RSS
South Africa’s Genocide Suit Against Israel Threatens World Order
Supporters of Hamas demonstrating outside the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Reuters/Jehad Shelbak
South Africa presented its opening arguments accusing Israel of “genocide,” last Thursday in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague. Israel responded with its legal defense on Friday.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the claim of genocide “meritless,” while other nations, such as Germany and the UK, described the claim as “unjustified” and “wrong.” Indeed, the IDF is extraordinarily careful to protect civilians, whereas Hamas (which is not subject to the ICJ) committed actual acts of genocide against Israelis as part of the October 7 massacre, a cruel irony that Blinken called “particularly galling.”
Unfortunately, the weakness of South Africa’s legal case is of little comfort, because their key objective is not to win the lawsuit, but to implement a one-sided “ceasefire” — which is something far more dangerous.
The “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” defines “genocide” (in summary) as the intent to destroy a group, coupled with specific acts in furtherance of that intent.
Accordingly, Hamas’ acts on October 7 legally constitute a “genocide” against Israel and the Jewish people. By contrast, Israel’s self defense does not remotely resemble a genocide, given the IDF’s herculean efforts to protect civilians in Gaza, and the incredibly small casualty numbers compared to other conflicts in the region, such as in Syria and Yemen. The Hamas-authored casualty figures that South Africa presented in court include combatants and civilians that Hamas itself has killed. The numbers also reflect Hamas’s use of human shields, and include many other inaccuracies, further weakening South Africa’s already flimsy case.
Accordingly, South Africa, which has close alliances with Russia, Iran, and Hamas, has focused its initial efforts not on winning the case but instead on attempting to secure an emergency order for a ceasefire, which could come as soon as this week. In a vacuum, a ceasefire might seem reasonable: it would seem to freeze hostilities while the parties fight in court instead of on the battlefield.
However, this case is deceptively different: the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over Hamas, as it does over Israel, because the internationally-designated terror group is not a signatory to the Convention. Therefore, the only kind of “ceasefire” the Court can order would be one-sided: Israel ceases, while Hamas fires.
During such a “ceasefire,” 136 Israeli hostages would remain in Hamas captivity, enduring (according to international intelligence) ongoing torture and rape; Hamas, which has pledged to repeat the October 7 massacre, would be free to re-arm, regroup, and carry out further attacks; and Israel would be legally prohibited from responding, even in self defense. In effect, Israel would become “army-less.”
To make its case, South Africa’s lawyers quoted a small niche of extreme outlier Israeli politicians and soldiers who made statements that, when viewed out of context, may be interpreted as “intent” to commit genocide. Israel responded that none of these statements constitute government policy, and that those who made them are not in decision making positions.
Indeed, a democracy with free speech will (and in fact should) produce a wide range of opinions, including ones counter to government policy and mainstream opinion. However, in order to secure a ceasefire order, South Africa need not show that these statements prove genocide, but only that they demonstrate the possibility of genocide. The ICJ’s panel of 15 judges include representatives from Russia, China, Lebanon, and other countries likely to be unfriendly to Israel, which further increases the likelihood that the Court may indeed order a one-sided and deadly “ceasefire.”
If carried out to its draconian conclusion, South Africa’s cunning ceasefire strategy, coupled with Hamas’ declared commitment to carry out further massacres, have the potential to produce possibly the greatest human tragedy in modern history: an entire series of October 7 style massacres, with Israel prohibited from acting in self defense, all with the cruel and ironic support of the very international laws that were intended to prevent such atrocities.
This begs the question: what if Israel simply disregards such an ICJ order in favor of defending its very survival?
In this case, the Court could recommend that the UN Security Council enforce crippling sanctions — not “BDS” style sanctions which are primarily PR stunts — but the kind of nation-eviscerating sanctions imposed in places like North Korea, Yugoslavia, and (ironically) apartheid-era South Africa.
Such measures could include cutting Israel off from energy markets, food supply, global trade, global financial systems, international travel, and more. Parallel procedures in other international bodies could produce international arrest warrants: not just for Israeli leadership but even for current and former IDF soldiers. (Norway, for example, has already begun steps in this direction.)
This apocalyptic sounding consequence begs yet another question: wouldn’t the United States veto any such resolution at the Security Council? The answer is not as certain as it seems. Based on Secretary Blinken’s statements, America would almost certainly veto a resolution that condemns Israel for genocide. However, if Israel were to violate a direct court order for a ceasefire, coupled with domestic and international public pressure and an upcoming US election, the answer becomes less clear. At the very least, ICJ enforcement measures constitute a risk that Israel must take seriously, even with likely US support.
These events are no mere show trial, but rather a carefully calculated attempt by Hamas, via its allies, to defeat Israel militarily by shutting down the IDF’s freedom of action. In doing so, Hamas and South Africa threaten the very institutions of international law.
Israel is subject to the ICJ because it signed the Convention, which did nothing to protect Israel on October 7, whereas Hamas is able to act with impunity precisely because it has not signed the Convention. Long term, this perversion of international law incentivizes all nations to withdraw from global institutions for their own protection, thus threatening the continued existence of international law itself.
Without international law and institutions, it would be more difficult to act against dangers such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Myanmar’s Rohingya genocide, and more.
In short: Israel is fighting for its survival on two fronts: one is military, the other is legal and communications. An Israeli victory on both fronts is absolutely critical not only for the safety of Israel, but also the continued existence of international law, and the long-term security of the entire free world.
Daniel Pomerantz is an expert in international law, a lecturer at Reichman and Bar Ilan Universities in Israel, and the CEO of RealityCheck, an nonprofit NGO dedicated to clarifying global conversations with verifiable data. Daniel lives in Tel Aviv, Israel and can be found on Instagram at @danielspeaksup or at www.RealityCheckResearch.org.
The post South Africa’s Genocide Suit Against Israel Threatens World Order first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.