RSS
In a Worst-Case Scenario, the Recent ICJ Legal Ruling Could Threaten the Existence of Israel
Judges, including Sarah Cleveland, arrive at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), during a ruling on South Africa’s request to order a halt to Israel’s Rafah offensive in Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, May 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Johanna Geron
Is the Western Wall an “illegal settlement” built on “occupied Palestinian territory”?
Is Israel an “apartheid” state?
Is it possible that terrorism against Israelis simply doesn’t exist at all?
These are some of the extraordinary conclusions that stem from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion last week. (A summary of the opinion can be found here.)
Though much of the ICJ’s analysis flies in the face of international law, logic, and common sense, the body has reached a conclusion and it is not subject to appeal. Therefore, the only relevant question that remains is: what impact will this advisory opinion have, and what will happen next?
The ICJ came to several conclusions in its decision, which I will briefly review.
“Occupation”: The ICJ held that Israeli presence on “Palestinian territory” is an illegal occupation. The Court unilaterally adopted a definition of what constitutes “Palestinian territory,” which includes the eastern part of Jerusalem, that, in turn, includes the entire Old City and its ancient Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount.
This means, in effect, that visiting or praying at the Western Wall would technically constitute a type of war crime, as would living anywhere in the region of Judea and Samaria.
Security Fence: The Court addressed Israel’s “wall” (which is actually a security fence for 95% of its length), declaring it illegal. The court made no mention of the Second Intifada, nor the fact that the fence reduced Israeli deaths from terrorism by 95%, nor that the conditions necessitating such life saving security measures — i.e., official Palestinian support for terrorism — have not changed.
The Oslo Accords: A well-established principle of international law is that mutual agreement of two or more parties supersedes international conventions. Since 1995, Israel’s security measures, settlement activities, humanitarian aid, and physical presence in Judea and Samaria have been performed in strict accordance with the Oslo Accords, by mutual agreement of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The ICJ has ignored or overruled the Oslo Accords so many times, that it effectively dissolved the Accords as a functioning agreement.
Negotiations: The ICJ has effectively required an end to negotiations over peace or co-existence by mandating the results of such negotiations without regard for the input of the parties themselves.
A few notable statistics: In its 80 page opinion, the ICJ used the word “occupation” 121 times, “violating” international law or Palestinian rights 29 times, “apartheid” three times, and alluded to “genocide” twice.
The ICJ did not acknowledge terrorism against Israelis, incitement to terrorism, or the “Martyr’s Fund” (which pays Palestinians to kill Israelis) even once — not even in its passing reference to October 7, which made no mention of the word “terrorism” nor the astonishing death, destruction, and hostage-taking perpetrated upon the Israeli people.
The vote by the ICJ was not unanimous — the vote was either 11-4 or 12-3 on most of the nine issues that were decided.
The Court’s Vice-President, Julie Sebutinde of Uganda, consistently sided with Israel, and wrote an eloquent dissenting opinion which is well worth reading. Judge Sarah Cleveland of the United States (a long-time Biden nominee) voted consistently against Israel.
The President of the Court, who also voted consistently against Israel, is Nawaf Salam of Lebanon — a country controlled by the Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah, which is currently at war with Israel.
In order to understand the possible impact of this decision, one must understand the “diplomatic intifada.”
In 2001, the Palestinians and various allies held a UN-sponsored (but ultimately Palestinian-controlled) conference in Durban, South Africa. Misleadingly entitled a conference “against racism,” the Durban conference was riddled with antisemitism, including Nazi symbology and rhetoric, and early examples of the “Israel apartheid” claims.
This conference also marked the inception of the anti-Israel boycott movement (BDS), as well as what later came to be called the Palestinian “diplomatic intifada,” the stated goals of which include isolating Israel and having Israel removed from the United Nations.
Though merely an advisory opinion, this ICJ decision is a meaningful step in a Palestinian campaign that spans 23 years of work, and billions of dollars of investment, aimed at discrediting, isolating and harming the Jewish State.
In a theoretical worst case scenario, the United Nations Security Council could remove Israel from the United Nations entirely, making Israel effectively a rogue state, as well as order Israel to implement the ICJ recommendations, and then impose sanctions if Israel refuses.
