Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UN experts: Inhumane Israeli troops sexually assault Palestinian girls

Press TV – February 19, 2024

In yet another shocking revelation, the Special Rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council say Palestinian women and girls are being sexually assaulted and raped by Israeli troops in the besieged Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank.

During a public hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday, the UN experts said they were “shocked by reports of the deliberate targeting and extrajudicial killing of Palestinian women and children in places where they sought refuge.”

According to information they received, they told the hearing that hundreds of Palestinian women and girls are being detained and subjected “to inhuman and degrading treatment.”

“On at least one occasion, Palestinian women detained in Gaza were allegedly kept in a cage in the rain and cold, without food.”

They said they were distressed by reports that the Palestinians in question have been “subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers.”

“At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence.”

They said Israeli forces took photos “of female detainees in degrading circumstances,” and shared them on social media platforms.

The experts said an unknown number of the Palestinians have gone missing after contact with the regime’s forces in Gaza.

“There are disturbing reports of at least one female infant forcibly transferred by the Israeli army into Israel, and of children being separated from their parents, whose whereabouts remain unknown.”

The Special Rapporteurs warned Israel that these inhumane acts could “amount to serious crimes under international criminal law that could be prosecuted under the Rome Statute.”

“Those responsible for these apparent crimes must be held accountable and victims and their families are entitled to full redress and justice.”

The Special Rapporteurs are independent experts – part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council – whose mandate is to follow and report on the human rights situation of a specific country or thematic issues in all parts of the world.

The public hearings began at the ICJ in the Hague – at the request of the UN General Assembly – on Monday to examine the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

February 19, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

US changes position on Gaza ceasefire – Reuters

RT | February 19, 2024

US President Joe Biden’s administration has reportedly dropped its opposition to a humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and proposed a UN resolution calling for Israel to cancel its planned military offensive in the Palestinian enclave’s last refuge for displaced civilians.

The draft resolution noted that the planned storming of Rafah would harm civilians and displace more Gaza residents, potentially pushing many into Egypt, Reuters reported on Monday, citing a copy of the text.

Israel’s Rafah operation – targeting the last Hamas stronghold in the besieged enclave – “would have serious implications for regional peace and security, and therefore underscores that such a major ground offensive should not proceed under current circumstances,” according to the proposed resolution.

Washington’s UN delegation has previously opposed making demands for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war and has twice vetoed UN Security Council resolutions since the conflict began in October. Its new proposal comes in response to a draft resolution from the Algerian delegation, which demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield has said the Algerian resolution could undermine “sensitive negotiations” to broker a pause in the fighting. She indicated on Saturday that the US would veto the resolution if it came up for a Security Council vote on Tuesday.

About 1.4 million Gazans displaced by Israeli bombardments have been crammed into Rafah, a city on the strip’s southern border that normally has a population of around 280,000, according to the UN.

The UN has warned that Israel’s planned Rafah operation would have “dire humanitarian consequences.” Dozens of European countries issued a similar warning on Monday, following in the footsteps of such nations as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to completely eliminate Hamas in response to the deadly October 7 attacks by Palestinian militants that triggered the war. He has rejected international calls for a ceasefire and has insisted that only “total victory” will make Israel safe. “Those who want to prevent us from operating in Rafah are essentially telling us, ‘Lose the war,’” he told reporters on Saturday.

While publicly supporting Israel’s war effort – and providing US weaponry – Biden has reportedly clashed with Netanyahu behind the scenes. During a telephone call with Netanyahu on Thursday, Biden “reiterated his view that a military operation should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of, and support for, the civilians in Rafah,” according to a White House statement.

The UN resolution proposed by the Biden administration also would condemn any efforts to reduce Gaza’s territory or move Israeli settlers into the enclave, Reuters said.

February 19, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli military, intelligence bodies admit Hamas will survive onslaught on Gaza Strip

Press TV – February 18, 2024

Israeli military and intelligence institutions have warned the regime’s top-ranking authorities that the Palestinian Hamas resistance movement will survive the unrelenting ground and air strikes against the besieged Gaza Strip.

A document circulated from Israeli military leaders to senior politicians states that “authentic support remains” for Hamas among Gazans, according to a report published by the Hebrew-language Keshet 12 television channel.

The document, put together by the Israeli army’s research division, also warned that “Gaza will become an area in deep crisis”, given the lack of plan for the “day after” war.

The document was reportedly presented on Monday to leading Israeli officials following a week of senior military and intelligence talks about the findings, Keshet 12 noted.

Ilana Dayan, an investigative journalist at the broadcaster, said that the “bottom line” of the document was that the Hamas movement would inevitably survive Israel’s offensive.

