Archives: Articles

By Jonathan Kuttab

It was an amazing sight, in these difficult times, to witness tens of thousands of protesters from all religions and no religion flooding the streets of Washington D.C. to declare their opposition to Netanyahu’s visit. However, one of the greatest signs of hope was seeing hundreds of Jewish protesters in the congressional rotunda standing against the visit and their willingness to be arrested in response. These protesters boldly called for an end to the fighting in Gaza, for an end to all military aid to Israel, and for the arrest of Netanyahu as a war criminal, risking much to send their message to the country. This is not just a powerful political statement nor a risky act of civil disobedience, but it displays a brave willingness to risk angering, alienating, or even severing relationships with family, friends and others in their community who support the immoral policies of Israel. They were also protesting, as Jews, out of the ethical and moral convictions of their faith. They were showing, by word and deed, that indeed Judaism and Zionism are not the same. They showed that they reject the claims of Netanyahu and the assertion that Zionim speaks on behalf of all Jews, that the oppression of Palestinians is a Jewish imperative.

To take such a position on moral grounds and the willingness to break with one’s community is the height of morality, a true prophetic stance. I salute those in Jewish Voice for Peace, Not in Our Name, If Not Now, Rabbis for Ceasefire, and other Jewish groups as a true beacon of light, genuine allies, and a true sign of hope for a future of coexistence and camaraderie between Palestinian Arabs and Jewish Israelis (and their friends) in the Holy Land and abroad. Together we can boldly stand against anti-Jewish bigotry, against Islamophobia, against anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bigotry, and proclaim the possibility of a better future for all based on justice and equality.

This distinction between Jewishness and Zionism can sometimes be hard to make, even for Palestinians, when Israel proclaims by word and deed that it favors Jews, Jewish rights and Jewish lives over the rights and lives of non-Jews. When racist laws are passed that clearly favor Jews in Palestine/Israel over non-Jewish Palestinians—when even an Israeli Minister of Culture says, “I am proud of what we are doing in Gaza. I want a Palestinian child 80 years from now to remember what Jews did here in Gaza.” To keep in mind that she and Netanyahu and the state of Israel, in their Jewish supremacy, do not speak for Jews or for Judaism is a difficult but absolutely necessary step. The Jewish protesters help us and the rest of the world keep that distinction in mind, countering the noxious fires of anti-Jewish bigotry and antisemitism.

By contrast, we witnessed this week the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of members of Congress, who showed sickening servility by loudly applauding and giving 52 standing ovations to a war criminal who is actively carrying out genocide, whose policies are wreaking havoc not only on the lives of Palestinians in Gaza but also on Israelis and the prospects of peace. The applause and standing ovations in response to tepid, patently false, and morally reprehensible statements can only be justified by the fact that they are selling their souls for the money and influence of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), CUFI (Christians United for Israel), and the ghoulish opportunism of the military-industrial machine. This is true, particularly since many of them privately detest Netanyahu and oppose his reckless policies. In the past, some have even publicly opposed him and expressed the desire that he be replaced. Yet, they spring up and down like yoyos in the hands of a puppeteer. This was particularly noticeable when Netanyahu chided them, ordering them not to applaud at one of his sentences when applause was clearly inappropriate, as if to tell them, “I am your master, and you will applaud when I tell you to do so.”

As I listened to the speech and observed the nauseating standing ovations, I could not recall such a display of servility even in authoritarian regimes. One tweet mentioned that even Kim Jong Un of Northern Korea, whose brutal regime actively promotes a personality cult around the leader, only receives one standing ovation every four minutes in his speeches before North Korean audiences. Perhaps hypocrisy, double standards, and a lack of moral integrity is part and parcel of the job of politicians, and I should not be surprised. But the level to which many of these politicians have descended is truly appalling. I need to constantly remind myself of those in public life who still maintain some semblance of integrity, like the many Democratic congresspersons who boycotted the speech, and the solitary and truly brave Republican, Thomas Massie (R-KY) who did so. I am amazed by the tens of thousands of protesters who shut down Washington D.C., but I am especially thankful for my Jewish siblings who restore my faith in humanity and keep my hope alive.

26 July 2024

Source: fosna.org

By Ibrahim Hoope

Muslim civil rights group also demands that Biden administration address Israel’s ‘racist’ policy of excluding U.S. doctors of Palestinian heritage

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed a letter to President Biden by U.S. medical personnel who volunteered to treat victims of the Israeli genocide in Gaza demanding an arms embargo over “unbearable cruelty” inflicted by Israel.

That letter to Biden, first lady Jill Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris from 45 doctors and nurses said they saw evidence of widespread war crimes using US-supplied weapons and described the “massive human toll from Israel’s attack on Gaza, especially the toll it has taken on women and children.” It asked the Biden administration to “withhold military, economic, and diplomatic support from the State of Israel.”

“Every single signatory to this letter treated children in Gaza who suffered violence that must have been deliberately directed at them. Specifically, every one of us on a daily basis treated pre-teen children who were shot in the head,” it stated.

It concluded: “Every day that we continue supplying weapons and munitions to Israel is another day that women are shredded by our bombs and children are murdered with our bullets.”

SEE: US medics who volunteered in Gaza demand arms embargo over ‘unbearable cruelty’ inflicted by Israel – The Guardian

[NOTE: Earlier this week, CAIR demanded that the Biden administration address reports that American doctors who volunteered in Gaza experienced treating “incinerated” and “shredded” children, including children deliberately shot in the chest and head by Israeli snipers.]

