This week, Lara and Michael sit down with the Associate Professor of Law at Queen’s University, Dr. Ardi Imseis. Dr. Imseis has testified at the UN commission of inquiry into the civil war in Yemen, he’s served with UNRWA, and he’s testified for the UN security council and the UN human rights council among many other accolades. He’s also the author of ’The United Nations and the Question of Palestine: Rule by Law and the Structure of International Legal Subalternity.’ This is a fascinating interview, touching on all the major transition points in Palestine from 1947 onwards. Dr. Imseis’ main observation is that the promise of justice made through the initial partition of Palestine is one in which the goalposts are continually moved, and that Palestine, as an outlier among international law cases, is one of legal subalternity. He uses the decolonization movement from many former British and French entities (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq) as an example, and points out how this has missed Palestinians. The biggest key moment, he theorizes, was the General Assembly Resolution of 1947 which legally partitioned Palestine to 509,000 Arabs compared 499,000 Jews, yet called for a democratic state in which the minority was to be in power. The very set up of ‘the state of Israel’ was therefore flawed. At the time of partition, the Jewish population amounted to 5.6%, whereas the Arab population was 56%, however the UN General Assembly gave the majority of the land to the new Jewish state. The right of Palestinian self-determination was comprised from the onset of this ruling, and the consequences of those decisions remain today. Following the Nakba, Palestinians were referred to as an ‘ignorant majority’, and no accountability has been offered since, defying the UN’s obligations under international law to prohibit denationalization. Michael points out how Jewish people publicly opposed zionism during the 1919 Jewish Labor Congress. Lara adds that the Palestinian right of return is the most fundamental among rights. This week’s episode provides a deep dive into the limits of international law; how it doesn’t necessarily deliver justice or liberate, and how revisionist history is widespread and dangerous.

The groundbreaking ICJ case proposed by South Africa against Israel has just closed, and Lara and Michael (mostly Lara) break down what it means. It’s important to remember that South Africa didn’t call for a ceasefire, as this is not legal terminology. All six counts brought against Israel were ruled in South Africa’s favor; these are 1) Israel must take all measures within it’s power to stop murdering & harming Palestinians and preventing their birth, 2) Israel must ensure that it’s military follow all measures from point 1, 3) Israel must prevent and punish all genocidal intent, 4) Israel shall ensure humanitarian aid to Gaza, 5) Israel must not destroy evidence related to these allegations, and 6) Israel must report back to the court in one month’s time. Lara does an excellent job of summarizing the court’s findings, and highlighting the myriad wins that stem from this case. This is among the first legal decisions to attempt to hold Israel accountable for their actions. Michael and Lara speak about how legislation + activism + boycotting as a unified force is the only way to ensure the Palestinian right of return and the end of apartheid and violence against Palestinians.

This week Lara leads us on a deep dive into the legal frameworks that came into place in the aftermath of the Nakba, including the absentee property law, the law of return, and the nationality law. All these legal devices helped codify the actions of ethnic cleansing and land theft by the rogue Zionist militias into the "legal" actions of a state. We also cover the various ways Zionists stopped Palestinians from returning to their native lands. Lara discusses the examples of Iqrit and Kufr Bir'im, both towns where the Supreme Court of Israel had in one case already ruled in favor of Palestinian return, and the other where the case was pending before the court. In both cases, the IOF demolished the villages so as to render the return of Palestinians impossible. Lara talks about the many thousands of Palestinians who did try to return despite these measures who were murdered in cold blood. We discuss how these policies like the Nakba are ongoing and not something rooted in the past. Finally, we switch gears, covering the censorship of Palestinian content on Tik Tok as a strategy passed down from region-specific moderation teams where Israeli moderators set the standards and Arab moderators were kept in subordinate positions.