The report comes as Israel prepares a ground offensive on Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah.

The UN special rapporteur on Palestine has slammed Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pledge to push on with the assault.

“Rafah stands as the last line of Palestinian existence in Gaza, amidst the relentless anguish faced by the people trapped therein,” Francesa Albanese wrote on X.

“How can we possibly allow another Nakba? Have we really lost our minds?”

According to diplomatic sources quoted by the AFP news agency, the UN Security Council is set to put to vote a new resolution put forth by Algeria that demands an “immediate” truce in Gaza.

The latest version of the text “demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties”, the agency said.

It also “rejects forced displacement of the Palestinian civilian population”, and it “demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”, AFP reported.

Earlier, US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield issued a statement responding to reports that Algeria plans to put the resolution to a vote on Tuesday.

“Should it come up for a vote as drafted, it will not be adopted,” Thomas-Greenfield said.

The US has previously used its veto to prevent the UN Security Council from passing resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has reiterated his country’s “categorical rejection of the displacement of Palestinians to Egypt in any shape or form”.

During a phone conversation with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, the two leaders agreed on the need to “stop the bloodshed” in the Gaza Strip and discussed advancing the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state, a statement by the Egyptian presidency read.

Israel has been waging the war against Gaza since October 7, 2023, when the coastal sliver’s resistance groups staged an operation, dubbed Operation al-Aqsa Storm, against the occupied territories.

Nearly 29,000 Palestinians, mostly women, children, and adolescents, have been killed so far as a result of the brutal military onslaught.

February 18, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Albanese: Israel is still practicing ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Jerusalem

Palestinian Information Center – February 8, 2024

GAZA – The United Nations Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, said on Wednesday that Israel has never respected the international law and has been allowed to violate it since 1967. It is still carrying out acts of ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The famine suffered by the residents of the Gaza Strip is unparalleled in the whole world, she said, stressing the necessity of taking all required measures to prevent genocide in Gaza.

Albanese said, in a press statement, “the more aid and ceasefire are delayed, the greater the number of casualties in the Gaza Strip will be.”

She accused Israel of ignoring the International Court of Justice’s ruling by killing more civilians everyday in Gaza, calling on world countries to put pressure on Israel by halting mutual commercial trades.

Albanese said she was shocked to know that member states of the International Court have recently attacked UNRWA, noting that the international community is capable of stopping the ongoing massacres carried out by Israeli occupation forces in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli occupation’s ongoing aggression on the blockaded Gaza Strip has so far led to the martyrdom of 27,708 people and the injury of 67,147 others, in addition to the enforced displacement of more than 85 percent (about 1.9 million people) of the Strip’s population, according to official authorities and international bodies and organizations.

February 8, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

UN: Israel refusing entry of aid to Gaza for ‘unclear’ reasons

MEMO | February 1, 2024

“Israel is refusing the entry of a significant amount of aid to Gaza for unclear reasons,” UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths, has warned.

In a press statement issued yesterday, the UN official added: “We continue to face the frequent rejection for entry of much-needed items into Gaza by Israel, for unclear, inconsistent and often unspecified reasons.”

“We must also have access to civilians in need across Gaza. At present, our access to Khan Younis, the Middle Area and North Gaza is largely absent,” he added.

“The ability of the humanitarian community to reach the people of Gaza with relief remains grossly inadequate. This is not for want of trying.”

He emphasised that anyone who has been displaced from their home in Gaza should have the right to return voluntarily as required by international law.

Since 7 October, Israel’s genocidal military operation in Gaza has forced more than 1.7 million Palestinians out of their homes. Many of them have been displaced multiple times, as families have been forced to move repeatedly in search of safety.

Almost 66,000 have been injured, many losing one or both their limbs with Israel banning the entry of crutches in the enclave and thus leaving them immobile.

February 1, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Richard Sakwa Explains How We Ended Up In A New Cold War

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | January 31, 2024

The war in Ukraine is a complicated tangle of three wars in one. It is a civil war between Ukraine’s European leaning west and its Russian leaning east. It is a war between Ukraine and Russia. And it is a war between Russia and NATO.

Ben Abelow’s book, How the West Brought War to Ukraine, is a clear and valuable introduction to the decisions and events that led up to the war between Ukraine and Russia. Nicolai Petro’s The Tragedy of Ukraine is a comprehensive and masterful account of the history of the ethnic tension between the monist and pluralist visions of Ukraine that led to civil war and made Ukraine vulnerable to being caught up in the larger war between Russia and NATO.

Richard Sakwa’s new book, The Lost Peace, valuably fills the gap by addressing the larger war between Russia and NATO. It is a tour de force analysis of the wasted opportunity for peace at the end of the Cold War.

