View allAll Photos Tagged statement
PP22 - Policy Statements
H.E. Mr Puthyvuth Sok
Secretary of State
Ministry of Post and Telecommunications
Bucharest, Romania
27 September 2022
©ITU/Rowan Farrell
Beaded tribal statement necklace from Forever 21, worn once, great condition. Originally $12.80.
$3
If you are interested, email me at ahoweonenineninethreeatyahoodotcom (actual numbers- not spelled out). In the subject line put: Moving Sale 2015 , this is the only way I will see your email. I'll try to check this nightly. Please note exactly which item(s) you're interested in. Everything is final sale. I will not hold any items for more than a day, it is all first come first serve.
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde delivers a statement on the conclusion of the IMF's Executive Board regular five-yearly review of the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) November 30, 2015 at the IMF Headquarters in Washington, DC. Lagarde stated “The Executive Board's decision to include the RMB in the SDR basket is an important milestone in the integration of the Chinese economy into the global financial system. It is also a recognition of the progress that the Chinese authorities have made in the past years in reforming China’s monetary and financial systems. The continuation and deepening of these efforts will bring about a more robust international monetary and financial system, which in turn will support the growth and stability of China and the global economy.” IMF Staff Photo/Stephen Jaffe
Urban art in the Arts District of Los Angeles, a unique piece where the artist has placed a facial relief within a hand drawn frame. Not sure of the written statement is by the same person, either way works for me!
#boho #ethnic #outfit #white #dress with #accessories: #polymerclay #organic #gold #bangle , #greek #earrings , #statement #necklace , #brown #sandals . #jewels by #tuttosicrea www.etsy.com/shop/tuttosicrea
16 Likes on Instagram
With the ipad mini
Uluru Statement from the Heart in English
5m
SBS Radio - in consultation with the Uluru Dialogue, Indigenous Law Centre UNSW - is sharing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in various languages to continue the national dialogue. For the first time, this podcast collection includes more than 20 Aboriginal languages (from communities in the Northern Territory and from Northern Western Australia), which will continue to grow as more First Nations languages are translated. The collection also includes more than 60 languages for Australia’s Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an invitation to the Australian people to walk with First Nations peoples to create a better future. In May 2017, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates came together at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention near Uluru and presented the Uluru Statement from the Heart to the Australian people. The Statement calls for a First Nations Voice to Parliament, enshrined in the constitution, and a process for agreement making (Treaty) and truth-telling. It was the culmination of 13 deliberative Regional Dialogues across Australia with First Nations communities. The Statement seeks to establish a relationship between Australia's First Nations peoples and the Australian nation based on truth, justice and self-determination. Music by Frank Yamma. Photo by Jimmy Widders Hunt. Video collection: www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-in... Podcast collection: www.sbs.com.au/language/ulurustatement
Governor Inslee, Oregon Governor Brown, California Governor Newsom and British Columbia Premier John Horgan smile as they complete the signing of the Pacific Coast Collaboration Statement of Cooperation.
When the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted consumers were beginning to shift from buying food in bulk to buying smaller packaged goods. One key provision of the law forbid the adulteration of foods with ingredients that would deceive the purchaser or lessen the product’s value. Federal food and drug inspectors found that short-weighting or under-filling packages was a far bigger problem than adulterated ingredients. Indeed, at one point fully one-third of the products examined were short-weighted or under-filled.
Congress responded to these consumer “cheats” by enacting the little known Gould Net Weight Amendment in 1913. This statute required that packaged products be labeled with an accurate net weight statement or numerical count, and established FDA’s authority to require specified and standardized information on product labels. The law was later incorporated into the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The pictured bottle is an extract bottle from the early 20th century. With a label on it, it would be impossible for the housewife to see the deception contained within. Although the bottle was the expected size and shape of a two-ounce extract bottle, it had been created to hold but a single ounce.
The net weight statement on product labels is a continuing reminder of consumer protections that food and drug legislation and regulation have provided since the earliest days of the agency.
continuing my exploration of faux metal setting for glass and gems; large iridescent black glass cab set with rhinestones, pearls and glass beads--will be posted to my shop next week.
These beautiful soutache earrings were embroidered around small Swarovski fuchsia mounted cabochons with hot pink, grey and lilac soutache braid, lilac Swarovski crystal pearls, hematite Czech glass beads, firepolished crystal/silver Czech beads, fuchsia Swarovski crystals and Japanese silver seed beads, embellished with grey Swarovski crystals.
The earrings measure 1 3/4" (4.5 cm) from the bottom of the sterling silver earring post to the bottom of the grey Swarovski crystals and 1 1/2" (4 cm) in width. The back is lined with grey genuine leather.
More info: www.craftivist-collective.com/Mini-Fashion-Statements
PRESS RELEASE 16.2.17:
Will you find a Mini Fashion Statement in your pocket this April?
As the world remembers the Rana Plaza disaster on 24 April, the Craftivist Collective will be launching a new craftivism kit to make and gently challenge people to think about how their clothing is made.
The collapse of a Bangladeshi factory in 2013 saw 1,138 garment workers killed and over 2,500 injured. There had been signs of structural failure the previous day, but workers were ordered to return to work regardless.
The Mini Fashion Statements kit is being launched in support of Fashion Revolution, a global movement born in the wake of the disaster, which calls for greater transparency, sustainability and ethics in the fashion industry.