CAIR also called on the Biden administration to address reports that Israel is applying a racist policy to block American physicians with Palestinian heritage from entering Gaza. According to CNN, “The restrictions block the entry of US healthcare workers, and those of other nationalities, if they are of Palestinian origin or have Palestinian heritage, according to internal memos from the World Health Organization (WHO) obtained by CNN.”

“We welcome this appeal by American medical personnel who have actually treated the victims of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to end the delivery of U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons being used to kill and maim so many thousands of civilians, mostly women and children,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “We urge the Biden administration to listen to this principled appeal and to also address the far-right Israel government’s racist policy of denying entry of American medical personnel to Gaza based on their ethnicity.”

He noted that yesterday, CAIR welcomed reports that Britain’s new government will withdraw objections to a possible International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and urged the Biden administration to follow suit. Washington, D.C., based CAIR also condemned lawmakers who applauded Netanyahu’s “racist, delusional, genocidal” address to Congress.

CAIR recently welcomed a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or World Court, that Israel’s settlement policies and exploitation of natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and must end.

CAIR’s mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.

La misión de CAIR es proteger las libertades civiles, mejorar la comprensión del Islam, promover la justicia, y empoderar a los musulmanes en los Estados Unidos.

 

Do you like reading CAIR press releases and taking part in our action alerts? You can help contribute to CAIR’s work of defending civil rights and empowering American Muslims across the country by making a one-time contribution or becoming a monthly donor. Supporters like you make CAIR’s advocacy work possible and defeating Islamophobia an achievable goal. Click here to donate to CAIR.

You are receiving this email due to your interest selection from commercial media databases. If you would like to join CAIR’s media list, please sign up here: https://action.cair.com/a/newsletters — For more information, email: info@cair.com, CC ihooper@cair.com

END

CONTACT: CAIR National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell, 404-285-9530, e-Mitchell@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com; CAIR National Communications Manager Ismail Allison, 202-770-6280, iallison@cair.com

26 July 2024

Source: cair.com

Ramallah, July 24, 2024—“There was no formula milk due to the Israeli siege, and there was no milk in my breasts due to the lack of nutrition and the prevention of the entry of aid,” the mother of three-month-old Anwar Al-Khudari from Al-Shujaiya, east of Gaza city told Defense for Children International – Palestine.

“I was displaced in Al-Shifa Hospital, along with my husband, and my only son, Anwar,” she continued.

Little Anwar died in Kamal Adwan Hospital from malnutrition on February 14.

“My son cried all night from hunger. His temperature rose and he started having convulsions. He passed away four days later,” said Anwar’s mother.

Anwar is one of at least several dozen Palestinian children who have died in the Gaza Strip due to malnutrition and dehydration in recent months.

Israeli authorities are systematically denying Palestinian children in Gaza access to adequate food and nutrition, exacerbating starvation and malnutrition. This deliberate deprivation is leading to severe health issues, stunted growth, and an alarming increase in child fatality rates. The blockade and restrictions on humanitarian aid during the Israeli genocide are creating a humanitarian crisis and perpetuating suffering of whole population of Gaza Strip.

“Young Palestinian children are dying hungry and in pain because Israeli authorities have deliberately blocked humanitarian aid to north Gaza, which is an act of genocide,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, accountability program director at DCIP. “Between the closure of the Gaza Strip and Israeli forces’ nonstop attacks, we simply do not know the full scale of the starvation crisis. Without an immediate ceasefire and arms embargo enacted by the international community, more Palestinian children in Gaza will die of starvation.”

DCIP field researchers collected testimonies from the parents of children who died from malnutrition and dehydration at Kamal Adwan Hospital in the city of Beit Lahia in north Gaza as a result of Israel’s campaign of genocide.

“The hospital receives around 70 to 100 children every day suffering from malnutrition,” Dr. Husam Abu Safia, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, told DCIP. “There are three levels of child malnutrition: mild, moderate, and severe, and most of the cases admitted to the hospital are of the moderate level, while the severe ones represent five to seven percent of the caseload. This percentage may increase if starvation continues and food supplies are not brought in.”

“The spread of hunger in north Gaza and the resulting deaths of children due to malnutrition have become a stark reality. Over 25 children have died at Kamal Adwan Hospital due to hunger, with additional deaths reported in shelter centers and homes. Many were unable to reach the hospital due to the ongoing Israeli siege and aggression,” Dr. Abu Safia continued.

“Karam loved playing football and photography, and he created an account for himself on TikTok,” the mother of 10-year-old Karam Qadadah told DCIP.

Karam was trapped for a week along with his family in Al-Shifa Hospital amid a severe shortage of food supplies caused by the Israeli siege on the hospital. During the siege, the child was allowed to evacuate from Al-Shifa Hospital and was transferred to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital.

Karam’s condition worsened due to the lack of food, medical treatment, and antibiotics at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. His health deteriorated significantly, leading to severe weight loss. He was then transferred to Kamal Adwan Hospital.

“My son was placed in the women’s section [upon arrival at Kamal Adwan hospital] because there was no room for him in the ICU. This made his condition worse, and he was later transferred to the ICU. He died after a week in the unit,” Karam’s mother told DCIP.

Karam died on March 30 due to malnutrition and elevated salt levels in the blood.

Kamal Adwan hospital and other hospitals in Gaza have been unable to gather comprehensive data on the extent of child fatalities due to malnutrition and dehydration due to the ongoing genocide and severe staffing shortages.