When Mikhail Gorbachev declared the end of the Cold War on December 7, 1988, a brief window for peace opened. But by the negligent failure to construct a new security structure in Europe that overcame the flaws of the previous one, the window Gorbachev opened was quickly closed. When Gorbachev received his peace prize in 1990, the Nobel Prize committee declared that “the two mighty power blocs, have managed to abandon their life-threatening confrontation” and confidently expressed the “hope that we are now celebrating the end of the Cold War.” But “The Cold War,” as U.N. Secretary General António Guterres has funereally said, “is back.”

How was that window of opportunity wasted? Why was the road from the Nobel Committee’s hope to the United Nations’ eulogy such a short one?

If the second cold war that we now find ourselves in is to end more hopefully, that failure will have to be deconstructed in order to find the clues for constructing a lasting and inclusive security structure upon which real peace can be built. Richard Sakwa, who has been called the preeminent Russia scholar of our day, provides timely help with his deconstruction of that failure.

There are two strengths that set The Lost Peace apart. The first is the wealth and depth of Sakwa’s knowledge. The second is that the book doesn’t just start with the shattering of the peace in Ukraine in 2014 that broke the dam for the new Cold War. In The Lost Peace, Sakwa analyzes the post Cold War world and identifies the conflicts and decisions that wasted the peace and led, once again, to war.

Sakwa argues that with the end of the first Cold War, there was a genuine chance for a very different world than the actual one being painfully played out in Ukraine; there was a genuine chance for a real peace.

But an arrogant America misunderstood Gorbachev’s offering of an international order that now transcended blocs and declared the victory of the American-led bloc and the dawn of a unipolar world. “By the grace of God, America won the cold war,” President George H.W. Bush arrogantly and misleadingly boasted in 1992. The young American hegemon, newly bloated with hubris, led the political West, hand in hand with NATO, on a global expansion that would soon close the cold peace and open the door to a new Cold War.

The U.S. rejected the opportunity it had been offered to build a new security structure. Instead, the U.S. declared not only the victory of the political West’s worldview, but its universality, and set out on a mission of enlargement that expanded to fill the whole world.

That is, the whole world but Russia, who alone was left out of the new security arrangement and ostracized as the new dividing lines in Europe moved ever closer to its borders and red lines until the whole strategy exploded in Ukraine, ending the possibility of peace and cementing the new Cold War.

Sakwa deconstructs the necessary security apparatus that was never constructed and demonstrates how, without that framework, the structure of the possible new peace so quickly collapsed. He identifies three crucial contradictions: sovereign internationalism versus liberal internationalism, international law versus the rules-based order, and freedom to choose versus indivisibility of security.

Russia was committed to sovereign internationalism, which emphasizes state sovereignty and the acceptance that different states develop different cultures and are at different stages of development of different forms of government. All are acceptable until they violate international law or human rights. The United States, however, took the perceived victory of the political West to mean the victory of the cultural West and set out on a mission to spread those values across the globe. They favored liberal hegemony over sovereign internationalism, asserting the universality of their beliefs. Russia, China, and the Global South resented that “great substitution” of the values of sovereign internationalism with liberal hegemony and the colonial missionary spread of the universal values of the West.

When the American policy of spreading Western values lacked the necessary approval of the Security Council, the U.S. enlarged the great substitution, usurping the authority of the Security Council and acting unilaterally without its approval. International resentment grew at this replacement of international law anchored in the UN with the rules-based order. The essence of international law is that written laws are applied universally. The rules-based order promoted by the West is composed of unwritten laws whose source, consent and legitimacy are unknown. To Russia and other countries not in the political West, they have the appearance of being invoked when they benefit the U.S. and its partners and not being invoked when they don’t. To those not in the political West, it appeared, disturbingly, that the U.S. and NATO had supplanted the U.N. as the arbiter of international law.

This belief was reinforced in Iraq and, especially, in Kosovo and Libya where the United States acted without Security Council approval in precisely the way they insisted that the rest of the world do not. Russia bristled at the double standard.

As long as liberal internationalism confined itself to the UN based international system, there was much about it that was attractive. But when the U.S. and NATO began their missionary project of spreading those universal values in ways that dismissed sovereign internationalism and international law, other nations felt their sovereignty and security being threatened.

And that led to the third contradiction. The U.S. insists on the free and sovereign right of states to choose their own partners and security alignments; Russia insists on the indivisibility of security, which insists that the security of one state cannot be purchased at the cost of the security of another. Both principles are enshrined in international law and in international agreements, and, with imagination and understanding, they could have been made compatible. But the United States, Russia argues, exclusively pursued the first in disregard of the second.

