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
Iran, US Task Experts to Design Framework for a Nuclear Deal, Tehran Says
Atomic symbol and USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, September 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Iran and the United States agreed on Saturday to task experts to start drawing up a framework for a potential nuclear deal, Iran’s foreign minister said, after a second round of talks following President Donald Trump’s threat of military action.
At their second indirect meeting in a week, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi negotiated for almost four hours in Rome with Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, through an Omani official who shuttled messages between them.
Trump, who abandoned a 2015 nuclear pact between Tehran and world powers during his first term in 2018, has threatened to attack Iran unless it reaches a new deal swiftly that would prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is peaceful, says it is willing to discuss limited curbs to its atomic work in return for lifting international sanctions.
Speaking on state TV after the talks, Araqchi described them as useful and conducted in a constructive atmosphere.
“We were able to make some progress on a number of principles and goals, and ultimately reached a better understanding,” he said.
“It was agreed that negotiations will continue and move into the next phase, in which expert-level meetings will begin on Wednesday in Oman. The experts will have the opportunity to start designing a framework for an agreement.”
The top negotiators would meet again in Oman next Saturday to “review the experts’ work and assess how closely it aligns with the principles of a potential agreement,” he added.
Echoing cautious comments last week from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, he added: “We cannot say for certain that we are optimistic. We are acting very cautiously. There is no reason either to be overly pessimistic.”
There was no immediate comment from the US side following the talks. Trump told reporters on Friday: “I’m for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific.”
Washington’s ally Israel, which opposed the 2015 agreement with Iran that Trump abandoned in 2018, has not ruled out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months, according to an Israeli official and two other people familiar with the matter.
Since 2019, Iran has breached and far surpassed the 2015 deal’s limits on its uranium enrichment, producing stocks far above what the West says is necessary for a civilian energy program.
A senior Iranian official, who described Iran’s negotiating position on condition of anonymity on Friday, listed its red lines as never agreeing to dismantle its uranium enriching centrifuges, halt enrichment altogether or reduce its enriched uranium stockpile below levels agreed in the 2015 deal.
The post Iran, US Task Experts to Design Framework for a Nuclear Deal, Tehran Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says Fate of US-Israeli Hostage Unknown After Guard Killed in Israel Strike
Varda Ben Baruch, the grandmother of Edan Alexander, 19, an Israeli army volunteer kidnapped by Hamas, attends a special Kabbalat Shabbat ceremony with families of other hostages, in Herzliya, Israel October 27, 2023 REUTERS/Kuba Stezycki
Hamas said on Saturday the fate of an Israeli dual national soldier believed to be the last US citizen held alive in Gaza was unknown, after the body of one of the guards who had been holding him was found killed by an Israeli strike.
A month after Israel abandoned the ceasefire with the resumption of intensive strikes across the breadth of Gaza, Israel was intensifying its attacks.
President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said in March that freeing Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old New Jersey native who was serving in the Israeli army when he was captured during the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks that precipitated the war, was a “top priority.” His release was at the center of talks held between Hamas leaders and US negotiator Adam Boehler last month.
Hamas had said on Tuesday that it had lost contact with the militants holding Alexander after their location was hit in an Israeli attack. On Saturday it said the body of one of the guards had been recovered.
“The fate of the prisoner and the rest of the captors remains unknown,” said Hamas armed wing Al-Qassam Brigades’ spokesperson Abu Ubaida.
“We are trying to protect all the hostages and preserve their lives … but their lives are in danger because of the criminal bombings by the enemy’s army,” Abu Ubaida said.
The Israeli military did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Hamas released 38 hostages under the ceasefire that began on January 19. Fifty-nine are still believed to be held in Gaza, fewer than half of them still alive.
Israel put Gaza under a total blockade in March and restarted its assault on March 18 after talks failed to extend the ceasefire. Hamas says it will free remaining hostages only under an agreement that permanently ends the war; Israel says it will agree only to a temporary pause.
On Friday, the Israeli military said it hit about 40 targets across the enclave over the past day. The military on Saturday announced that a 35-year-old soldier had died in combat in Gaza.
NETANYAHU STATEMENT
Late on Thursday Khalil Al-Hayya, Hamas’ Gaza chief, said the movement was willing to swap all remaining 59 hostages for Palestinians jailed in Israel in return for an end to the war and reconstruction of Gaza.
He dismissed an Israeli offer, which includes a demand that Hamas lay down its arms, as imposing “impossible conditions.”
Israel has not responded formally to Al-Hayya’s comments, but ministers have said repeatedly that Hamas must be disarmed completely and can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to give a statement later on Saturday.
Hamas on Saturday also released an undated and edited video of Israeli hostage Elkana Bohbot. Hamas has released several videos over the course of the war of hostages begging to be released. Israeli officials have dismissed past videos as propaganda.
After the video was released, Bohbot’s family said in a statement that they were “deeply shocked and devastated,” and expressed concern for his mental and physical condition.
“How much longer will he be expected to wait and ‘stay strong’?” the family asked, urging for all of the 59 hostages who are still held in Gaza to be brought home.
The post Hamas Says Fate of US-Israeli Hostage Unknown After Guard Killed in Israel Strike first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Oman’s Sultan to Meet Putin in Moscow After Iran-US Talks
FILE PHOTO: Sultan Haitham bin Tariq al-Said gives a speech after being sworn in before the royal family council in Muscat, Oman January 11, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Sultan Al Hasani/File Photo
Oman’s Sultan Haitham bin Tariq al-Said is set to visit Moscow on Monday, days after the start of a round of Muscat-mediated nuclear talks between the US and Iran.
The sultan will hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, the Kremlin said.
Iran and the US started a new round of nuclear talks in Rome on Saturday to resolve their decades-long standoff over Tehran’s atomic aims, under the shadow of President Donald Trump’s threat to unleash military action if diplomacy fails.
Ahead of Saturday’s talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. Following the meeting, Lavrov said Russia was “ready to assist, mediate and play any role that will be beneficial to Iran and the USA.”
Moscow has played a role in Iran’s nuclear negotiations in the past as a veto-wielding U.N. Security Council member and signatory to an earlier deal that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018.
The sultan’s meetings in Moscow visit will focus on cooperation on regional and global issues, the Omani state news agency and the Kremlin said, without providing further detail.
The two leaders are also expected to discuss trade and economic ties, the Kremlin added.
The post Oman’s Sultan to Meet Putin in Moscow After Iran-US Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login