Seven-day-old Abdulaziz Salem died in Kamal Adwan Hospital on March 2 due to cardiac arrest and lack of oxygen. He was born in the same hospital without the assistance of doctors due to insufficient medical staff. Abdulaziz spent a week in an incubator while his mother was in critical condition, suffering from jaundice and the effects of malnutrition during pregnancy.

“I could not breastfeed my son because I had no food and I became sick,” Abdulaziz’s mother told DCIP. Her family is from Al-Faluja, west of Jabalia refugee camp in north Gaza, and were forcibly displaced at least six times during her pregnancy.

“There was no oxygen or baby formula in the hospital. My son died, suffocating and hungry,” she said.

Hospitals in north Gaza are in critical condition due to Israeli authorities deliberately depriving Palestinians in Gaza of essential medical supplies, cutting off the supply of electricity, and limiting clean water that is required to provide proper health care for children.

Seven-day-old Joud Al-Barsh from Jabalia refugee camp also died in Kamal Adwan Hospital on March 2 due to malnutrition, as her mother was unable to breastfeed her as a result of the mother’s malnutrition. She was placed in the hospital’s nursery for a week in light of a severe shortage of milk and formula.

“Joud died of hunger, and I am left with her twin sister, whom God gave me after 10 years of marriage,” said Joud’s mother.

“There are hundreds of children facing the risk of death from starvation, as a result of the ongoing restrictions and war, since October 7,” Dr. Said Salah, a pediatrician and nutrition official at the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza told DCIP. “More than 3,500 children under the age of five are now at risk of slow death due to the Israeli policies of starving children and blocking the entry of humanitarian aid [to north Gaza] for two months in a row.”

“I am an ICU nurse at Kamal Adwan Hospital,” the mother of three-year-old Mila Abdulnabi told DCIP. “My daughter died in front of my eyes and I could not save her.”

“I resumed working that day [of her death] and my colleagues closed the door to stop me from coming in. But when I got in, I found my daughter dead and covered in a shroud,” she continued.

Mila Abdulnabi died in Kamal Adwan Hospital on March 2 due to malnutrition and a lack of potassium and calcium.

“When the Israeli forces invaded the northern area and deprived us of food, my daughter suffered from a deficiency of minerals and remained on respirators from February 29 until the day she died. Mila was very smart and attached to me, as she was my only daughter,” her mother said.

“Musab became a skeleton because of the famine,” the mother of Musab Abu Asr from Al-Shujaiya, east of Gaza city, told DCIP. “The prices are extraordinarily high, and no one could afford to buy anything.”

Four-year-old Musab Abu Asr was admitted to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital on February 3, before he was transferred to Kamal Adwan Hospital as the ICU was shut down due to power outages. His health deteriorated and he lost weight until he died on February 11.

“My son Musab was our first child. He was smart and bright in kindergarten. All his teachers praised him. He was sociable and joined his classmates in playing. He loved riding his bike. He loved strawberries and bananas a lot. He was the joy of my heart,” said Musab’s mother.

“My son was admitted to the hospital twice. The first time was because of severe crying and dehydration, and his condition improved with solutions and treatment,” the mother of two-month-old Nahed Haboush from Jabalia refugee camp

Nahed suffered from health deterioration and dehydration, and was placed in the ICU where he remained on respirators for three days until he died on April 3. “Nahed died of starvation due to lack of breastfeeding because there was no food for me or baby formula because of the Israeli siege,” said the mother.

At least 34 Palestinian children have starved to death, according to the Governmental Media Office. However, the official Palestinian death toll includes only those who pass away in hospitals or whose deaths are reported by their families.

The telecommunications blackout, the collapse of the medical system, the Israeli ground invasion, and ongoing Israeli aerial bombardment have prevented many Palestinians from accessing hospitals, resulting in a higher number of impacted Palestinians than officially reported.

Around 3,500 children are at risk of death due to malnutrition and lack of necessary medical care and at least 40,000 infants did not receive the necessary immunizations and vaccinations on a regular basis, according to the Governmental Media Office.

About 82,000 children showed symptoms of malnutrition, according to the same Office, leaving more than 50,000 children requiring treatment for acute malnutrition, according to UNRWA.

Palestinian children are starving to death in Gaza

The lack of transportation and ambulances, along with a critical shortage of essential medications, restricts healthcare access. Women face challenges breastfeeding due to nutritional deficiencies, lack of privacy, stress, and trauma, compounded by a shortage of milk formula, limited malnutrition screenings, and inconsistent nutrition supplement distribution, according to UN OCHA.

Both North Gaza and Gaza Governorates are experiencing famine conditions and around 70 percent of the population, approximately 210,000 people, are in a catastrophic situation, according to the latest report from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification.

Starvation is considered a crime against humanity and a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), when used as a method of warfare or as a deliberate act against a population.

Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) -War crimes- of Rome Statute of the (ICC) recognizes starvation as a method of warfare and states that “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.”

Article 54 of Protocol I (Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population) to the Geneva Conventions states “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”

International criminal law prohibits serious atrocities, including core crimes of genocide, the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and provides for individual criminal responsibility for perpetrators. The crime of genocide constitutes the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group, in whole or in part. Genocide can result from killing or by creating conditions of life that are so unbearable it brings about the group’s destruction. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is an underlying act of genocide and amounts to a war crime.