That conflict came to a head in Ukraine. American and NATO insistence, in violation of verbal promises made at the close of the Cold War, on NATO’s open-door policy and, especially, on Ukraine’s right to join NATO and NATO’s right to expand right up to Russia’s border was perceived by Russia as a security threat that crossed its reddest of lines.

The U.S. and NATO restated their promise of eventual NATO membership for Ukraine and increased military support. Russia felt that its security concerns were being ignored and that Ukraine was being built into a platform for threatening its existence. The U.S. overreached, Russia overreacted, and the second Cold War was a certainty.

If there is a weakness to Sakwa’s book, it is not in its argument nor in its evidence. It is in its reach to an audience. The Lost Peace is not an easy book. It is a book by a scholar steeped in the story that assumes at least a little of that knowledge by its audience. The Lost Peace is not a book for beginners. But for those with an interest in international relations, the book is an invaluable addition.

The Lost Peace despairs of the wasted opportunity to build a security structure that would have provided the architecture for a possible peace at the end of the Cold War. But it also ends with the hope that, having analyzed the contradictions, conflicts and failures to recognize the interests of others, we are able to find “new ways of thinking about old problems” and do better in the face of a new Cold War. Sakwa’s book is an invaluable contribution to that hope.

February 1, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Has International Law Survived, or Has the Western Political Class Killed It?

By Craig Murray | January 28, 2024 

In finding there is a plausible case against Israel, the International Court of Justice treated with contempt the argument from Israel that the case should be dismissed as it is exercising its right of self-defence. This argument took up over half of Israel’s pleadings. Not only did the court find there is a plausible case of genocide, the court only mentioned self-defence once in its interim ruling – and that was merely to note that Israel had claimed it. Para 41:

That the ICJ has not affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence is perhaps the most important point in this interim order. It is the dog that did not bark. The argument which every western leader has been using is spurned by the ICJ.

Now the ICJ did not repeat that an occupying power has no right of self-defence. It did not need to. It simply ignored Israel’s specious assertion.

It could do that because what it went on to iterate went way beyond any plausible assertion of self-defence. What struck me most about the ICJ ruling was that the Order went into far more detail about the evidence of genocide than it needed to. Its description was stark.

Here Para 46 is crucial

The reason this is so crucial, is that the Court is not saying that South Africa asserts this. The Court is saying these are the facts. It is a finding of fact by the Court. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of that description by the court of the state of affairs in Gaza.

The Court then goes on to detail accounts by the United Nations of the factual situation, quoting three different senior officials at length, including Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner General of UNRWA:

This of course explains why the immediate response to the ICJ ruling was a coordinated attack by Israel and the combined imperialist powers on UNRWA, designed to accelerate the genocide by stopping aid, to provide a propaganda counter-narrative to the ICJ judgment, and to reduce the credibility of UNRWA’s evidence before the court.

The Court works very closely with the UN and is very much an entrenched part of the UN system. It has a particularly close relationship with the UN General Assembly – many of the Court’s cases are based on requests from the UN General Assembly. In a fortnight’s time the Court will be starting its substantive hearings on the legal position in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, at the request of the UNGA. There are five specific references to the UNGA in the Order.

The Court spent a great deal of time outlining the facts of the unfolding genocide in the Gaza Strip. It did not have to do so in nearly so much detail, and far too little attention has been paid to this. I was equally surprised by how much detail the court gave on the evidence of genocidal intent by Israel.

It is especially humiliating for Israel that the Court quoted the Israeli Head of State, the President of Israel himself, as giving clear evidence of genocidal intent, along with two other government ministers.

Again, this is not the Court saying that South Africa has alleged this. It is a finding of fact by the Court. The ICJ has already found to be untrue Israel’s denial in court of incitement to genocide.

Now think of this: the very next day after President Herzog made a genocidal statement, as determined by the International Court of Justice, he was met and offered “full support” by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament.

When you take the detail of what the Court has found to be the actual facts of the case, in death and destruction and in intent, I have no doubt that this is a court which is currently minded to find Israel guilty of genocide once the substantive case comes before the Court.

All of Israel’s arguments were lost. Every one. The substantial effort Israel put into having the case dismissed on procedural grounds was brushed aside. So was self-defence. And in its findings of the facts, the Court plainly found to be untrue the Israeli lies about avoidance of civilian casualties, the responsibility of Hamas for the damage to infrastructure, and the access of relief aid to Gaza.

Those are the facts of what happened.

Do not be confused by the absence of the word “ceasefire” from the Court order. What the Court has ordered is very close to that. It has explicitly ordered the Israeli military to stop killing Palestinians.