The kit feature small scrolls on which makers all over the world are encouraged to write - slowly and in their neatest handwriting on their own or in groups - one of three provocative but not preachy messages designed to get both writer and reader thinking about the true cost of fashion and inspire them to play their part in improving the ugly side of the industry.
Shop-droppers not shop-lifters
The finished scrolls, tied with a pretty bow and featuring an invitation to “please open me”, a smiley face and a kiss, can then be ‘shop-dropped’ into the pockets of garments in fashion stores, or clothes worn by family, friends and colleagues.
This deliberately non-confrontational form of ‘guerilla activism’ using handcrafts is a designed as an alternative to some the more traditional aggressive types of activism.
Sarah Corbett, founder of the Craftivist Collective, said: “We help people learn the art of ‘gentle protest’. We want every part of the fashion industry to be beautiful, not just the clothes. Our pocket-sized scrolls are powerful and poignant little reminders of the role we can play as consumers. They’re designed to make us think about how the clothes we buy and wear are made, and how we might be able to help tackle problems like poor conditions for workers or the use of materials that are damaging to the environment.”
Asking #whomademyclothes
Orsola de Castro, co-founder and Creative Director of Fashion Revolution, said: “We want to unite the fashion industry and ignite a revolution to radically change the way our clothes are sourced, produced and purchased, so that what the world wears has been made in a safe, clean and fair way.
“The Craftivist Collective’s Mini Fashion Statements are a really simple, fun and creative way to be part of the Fashion Revolution. Made with love and placed into a pocket on a store's clothes rail, they surprise shoppers with a message that reminds us to be more curious about our clothes.
“They may be small, but they have the power to make shoppers stop and consider the people who make our clothes, their working conditions and human rights issues. This shows that activism doesn't need to shout from the rooftops, it can gently provoke from our pockets!”
The Mini Fashion Statement kits were pioneered by Sarah during workshops at Stockholm Fashion Week and Helsinki Design Week, and are the first non-stitched Craftivist Collective project. Sarah will be holding further workshops in London and Lincoln in early April to introduce people to the kits and teach them how to do ‘shop drops’ to distribute their mini fashion statements.
[Subhead:] Editor’s notes
CRAFTIVIST COLLECTIVE: Founded in 2009, the Craftivist Collective produces projects, products and kits to help individuals and groups across the globe change the world one stitch (or sentence) at a time using slow, gentle, beautiful activism. You can find out more at www.craftivist-collective.com
FASHION REVOLUTION: Fashion Revolution is a global movement calling for greater transparency, sustainability and ethics in the fashion industry. Fashion Revolution Week runs from 24-30 April 2017. For more information visit www.fashionrevolution.org
RESOURCES / CONTACT: Logos and product imagery, as well as quotes and interview opportunities, are available on request - please email press@craftivist-collective.com.
MINI FASHION STATEMENT KITS: Each kit features: a roll of high quality scrolls, each with an embossed Craftivist Collective logo; three different colours of ribbon (enough for 10 scrolls) to help make your messages stand out; ‘Crafterthought’ questions to reflect on as you write; two small free gifts; tips and message templates. They will available from 24 April at <a href=www.craftivist-collective.com/shop.
EVENT: Hackney, London: Thursday 6th April, Showroom Studio, 6.30-8pm. £10 You will learn the art of gentle protest, create beautiful small fashion statements supporting the organisation Fashion Revolution to put into the world as catalysts for change and practice the skill of shopdropping (the opposite of shoplifting).
Serbia 1 Slovenia 1
Translates roughly to "For Kosovo Serbs No Passports" "For Brazilian No Problems" Joke about Cleo a Brazilian who plays for Partizan Belgrade getting a Serbian Passport, but Kosovo Serbs not so fast...
I have a bit of an obsession with glassware. In fact, my husband has restricted my glassware purchases to an as-needed basis-- for example, if one of our glasses break, only then am I allowed to purchase another. Yes, this may sound harsh, but if you saw our overflowing glassware cabinet you would understand his strict rules.
While I normally purchase clear glassware in curvy shapes and elegant forms, lately I have been loving colored crystal and glass stemware, particularly in vintage styles.
Colored glassware makes a stylish statement on any table top, especially when it comes to Holiday entertaining. Replacing your everyday clear-crystal with dramatically colored stemware will help to set the stage for an extraordinary event that leaves your guests feeling extra special.
Green and gold tumblers -- Pier 1
Champagne glasses in amethyst, moss and aquamarine -- Replacements
Renaissance stemware -- Gracious Style
Financial statements for businesses usually include income statements, balance sheets, statements of retained earnings and cash flows. For more information please visit us our website.
Hot off the Press - Pink & Orange are the new Black!
At this time of year I think the Spindle looks its best, with the fruits bursting from their casings and the leaves glossy with Autumn colour!
Spindle timber is creamy white, hard and dense. In the past it was used to make ‘spindles’ for spinning and holding wool (hence its name), as well as skewers, toothpicks, pegs and knitting needles.
The fruits were baked and powdered, and used to treat head lice, or mange in cattle. Both the leaves and fruit are toxic to humans - the berries have a laxative effect.
Today spindle timber is used to make high-quality charcoal, for artists. Cultivated forms of the tree are also grown in gardens for autumn colour.