24 July 2024

Source: dci-palestine.org

By Jean Shaoul

The death toll in Israel’s war of annihilation in Gaza speaks to a policy of shoot to kill, a policy whose existence the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) denies. But several Israeli soldiers have given statements to the daily Haaretz confirming such a policy. Their testimonies corroborate those of Palestinian eyewitnesses and doctors.

These soldiers are part of a small but growing number who have served in the war that have signed the first letter of refusal to serve published by reservists since October 7. The 41 reservists wrote, “The six months during which we participated in the war effort proved to us that military activity alone won’t bring the hostages home.”

Referring to the invasion of Rafah: “This invasion, aside from endangering our lives and the lives of innocents in Rafah, won’t bring back the hostages alive… It’s either Rafah or the hostages, and we choose the hostages. Therefore, after the decision to enter Rafah rather than to bring about a hostage deal, we, male and female reservists, are declaring that our conscience doesn’t allow us to lend a hand to forfeiting the lives of the hostages and torpedoing another deal.”

Some of the soldiers spoke to Haaretz following their recent release from active duty in Gaza, describing their reasons for refusing to continue fighting. These included being authorized to open fire on Palestinians virtually at will, including on unarmed civilians that did not appear to be posing any imminent threat, and being required to torch residential buildings and kill civilians during bombing raids.

Tal Vardi, a Tank Corps commander, was first sent to fight Israel’s war against Hezbollah in the north, replacing the battalions of conscripts sent to the south, where he was engaged mainly in teaching younger reservists tank operations. He had no hesitation in accepting reservist duty in the north. The turning point came when the fascistic government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose to mount a ground operation in Rafah in preference to signing a deal to release the hostages and end the war.

Vardi said, “The moment the operation began in Rafah I felt it was beyond what I could feel right about ethically, stand behind and justify. We’re just chasing after heads in order to demonstrate some kind of achievement, without any strategy and direction.”

Yuval Green, a 26-year-old student and reserve paratrooper opposed to Israel’s occupation in the West Bank, explained that he had been undecided about continuing doing reserve duty and had been on the point of refusing to sign up for the October 7 war. He was sent to the Khan Yunis area where he was required to torch a residential building without any confirmation that it was the home of a Hamas combatant.

On another occasion, the company commander ordered his squad to torch one of the houses where they had been staying because they were leaving military equipment there that would reveal army combat methods. Green recalled, “I said if we’re doing that, I’m going. And they really did burn down the house and I left. I went up during the next leave and didn’t return.”

He told +972 Magazine, “There were no restrictions on ammunition. People were shooting just to relieve the boredom,” citing an incident when a whole battalion opened fire.

Michael Ofer Ziv, a 29-year-old reservist, had interrupted his vacation in Turkey to report for duty when the war started. As a brigade control officer, his task was to track in real time films of drones and Israel Air Force bombings in Gaza. He said, “It’s far from you and the feeling is that it isn’t real.”

It was a week or two before he realized that “every time you see it, it’s a building that’s falling. If people were in it, then they’re dead. And even if there aren’t any people inside, everything that’s there—televisions, memories, pictures, clothing—is gone. It’s high-rise buildings. In the war room, they know what the level of evacuation is.

“They keep saying, for example, 50 percent were evacuated from the area. I remember a day when I heard ‘50 percent were evacuated from northern.’ That same day, I saw a building in the area fall and I thought to myself: ‘50 percent were evacuated from the area, but 50 percent are still there.’ At the same time there are also bombings in southern Gaza, and we know nobody was evacuated from there. On the contrary, everyone fled to there.”

Ofer Ziv said that when his brigade entered Gaza, permission to fire was given with relative ease. “There are areas where it’s forbidden to fire without approval of the command, for all kinds of reasons. For example, it’s forbidden to bomb buildings that are near humanitarian areas. In the end, sometimes we fire of course. You get exceptional permission.”

He added, “When a commander asked me at some point if we’d get permission to fire somewhere, I told him: ‘We’ll get permission, the only question is when.’ In other words, the vibe is ‘You can fire wherever you want. You have to get permission, but there will be permission. It’s only bureaucratic.’ I can count on one hand the times when we were told: ‘You can’t fire there.’”

He explained, “At first, it’s very hard to say what’s justified and what isn’t. From a distance it’s easy to say: ‘That’s how it is in war; people get killed.’ But in war there aren’t 30,000 people killed, most of them buried beneath the ruins when they’re bombed from the air. The feeling is of indiscriminate firing.”

Gaza’s health authorities place the confirmed death toll at 39,000 plus thousands lost in the rubble. A recent study by the Lancet put the estimated death toll at 186,000.

A fourth reservist, a 26-year-old in Military Intelligence who asked not to be named, described his experiences. Responsible for finding assassination targets, he began to realise he was taking part in actions that violated his conscience. He said, “They justify it with a hundred reasons.”

He explained, “You feel you’re doing something without any military rationale, with a risk of causing very serious harm to people who are undoubtedly innocent, only because you have to demonstrate an achievement.” “In the end, refusal is a political act,” he said. “What’s being done there is a crime, one reason being its uselessness, and it’s personally harming my future as a citizen of this country.”

Giving testimony before a Knesset committee last month, Guy Zaken, a soldier who operated D-9 bulldozers in Gaza, testified that he and his crew “ran over hundreds of terrorists, dead and alive.” A soldier he served with subsequently committed suicide, one of at least 10 known to have committed suicide since the start of the war. Around 1,600 are reportedly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Tal Mitnick, Israel’s first conscientious objector to its war of annihilation on Gaza, has finally been released from military jail after serving six successive sentences totalling more than six months, the longest period ever served by an Israeli conscientious objector, and exempted from serving in the Israeli army. The 18-year-old was the first person since the October 7 war against the Palestinians broke out to refuse the compulsory draft for young people on conscientious grounds.