That is absolutely clear. And while I accept it is tautologous, in the sense it is ordering Israel to obey a Convention which Israel is already bound to follow, there could be no clearer indication that the Court believes that Israel is not currently obeying it.

So what happens now?

Well, Israel has responded by killing over 180 Palestinian civilians since the Order was given from the International Court of Justice. If that continues, South Africa may return to the Court for more urgent measures even before the ordered monthly report from Israel is due. Algeria has announced it will take the Order to the UN Security Council for enforcement.

I doubt the United States will veto. There has been a schizophrenic reaction from Israel and its supporters to the ICJ Order. On the one hand, the ICJ has been denounced as antisemitic. On the other hand the official narrative has been (incredibly) to claim Israel actually won the case, while minimising the coverage in mainstream media. This has been reinforced by the massive and coordinated attack on UNRWA, to create alternative headlines.

It is difficult to both claim that Israel somehow won, and at the same time seek to block UNSC enforcement of the Order. My suspicion is that there will be a continuing dual track: pretending that there is no genocide and Israel is obeying the “unnecessary” order, while at the same time attacking and ridiculing the ICJ and the wider UN.

No matter what the ICJ said, Israel would not have stopped the genocide; that is the simple truth. The immediate reaction of the US and allies to the Order has been to try to accelerate the genocide by crippling the UN’s aid relief work. I confess I did not expect anything quite that vicious and blatant.

The wheels of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small. The ICJ having flagged up a potential genocide so strongly, it may well fall to judges in individual nations to restrain international support for the genocide. As I explained in detail, the Genocide Convention has been incorporated into UK law by the International Criminal Court Act of 2001.

There will, beyond any doubt, have been minutes issued by FCDO legal advisers warning of ministers being at risk of personal liability in UK law for complicity in genocide now, should arms shipments and other military and intelligence cooperation with the Israeli genocide continue. In the US, hearings started already in California on a genocide complicity suit brought against Joe Biden.

Of course I wish this would all work faster. It will not. The UN General Assembly may suspend Israel from the UN. There are other useful actions to be taken. But this is a long slog, not a quick fix, and people like you and I continue to have a vital role, as everybody does, in using the power of the people to wrest control from a vicious political class of killers.

This was a good win. I am pleased that this course for which I advocated and lobbied has worked and increased pressure on the Zionists, and that my judgment that the International Court of Justice is not just a NATO tool like the corrupt International Criminal Court, has been vindicated.

It cannot help the infants killed and maimed last night or those to die in the coming few days. But it is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

January 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | 2 Comments

Here’s why the ICJ ruling on genocide is a crushing defeat for Israel

The Hague-based court has not called for a ceasefire and has no enforcement power, but its decision is resounding nonetheless

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | January 28, 2024

The United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled on the case that South Africa had brought against Israel. Those who mistake realism for simplistic materialism – the ‘it’s only there if I can touch it’ variety – may underestimate the significance of that ruling. In reality, it is historic. Here’s why.

First, and most importantly, the court has ruled against Israel. South Africa’s well-prepared brief was over 80 pages long, closely argued, and very detailed. But its gist was simple: It had applied to the ICJ – which only handles cases between countries, not individuals – to find that Israel is committing genocide in its attack on Gaza, thereby infringing on fundamental Palestinian rights as brutally as possible.

Such a finding always takes years. For now, at this preliminary stage, South Africa’s immediate request was for the judges to decide that there is, in essence, a high enough probability of this genocide taking place to do two things: First, continue the case (instead of dismissing it) and, secondly, issue an injunction (in this context called “preliminary measures”) ordering Israel to abstain from its genocidal actions so that the rights of its Palestinian victims receive due protection.

The court has done both, with a majority of 15 to 2. One of the two judges dissenting is from Israel. Those voting, in effect, against Tel Aviv included even the president of the court, from the US, and the judge from Germany, a country that has taken a self-damagingly pro-Israel line. As to the Israeli pseudo-argument claiming ‘self-defense,’ the court rightly ignored it. (Occupying powers simply do not have that right regarding occupied entities under international law. Period.)

This is a clear victory for South Africa – and for Palestine and Palestinians – and a crushing defeat for Israel, as even Kenneth Roth, head of thoroughly pro-Western Human Rights Watch recognizes with commendable clarity.

It is true that the ICJ has no power to enforce its rulings. That would have to come through the UN Security Council, where the US is protecting Israel, whatever it does, including genocide. Yet there are good reasons why representatives of Israel have reacted with statements so arrogant and aggressive that they only further damage Tel Aviv’s badly damaged international standing:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance, has displayed his legal nihilism by dismissing as “outrageous” the closely reasoned finding of the court, at which Israel had every opportunity to argue its case. Israel’s far-right Minister of National Security, convicted racist and terrorist supporter Itamar Ben-Gvir, has derided the ruling with an X post simply saying: “Hague schmague.”