I think that all women owe a huge favour to the spindle tree, as it is from here that the spindles came for spinning wool, the first time in history that a woman (a spinster) could earn her own living!
Shown here is an image of Case 1 of the "'The Inevitable Present': Integration at William & Mary" Exhibit located in the Marshall Gallery (1st Floor Rotunda) and the Read & Relax area of Swem Library at the College of William & Mary, on display from February 4th 2013 to August 13th 2013
The following is a transcription of the labels in this case:
In late 1950, the Dean of the Department of Jurisprudence, Dudley W. Woodbridge reinforced the statements of the Board of Visitors and the Alumni Gazette when he told a meeting of the Norfolk and Portsmouth Bar Association that William & Mary would accept African American applicants.
Edward Augustus Travis was the first African American law student at William & Mary entering in the 1951 fall semester and graduating in August 1954 with a BCL degree, making him the first African American alumnus of William & Mary. Travis, born in Reed’s Ferry, Virginia, had attended Hampton Institute and graduated from Florida A&M before applying to William & Mary. Travis passed away in Newport News in November 1960.
While William & Mary had cracked open a door to integration, other battles continued throughout the nation, including in Washington, D.C. The Coordinating Committee for the Enforcement of the D.C. Anti-Discrimination Laws sent this flyer to William & Mary president Alvin Duke Chandler asking him to share the group’s boycott of department store Hecht’s with students. There is no indication in the records of the Office of the President if Chandler shared this information with students or others.
Hulon Willis was the first African American student admitted to William & Mary. He began in the summer 1951 term, pursuing his masters of education. At the time of his admision, Willis was already a graduate of Virginia State College (now Virginia State University) and a teacher in the Norfolk school system. He earned his degree from William & Mary in August 1956. The William & Mary Alumni Association’s Hulon Willis Association, a constituent group founded in 1992 by and for African American alumni, was named in honor of Willis, preserving his name and place in the university’s history for the future.
As a graduate student, Willis naturally had a different experience on campus than today’s undergraduate students. During the summers when he was attending classes, Willis lived on Braxton Court in a boarding house operated by Miss Gwen Skinner. When they attended football games at William & Mary, Hulon & Alyce Willis sat in the student section, not in the end zone where other African Americans were seated in the segregated stadium. When Willis was inducted into Kappa Delta Pi, an education honor society, according to Mrs. Willis another member told the group that he would be not be a part of an organization that admitted an African American. The group told this member he could leave and Willis was inducted in August 1956. As an alumnus, Willis joined the Order of the White Jacket, an Alumni Association constituent group for those who worked in campus dining halls, Colonial Williamsburg restaurants, and other dining establishments. After earning his graduate degree, Willis became an assistant professor at Virginia State University and then the director of campus police.
Like all students applying to William & Mary at the time, Willis was required to include a photograph of himself with his application. In a 2005 oral history interview with Jenay Jackson ’05, Hulon Willis’ wife Alyce, who had encouraged her husband to apply to William & Mary, recounted that upon receiving his acceptance letter in March 1951, she wondered if the photograph had fallen off his application. But a few weeks later, William & Mary released a public statement, announcing that Willis was the first African American student admitted to the institution. Willis was accepted not because the institution was opening its doors to all potential African American students, but because of the case brought by Gregory Swanson against the University of Virginia in 1950 after he was denied admission to the university’s School of Law. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Swanson could not be barred from admission because of his race. Willis was pursuing his master’s degree specializing in physical education and since that program of study was not offered by a state-supported institution accepting African American applicants, William & Mary could not decline to admit Willis based solely on his race. The college established a procedure to confer with Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, Jr. in Richmond on the admission of African American applicants beginning in the 1950s. William & Mary specifically wished to avoid a court case, while some, like A. W. Bohannan, who wrote to President Pomfret in May 1951 after Hulon Willis’ admission, saw forcing applicants to take the institution to court as the next step in preventing integration.
New Journal and Guide, 28 August 1954
This article is available through the ProQuest Historical Newspapers database at
proxy.wm.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview...
William & Mary’s first non-white undergraduate student was Art Matsu, ’28. Born to a Scottish mother and Japanese father, Matsu was an exceptional athlete who was successfully recruited from Cleveland by William & Mary to play quarterback and became captain of the football team. He also played basketball, baseball, ran track, became a member of the 13 Club and the Varsity Club, and took part in other student activities. But Matsu's attendance did not open the door widely to Asian American students. William & Mary’s student body would include only a handful of Asian and Asian American students throughout the 1930s-1950s.
The Colonial Echo, William & Mary’s yearbook, has been digitized by Swem Library and all volumes from 1899-1995 are available from the W&M Digital Archive at digitalarchive.wm.edu/colonialecho/.
Searching for a specific yearbook?
Contact Swem Library’s Special Collections Research Center at spcoll@wm.edu or 757-221-3090 to inquire if copies from your William & Mary years are available.
William & Mary admitted its first African American students under President John E. Pomfret. Pomfret would depart William & Mary soon after Willis and Travis were admitted due to the unrelated football scandal of 1951. He was replaced by former admiral Alvin Duke Chandler who was new to academia.
Correspondence, internal memos, and other materials relating to integration were filed by the Office of the President in the 1950s-1960s under the heading “Negro Education.” After being transferred to the University Archives, these folder titles were maintained to document the organization and practices of the office and the era.