He said, “I’m relieved to be exempted after such a long time. Luckily, I had an opportunity to play a part in the struggle against the war and the occupation.” He added, “There are growing voices in our society that realize that only peace can guarantee security, and that the only way to get out of the cycle and bring about a different future for both peoples is a cease-fire and a hostage deal.”

Mitnick is one of three young people who have refused to serve in the IDF as conscientious objectors.

In June, the 19-year-old Sofia Orr was released after spending 85 days in Neve Tzedek military jail after refusing to enlist. She told the IDF, “I refuse to enlist in order to show that change is needed, and that change is possible, for the security and safety of all of us in Israel-Palestine, and in the name of empathy that is not restricted by national identity.” She explained, “I refuse to enlist because I want to create a reality in which all children between the Jordan River and the [Mediterranean] sea can dream without cages.”

Despite being sentenced to several stretches in military jail, she still refused the draft. “I realized that the army doesn’t stand for the basic values I grew up with, of resolving conflicts with dialogue, of empathy, and of solidarity and equality—not in how it treats its own soldiers and not in how it conducts itself externally in the occupation and war. It’s a system that is inherently very aggressive and violent, and I cannot take part in any such system.”

A third young Israeli, Ben Arad, is still in jail, after being sentenced in April for refusing the draft.

23 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Richard Falk

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) overwhelmingly decided last week that Israel is no longer legally entitled to act as the occupying power in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, noting that its further presence in these territories is unlawful.

The decision took the form of an “advisory opinion” in response to two “legal questions” put to the ICJ by the United Nations General Assembly in 2022.

Israel declined to take part in the court proceedings except by way of a written statement objecting to the whole process as improper, arguing that Israel’s consent was needed before its governmental conduct could be legally evaluated by the ICJ, even in a process labelled as “advisory”.

Does being an “advisory opinion” rather than a formal judgment in a “contentious” case make a decisive difference in the political weight or legal authoritativeness of the outcome in this comprehensive legal scrutiny of Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories?

An important question is raised by the formal, obligatory format of the ongoing South African ICJ case alleging Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

From Israel’s point of view, these two cases are not very different, beyond the ICJ focusing on the alleged legal wrongdoing associated with 57 years of prolonged occupation in one instance, and in the other, South Africa seeking the court’s support to end the Gaza genocide that started last October.

In both instances, Israel has denounced the ICJ for reaching legal conclusions that it says compromise its security and right to defend itself. With such reasoning, Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza, while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.

‘No one will stop us’

Israel’s language of rejection is clear, with the prime minister’s office noting in a statement: “Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of the discussion at the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the ‘legality of the occupation’ – a move designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.” Or in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruder language, “no one will stop us”.

On a superficial level, this near-convergence of outcomes seems to neglect the intended distinction between what is “advisory” (and hence non-binding) and what is “obligatory” and binding.

Upon more reflective consideration, this convergence is far deeper, grounded more in the evolving jurisprudence of the ICJ than in Israel’s criticisms of the process and refusal to implement the rulings in either case.

In its lengthy landmark decision on the issue of the Israeli occupation, the ICJ reached nine conclusions, none of which were opposed by more than four of the 15 participating judges.

This level of judicial consensus in such a politically polarised atmosphere lends support for viewing the court’s decision as authoritative when it comes to evaluating Israel’s behaviour as an occupying power in relation to international humanitarian law – especially the Fourth Geneva Convention governing belligerent occupation – and international human rights law, especially the treaty prohibiting racial discrimination.

Such a consensus is strengthened by additional comments from judges from Global South countries (including Somalia and Lebanon) that go further than the advisory opinion itself to explore the relevance of the colonial background that informs the occupation of Palestine.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the US and Australian judges cast their votes in line with the ICJ consensus, despite their governments being ardent supporters of Israel, with eyes closed to Israeli criminality in both the long occupation and the Gaza genocide.

Primacy of geopolitics 

As with the South African case, the ICJ gained widespread approval for so clearly putting law ahead of national identity. This kind of prioritisation is missing from the political organs of the UN, especially the Security Council, where affiliated flags take unquestioned precedence – and to be sure that the primacy of geopolitics is sustained, the permanent members, P5, get a veto (prompting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to object with the pithy words: “The world is greater than five.”)

The ICJ formulates the substance of its legal analysis in language that intends to be obligatory with respect to Israel. It directs all states and the UN itself to implement its rulings on matters of illegality and the consequences of Israeli unlawfulness. While the decision is labelled “advisory”, as required by the ICJ framework, its pronouncements on the law are stated as if authoritative, and they are supported by the overwhelming majority of judges.

The ICJ also appears to be claiming the authority to tell three categories of political actors – Israel, all states and the UN – what their obligations are with respect to its central finding that Israel’s prolonged presence is no longer legal and should be terminated as rapidly as possible.

In the process of reaching this weighty conclusion, the ICJ found that Israel was responsible for blocking the Palestinian right to self-determination, wrongfully annexing Palestinian territory by force, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention through its large-scale settlement project, and relying upon discriminatory policies and practices to administer the occupied  territories.

The few judges who refused to go along with these findings argued that the ICJ proceedings took insufficient account of Israeli security concerns and counter-arguments.