And, of course, as always, everyone not toeing Israel’s line is smeared as an “antisemite”: The ICJ is now joining the UN, the World Health Organization and, by now, almost everyone and everything outside the ideological bubble of Zionism on the list of those slandered in this manner.

Notwithstanding the ICJ’s lack of an army to compel Tel Aviv to obey the law, these outbursts of rage betray great fear. You may ask why. After all, the one thing the ICJ did not do was order a ceasefire. Some commenters have focused on that fact, to argue – gleefully on the side of Israel and its allies, with great disappointment on the side of Israel’s victims, opponents, and critics – that this vitiates the ruling.

They are wrong. As, for instance, the Palestinian legal expert Nimer Sultany (based at the London School of Oriental and Asian Studies) has explained, a direct ceasefire order was always unlikely. There are several reasons for that: The ICJ cannot issue such an order to Hamas, so issuing one to Israel alone would have been difficult in principle and, by the way, would also have provided ammunition for Israeli propaganda. Since only the UN Security Council could give teeth to the ICJ’s ruling, trying to decree such a one-sided ceasefire would have made it easier for the US to sabotage the Council by discrediting the court’s ruling as biased. Although it was consistent for South Africa to ask for a ceasefire at the ICJ, the best institution to order one is still the Security Council. And it is plausible to interpret the specific demands that the ICJ has made of Israel as practicable only under an official or de-facto ceasefire. Indeed, Arab countries are now, it seems, gearing up to take that position and use the court’s ruling to demand a ceasefire at the Security Council. This may very well fail again, but even that failure will serve to weaken the position of the US, Israel’s vital sponsor.

Beyond the issue of the ceasefire, there are other – and, from an Israeli perspective, probably more frightening – factors. For even if the US keeps shielding Israel, this is a bigger world. Western governments and politicians that have supported Tel Aviv unconditionally – with arms, diplomatic and public-relations cover, and by repressing Israel’s critics – will feel a chill: The UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute don’t just condemn perpetrating a genocide but also not preventing or being complicit in one.

With the ICJ now having confirmed at the very least that genocide is probable enough to merit a case and require immediate action, Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Ursula von der Leyen, Olaf Scholz, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Annalena Baerbock, to name only a few, should start worrying: While the ICJ does not go after individuals, the International Criminal Court (ICC) does. Despite dragging its feet as much as it could, it is now especially likely to be compelled to open a full-fledged investigation.

In addition, cases can also be brought under national jurisdictions. All of this will take years. But it could end very badly for hubris-addled Western politicians who never imagined that such charges could escape their control (where they serve as politicized tools to go after African leaders and geopolitical opponents) and become their very own, potentially life-changing problem. In sum, the cost of siding with Israel has gone up. Not all but most politicians are solid opportunists. Tel Aviv will find it harder to mobilize its friends.

It is true that some Western governments and leaders, for instance, Canada or Rishi Sunak, have hurried to show their disdain for international law by attacking the ICJ’s ruling. But there’s an element of desperate bravado, of whistling in a darkening forest. And there’s a Catch-22 as well: Because, the more representatives of the West display their arrogance, the more they alienate the world. They may think that they are relieving Israel’s isolation. In reality, they are joining it on its downward trajectory: They are showing, once again, that their touted “rules-based order” is the opposite of the equal rule of international law for all.

Non-Western powers like China and Russia that have long resisted the hypocrisy of that ‘rules-based order’ and are not complicit in Israel’s atrocities, are earning global good will and geopolitical advantage. Hence, their positions and strategy will be confirmed by the ICJ ruling. This, as well, will weaken Israel further in the international arena.

If the world is bigger than the US or the West, it also contains much more than politics in the narrow sense of the term. In the realm of narratives, this is also a harsh setback for Israel and its supporters: Those who arrogantly dismissed the South African case as baseless or “a mockery,” for instance in The Economist, are now paying with their credibility. Their value as weapons in Israel’s struggle for global public opinion is reduced.

Last but not least, the domains of politics and narratives intersect, of course, with that of war: It is inevitable that those fighting Israel with arms will feel encouraged, and rightly so. For forces such as the Palestinian Resistance, the Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement de facto ruling Yemen, Hezbollah, and Iran, this ICJ ruling coincides with Israel’s military failure in Gaza: For while its troops have massacred civilians (and obsessively recorded proud evidence of their crimes that is now coming to haunt them), they are far from either “eradicating Hamas” (the putative war aim) or freeing the hostages by force. Seeing that Israel’s international isolation is getting worse, its opponents will have ever less reason to give up.