You can both listen to and read Alyce Willis’ 2005 oral history interview at hdl.handle.net/10288/600.
The Swem Library and William & Mary’s Lemon Project conduct oral history interviews to document the stories and lives of college alumni, faculty, and staff. To volunteer, contact Swem Library’s Special Collections Research Center at spcoll@wm.edu or 757-221-3090.
Center for Student Diversity Records, UA 260,
Series 1: Office of Minority Student Affairs
Read more of The Black Presence at William and Mary at hdl.handle.net/10288/16118
The Flat Hat, 1 May 1951.
The Flat Hat student newspaper, first published in 1911, was digitized by Swem Library and is available from the W&M Digital Archive at digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/20
Jacqueline Filzen’s 2012 Charles Center Summer Research paper “African Americans at the College of William and Mary from 1950-1970” offers further information on this subject and provided much useful material for this exhibit. The paper can be read at hdl.handle.net/10288/17049
From the Special Collections Research Center, Earl Gregg Swem Library at the College of William and Mary. See swem.wm.edu/research/special-collections for further information and assistance.
Black and white photograph depicting a group of 31 people gathered beneath a sign reading "Beach House". Ink stamp verso reads "Phone 141 Tweed Heads Fred Lang Studios Wharf St., Tweed Heads Proprietors: Fred Lang & Bob Anthony Trade Mark Todays Photos Today".
If reproduced or distributed, this image should be clearly attributed to the collection of the Australian National Maritime Museum; and not be used for any commercial or for-profit purposes without the permission of the museum. For more information see our Flickr Commons Rights Statement.
The ANMM undertakes research and accepts public comments that enhance the information we hold about images in our collection. This record has been updated accordingly.
Object number: 00002692
Canon 5D Mark II Photos Tan Blond Swimsuit Bikini Model Goddess! 24-105mm F/4 USM L Lens !
"Beauty will save the world." --Dostoevsky
Hello Flickr fans! Excited for my Los Angeles Landscape gallery show in December! Taking a break from finishing the HDR landscapes and finishing some goddesses for my 45surf surfline instead. :) The gallery artist statement will begin with something like:
"In every photograph you can see both where the photographer was standing and what they were thinking. So it is that this collection tells the story of my epic journey as no words ever could. And more importantly, I hope that it serves to guide and inspire you along a hero's journey of your own making, owning all the glorious rewards of the risks of your own taking." --Johnny Ranger McCoy
Back to the goddesses for the moment:
Canon 5D Mark II Photos of Pretty Blonde Swimsuit Bikini Model Goddess with Blue Eyes! 24-105mm F/4 USM Lens ! She was tall, thin, fit--very, very fit--with amazing rock-hard abs and a toned, tall body! Long, long legs--long as the day! A classic socal California Beach Babe!
Epic video of the epic goddess, shot as the same time as the stills as is Johnny Ranger McCoy's lone-cowboy trademark technique:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y5lQiNQncA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OfcQ9KCy1Y
Join Johnny Ranger McCoy's Hero's Journey Mythology Goddesses facebook! www.facebook.com/45surfHerosJourneyMythology
Subscribe to Johnny's youtube for epic goddess videos! www.youtube.com/user/bikiniswimsuitmodels
Twitter: twitter.com/45surf
Follow me on facebook! facebook.com/elliot.mcgucken
All the Best on Your Epic Hero's Journey from Johnny Ranger McCoy & the HJM Goddesses! :)
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Georgian Prime Minister Mamuka Bakhtadze deliver statements to the press, at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., on June 11, 2019. [State Department photo by Michael Gross/ Public Domain]
Kamera: Zenza Bronica SQ-Ai
Linse: Zenzanon PS 50mm + extension tube
Film: Rollei Retro 400S @ ISO 400
Kjemi: Rodinal (1:25 / 10:30 min. @ 20°C)
-Monday 19 February 2024: I have just watched the whole proceedings of today’s opening statements by Palestine in the International Court of Justice in Den Haag, where in this new case the legality, policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are in question.
This is truly an historic moment. And the presentation today was immensely powerful. I was so impressed by the whole legal team and the entire presentation of the case. In particular, I was blown away by the sharp and precise presentation by the lawyer Paul Reichler and the emotional appeal of Riyad Mansour. This was monumental.
Together with South Africa’s separate genocide case against Israel, I am certain we are finally witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist regime and justice at last for the Palestinian people. Today Palestine had 3 hours of presentation. In the next few days, more than 50 additional countries will also present their statements.
Here is history in the making.
International Court of Justice: Opening hearing on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories (publ. 19 February 2024) [Video]
International Court of Justice: Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem [Transcripts and Documents]
Mr REICHLER:
3. THE ILLEGALITY OF ISRAEL’S PROLONGED OCCUPATION, ANNEXATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
1. Mr President, Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before you, and a privilege to speak on behalf of the State of Palestine.
2. I will address the legality of Israel’s prolonged occupation, annexation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In so doing, I will identify the elements that determine whether, and in what circumstances, a belligerent occupation is, or becomes, unlawful under international law; I will then review the evidence to assess whether those elements are present here; and I will show that, based on the applicable law and the well-established and undisputed facts, Israel’s 56-year occupation of Palestinian territory is manifestly and gravely unlawful, and that international law requires that it be brought to an end, completely and unconditionally.