Regardless, this advisory opinion lends important authoritative support to several central Palestinian grievances with respect to international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly concerning the lawfulness of controversial Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories – and the legal duty of Israel, other states and the UN to follow this decision up with concrete action.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years.

24 July 2024

Source: middleeasteye.net

By Dr Marwan Asmar

It is a distance of 2000 kilometres and is seen as a major feat for the Houthis and a win for Gaza

Yedioth Ahronoth has revealed new details about the “Jaffa” drone that attacked Tel Aviv leading to the death of an Israeli and the injury of at least 10 others.

[https://twitter.com/AdameMedia/status/1814501042987393365]

The Israeli newspaper reported the drone attack on a residential building in central Tel Aviv killing ex-Israeli sniper Yevgeny Perder was launched from Yemen and travelled for 2,000 kilometres to land on the Israeli city.

This in itself is baffling the Israeli authorities. They admit they saw the drone travelling in the night skies of Tel Aviv, Friday, but thought nothing of it. Now they say it was a “human error” on the part of the Israeli forces that should have intercepted the drone quickly and neutralized it.

The Israeli media have since become interested and amazed at how the Yaffa drone travelled all the way with no detection whatsoever and across many countries and seas.

Some of the fly routes taken by the drone were new compared to the previous trajectories that frequently landed on Eilat, a once dazzling touristic city in southern Israel.

This time the paper said the drone was ordered to make a more complicated fly path to make the matter difficult and confusing to sway the detection systems in the Israeli army, the paper said. And it succeeded.

[https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1814248215354474554]

The Israeli daily stated  the Jaffa drone warhead was “relatively small and contained several kilograms of explosives,” to allow it to travel a long distance but the paper claimed “the extent of the damage was limited.”

The social media have been active and covering the drone flight and show the chaos this created Tel Aviv between Shalom Aleichen and Yehuda Streets and since embarrassed the Israeli authorities.

[https://twitter.com/TheCradleMedia/status/1814168172615917780]

“The full flight path is still under investigation, but according to preliminary assessments of the Israeli army, the drone passed through Sinai and crossed the Mediterranean Sea off the southern coast,” of Tel Aviv according to Yedioth Ahronoth.

[https://twitter.com/AdameMedia/status/1814501042987393365]

The explosion occurred at dawn on Friday, about 100 meters from the US Embassy’s branch office complex according to Anadolu.

[https://twitter.com/AdameMedia/status/1814367462650966527]

The Yemeni “Ansar Allah” movement – Houthis – stated “the Yemeni Armed Forces’ air force carried out a qualitative military operation targeting one of the important targets in the occupied Jaffa region, the so-called Israeli Tel Aviv.”

[https://twitter.com/Ahmed_hassan_za/status/1814381142067515745]

The Houthis explained the operation was carried out “with a new drone called “Yafa” capable of bypassing the enemy’s interception systems and being unable to be detected by radars. The operation successfully achieved its goals.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an assessment of the situation after such targeting, with officials confirming “there will be a reaction, and that a response within the territory of Yemen is on the table” according to Jo.24 website.

The Houthis say they will continue to strike Israeli cities as long as Israel maintains its slaughter of Gaza.

Dr Asmar is an Amman-based writer covering Middle East affairs.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vijay Prashad

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Washington, the focus was on Ukraine. In the Washington Declaration, the NATO leaders wrote, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.” Ukraine formally applied to join NATO in September 2022, but soon found that despite widespread NATO support, several member states (such as Hungary) were uneasy with escalating a conflict with Russia. As early as NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, the members welcomed “Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” However, the NATO council hesitated because of the border dispute with Russia; if Ukraine had been hastily brought into NATO and if the border dispute escalated (as it did), then NATO would be dragged into a direct war against Russia.

Over the last decade, NATO has expanded its military presence along Russia’s borders. At the NATO summit in Wales (September 2014), NATO implemented its Readiness Action Plan (RAP). This RAP was designed to increase NATO’s military forces in Eastern Europe “from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south.” Two years later, in Warsaw, NATO decided to develop an enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in the Baltic Sea area with “battlegroups stationed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.” The distance between Moscow and the border regions of Estonia and Latvia is a mere 780 kilometers, which is well within the range of a short-range ballistic missile (1,000 kilometers). In response to the NATO build-up, Belarus and Russia conducted Zapad 2017, the largest military exercise by these countries since 1991. Reasonable people at that time would have thought that de-escalation should have become the priority on all sides. But it was not.

Provocations from the NATO member states continued. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the NATO countries settled on a course of fully backing Ukraine and preventing any negotiations toward a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The United States and its NATO allies sent arms and equipment to Ukraine, with U.S. high military officials making provocative statements about their war aims (to “weaken Russia,” for instance). Ukrainian discussions with Russian officials in Belarus and Turkey were set aside by NATO, and Ukraine’s own war aim (merely for Russian forces to withdraw) was ignored. Instead, NATO countries spent billions of dollars on weapons and watched on the sidelines as Ukrainian soldiers died in a futile war. On the sidelines of the NATO summit in Washington, Royal Netherlands Navy Admiral Rob Bauer, who is the chair of NATO’s Military Committee, told Foreign Policy, “The Ukrainians need more to win than just what we have set up.” In other words, the NATO states provide Ukraine with just enough weapons to continue the conflict, but not to change the situation on the ground (either by a victory or a defeat). The NATO states, it seems, want to use Ukraine to bleed Russia.