This, in short, was a great setback for Israel. Its political model, combining apartheid, militarism, and a might-makes-right outlook, is not ‘working’ any longer, not even on its own terms. The future is not predictable. That Israel will be in worsening trouble is.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul.

January 28, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The UN and Israel are on the same page

The Palestinian anti-colonial struggle is legitimate

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | January 26, 2024

Even in the midst of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, the UN Secretary-General is still pursuing the defunct two-state paradigm. While addressing the UN Security Council earlier this week, Antonio Guterres called for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine, while calling out Israeli officials on their rejection of the two-state “solution”. However, if this so-called solution is defunct as a result of Israel’s colonial expansion which the UN allowed — as it is — what exactly is Israel rejecting and what is Guterres upholding?

“The right of the Palestinian people to build their own fully independent state must be recognised by all,” Guterres stated. “And any refusal to accept the two-state solution by any party must be firmly rejected.”

At this point, rejecting the two-state diplomacy means rejecting a defunct hypothesis. Guterres, however, continued: “What is the alternative? How would a one-state solution look with such a large number of Palestinians inside without any rights and dignity? This would be inconceivable.”

There are many implications to Guterres’s statement, none of which are favourable for Palestinians. Primarily, he is assuming that the one-state concept emanates solely from the Israeli colonial narrative, which would see a single colonial entity established over the entirety of Palestine. Moreover, by promoting the two-state paradigm, Guterres is advancing the one-state colonial reality for Israel, for the simple reason that the UN is completely behind Israel in its endeavours. This is besides the fact that two states are no longer viable, not to mention still unfavourable for Palestinians in terms of land ownership and liberation, even if it were still possible to achieve.

The secretary-general’s rhetoric gives Palestinians no options. The two-state “solution” is defunct, which means Palestinians can aspire to nothing in that regard. A one-state colonial reality only entrenches the current reality and leaves Palestinians exposed to even more Israeli colonial terrorism. However, there is an alternative, and one which Guterres pretends does not exist. It’s called decolonisation.

This is a fact which the UN and Guterres have eliminated completely from their discourse because it doesn’t suit the two-state propaganda. In a post-colonial era, Palestinians are still living a colonial reality and decolonisation is the only viable option for a population which was ethnically cleansed in 1948 and is now experiencing genocide in a tiny besieged enclave. The UN has done nothing but talk about another humanitarian ceasefire — even though in November that led to an increase in Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians — and remind the world that Palestinians deserve nothing better than rhetoric about “two states”. Essentially, Guterres is stating that Palestinians are undeserving of political rights, of their land, and of liberation, which takes the UN full circle back to when it endorsed partition in 1947 based on colonial superiority and indigenous subjugation. The UN and Israel are on the same page.

When Guterres states that everyone must recognise the Palestinians’ right to build their independent state, does he include himself in the equation? And when he speaks of the two-state “solution”, does he realise that the UN is thus condoning the ethnic cleansing since 1948 and the deprivation of Palestinians of their land? Just like Israel, the UN endorses the colonial approach and implementation, and just like Israel, Guterres is depriving Palestinians of their political rights by refusing to promote the only viable solution: decolonisation.

January 26, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 1 Comment

US, UK attacks on Yemen illegal, strategic mistake: Iran foreign minister

Press TV – January 16, 2024

Iran’s foreign minister has strongly slammed the recent attacks on the Yemeni territory by the United States and the UK as illegal and a strategic mistake.

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made the remarks in an early Tuesday phone call with Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, during which the two sides discussed the latest developments related to the Gaza Strip and the Red Sea.

During the conversation, Iran’s top diplomat stressed the Islamic Republic’s principled stance on protecting and maintaining security of shipping and navigation.

“By stopping ships that are bound for the occupied [Palestinian] territories, Yemen seeks to put a halt to the Zionist regime’s crimes and genocide against civilians in Gaza,” Amir-Abdollahian said.

He added that “illegal measures taken by the United States and the UK in attacking Yemen” amounted to a strategic mistake that would lead to further escalation of tensions in the region.

Since the start of the Israeli military aggression on Gaza in early October 2023, the United States and its Western allies have been providing financial and logistical support to the occupying regime in its ceaseless bombardment campaign against Palestinians in the besieged territory.

As part of their support for Palestinians, Yemen’s Armed Forces and popular Ansarullah resistance movement have over the past month targeted several ships owned by Israel or bound for ports in the occupied territories in the strategic Red Sea after multiple warnings.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Iran’s foreign minister expressed concern about the complicated humanitarian situation in the besieged Gaza Strip, reiterating Iran’s readiness to send humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the territory.