I. The applicable rule of law
3. The applicable rule of law is straightforward. As Pictet wrote in 1958, “occupation . . . is essentially a temporary . . . situation”. This remains the law. In December 2022, the General Assembly, in resolution 77/126, recognized that “the occupation of a territory is to be a temporary, de facto situation, whereby the occupying Power can neither claim possession nor exert its sovereignty over the territory it occupies”. This rule is neatly explained in the Written Statement of Switzerland:
“The laws of occupation are built on the idea that occupation is only a temporary situation. They are based on four fundamental principles . . .: 1) the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the territory it occupies . . . 2) the occupying power must maintain the status quo ante and must not take any measures which might bring about permanent changes”.
The law is thus crystal clear: occupation can only be a temporary state of affairs. A permanent occupation is a legal oxymoron.
II. The permanent character of the Israeli occupation
4. Mr President, what makes Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territory unlawful is precisely its permanent character, and what demonstrates its permanence are:
(i) Israel’s de jure and de facto annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank;
(ii) its claims of sovereignty over these areas, which it refers to by their biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and considers integral parts of the State of Israel;
(iii) its establishment of hundreds of permanent Israeli settlements, with over 700,000 Israeli settlers, who have been promised by successive Israeli governments that they will never be removed; and
(iv) the multitude of official statements and documents that openly declare Israel’s intention to incorporate all of the occupied territory east of the Green Line into the State of Israel as a permanent part of a single Jewish State extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
A. Declarations of permanence by Israel’s highest authorities
5. As I will show you, the evidence is overwhelming and leaves no room for serious dispute about Israel’s actions or its intentions. As Israel’s Cabinet Secretary wrote in June of last year:
“Judea and Samaria were not seized from a sovereign state recognized by international law, and the State of Israel has a right to impose its sovereignty over these areas as they comprise the cradle of history of the Jewish people and are an inseparable part of the Land of Israel.”
As purported legal authority, the Cabinet Secretary invoked the First Book of Maccabees, written in the year 100 BC, chapter 15, verse 33:
“It is not a foreign land we have taken nor have we seized the property of foreigners, but only our ancestral heritage, which for a time had been unjustly occupied by our enemies.”
6. This was followed in August of last year by a message broadcast on Israel’s Army Radio by Israel’s Heritage Minister:
“Sovereignty must be extended within the borders of the West
Bank . . . and in the most prudent way, to create international recognition that this place is ours . . . There is no Green Line, it is a fictitious line that creates a distorted reality and must be erased.”
7. In September 2023, Israel’s Prime Minister literally erased the Green Line, in his presentation to the United Nations General Assembly. As you saw earlier, he depicted the State of Israel as extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, eliminating not only the Green Line but all traces of Palestine. This was no oversight; it was an act of the Head of Government, with all the attribution that it implies. The same message was delivered by Israel’s Finance Minister in Paris, six months earlier, when he denied the existence of Palestine and declared that Palestinians do not constitute a people. Previously, he said:
“We are here to stay. We will make it clear that our national ambition for a Jewish State from the river to the sea is an accomplished fact, a fact not open to discussion or negotiation.”
This has been Israel’s consistent position. Here is the map of Israel produced by its armed forces and published by the Government in 2021. One State, Israel, from the river to the sea. There is no Green Line; there is no Palestine. Instead, Palestine has been replaced by “Judea” and “Samaria”, which, according to Israel’s highest officials, are now integral parts of the State of Israel.
B. Annexation and settlement of Jerusalem
8. As these official statements and maps demonstrate, Israel makes no secret of its intention to retain permanently the entire area east of the Green Line. Its annexation of occupied Palestinian territory began in 1967 with legislation annexing East Jerusalem, which Israel increased eleven-fold in size to incorporate not only the Holy City but also vast areas of the West Bank surrounding the City. Its Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, declared at the time:
“The Israel Defence Forces have liberated Jerusalem . . . We have returned to this most sacred shrine, never to part from it again.”
In 1990, the Israeli Cabinet instructed the Foreign Minister to notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations that
“Jerusalem is not, in any part, ‘occupied territory’; it is the sovereign capital of Israel”.
In June 1996, the Guidelines of the incoming Israeli Government stated:
“Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is one city, whole and undivided, and will remain forever under Israel’s sovereignty.”
More recently, in assuming office in December 2022, the current Prime Minister declared that
“[t]he Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land nor occupiers in our eternal capital Jerusalem”.
As these official statements make clear, Israel’s dominion over Jerusalem and the incorporated area of the West Bank is not intended to be temporary. It has been repeatedly proclaimed by Israel’s highest authorities to be “eternal”.
9. In furtherance of this end, more than 230,000 Israeli Jewish settlers - encouraged, subsidized and protected by the Israeli Government and occupation forces - have been installed in East Jerusalem, dramatically altering the demographic composition of the Holy City by creating an Israeli Jewish majority.
C. Annexation and settlement of the West Bank
10. Israel has been equally clear in declaring its permanence in the West Bank, where more than 465,000 Israeli Jewish settlers have been implanted with the support of every Israeli government since 1967, in over 270 ever-expanding settlements, spread throughout this territory, in what can only be described as a vast colonial enterprise. These settlements, whose accelerated growth and distribution over the years are illustrated on your screens now, are a key instrument of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank; this is both their purpose and their effect.