Blame China

NATO’s Washington Declaration contains a section that is puzzling. It says that China “has become a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine.” The term “decisive enabler” has attracted significant attention within China, where the government immediately condemned NATO’s characterization of the war in Ukraine. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said that NATO’s statement “is ill-motivated and makes no sense.” Shortly after Russian troops entered Ukraine, China’s Wang Wenbin of the Foreign Ministry said that “all countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected and upheld.” This is precisely the opposite of cheerleading for the war, and since then China has put forward peace proposals to end the war. Accusations that China has supplied Russia with “lethal aid“ have not been substantiated by the NATO countries, and have been denied by China.

Lin Jian asked two key questions at the July 11, 2024, press conference in Beijing: “Who exactly is fueling the flames? Who exactly is ‘enabling’ the conflict?”. The answer is clear since it is NATO that rejects any peace negotiations, NATO countries that are arming Ukraine to prolong the war, and NATO leaders who want to expand NATO eastwards and deny Russia’s plea for a new security architecture (all of this is demonstrated by German parliamentarian Sevim Dağdelen in her new book on NATO’s 75-year history). When Hungary’s Viktor Orban—whose country holds the six-month presidency of the European Union—went to both Russia and Ukraine to talk about a peace process, it was the European states that condemned this mission. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, responded with a harsh rebuke of Orban, writing that “Appeasement will not stop Putin.” Alongside such comments come further promises by the Europeans and the North Americans to provide Ukraine with funds and weapons for the war. Strikingly, the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte even allowed Ukraine to use an F-16 jet from the Netherlands given to Ukraine when Rutte was the prime minister of that country to strike Russian soil. That would mean that weapons from a NATO country would be used directly to attack Russia, which would allow Russia to strike back at a NATO state.

NATO’s statement that characterizes China as a “decisive enabler” permitted the Atlantic alliance to defend its “out of area” operation in the South China Sea as part of its defense of its European partners. That is what permitted NATO to say, as outgoing Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a press conference, that NATO must “continue to strengthen our partnerships, especially in the Indo-Pacific.” These Indo-Pacific Partners are Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. Interestingly, the largest trading partner of three of these countries is not the United States, but China (Japan is the outlier). Even the analysts of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank have concluded that “a delinking of global production processes and consumption from China is not in sight.” Despite this, these countries have recklessly increased the pressure against China (including New Zealand, which is now eager to join Pillar II of the AUKUS Treaty among Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom). NATO has said that it remains open to “constructive engagement” with China, but there is no sign of such a development.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Bring out the bon bons, the bubbles, and the praise filled memoranda for that old alliance.  At the three-quarter century mark of its existence, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is showing itself to be a greater nuisance than ever, gossiping, meddling, and dreaming of greater acts of mischief under the umbrella of manufactured insecurity.  It is also being coquettish to certain countries (Ukraine, figures prominently in the wooing stakes) making promises it can never make good.

Its defenders, as is to be expected, see something very different before the mirror.   They call the alliance a call for freedom, its enduring importance a reassuring presence.  The more appropriate response would be convenience, the assurance of an alliance with collective obligations that would, given the circumstances, compel all parties to wage war against the aggressor.  In terms of alliances, this is one programmed for conflict.

NATO is a crusted visage of a problem long dead.  In the Cold War theatre, it featured in the third act of every play involving the United States and the USSR, a performance that always took place under the threat of a nuclear cloud.  Any confrontation in Europe’s centre could have resulted in the pulverization of an entire continent.  For its part, Moscow had the Warsaw Pact countries.

At the end of the Cold War, NATO had effectively ceased to be relevant as a deterrent force on the European continent.  A new cut of clothing was sought for the members.  Rather than passing into retirement, it became, in essence, a broader auxiliary force of US power.  In the absence of a countering Soviet Union, the organisation adopted a gonzo approach to international security.

In 1999, the alliance became a killing machine for evangelical humanitarianism, ostensibly seeking to protect one ethnic group against the predations of another in Kosovo.  In 2011, it involved itself in military operations against a country posing no threat to any members of the alliance.  NATO, along with a steady air attacks and missile barrages, enforced the no-fly zone over Libya as the country was ushered to imminent, post-Qaddafi collapse.  When the International Security Force (ISAF) completed its ill-fated mission in Afghanistan in 2015, NATO was again on the scene.

NATO’s Strategic Concept document released at the end of June 2022 took much sustenance from the Ukraine conflict while warning about China’s ambitions, a fairly crude admission that it wished to move beyond its territorial limits.  “The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.”  Why such an alliance should worry about such eastward ambitions illustrates the wayward dysfunction of the association.

On April 27, 2022 the then UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and ultimately doomed prime minister pushed the view that NATO needed to be globalised.  Her Mansion House speech at the Lord Mayor’s Easter Banquet was one of those cat-out-of-the-bag disclosures that abandons pretence revealing, in its place, a disturbing reality.

After making it clear that NATO’s “open door policy” was “sacrosanct”, Truss also saw security in global terms, another way of promoting a broader commitment to international mischief.  She rejected “the false choice between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security.  In the modern world we need both.”  A “global NATO” was needed.  “By that I don’t mean extending the membership to those from other regions.  I mean that NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats.”

Praise for the alliance tends to resemble an actuarial assessment about risk and security. Consider this from former US ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute.  NATO, in his mind, is “the single most important geostrategic advantage over any potential adversary or competitor”.  With pride, he notes that “Russia and China have nothing comparable.  The 32 allies in NATO train together, operate together, live together under a standing unified command structure, making them far more capable militarily than any ad-hoc arrangement.”

