Today (January 11), the State of Israel will stand before the International Court of Justice in The Hague to answer the charge of genocide in Gaza.

The charges have been brought by the State of South Africa, showing that the spirit of justice and freedom, and the determination to hold injustice to account – as espoused by Nelson Mandela, Steve Biko, Archbishop Tutu, Walter Sisulu, Ruth First, Victoria Mxenge, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and countless others whose names are remembered only by those who loved them – lives on through this courageous action.

Given the extent of displacement, destitution, death, destruction, injury and disease inflicted on the population of Gaza, you would hope and believe that a guilty verdict would follow, and that Israel would accept the verdict and end what many people are calling genocide, even if that State continues to be in denial of that definition of their actions.

However, I would not necessarily hold my breath on either outcome in the short term.

What is certain is that Israel cannot recover any global credibility once these hearings commence.

The Zionist usurpation of the culture, religion and the history of oppression of Jews, culminating in the Nazi genocide of Jewish people – the Holocaust – will be forensically exposed for the cynical self- serving supremacist ideology that it is.

Zionist ideology denies the inclusion of all other Semitic people in the definition of anti-Semitism, denying the global Arab population from protection against anti-Semitism, through its extensive support network within the political administration of other States – including the USA, UK and Ireland.

Despite the global outcry for an end to the onslaught we can all see with our own eyes, the only State to have formally declared support for South Africa’s action is... Malaysia.

That is the extent of Israel’s influences on people in high places, and on every other country through their sponsor, the USA.

The financial investment of the Israeli ‘lobby’ for the individual political leaders, and the political parties they lead and control, is eye-watering.

For example, the international news agency Reuters reported last October that President Biden has personally pocketed more than four million dollars that can be publicly identified, reporting that during his 36 years in the Senate, he was the chamber's biggest recipient in history of donations from pro-Israeli groups, taking in $4.2 million (according to the Open Secrets database).

For a ‘late comer’ to political leadership, Keir Starmer hasn’t done too badly either, in both donations to his own internal and external election, and to the members of His Majesty’s Opposition ‘front bench’.

Notwithstanding the hurdles the legal team will face, we can all but hope, and not discourage those who pray from doing so that a verdict of guilty as charged will be returned, and will put an end to the barbarism of Israel’s current ‘war’.

The International Court of Justice is the UN judicial authority, and has two functions.

The first is to make legally-binding determinations in accordance with international law on legal disputes submitted by States, as with the current South African submission that Israel is in breach of its obligations under 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The court can also provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised UN organs and specialised agencies.

In 1948, the UN sought advice from the court in relation to the assassination in September, 1948, in Jerusalem, of the United Nations Mediator in Palestine, and other members of the United Nations Mission to Palestine, the General Assembly, asked the court whether the United Nations had the capacity to bring an international claim against the State responsible, with a view to obtaining reparation for damage caused to the organisation and to the victims.

Not an auspicious start to the State of Israel!

Closer to home, I have long argued that the activities of the UK here – from the foundation of Northern Ireland as a quasi-state – should face the scrutiny of the International Court of Justice under either or both of its functions.

When the Irish Free State became an independent sovereign Republic in April, 1949, and the British Government responded with the 1949 Government of Ireland Act, either or both parties could, through the UN Assembly, have sought advice on the impact of each of these pieces of legislation on the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people in Northern Ireland.

The anomaly created in relation to the right of self-determination in relation to nationality and citizenship effectively remained until 1998.

There is an argument that Bunreacht na hEireann, the Irish Constitution, covered itself with its acknowledgement that the jurisdiction of the State’s constitutional authority was in reality smaller than the constitution allowed, until such time as the constitutional territory could be peacefully re-established, as had been agreed by the British in 1914.

The UK 1949 Act, however, effectively gave the Unionists a veto on re-unification and left ambivalence on accepting the duality of citizenship/nationality for those who considered themselves Irish rather than British.

The British might have had a strong counter case that the unilateral declaration of Ireland was a breach of the Free State treaty which post-dated the UK Government agreement on Home Rule for the whole island, but for the fact that they were right at the concluding negotiations to recognise the State of Israel which had, in breach of the UK Balfour Agreement, declared an Independent State the previous year.

The UK recognised Israel on May 13, 1949, completing the ‘de jure’ recognition on April 28, 1950.

Clearly, nobody in government in the UK ever heard the quote, “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Given that there is universal acceptance in Northern Ireland that the UK Legacy Bill is intended for no purpose other than to protect the British State, its soldiers, agents and double-agents from being held to account for their actions, the Irish government can not only query the legislation at the EU, but should, long ago, have compiled a charge sheet against the British government to be heard at The Hague.

The 1998 Belfast Agreement, in formally recognising the right to Irish Citizenship and Nationality, removes the limitation preventing the court hearing cases of atrocity against a State’s own citizens.

I’ll leave you with that thought to ponder before the State now tries to silence the bereaved and the injured in their ‘dirty war’ with considerably less than 30 pieces of silver, for their pain.