11. As the Secretary-General reported to the General Assembly in 2015:
“Occupation is supposed to be temporary because the annexation or acquisition of territory by force is strictly prohibited under international law . . . In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the establishment and maintenance of the settlements amount to a slow, but steady annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory.”
12. Israel has made no secret of the intended permanence of these settlements. In 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu told Israeli settlers in the West Bank:
“Our message is clear. ‘We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of the State of Israel for eternity.’”
In August 2019, the Prime Minister announced that:
“The time has come to apply Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and to also arrange the status of all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria . . . They will be part of the State of Israel.”
In January 2020, Israel’s Defence Minister, Naftali Bennett, declared:
“Our objective is that within a short amount of time . . . we will apply sovereignty to all of Area C, not just the settlements, not just this bloc or another.”
13. This area, which is depicted in red on your screens now, comprises over 61 per cent of the West Bank. The Defence Minister proclaimed:
“I solemnly declare that Area C belongs to Israel.”
This area includes the Jordan Valley, which is the water reservoir, the breadbasket and the source of life for the entire West Bank.
14. In December 2022, the Guiding Principles of the incoming Israeli Government declared:
“The Jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The Government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel - the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria.”
The coalition agreement between the political parties that formed the Government included this pledge:
“[T]he Prime Minister will lead the formulation and promotion of policy in which sovereignty will be applied in Judea and Samaria, while choosing the timing and weighing all the national and international interests of the State of Israel.”
III. Israel’s defiance of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Court
15. General Assembly resolution 77/126 was adopted on 12 December 2022, just as the current Israeli Government was assuming office. The resolution pointedly recalled:
“[T]he principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and therefore the illegality of the annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a breach of international law” and the resolution condemned Israel’s “annexation of land, whether de facto or through national legislation”.
16. Israel has thoroughly disregarded resolution 77/126, just as it disregarded all prior General Assembly and Security Council resolutions declaring illegal the annexation of any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the establishment of Israeli settlements there. These include but are by no means limited to:
* - Security Council resolution 252 of 1968, declaring Israel’s acquisition of territory by military conquest “inadmissible”;
* - resolution 476 of 1980, which “[r]eaffirm[ed] the overriding necessity for ending the prolonged occupation of Arab territories” in 1980 and “[s]trongly deplore[d] the refusal of Israel . . . to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly”;
* - resolution 478 of 1980, which “determine[d] that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel . . . to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith”;
* - resolution 2334 of 2016, which “reaffirm[ed] . . . the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”, and condemned “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 . . . including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians”; and
* - at least 28 General Assembly resolutions, which expressly condemned Israel’s “annexation” of Jerusalem and the West Bank.
* 17. Israel has also blatantly disregarded the obligations reflected in the Court’s 2004 Advisory Opinion in the Wall case. Since then, instead of dismantling the wall, Israel has extended it from a length of 190 km to more than 460 km38, encompassing hundreds of additional square kilometres of Palestinian land, and incorporating it into the State of Israel. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court expressed concern lest
“the construction of the wall and its associated régime create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation”
18. And that is precisely what has happened over the past 20 years, not only within the expanded confines of the wall, but all across the West Bank, most of which has now been annexed de facto by Israel. In 2022, the report of the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry concluded:
“Israel treats the occupation as a permanent fixture and has - for all intents and purposes - annexed parts of the West Bank . . . The International Court of Justice anticipated such a scenario in its 2004 advisory opinion . . . This has now become the reality.”
19. The Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory reached the same conclusion:
“The occupation by Israel has been conducted in profound defiance of international law . . . Its 55-year-old occupation burst through the restraints of temporariness long ago. Israel has progressively engaged in the de jure and de facto annexation of occupied territory.”
IV. Recent acceleration of Israel’s annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
20. Mr President, Israel’s ongoing annexation of the West Bank accelerated in 2023, with the largest ever expansion of settlements in the territory. Twenty-two new settlements were authorized and more than 16,000 new housing units were built, funded or planned by Israeli authorities. As explained by Israel’s Finance Minister:
“The construction boom in Judea and Samaria and all over our country continues . . . We will continue to develop the settlement[s] and strengthen the Israeli hold on the territory.”
21. In developing its settlements, Israel has invested heavily in the infrastructure needed to supply them with water and electric power, as well as a network of roads and highways to connect them to one another and to Israel itself. These investments, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, attest to the intended permanent character of the settlements. The roads, which Palestinians are forbidden to use, and a pervasive system of roadblocks and checkpoints, prevent Palestinians - but not Israeli settlers - from moving from place to place in the West Bank, and they isolate Palestinian communities by cutting them off from one another. Israel’s settlement expansion has thus both uprooted Palestinians from their homes to make room for new settlements, and forced them to live in disconnected and non-contiguous enclaves, which the Special Rapporteur has called
“a fragmented archipelago of 165 disparate patches of land”. This achieves the fundamental objective of the occupation: permanent acquisition of the maximum amount of Palestinian territory, with the minimum number of Palestinians in it.
22. In furtherance of this objective, and with increasing frequency, armed groups of settlers, supported by Israel’s occupation forces and encouraged by government ministers, have violently expelled thousands of peaceful Palestinian civilians from their ancestral villages and lands. A United Nations Fact Finding Mission confirmed:
“[T]he motivation behind this violence and the intimidation against the Palestinians and their properties is to drive the local populations away from their lands and allow the settlements to expand.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in March 2023:
“[S]ettler violence further intensified, reaching the highest levels ever recorded by the United Nations.”