These would not be “BDS-style” sanctions, which are largely rhetoric, but instead what are called “Chapter 7 Sanctions” — the kind that one sees in places like North Korea. Not only would such measures plunge Israel’s economy and civilians into utter poverty, but sanctions would also cut off the IDF from necessary resources and resupply. Within months, Israel would become effectively “army-less” and vulnerable to attacks by any number of neighboring enemies.
It is likely (though never 100% certain) that the United States would veto such a resolution. However, short of the “worst case scenario” there are many intermediate scenarios that could result.
For example, individual countries may choose to implement the terms of the ICJ recommendation by cutting off trade with Israel, removing Israel from international events (such as the Olympics or FIFA), or embargoing arms shipments to Israel. In fact, some countries have already implemented such measures. The ICJ opinion would give these measures the legitimacy of international law, making them more widespread and more difficult to combat.
Most critically, a resolution of this nature can impact how voters view Israel in democracies around the world, leading, over time, to decreased support by Israel’s critical allies. We are already seeing signs of this on campuses and in political parties throughout the US and Europe.
This should hardly be surprising.
Israel’s global isolation has been the openly stated goal of the Palestinian Authority for over two decades. While Israel has (understandably) focused its resources on military defense and economic growth, the diplomatic battlefield has been left largely undefended, and the ICJ decision is just the latest result.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post In a Worst-Case Scenario, the Recent ICJ Legal Ruling Could Threaten the Existence of Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Obituary: Elexis Schloss, 78, an Edmonton entrepreneur and philanthropist who also performed quiet acts of kindness
Elexis (Conn) Schloss, a vibrant entrepreneur and philanthropist who supported a wide array of causes, both in and beyond Edmonton, died in Victoria on Oct. 31. She was 78. Her […]
The post Obituary: Elexis Schloss, 78, an Edmonton entrepreneur and philanthropist who also performed quiet acts of kindness appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a virtual cabinet meeting from his office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, May 28, 2024. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler accused the Israeli military of committing “collective genocide” in Gaza while also pressing Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty, amid reports that Tehran has postponed its planned attack on the Jewish state.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s remarks, made in Riyadh on Monday during a summit of leaders of Islamic nations, underscored the evolving rapprochement between the erstwhile archenemies Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The crown prince, also known by his initials MBS, urged the international community to demand that Israel “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.”
The two regional heavyweights restored relations last year after decades of animosity.
MBS’s anti-Israel rhetoric came days after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. For Israel, the statement from Riyadh may signal a setback to the normalization process with Saudi Arabia, a long-sought goal within the framework of the Abraham Accords, brokered by Trump during his first term in the White House, that has seen Israel establish formal ties with several Arab states in recent years.
According to a Sky News Arabia report published two days later and citing Iranian officials, Tehran has shelved a planned third direct strike on Israel, with the delay attributed to possible forthcoming diplomatic talks with Trump. Israel Hayom published a similar report the following day, citing officials in Jerusalem familiar with the matter.
Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref expressed his hope that the incoming Trump administration would put a stop to Israel’s campaigns against its terrorist proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“The American government is the main supporter of the actions of the Zionist regime [Israel], and the world is waiting for the promise of the new government of this country to immediately stop the war against the innocent people of Gaza and Lebanon,” Aref said at Monday’s gathering.
Observers noted that Saudi Arabia’s shift could stem from both domestic and regional considerations. For the kingdom, improving relations with Iran is a strategic move to de-escalate conflicts in Yemen, where both countries have backed opposing sides. By opening diplomatic channels with Iran, Saudi Arabia also aims to reduce its dependence on Western security guarantees amid growing regional autonomy. According to Dr. Eyal Pinko, a Middle East expert who served in Israeli intelligence for more than three decades, Saudi Arabia is also under pressure from France, a major arms supplier, to maintain a moderate stance and promote regional peace.
“Saudi Arabia understands [it] cannot rely on the Americans” for arms, Pinko told The Algemeiner.
For its part, Iran may be seeking closer ties with the Gulf kingdom as a result of recent Israeli operations that have decimated the senior leadership of Hezbollah, Iran’s most influential proxy in the Arab world that has long served as a strategic partner.
“Iran is spreading its bets all around, not to be on one side or another,” Pinko said.
Hezbollah, along with Hamas in Gaza, had in the past been blacklisted as terrorist groups by Riyadh.