There is nothing to suggest in these remarks that NATO was one of the single most provocative security arrangements that helped precipitate a war that torments and convulses eastern Europe.  Many a Washington mandarin has been of such a view: moving closer to Russia’s borders was not merely an act of diplomatic condescension but open military provocation.

One should, with tireless consistency, refer to the State Department’s doyen of Soviet studies, George F. Kennan, on this very point. In 1997, he issued the appropriate warning about the decision to expand NATO towards the Russian border: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

This speared provocation is repeated in the 2024 NATO Declaration made in Washington this month. It is effaced of history and context, Ukraine being a tabula rasa in the international system with no role other than that of glorified victimhood, a charity case abused in the international system.  “We stand in unity and solidarity in the face of a brutal war of aggression on the European continent and a critical time for our security,” states the declaration.

Kyiv is promised aid under the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine program, though such provision is, in the manner of an all-promising eunuch, crowned by a caveat: “NSATU will not, under international law, make NATO a party to the conflict.”  The prospects for future conflict are guaranteed by the promise, however empty, that, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.”

The declaration goes on to speak on the “interoperable” and “integrated” nature of Kyiv’s operations with the alliance.  “As Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”

NATO’s warring streak was further affirmed at the Washington summit by injudicious remarks about trying to make it “Trump proof” – a testament to the sleepless nights the strategists must be having at the prospect of a presidency that may change the order of things.  He is bound to have gotten wind of that fact.  Aggravated, the Republican contender may well withdraw the US imperium from the alliance’s clutches.  In Washington’s absence, the NATO family might retreat into fractious insignificance.  The ensuing anarchy, rather than stimulating war, may well do the opposite.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Andre Damon

In a devastating condemnation of the Israeli government and its imperialist backers, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Friday that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is unlawful, ordering all countries to cease enabling it.

The court ruled categorically that Israel’s 56-year-old domination over “the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” is “illegal.” The occupied territories include the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, whose population is being systematically massacred by Israel in an ongoing genocide.

In its sweeping ruling, the court found that, beyond the criminality of Israel’s war against the population of Gaza, the entire framework within which the genocide is being conducted is itself illegal, and that its enablement by the imperialist powers is also illegal.

The court declared that “All States must cooperate with the United Nations to put into effect modalities required to ensure an end to Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It adds that countries must not “render aid or assistance in maintaining” the illegal occupation.

In a refutation of the imperialist powers’ justifications for funding and arming the Gaza genocide based on claims that “Israel has a right to defend itself,” the court ruled that “Israel’s security concerns cannot override the principle of the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force.”

The Biden administration has declared dozens of times that the support of the United States for Israel’s war against the population of Palestine is “ironclad.” Since the start of the Gaza genocide, the US has provided Israel with $6.5 billion in weapons and has pledged a further $14 billion. This included more than 14,000 2,000-pound bombs.

With the help of these weapons, Israel has likely killed 186,000 Gazans or more since October, according to a survey published in The Lancet.

In announcing the ruling, Nawaf Salam, the president of the ICJ, said,

The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the occupied Palestinian territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful.

Responding to Friday’s ruling, the UK-based charity Oxfam declared that Israel “is committing the crime of apartheid in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is one of the most serious international crimes.”

Philippe Sands, counsel for Palestine in the ICJ case, declared in response to the ruling,

This is as clear and far-reaching a ruling as I have come across from this court. … Its legal consequences are entirely without ambiguity, its political consequences far-reaching. … Among the many practical consequences, the court has made clear its view, by an overwhelming majority, that the US and other embassies in Jerusalem are illegal and must be removed for international law to be respected.

Israel has fully annexed East Jerusalem and declared Jerusalem as its capital. In an embrace of the illegal occupation, the Trump administration moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, a move upheld by the Biden administration.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, international law expert William Schabas declared, “[The advisory ruling] is not just directed against Israel. It’s directed against Israel’s friends, and it’s telling them that they cannot contribute in any way to the settlement policy, to the continued acts of violence and persecution in the occupied territories.”

In a statement responding to the ruling, Amnesty International declared, “The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion, and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid.”

Israeli officials responded with condemnations of the ICJ and by reasserting the very content of the ruling: that Israel is seeking to dominate and annex the entirety of the Palestinian territories.

“We will not accept moral preaching from the court,” blustered Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land—neither in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be disputed.”

The ICJ is the highest legal body of the United Nations. Friday’s ruling is in response to a 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to rule on the legality of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. It is separate from the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor has accused Israel of genocide.

While Friday’s ruling presents a devastating legal indictment of the Israeli government and its imperialist backers, the fact remains that it, like numerous other court rulings and UN resolutions, has no practical force whatsoever.

The ruling comes ahead of the visit by Netanyahu to Washington on July 24 to deliver a joint address to Congress, in which the war criminal prime minister will give a progress report to his imperialist paymasters. The imperialist powers, led by the United States, are thoroughly committed to supporting the genocide in Gaza as part of the reassertion of neo-colonial domination all over the world.

The task of opposing and ending the Gaza genocide falls to the working class, and it can only be accomplished through the building of an international movement of workers and young people all over the world against war and imperialist barbarism as a critical element of the struggle for socialism. The rally called by the Socialist Equality Party, International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) and International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees (IWA-RFC) on the day of Netanyahu’s appearance in Washington will be a decisive step in building this movement, and we urge the broadest possible attendance at this critical event.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org