In November 2023, the High Commissioner warned that the situation had further deteriorated with “a sharp increase in settler violence and takeover of land across the West Bank. Since 7 October,” he continued, “nearly 1,000 Palestinians from at least 15 herding communities have been forced from their homes”.
23. The Secretary-General, in his most recent report, issued on 25 October 2023, expressly linked the expansion of Israeli settlements to the permanent acquisition of Palestinian territory:
“[S]uccessive Israeli Governments have consistently advanced and implemented policies of settlement expansion and takeover of Palestinian land.
The policies of the current Government in this regard are aligned, to an unprecedented extent, with the goals of the Israeli settler movement to expand long- term control over the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and, in practice, to further integrate those areas within the territory of the State of Israel.”
V. Application of the law to the facts
24. Mr President, Members of the Court, taking account of this evidence, as well as that described in the State of Palestine’s two written submissions, I turn to the law and how it applies to this occupation. The Written Statement of Switzerland is, once again, directly on point. It highlights the distinction between the law of occupation and the legality of a particular occupation:
“The law of occupation and the legality of occupation are two different questions. The law of occupation applies independently of the question of the legality of the occupation. Occupation is a situation subject to international humanitarian law, whereas its legality is covered by the United Nations Charter.”
25. In relation to the legality of the occupation under the Charter, Switzerland observes:
“The United Nations has consistently reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and condemned Israeli measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition, the character and the status of Jerusalem and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole, notably the construction and extension of settlements, the transfer of Israeli settlers, the confiscation of land, the demolition of homes and the displacement of Palestinian civilians.”
In Switzerland’s view:
“The measures taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory lead to fundamental changes, particularly demographic changes, that can have a permanent character.” In such circumstances, Switzerland expressly invites the Court “to rule on the consequences of the permanent character of the measures taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as to the status of the occupation under general international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations”.
26. Many States agree with this approach. France, too, underscores the temporary character of lawful occupation. This is a requirement that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory plainly fails to meet. As France states:
“[I]f the restrictions authorised by a regime of occupation were justifiable in the period following the military operations, they are not any more today. These points have been reiterated by the Security Council and the General Assembly on numerous occasions concerning Israel’s obligation to withdraw from the ‘occupied’ territories.”
27. France calls out, in particular, Israel’s annexation of occupied territory:
“The status of occupying power does not confer any legal title justifying annexation . . . The passage of time is not sufficient, as regards the acquisition of territory by force, to render lawful a situation that is gravely unlawful.”
On Israel’s vast network of settlements and hundreds of thousands of settlers in the occupied territory, France states:
“These permanent establishments are obviously incompatible with the necessarily temporary character of the occupation.”
28. Thirty-five of the States and international organizations that submitted written statements have addressed the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Only two of these 35, to which I will come, argued that the occupation is not unlawful. Key excerpts reflecting the views expressed by the overwhelming majority - that the occupation is unlawful as a whole and must be brought to an end - are collected in Chapter 2 of the State of Palestine’s Written Comments. Here are three brief but emblematic examples:
29. The African Union
“invites the Court to conclude that the prolonged Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is, in itself, unlawful . . . [T]he policies and practices associated with it amount to de facto and de jure annexation of the Palestinian territories, which violates the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.”
30. Brazil observes that:
“Occupation is inherently temporary. This is the basic distinction between occupation and annexation.”
Brazil, here, hits the nail right on the head: unlike occupation, annexation is intended to be permanent, and it makes the occupation itself unlawful. In Brazil’s words, Israel’s policies and practices
“render the occupation unlawful as a whole, inasmuch as it would be tantamount to the acquisition of territory by force”.
31. Japan, too, emphasizes that the annexation of occupied territory is unlawful, referring to Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter:
“As the ICJ clarified in the Wall Advisory Opinion, the illegality of the acquisition of territory by force is a corollary of the prohibition of use of force incorporated in the UN Charter”,
which Japan calls
“the most fundamental rule of the post-war regime for peace based on the rule of law among nations”.
VI. The indefensibility of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory
32. The two outliers are Fiji and the United States. Of all the States that submitted written statements to the Court, only Fiji attempted to defend the occupation as lawful. But even Fiji conceded that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem de jure and that the application of an occupying Power’s laws to the occupied territory, which is the case in the West Bank, constitutes an annexation de facto. Nor did Israel itself deny its annexations of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Its abbreviated written statement is mainly an attack on the General Assembly for its alleged bias. It makes no attempt to defend the legality of its occupation under international law.
33. The only State besides Fiji to defend Israel is the United States. This is not surprising. Whatever offences against international law Israel commits, the United States comes forward to shield it from accountability. Here, the United States attempts to defend Israel, not by arguing that the occupation is lawful, but that it is neither lawful nor unlawful. To reach this conclusion, the United States argues that belligerent occupation is governed exclusively by international humanitarian law and not by the United Nations Charter or general international law. In its own words:
“Although international humanitarian law imposes obligations on belligerents in their conduct of an occupation, it does not provide for the legal status of an occupation to be lawful or unlawful.”