The New York Times last month cited a Saudi tycoon with ties to the monarchy as saying that the war in Gaza has “set back any Israeli integration into the region.”
“Saudi Arabia sees that any association with Israel has become more toxic since Gaza,” Ali Shihabi told the newspaper.
In another blow for Saudi-Israel relations, Riyadh announced it would revoke the license of the Saudi news broadcaster, MBC, after it labeled the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar a terrorist.
But according to Pinko, the chance of Saudi-Israel normalization is not entirely lost, pending a ceasefire.
“If nothing extreme happens with Iran until Jan. 20 [when Trump takes office], I believe that the Abraham Accords will come back to the table,” he said.
The post Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock speaks during a session of the lower house of parliament Bundestag, in Berlin, Germany, Oct. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisi Niesner
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Thursday publicly rejected a proposal by the European Union’s foreign policy chief to suspend regular political dialogue with Israel in response to the Jewish state’s ongoing military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
“We are always in favor of keeping channels of dialogue open. Of course, this also applies to Israel,” the German Foreign Office said of top EU official Josep Borrell’s plans, according to the German news agency dpa.
The Foreign Office added that, while the political conversations under the EU-Israel Association Council provide a regular opportunity to strengthen relations and, in recent months, discuss the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza, severing that mechanism would be counterproductive.
“Breaking off dialogue, however, will not help anyone, neither the suffering people in Gaza, nor the hostages who are still being held by Hamas, nor all those in Israel who are committed to dialogue,” the statement continued.
Borrell on Wednesday proposed the suspension of dialogue in a letter to EU foreign ministers ahead of their meeting this coming Monday in Brussels, citing “serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza.” He also wrote, “Thus far, these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed by Israel.”
The regular dialogues that Borrell is seeking to break off were enshrined in a broader agreement on relations between the EU and Israel, including extensive trade ties, that was implemented in 2000.
“In light of the above considerations, I will be tabling a proposal that the EU should invoke the human rights clause to suspend the political dialogue with Israel,” Borrell wrote.
A suspension would need the approval of all 27 EU countries, an unlikely outcome. According to Reuters, multiple countries objected when a senior EU official briefed ambassadors in Brussels on the proposal on Wednesday.
While some EU countries, such as Spain and Ireland, have been fiercely critical of Israel since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, others such as the Czech Republic and Hungary have been more supportive.
Hamas, which rules Gaza, launched the ongoing conflict with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped over 250 hostages while perpetrating mass sexual violence and other atrocities.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication. However, Hamas has in many cases prevented people from leaving, according to the Israeli military.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations, direct attacks, and store weapons.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said last month that Israel has delivered over 1 million tons of aid, including 700,000 tons of food, to Gaza since it launched its military operation a year ago. He also noted that Hamas terrorists often hijack and steal aid shipments while fellow Palestinians suffer.
The Israeli government has ramped up the supply of humanitarian aid into Gaza in recent weeks under pressure from the United States, which has expressed concern about the plight of civilians in the war-torn enclave.
Meanwhile, Borrell has been one of the EU’s most outspoken critics of Israel over the past year. Just six weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, he drew a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas while speaking to the European Parliament, accusing both of having carried out “massacres” while insisting that it is possible to criticize Israeli actions “without being accused of not liking the Jews.”
Borrell’s speech followed a visit to the Middle East the prior week. While in Israel, he delivered what the Spanish daily El Pais described as the “most critical message heard so far from a representative of the European Union regarding Israel’s response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7.”
“Not far from here is Gaza. One horror does not justify another,” Borrell said at a joint press conference alongside then-Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen. “I understand your rage. But let me ask you not to let yourself be consumed by rage. I think that is what the best friends of Israel can tell you, because what makes the difference between a civilized society and a terrorist group is the respect for human life. All human lives have the same value.”
Months later, in March of this year, Borrell claimed that Israel was imposing a famine on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and using starvation as a weapon of war. His comments came a few months before the United Nations Famine Review Committee (FRC), a panel of experts in international food security and nutrition, rejected the assertion that northern Gaza was experiencing famine, citing a lack of evidence. Borrell’s comments prompted outrage from Israel.
In August, Borrell pushed EU member states to impose sanctions on some Israeli ministers.
Monday’s meeting in Brussels will be the last that Borrell will chair before ending his five-year term as the EU’s foreign policy chief.
The post Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.