ICJ president 'plagiarised 32 percent of pro-Israel dissenting opinion'

International Court of Justice (ICJ) acting president, Julia Sebutinde, has recently been accused of extensively plagiarizing content in her dissenting opinion regarding Israel's occupation of Palestine. It is alleged that Sebutinde's dissenting opinion directly copied sentences from other sources, almost verbatim, sparking widespread concern.

A research report by Majed Abuhelal, a Palestinian researcher at the Doha Institute, obtained by Middle East Eye, indicates that "at least 32 percent of the content" in Sebutinde's dissenting opinion is suspected of plagiarism. The research report is a chapter from American scholar Norman Finkelstein's upcoming book, "Gaza Grave Diggers," scheduled for publication in June.

Last July, a panel of 15 judges ruled that Israel's decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory was "illegal," and that its "near-total isolation" of people in the occupied West Bank violated international law regarding "apartheid" and "apartheid regimes." While the majority of judges agreed with the advisory opinion, Sebutinde rejected the ruling.

When contacted by Middle East Eye for comment, Sebutinde declined to comment on the plagiarism allegations. Finkelstein stated that he initially found it "odd" when reading the Ugandan judge's dissenting opinion in July and suspected that some sentences might be plagiarized. He then posted on Twitter seeking help to track down potential plagiarism.

Following Finkelstein's call, Abuhelal, who grew up in Gaza, conducted a thorough review of the document. Finkelstein stated, "His research was very precise, and he found that 32.2% of Sebutinde's dissenting opinion was plagiarized." Abuhelal discovered that one source Sebutinde repeatedly borrowed from verbatim was a video by conservative activist David Brog, titled "Why There is No Palestinian State?"

In outlining the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Sebutinde wrote that in the 1937 Peel Commission, "the British government offered the Palestinian Arabs 80% of Mandate Palestine (Transjordan) while the Jews received the remaining 20% (Palestine), a distribution scheme that heavily favored the former. Despite their small proposed landmass, the Jews voted to accept the proposal, but the Arabs rejected it and renewed their violent resistance against the British Mandate."

The corresponding sentences in Brog's video are: "The proposed distribution scheme heavily favored the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20%. Yet, despite their small proposed landmass, the Jews voted to accept the proposal. But the Arabs rejected it and renewed their violent resistance against the British." Much of the text from Brog's video appears in Sebutinde's dissenting opinion, mostly verbatim. There is no reference to the video in her citations.

Abuhelal also found that Sebutinde plagiarized from a 2016 paper by Abraham Bell and Eugene Kontorovich, "Palestine, Existing Rights and Israel's Borders." These sections were highlighted last week on the blog of Dutch writer Mihai Martoiu Ticu. Bell and Kontorovich are among three legal scholars who wrote to Israeli political leaders last January, claiming that Israel is not legally obligated to allow displaced Palestinians in northern Gaza to return to their homes.

As reported by Middle East Eye last week, several sentences from Sebutinde were also directly copied from an op-ed by former U.S. official Douglas Feith. Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush from July 2001 to August 2005, responsible for developing U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also co-authored a policy paper for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, suggesting that Israel consider ousting Saddam Hussein and using proxy forces to militarily intervene in Syria.

Not all of Sebutinde's cited sources are pro-Israel or conservative. Abuhelal found several sections directly taken from Wikipedia and BBC News. In outlining the background of the 1973 Middle East War, Sebutinde wrote: "The Israelis recognized that despite their impressive operational and tactical achievements on the battlefield, there was no guarantee that they would always militarily overwhelm Arab states as they had done in the First, Second, and Third Arab-Israeli wars; these changes paved the way for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." Aside from occasional word changes, this text is taken directly from the Wikipedia entry on the "Yom Kippur War" from late July.

Many sentences are also directly taken from a BBC explainer on the history of wars between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza. In addition, Sebutinde also quoted verbatim from at least two official submissions to the court for the July case, but she did not cite these sources. Sebutinde wrote: "In 2020, in the context of the Abraham Accords, Israel entered into normalization agreements (equivalent to peace treaties) with several Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Until a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is reached, Israel’s presence in the West Bank fits within the international and bilateral framework for resolving the conflict."

The International Jewish Lawyers Association (IJL) wrote this sentence, along with several others, in a written statement submitted to the ICJ for the July case regarding Israel's policies in the occupied territories. Middle East Eye consulted legal experts on the matter, who stated that taking sentences from submissions to the court by parties to the case is less problematic and may not necessarily be considered plagiarism. One expert stated that while it is not plagiarism, the source of the submission should still be clarified, rather than Sebutinde presenting it as her own legal opinion.

In addition to the IJL, Sebutinde also heavily cited material submitted to the court by Fiji. She wrote: "It is regrettable that most participants in these advisory proceedings submitted a one-sided narrative to the court, failing to take into account the complexity of the conflict and misrepresenting its legal, cultural, historical, and political context." Meanwhile, Fiji’s spokesperson told the court: "Fiji considers it unfortunate that a markedly one-sided narrative has been submitted to this court in these proceedings. This has failed to take into account the complexity of the dispute and has misrepresented the legal, historical, and political context." There is no mention of Fiji in the footnotes.

Middle East Eye contacted the ICJ for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Finkelstein praised Abuhelal’s research, calling it “brilliant” and “precise.” The scholar said: “It just shows you how much talent Israel has wasted and destroyed in Gaza. I know so many very talented people from Gaza.”