The Israeli genocide in Gaza has so far claimed the lives of more than 24,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, leaving thousands of others wounded and millions homeless. According to the UN, about 85 percent of the territory’s population has been displaced and forced into crowded shelters.

The regime has been also enforcing an all-out siege against Gaza that has prevented the flow of food, water, fuel, and medicine into the territory.

The UN chief, for his part, expressed concern about further spread of conflicts across the region, saying the world body is trying to stop the war and alleviate the suffering of the regional people.

He once again condemned the ongoing military aggression against Gaza, stressing the need for stopping it and sending humanitarian aid to Palestinians there.

Guterres also lauded the role played by the Islamic Republic in bolstering peace and stability in the region.

January 15, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hague won’t stop us – Netanyahu

RT | January 13, 2024

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed at a press conference on Saturday not to let the genocide case being taken against his country at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stand in the way of continuing his country’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

“No one will stop us – not The Hague, not the Axis of Evil, and no one else. It is possible and necessary to continue until victory and we will do it,” he said.

While the term “Axis of Evil” was first used in a speech by then-US president George W Bush to refer to Iraq, Iran and North Korea – at the time believed to be Washington’s chief enemies equipped with “weapons of mass destruction” later shown to be almost entirely mythological – it’s not clear whether Netanyahu intended to slight Pyongyang. However, North Korean state media did argue in an editorial posted shortly after the October 7 attack by Hamas that West Jerusalem had brought the raid upon itself with its “constant criminal acts against the Palestinian people.”

Elsewhere in the speech, the Israeli leader used the term to refer to Iran, the Houthis of Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas itself – a loose coalition that has elsewhere been described as the “Axis of Resistance” for its opposition to US and Israeli power in the region.

Hearings into alleged genocide against Israel began earlier this week at the ICJ in The Hague in the Netherlands, with South Africa making the case that Israel has engaged in actions “intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”

West Jerusalem has countered that it is Hamas actually that is harboring genocidal intent against Israelis and argued it is justified in attempting to “eliminate” the militant group it blames for 1,200 Israeli deaths on October 7 – no matter the resulting harm to the civilian population.

Israel Defense Forces troops have since admitted they were ordered to fire on Israelis in the border kibbutzes and desert rave during the Hamas raid, raising questions about how many of the casualties were actually killed by Palestinians as opposed to IDF tank fire and airstrikes.

January 13, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

Yemen slams UN Security Council resolution on Red Sea operations

Press TV – January 11, 2024

Yemen has condemned as a “political game” a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on naval operations in the Red Sea, saying the US is the side that is violating international law.

In an X post on Thursday, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, head of Yemen’s Supreme Revolutionary Committee, emphasized that the actions of the Yemeni armed forces in support of the Gaza Strip fall within the framework of legitimate defense.

The remarks came hours after the Security Council approved a resolution, backed by the US and Japan, which demanded an immediate end to attacks by Yemeni forces on Israeli-owned or Israeli-bound ships in the Red Sea.

The resolution, passed 11-0 with four abstentions, also called on Yemen to release the Galaxy Leader, an Israeli-linked cargo ship that was confiscated on November 19.

“We inform the people of the world that the decision adopted regarding the security of navigation in the Red Sea is a political game, and that the United States is the one violating international law,” Houthi said.

Any act the Yemeni armed forces face “will have a reaction, and any state that attacks bears the responsibility for aggression and the protection of the usurping entity which commits massacres under American and British protection,” he warned.

Houthi also urged the Security Council to immediately release 2.3 million people from the “Israeli-American siege” on Gaza.

‘Unjust resolution comes amid UN failure to stop Gaza war’

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Mujahideen resistance movement condemned the Security Council resolution and said that the Yemeni operations are aimed at reducing oppression against the people of Gaza and ending the Israeli genocide.

“This unjust resolution comes amidst the Council’s inability to issue a resolution condemning the brutal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza due to American hegemony, confirming the international system’s failure to protect human rights,” it said in a statement.

Israel waged the genocidal war on Gaza on October 7 following a historic operation by the Palestinian Hamas resistance group against the occupying entity. The US has offered untrammeled support for Israel during the devastating onslaught.

In solidarity with the Palestinians in blockaded Gaza, the Yemeni armed forces have targeted ships in the Red Sea with owners linked to Israel or those going to and from ports in the occupied territories.

In response, the US has formed a multinational military coalition against Yemeni forces in the Red Sea and endangered maritime navigation in the strategic waterway.

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »