Gaza Tribunal President Falk: The West's response to the Gaza genocide is moral hypocrisy on international law

Prof. Richard Falk, President of the Gaza Tribunal — a global, independent initiative established to investigate the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza — emphasized that the contradictions between the West's response to the Russia-Ukraine war and to the Gaza genocide clearly reveal a "moral hypocrisy" in international law.

Falk, one of the world's leading professors of international law, attended the final session of the Gaza Tribunal held in Istanbul.

He answered questions from an Anadolu Agency correspondent on topics including the questioning of the United Nations' (UN) approach in the face of the genocide committed by Israel in Gaza, the double standards of Western states toward the peoples of Ukraine and Gaza, Gaza's strategic position in the Mediterranean and its infrastructure wealth, the Tel Aviv government's vision of the Ben Gurion Canal Project proposed in the 1960s as an alternative to the Suez Canal, Israel's refusal to accept a Palestinian state "on equal footing," and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's "The world is bigger than five" vision.

Question: What kind of mission does the Gaza Tribunal carry out? What sets this initiative apart from other struggles waged against the genocide committed by Israel?

Richard Falk: The final session of the Gaza People's Tribunal has a very difficult dual task. The first is to expose the genocide that has taken place over the past two years and to present a comprehensive picture of the suffering imposed on the Palestinian population in Gaza. The second is to correct or clarify the flawed methods that led to the acceptance of the ceasefire and to the future of Gaza being shaped in a pro-Israel manner and in line with Israel's unchanging fundamental objective. Israel's core aim is to end the conflict by eliminating the political identity and resistance of the Palestinians and by annexing the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza into Israeli territorial sovereignty. This is largely what is meant by reaching Greater Israel, the Zionists' endgame. We are trying to develop the clearest possible analysis and are continuously calling for action on matters such as civil-society solidarity initiatives like the flotilla, the reports of UN Special Rapporteurs, and respect for the opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Therefore, we want to project a final image showing that the Palestinian people's struggle for self-determination has not ended but continues, and that it has been the target of an attempt at deception through a kind of (U.S. President Donald) Trump diplomacy born not of negotiation but of ultimatum. Hamas was given 72 hours to accept the ceasefire in exchange for a prisoner swap, and Hamas accepted this threat diplomacy that rewards the perpetrator of genocide. (This situation) places Israel in a position of being rewarded for the crimes it has committed, while the Palestinians, despite suffering extreme victimization during this period, are punished even further. It is in this context that we want to reach world public opinion and strengthen the Palestinian people's victory in what I call this war of legitimacy. This is a war over the symbolic power politics of legitimacy and morality that have generally prevailed in anti-colonial struggles since World War II. For this reason, as a symbolic contribution to this Palestinian victory in the war of legitimacy, we are setting out our hopes for a just conclusion to this century-long struggle.

Question: There is a fragile ceasefire process. Yet the Israeli government's extremist policies in the region continue. Eyes are turning to the UN, but trust in it has largely been lost. What kind of transformation does the international system, and the UN in particular, need?

Richard Falk: You need to remember that the UN was founded in 1945 by the victors of World War II. They established a two-tier system in which global security and war-and-peace policies would be subordinated to the geopolitical supremacy of the five permanent members of the Security Council, who hold veto power. That is the upper layer. The second layer is the part about "the equality of states, respect for the (UN) Charter and international law, to be applied to those who are not permanent members of the Security Council." This was explained by a Mexican delegate who was asked, "What kind of organization have you created?" He (the delegate) said, "We have created an organization where the tigers roam freely and the mice are policed." This is the exact opposite of what the world needs. What is needed is for the tigers to be policed and the mice to be free to do as they wish. Such a reform cannot happen without a very powerful and persistent movement from below, from civil society. The elite of the geopolitical actors — China, Russia and the U.S. — do not want reform. They want the supremacy of geopolitics to continue. If this continues, the UN will act in the future just as it did in Gaza. All expectations will end in a disappointment that opens the eyes of many people who do not understand that the UN was designed to fail in such situations. (The UN) was structured so as not to interfere with the strategic interests of the five permanent members. This recalls President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's warning "The world is bigger than five," which essentially conveys the message that the UN, as currently constituted, cannot preserve peace or uphold global security. There is the example of Gaza, where the ICJ has issued important rulings but has been unable to implement them without the cooperation of the Security Council. So there is a gap built into the structure — a gap in implementation and accountability. Unless this structure is changed, the UN cannot launch an effective struggle against the U.S., China or Russia. The U.S. is the foremost of the permanent five. From time to time, with the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War, the U.S. has tried to turn the UN into an instrument of policy against its geopolitical adversary. (The U.S.) secured the UN's adoption of powerful General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia's attacks on Ukraine and warning China not to attack Taiwan. This is not fully understood by the West or the world. This poses a serious challenge for the future of humanity, which needs the collective institution that the UN Charter, at its outset, promised the peoples of the world it would be in saving future generations from war. The UN made these promises and pledges, but in practice it has remained weak.

Question: Israel has broken the ceasefire many times from the very beginning. In recent days, too, it has carried out attacks seizing the opportunity to do so. Israel is preparing to annex the seized lands of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Is this a matter that can be reduced to Israel alone?

Richard Falk: Israel is not ready for a compromise with the Palestinians on the establishment of an equal Palestinian state. It refuses to do so. At the same time, it is under pressure from its ally, the U.S., to accept this diplomatic framework. However, it also retains the authority to break this framework whenever it wishes. So it is trying to strike a kind of balance between pretending to comply with this diplomatic initiative and focusing on its primary objective — building "Greater Israel," which means eliminating the political identity of the Palestinians. This tension causes confusion because, on one side, there is the ceasefire and the 20-point plan, while on the other, Israel is trying to control the rest of the Palestinian resistance and gain territorial sovereignty in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Gaza has become even more important over the past decade due to its offshore natural gas fields and the Israeli government's preparation of an architectural plan for the Ben Gurion Canal, which would pass through Gaza and serve as a future alternative to the Suez Canal. For this reason, there are strategic reasons why Gaza has suddenly become far more important not only for Israel but also for the West. And it would be useful to see this not merely as an Israeli-Palestinian issue, but as a clash between the West and the Islamic world, as Samuel Huntington predicted when he foresaw a clash of civilizations after the Cold War. What we are experiencing is the West — which wants to maintain a degree of hegemony in the region because of its strategic position and energy reserves — supporting Israel as a kind of bridgehead to neutralize any resistance to this post-colonial order.

Question: You emphasized that although the tribunal aims for judicial professionalism, it is not impartial and does not approach the matter with the principle of neutrality or innocence. Many see this as a concession. Could you explain why neutrality is a problem in this regard?

Richard Falk: I think this is an important question, but it is true that since the Russell Tribunal in the 1960s (established to judge human rights violations in the Vietnam War), all people's tribunals have been founded by people outraged at the established order's failure to address a manifest wrong or a manifest crime. This does not stem from doubt about whether organizing, financing and arranging such a civil-society initiative is worth the great effort. The tribunal would not have made such an effort if it did not believe that the system of governments, states and international institutions has failed the peoples of the world. So it acknowledges that it is not impartial. This stems from a partisan belief that crimes are being committed without being addressed, that people are suffering unjustly in this situation, and that only civil society can address these crimes that go unpunished. This is unpunished criminal conduct. This is a moral imperative, and that is why there is not a legal jury but a jury of conscience. This not only responds to the call of morality on behalf of the Palestinian struggle but also makes a call on behalf of humanity. This becomes, on one hand, a concrete response to the genocide in Gaza, and on the other, a metaphor for the unmet challenges around the world that concern all of humanity.

Question: As one of the world's foremost professors of international law, what do you think about the West's departure from international law? In European countries, on the one hand there are enthusiastic demonstrations of support for Palestine, but on the other, even the rights of assembly and demonstration can be banned when the subject is Palestine?

Richard Falk: What emerges very clearly from the contradictions between the West's response to the Russia-Ukraine war and to the Gaza genocide is moral hypocrisy regarding international law. International law is a policy tool against enemies or rivals, but when it comes to applying it to friends and allies, it becomes a policy obstacle. And that is not law. Law requires equals to be treated equally, but by treating Russia's attack on Ukraine so differently, the West provoked its own response to Israel's genocide. Thus it not only turned a blind eye but also provided support through financing, weapons and diplomatic protection. This shows that international law is viewed from an opportunistic perspective — as state propaganda useful in confronting enemies, but something that can be disregarded when trying to strengthen alliances with friendly powers involved in contested conflicts.