34. Even assuming, arguendo, that this is a correct reading of international humanitarian law, which we dispute, it does not lead to the conclusion that an occupation cannot be unlawful under international law. What about Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, and general international law, including the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force? For the United States, apparently, this peremptory norm does not exist when it comes to Israel’s annexation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Only in such a lawless - and United Nations Charter-less - world could the Israeli occupation be described as “not unlawful”.
35. Notably, the United States ignores the part of the General Assembly’s request that the Court determine the legal status of the occupation under the United Nations Charter, in addition to international humanitarian law and other sources of law; and the United States fails to mention, let alone respond to, Switzerland’s Written Statement, asserting that belligerent occupation is covered both by international humanitarian law and by the United Nations Charter and general international law; and that the legality of the occupation itself is governed by the latter. The United States also ignores the written statements of the many other States which conclude that the Israeli occupation is unlawful as a whole, precisely because its annexation and settlement of the occupied territory constitute a permanent acquisition of territory by force in violation of Article 2 (4) and general international law.
36. Instead, in a single footnote, the United States responds only to those States which submitted that the Israeli occupation is unlawful under Articles 40 and 41 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Remarkably, the United States contends that neither of those two articles reflects general international law. This is truly stunning! A persistent failure of a State to fulfil an obligation arising under a peremptory norm is not unlawful under general international law, as provided in Article 40? The injunction in Article 41 - that no State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach of a peremptory norm - is not part of general international law? Just how far in disregarding the international legal order will the United States go to exempt Israel from the consequences of its ongoing violation of peremptory norms, including the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force?
37. Apparently, very far indeed. According to former US President Barack Obama, in the
memoir he published in 2020:
“[J]ust about every country in the world considered Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories to be a violation of international law. As a result, our diplomats found themselves in the awkward position of having to defend Israel for actions that we ourselves opposed.”
This is exactly what the United States is doing - again - in these proceedings.
VII. The occupation is unlawful and must be brought to an end
38. Mr President, Members of the Court, the evidence is before you - in the written submissions of the State of Palestine and dozens of other States and international organizations, and in the voluminous materials supplied to you by the Secretary-General - and it is indisputable. Under the umbrella of its prolonged military occupation, Israel has been steadily annexing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and it continues to do so. Its undisguised objective is the permanent acquisition of this territory, and the exercise of sovereignty over it, in defiance of the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force.
39. The evidence is not only indisputable, it is of the highest probative value: investigative reports of authoritative United Nations agencies; reports of the Secretary-General; resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; legislative and administrative acts by the Israeli Government; and public statements against interest by the most senior government officials admitting that Israel’s objective is sovereignty over all the territory east of the Green Line and its incorporation into a single Jewish State from the river to the sea. In this case, there is no reason not to take them at their word, because their deeds have been entirely consistent with it.
40. For Israel, as its successive governments have made clear, there is no Palestine. It simply does not exist. In November 2023, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that his Government would never agree to a Palestinian State in the occupied territory. He later declared:
“I will not compromise on full security control over all the territory west of Jordan - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.”
Israel’s intransigence was confirmed by its staunchest ally in December 2023, when US President Joe Biden publicly lamented that Israel’s leaders “don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution”.
41. That is the very solution demanded by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the overwhelming majority of States and the State of Palestine itself. It is, in fact, the only solution that can lead to lasting peace and security for the Israeli people as well as the Palestinian people. And it is this very solution that has been frustrated by Israel’s defiant insistence on maintaining its dominion over Palestinian territory in perpetuity. This is why the Court’s advisory opinion is so critical and so urgent. The best, and possibly the last, hope for the two-State solution that is so vital to the needs of both peoples is for the Court to declare illegal the main obstacle to that solution - the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine - and for it to pronounce, in the clearest possible terms, that international law requires that this entire illegal enterprise be terminated: completely, unconditionally and immediately.
42. Mr President, the law is clear and it demands nothing less. A permanent occupation - one that is founded upon annexation and massive settlement of the occupied territory, and which aims to exercise sovereignty over it - is manifestly and gravely unlawful; it is an ongoing international wrong that must be brought to an immediate end. As the Court ruled in 1971:
“[T]he continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory”.
43. The Secretary-General applied this principle directly to Palestine in his remarks to the Security Council one month ago:
“Palestinians must see their legitimate aspirations for a fully independent, viable and sovereign State realized, in line with United Nations resolutions, international law and previous agreements. Israel’s occupation must end.”
44. Mr President, the proverbial ball is now in your court. The General Assembly has asked you the critical questions. It is now your responsibility to answer them. Silence is not an option. As the immortal Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, wrote: “In silence we become accomplices.” But, he assured us, when we speak: “Every word has the power to change the world.”
45. Mr President, Members of the Court, your words have such power. In 2004, the Court affirmed the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In 2024, it is time for you to enable them finally to exercise that right, by freeing them from the unlawful Israeli occupation of their territory, so that they may live in a sovereign and fully independent State of their own, in peaceful and secure coexistence with all their neighbours, including Israel. By upholding international law, which is all the State of Palestine asks you to do, your powerful words will change the world.
46. I thank you Mr President, Members of the Court, for your kind courtesy and patient attention. We are in your hands, Mr President, whether you would like to take the mid-morning break now or call our next speaker.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr Reichler. I will invite the next speaker to take the floor after a coffee break of ten minutes. The sitting is suspended.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 a.m. to 11.45 a.m.