proceeded, under the cover of thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into
Israel, was the wholesale massacre, mutilation, rape and abduction of as many
citizens as the terrorists could find before Israel’s security forces repelled
them. Openly displaying elation, they tortured children in front of their
parents, and parents in front of their children, burned people, including
infants, alive, and systematically raped and mutilated scores of women, men and
children. All told, some 1,200 people were butchered that day, more than 5,500
maimed, and some 240 hostages abducted, including infants, entire families,
persons with disabilities and Holocaust survivors, some of whom have since been
executed; many of whom have been tortured, sexually abused and starved in
captivity. Representatives of the hostages’ families are in this Court room
today and we acknowledge their presence and their boundless suffering.
13. We know of the
brutality of October 7 not only from the harrowing testimonies of the
survivors, the unmistakable proof of carnage and sadism left behind, and the
forensic evidence taken at the scene. We know it because the assailants proudly
filmed and broadcast their barbarism.
14. The events of that
day are all but ignored in the Applicant’s submissions. But we are compelled to
share with the Court some fraction of its horror—the largest calculated mass
murder of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust.
15. We do so not
because these acts—however sadistic and systematic—release Israel of its
obligations to uphold the law as it defends its citizens and territory. That is
unquestionable. We do so rather because it is impossible to understand the
armed conflict in Gaza, without appreciating the nature of the threat Israel is
facing, and the brutality and lawlessness of the armed force confronting it.
16. In the Volume of
materials submitted to Members of the Court access has been provided to a
portion of the raw footage for separate screening. But I am obliged to put
before the Court today some small fragment of the scenes of unfathomable
cruelty that took place in hundreds of locations on that horrible day.
17. Johnny Siman Tov,
a wheat farmer, and his wife Tamar, an activist for women’s rights, lived in
Kibbutz Nir Oz. When the rocket fire started, they hid in the safe room with
their 4-year-old son, Omer, and their 6-year-old twins, Arbel and Shachar.
During their rampage, Hamas militants set fire to their house. Johnny texted
his sister Ranae: “They’re here. They’re burning us. We’re suffocating.” The
whole family was burned alive, to ashes, making DNA identification especially
difficult.
18. A survivor of the
Nova music festival massacre testified to police to witnessing a Hamas militant
brutally raping a young woman, as another militant cut off her breast and toyed
with it. A second militant then raped her again, shooting her in the head while
still inside her.[4]
19. In one video
recorded by a home surveillance system, a Hamas militant throws a grenade into
a safe room where a father and his two sons have rushed to hide. The father is
killed; the two sons are injured and bleeding as a militant pulls them into the
living room. One child can be heard screaming to his brother, “Why am I alive?
I can’t see anything. They’re going to kill us”. The militant casually opens
the fridge, takes out a bottle and drinks.
20. And then there is
this: In yet another recording, a Hamas militant called Mahmoud is heard
excitedly calling his parents from Kibbutz Mefalsim. “Open my WhatsApp,” he
says “Look how many I killed with my own hands. Your son killed Jews!” “I’m
talking to you from a Jewish woman’s phone. I killed her, and I killed her
husband. I killed 10 with my own hands!” “Dad, 10 with my own hands,” he shouts
with palpable joy. “Mom, your son is a hero,” he says.
21. As stated, none of
these atrocities absolve Israel of its obligations under the law. But they do
enable the Court to appreciate three core aspects of the present proceedings,
which the Applicant has obscured from view.
22. First, that if there
have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been
perpetrated against Israel. If there is a concern about the obligations of
States under the Genocide Convention, then it is in relation to their
responsibilities to act against Hamas’s proudly declared agenda of
annihilation, which is not a secret, and is not in doubt.
23. The
annihilationist language of Hamas’s Charter is repeated regularly by its
leaders, with the goal, in the words of one member Hamas’s political bureau, of
the “cleansing of Palestine of the filth of the Jews.” It is expressed no less
chillingly in the words of senior Hamas member, Ghazi Hamad, to Lebanese
Television on October 24, 2023, who refers to the October 7 attacks, what Hamas
calls the Al-Aqsa Flood, as follows: “The Al-Aqsa Flood”, he says “is
just the first time, and there will be a second, a third and a fourth.” In
the continuation of this interview, Hamad is asked: “Does that mean the
annihilation of Israel”. “Yes, of course,” he answers. “The existence of Israel
is illogical”; and then says “Nobody should blame us for the things we do. On
October 7, October 10, October 1,000,0000—everything we do is justified”. Given
that on October 7, before any military response by Israel, South Africa issued
an official statement blaming Israel for the “recent
conflagration,”—essentially blaming Israel for the murder of its own
citizens—one wonders whether the Applicant agrees.
24. Second, it is in
response to the slaughter of October 7—which Hamas openly vows to repeat—and to
the ongoing attacks against it from Gaza, that Israel has the inherent right to
take all legitimate measures to defend its citizens and secure the release of
the hostages. This right is also not in doubt. It has been acknowledged by
States across the world.[11]
25. Astonishingly, the
Court has been requested to indicate a provisional measure calling on Israel to
suspend its military operations. But this amounts to an attempt to deny Israel
its ability to meet its legal obligations to the defense of its citizens, to
the hostages, and to over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis unable to
safely return to their homes.
26. The Applicant in its submissions to the Court makes almost no mention of the ongoing humanitarian suffering of Israel’s citizens at the hands of Hamas, and treats the hostages still held in captivity, as barely afterthought. But is there a reason these people [on your screen] are unworthy of protection?
27. Hamas is not party
to these proceedings. The Applicant, by its request, seeks to thwart Israel’s
inherent right to defend itself—to let Hamas not just get away with its murder,
literally, but render Israel defenseless as Hamas continues to commit it.
28. Yesterday, Counsel
for the Applicant made the astonishing claim that Israel was denied this right,
and as a matter of fact should not be able to protect itself from Hamas’
attacks. But allow me to draw attention to these words written by Professor
Lowe: “The source of the attack, whether a state or non-state actor, is
irrelevant to the existence of the right” to self-defense. “Force may be used
to avert a threat because no one, and no state, is obliged by law passively to
suffer the delivery of an attack”. Israel agrees with these words, as I suspect
would any sovereign State.
29. If the claim of
the Applicant now is that in the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas,
Israel must be denied the ability to defend its citizens—then the absurd upshot
of South Africa’s argument is this: Under the guise of the allegation against
Israel of genocide, this Court is asked to call for an end to operations
against the ongoing attacks of an organization that pursues an actual genocidal
agenda. An organization that has violated every past ceasefire and used it to
rearm and plan new atrocities. An organization that declares its unequivocal
resolve to advance its genocidal plans. That is an unconscionable request, and
it is respectfully submitted that it cannot stand.
30. Third, the Court is
informed of the events of October 7 because, if there are any Provisional
Measures that should appropriately be indicated here, they are indeed with
respect to South Africa itself.
31. It is a matter of
public record, that South Africa enjoys close relations with Hamas, despite its
formal recognition as a terrorist organization by numerous States across the
world. These relations have continued unabated even after the
October 7 atrocities. South Africa has long hosted and celebrated its ties with
Hamas figures, including a senior Hamas delegation that—incredibly—visited the
country for a “solidarity gathering” just weeks after the massacre.
32. In justifying instituting these proceedings, South Africa makes much of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. It seems fitting, then, that it be instructed to comply with those obligations itself; to end its own language of de-legitimization of Israel’s existence; end its support for Hamas; and to use its influence with this organization so that Hamas permanently ends its campaign of genocidal terror and releases the hostages.
Madame
President, Members of the Court,
33. The hostilities
between Israel and Hamas have exacted a terrible toll on both Israelis and
Palestinians. But any genuine effort to understand the cause of this toll must
take account of the horrendous reality created by Hamas within the Gaza Strip.
34. When Israel
withdrew all its soldiers and civilians from Gaza in 2005 it left a coastal
area with the potential to become a political and economic success story.
Hamas’s violent take-over in 2007 changed all that. Over the past 16 years of
its rule, Hamas has smuggled countless weapons into Gaza and has diverted
billions in international aid, not to build schools, hospitals or shelters to
protect its population from the dangers of the attacks it launched against
Israel over many years, but rather to turn massive swathes of the civilian
infrastructure into perhaps the most sophisticated terrorist stronghold in the
history of urban warfare.
35. Remarkably,
counsel for South Africa described the suffering in Gaza as “unparalleled and
unprecedented,” as if they are unaware of the utter devastation wrought in wars
that have raged just in recent years around the world. Sadly, the civilian
suffering in warfare is not unique to Gaza. What is actually “unparalleled and
unprecedented” is the degree to which Hamas has entrenched itself within the
civilian population and made Palestinian civilian suffering an integral part of
its strategy.
36. Hamas has
systematically and unlawfully embedded its military operations, militants and
assets throughout Gaza within and beneath densely populated civilian areas. It
has built an extensive warren of underground tunnels for its leaders and
fighters several hundred miles in length throughout the Strip, with thousands
of access points and terrorist hubs located in homes, mosques, U.N. facilities,
schools and perhaps most shockingly hospitals.
37. This is not an
occasional tactic. It is an integrated, preplanned, extensive and abhorrent
method of warfare. Purposely and methodically murdering civilians. Firing
rockets indiscriminately. Systematically using civilians, sensitive sites and
civilian objects as shields. Stealing and hoarding humanitarian
supplies—allowing those under its control to suffer, so that it can fuel its
fighters and terrorist campaign.
38. The appalling
suffering of civilians—both Israeli and Palestinian—is first and foremost the
result of this despicable strategy; the horrible cost of Hamas not only failing
to protect its civilians but actively sacrificing them for its own propaganda
and military benefit. And if Hamas abandons this strategy, releases the
hostages and lays down its arms, the hostilities and suffering would end.
Madame
President, Members of the Court,
39. There are many
distortions in the Applicant’s submission to the Court, but as shall be
demonstrated by Counsel, there is one that overshadows them all. In the
Applicant’s telling, it is almost as if there is no intensive armed conflict
taking place between two parties at all, no grave threat to Israel and its
citizens, only an Israeli assault against Gaza.
40. The Court is told
of widespread damage to buildings, but it is not told, for example, how many
thousands of these buildings were destroyed because they were booby-trapped by
Hamas, how many became legitimate targets because of the strategy of using
civilian objects and protected sites for military purposes, how many buildings
were struck by over 2000 indiscriminate terrorist rockets that misfired and
landed in Gaza itself.
41. The Court is told
of over 23,000 casualties, as the Applicant repeats, as many have, unverified
statistics provided by Hamas itself—hardly a reliable source.[19] Every
civilian casualty in this conflict is a human tragedy that demands our
compassion. But the Court is not told how many thousands of casualties are in
fact militants, how many were killed by Hamas fire, how many were civilians
taking direct part in hostilities, and just how many are the tragic result of
legitimate and proportionate use of force against military targets.
42. And the Court is
also told of the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, but it is not told of
Hamas’s practice of stealing and hoarding aid, it is not told of the extensive
Israeli efforts to mitigate civilian harm, of the humanitarian initiatives
being undertaken to enable the flow of supplies and provide medical attention
to the wounded.
43. The Applicant
purports to describe the reality in Gaza. But it is as if Hamas, and its total
contempt for civilian life, just do not exist as a direct cause of that reality.
Hamas is widely estimated to have over 30,000 fighters and is known to bring
minors no older than 15 or 16 into its ranks. They are coming for us. But, in
South Africa’s telling, they have all but disappeared. There are no explosives
in mosques and schools and children’s bedrooms, no ambulances used to transport
fighters, no tunnels and terrorist hubs under sensitive sites, no fighters
dressed as civilians, no commandeering of aid trucks, no firing from civilian
homes, U.N. facilities and even safe zones. There is only Israel acting in Gaza.
44. The Applicant is
essentially asking the Court to substitute the lens of armed conflict between a
State and a lawless terrorist organization, with the lens of a so-called
genocide of a State against a civilian population. But it is not offering the
Court a lens, it is offering it a blindfold.
Madame
President, Members of the Court,
45. The nightmarish
environment created by Hamas has been concealed by the Applicant, but it is the
environment in which Israel is compelled to operate. Israel is committed, as it
must be, to comply with the law, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter contempt
for the law. It is committed, as it must be, to demonstrate humanity, but it
does so in the face of Hamas’s utter inhumanity.
46. As will be
presented by Counsel, these commitments are a matter of express government
policy, military directives and procedures. They are also an expression of
Israel’s core values. And, as shall also be shown, they are matched by genuine
measures on the ground to mitigate civilian harm under the unprecedented and
excruciating conditions of warfare created by Hamas.
47. It is plainly
inconceivable—under the terms set by this very Court—that a State conducting
itself in this way may be said to be engaged in Genocide, not even prima
facie.
48. The key component
of genocide—the intention to destroy a people in whole or in part—is totally
lacking. What Israel seeks by operating in Gaza is not to destroy a people, but
to protect a people, its people, who are under attack on multiple fronts, and to
do so in accordance with the law, even as it faces a heartless enemy determined
to use that very commitment against it.
49. As will be
detailed by Counsel, Israel’s lawful aims in Gaza have been clearly and
repeatedly articulated by its Prime Minister, its Defense Minister, and all
members of the War Cabinet. As the Prime Minister reiterated yet again just
this week “Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the civilian population”.
50. Israel aims to
ensure that Gaza can never again be used as a launch pad for
terrorism. As the Prime Minister reaffirmed, Israel seeks neither to
permanently occupy Gaza or to displace its civilian population. It wants to
create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike, where both can live
in peace, thrive and prosper, and where the Palestinian people have all the
power to govern themselves, but not the capacity to threaten Israel.
51. If there is a
threat to that vision—if there is a humanitarian threat to the Palestinian
civilians of Gaza—it stems primarily from the fact that they have lived under
the control of a genocidal terrorist organization that has total disregard for
their life and well-being. That organization, Hamas, and its sponsors, seek to
deny Israel, Palestinians, and Arab States across the region, the ability to
advance a common future of peace, co-existence, security, and prosperity.
Israel is in a war of defense against Hamas—not against the Palestinian
people—to ensure that they do not succeed.
52. In these
circumstances, there can hardly be a charge more false or more malevolent than
the allegation against Israel of genocide.
53. The Applicant has,
regrettably, engaged in a transparent attempt to abuse the Convention’s
compulsory jurisdiction mechanism, and in particular, the Provisional Measures
phase of proceedings, to bring under the purview of the Court matters over
which, in truth, it lacks jurisdiction.
54. Madame President,
Members of the Court, the Genocide Convention was a solemn promise made to the
Jewish people, to all peoples, of “Never Again.” The Applicant invites the
Court to betray that promise. If the term genocide can be so diminished in the
way it advocates, if Provisional Measures can be triggered in the way it
suggests, the Convention becomes an aggressor’s charter. It will reward, indeed
encourage, the terrorists who hide behind civilians, at the expense of the
States seeking to defend against them.
55. To maintain the
integrity of the Genocide Convention, to maintain its promise, and the Court’s
own role as its guardian, it is respectfully submitted that this Application
and Request should be dismissed for what they are—a libel, designed to deny
Israel the right to defend itself according to the law from the unprecedented
terrorist onslaught it continues to face, and to free the 136 hostages Hamas still holds.
Connecting
the Dots:
Palestine (Hamas)
is a member of the United Nations.
International
Court of Justice is an affiliate of the United Nations.
Andrew Carnegie provided
the seed funding for the International Court of Justice and the
founder of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
Open Society Foundations was a funder for
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
George Soros is the founder & chairman for
the Open Society Foundations and was the chairman for the Foundation
to Promote Open Society.
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace (think tank) and the Brookings Institution
(think tank).
Cass R. Sunstein is
a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank) and married
to Samantha Power.
Samantha Power is
married to Cass R. Sunstein and the U.S. ambassador for the United Nations.
Donald F. McHenry was
a U.S. ambassador for the United Nations and is an honorary
trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Joan E. Spero was
a U.S ambassador for economic & social affairs for the United
Nations and an honorary trustee at the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for
the Brookings Institution (think tank).
George Soros was the chairman
for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Cameron F. Kerry is
a fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank), John F.
Kerry’s brother and a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP.
Barack Obama was
an intern at Sidley Austin LLP.
Michelle Obama was
a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP.
Sidley Austin
LLP is the lobby firm for Israel.
Newton N. Minow is
a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP and an honorary trustee at
the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Andrew Carnegie was the
founder of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, provided the seed
funding for the International Court of Justice and the founder of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
International
Court of Justice is an affiliate of the United Nations.
Palestine (Hamas)
is a member of the United Nations.
Open Society Foundations was a funder for
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
George Soros is the
founder & chairman for the Open Society Foundations and was the
chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank) and Brookings Institution
(think tank).
Andrew Carnegie was the
founder of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank),
provided the seed funding for the International Court of Justice and
the founder of the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Carnegie Corporation of New York was a funder
for the Brookings Institution (think tank) and the Nuclear
Threat Initiative (think tank).
Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank) was a
funder for the Nuclear Threat Initiative (think tank).
Warren E. Buffett is
an adviser for the Nuclear Threat Initiative (think tank), and an
advisory board member for Everytown for Gun Safety.
Everytown
for Gun Safety is a “Gun Safety, Gun Control” group for guns.
Michael R.
Bloomberg is the founder of Everytown for Gun Safety,
and Marjorie B. Tiven’s brother.
Marjorie B. Tiven is Michael
R. Bloomberg’s sister, a director at the United Nations
Development Corporation and was the New York City commissioner for
the United Nations.
International
Court of Justice is an affiliate of the United Nations.
Palestine (Hamas)
is a member of the United Nations.
Hisashi Owada was
the Japanese representative for the United Nations, is a judge for
the International Court of Justice, a director at the United
Nations Foundation and a director at the Nuclear Threat Initiative
(think tank).
Ted Turner is
the chairman for the United Nations Foundation, the founder
of CNN and a co-chairman for the Nuclear Threat Initiative
(think tank).
Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank) was a
funder for the Nuclear Threat Initiative (think tank).
Carnegie
Corporation of New York was a funder for the Nuclear Threat
Initiative (think tank) and the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Andrew Carnegie was
the founder of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the founder of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank) and provided
the seed funding for the International Court of Justice.
International
Court of Justice is an affiliate of the United Nations.
Palestine (Hamas) is a member of the United
Nations.
Kofi A. Annan is
a secretary general for the United Nations, a director at the United
Nations Foundation, was a trustee at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace (think tank), a trustee at the Carnegie Corporation
of New York.
Ted Turner is
the chairman for the United Nations Foundation, the founder
of CNN and a co-chairman for the Nuclear Threat Initiative
(think tank).
Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank) was a
funder for the Nuclear Threat Initiative (think tank).
Carnegie
Corporation of New York was a funder for the Nuclear Threat
Initiative (think tank) and the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (think tank) and the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
George Soros was the chairman for the Foundation
to Promote Open Society.
Cameron F. Kerry is
a fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank), John F.
Kerry’s brother and a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP.
Barack Obama was
an intern at Sidley Austin LLP.
Michelle Obama was
a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP.
Sidley Austin
LLP is the lobby firm for Israel.
Newton N. Minow is
a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP and an honorary trustee at
the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Andrew Carnegie was
the founder of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, provided the
seed funding for the International Court of Justice and the founder
of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (think tank).
International
Court of Justice is an affiliate of the United Nations.
Palestine is a
member of the United Nations.
Resources: Past Research
International
Court of Justice (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CONNECTIONS) (Past
Research on the International Court of Justice (ICJ))
TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 22, 2015
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2015/12/international-court-of-justice.html
MSNBC
Airs Palestinian Jihad Propaganda Map (Past Research
on Palestine (Hamas))
TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 20, 2015
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2015/10/msnbc-airs-palestinian-jihad-propaganda.html
THE
NEW WORLD DISORDER (Connecting the Dots: The United Nations & Soros
Funding, All Networking) (Past Research on the
United Nations)
MONDAY,
JUNE 26, 2023
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-new-world-disorder-connecting-dots.html
Hours
After John Kerry Demands Green Transition Accelerated – His Emissions Closet
Swings Wide Open (Connecting the Dots: Cameron Kerry, John Kerry, Teresa Heinz
Kerry, Soros, the Climate Reality Project, the Brookings Institution (think
tank), the EPA and onto the FDA, Pfizer & Johnson & Johnson. It’s the
Network That Never Ends. One Project (Climate Change) Just bleeds into the Next
(Covid Project)) (Past Research on Cameron Kerry)
THURSDAY,
JULY 21, 2022
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2022/07/hours-after-john-kerry-demands-green.html
Report:
Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike (Past
Research on Israel)
TUESDAY,
MARCH 3, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment