Due to the sheer volume of recent news stories concerning Israel, you may have missed two mostly unnoticed but important developments regarding Israel in the world of international law.

In the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa has been suing Israel for genocide.  I’ve been saying for months that South Africa does not have a case, but that the lawsuit is nonetheless dangerous because South Africa’s  goal is not to win. Instead, its goal is to achieve an “emergency injunction” that would stop Israel’s campaign against Hamas, effectively handing the terror organization a victory.

Such an injunction would not require actually proving the claims against Israel, and so the emergency injunction has always been South Africa’s (and Hamas’) best chance of effectively defeating the IDF.

South Africa has made two unsuccessful attempts to obtain emergency orders, and is now coming up against an October 28 deadline to, at long last, submit their actual evidence of “genocide.”

Last week, South Africa petitioned the ICJ for an extension of several months, apparently because (unsurprisingly) they have not succeeded in finding such evidence.

While this is a small vindication, it is by no means the end of the story. Ihe ICJ is only nominally a “court,” but in reality, functions as a political body. The ICJ’s current President is Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, which is effectively controlled by the Iranian backed Hezbollah terror organization and is actively at war with Israel. The ICJ judges include representatives from countries that have recently demonstrated strongly anti-Israel agendas, such as China and Brazil, as well as South Africa — the very country that’s suing Israel.  Even the US delegate to the court has voted consistently against Israel in recent decisions.

In fact the only judge who has stood both firmly and eloquently in favor of Israel is the court’s Vice President, Julia Sebutinde of Uganda.

So while logic dictates that South Africa should not be able to win a lawsuit without evidence, politics has no such limitations. Israel has been petitioning the United States Congress for support in pressuring the ICJ to drop their case, and so has my organization.

An entirely separate international body is the International Criminal Court (ICC), in which prosecutor Karim Khan has petitioned the court to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as several Hamas leaders (two of whom are now dead).

The court has been deliberating the request since May, and last week, Khan issued a new request that the court issue the arrest warrants “urgently.”

It is not clear why such arrest warrants are now more urgent than before, yet some Israeli sources are concerned that the ICC may be sympathetic to the prosecutor’s request anyway. There is some speculation that this “urgency”  may be designed to preempt Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN General Assembly later this month.

Much like the emergency orders in the ICJ, these ICC arrest warrants do not actually require proof. Instead, the prosecutor needs to  provide only minimal evidence that his claims are reasonably possible, and he gets to do so “ex parte” — which means alone and without Israel having the opportunity to respond.

Like the ICJ, the ICC is also primarily a political body in the guise of a “court,”  and therefore, sufficiently dramatic claims against Israel, especially when presented “ex parte” and with the right political pressure, may be adequate to persuade the judges.

Why does all of this matter?  Here’s just one example: since the election of the Labor government, the UK has removed its objection to the ICC proceedings, and this month suspended the shipment of certain military items to Israel, in what amounts to essentially a “soft embargo.”  The items in question include important parts for military equipment, such as the F-35 fighter jet, which wear out quickly and need constant replacement. Such parts are manufactured in only a few factories in the entire world and cannot be easily replaced.

Why doesn’t Israel make the parts itself? The factories are so specialized that even if Israel started building one today, it would take years and billions of dollars before production could even begin. Even “Israeli” inventions, such as the Merkava tank, make use of these specialized parts from foreign sources. In short, for the foreseeable future Israel depends on foreign resources to keep the IDF working.

If a relevant international body such as the ICJ were to make a ruling against Israel, instead of seeing a “soft embargo” of some military equipment by some countries, we might see official worldwide embargoes encompassing all equipment.

In as little as several months, as equipment begins to fail, the IDF could run out of working jets, helicopters, tanks, and all of the other tools necessary for the IDF to function as an actual army. Israel would become defenseless, not only against even a weakened Hamas, but also against Iran and all of its various proxies.

This reality relates to may other issues. For example, in the recent debate over whether Israel should abandon the Philadelphi corridor as part of a hostage deal, some IDF generals claim that Israel can simply retake it “at any time.” Yet when IDF generals speak about Israel’s capabilities, they usually refer only to military tactics and strategy, and often overlook the geopolitical forces that could strip the IDF of its capacity to function.

If Israel were to enter an internationally binding agreement (for example over Philadelphi) and then violate it, these kind of embargoes are just one possible consequence.

For this reason, we are keeping a close eye on activities at the ICC, the ICJ, the United Nations, the US Congress, and all the various bodies that have significant influence over Israel’s long term safety, and are actively involved in petitioning those bodies as well.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

The post How the International Law Cases Against Israel Could Truly Cripple the IDF first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The Associated Press (AP) and Los Angeles Times have both neglected to correct erroneous reports in recent days, which incorrectly claimed that US activist Rachel Corrie was killed 2003 by an Israeli military demolition, while she was protesting a home demolition in the Gaza Strip.

In fact, a 2012 Haifa court ruling found that the bulldozer that accidentally killed Corrie was clearing brush used for attacks against Israeli troops, and was not demolishing homes.

In their Sept. 7 AP article, “Israeli soldiers fatally shot an American woman at a West Bank protest, a witness says,” Julia Frankel and Aref Tufana reported:

American Rachel Corrie was crushed to death as she tried to block an Israeli military bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home. [Emphasis added.]

Similarly, The Los Angeles Times’ Laura King’s Sept. 9 page A1 article (and also online), “Pattern of impunity alleged after activist’s killing… ” erred:

In 2003, another American activist with the organization, 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer as she tried to block home demolitions in the Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added.]

The Haifa court that ruled on the Rachel Corrie case found that the bulldozer was clearing brush, not demolishing homes. The court stated:

The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground. This clearing and leveling included leveling the ground and clearing it of brush in order to expose hiding places used by terrorists, who would sneak out from these areas and place explosive devices with the intent of harming IDF soldiers.

There was an urgency to carrying out this mission so that IDF look-outs could observe the area and locate terrorists thereby preventing explosive devices from being buried.

The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes. The action conducted by the IDF forces was done at real risk to the lives of the soldiers. Less than one hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF forces. [Emphasis added.]

While both AP and The Los Angeles Times failed to correct their reports even after CAMERA supplied them with the court document, The Jerusalem Post last week commendably corrected the identical error.

Tamar Sternthal is the director of CAMERA’s Israel Office. A version of this article previously appeared on the CAMERA website.

The post The Los Angeles Times and AP Refuse to Correct False Claim About Rachel Corrie first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

If you read the official Palestinian Authority (PA) news agency WAFA’s reports, the information you receive is highly dependent on what language you read.

The PA openly lies in both Arabic and English, but sometimes it is aware of the need to hide its outrageous lies from the US and the English-speaking world.

Here’s an example:

A week ago, a Turkish-American member of the anti-Israeli International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was shot and killed unintentionally while she participated in violent riots against Israeli forces at Beita Junction near Nablus.

To its readers in Arabic, the PA said Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi was “executed.”

But readers in English were informed that she was “killed”:

WAFA in Arabic

WAFA in English

Headline: “The [PA] Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemns the occupation’s crime of executing an American solidarity activist in the town of Beita”

“The [PA] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned in the strongest language the despicable crime in which the occupation’s [i.e., Israel’s] forces executed Turkish-American solidarity activist Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi this afternoon, Friday. They opened live fire on her and hit her in the head in the town of Beita, south of Nablus.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, Sept. 6, 2024]

Headline: “Foreign Ministry condemns killing of US activist by Israeli forces”

“The Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ministry today condemned the killing of a US activist by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Beita, south of the occupied West Bank city of Nablus.

The Ministry condemned in the strongest possible terms the killing of Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old US activist of Turkish origin, who was directly shot in the head during a peaceful demonstration in the village of Beita…”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, Sept. 6, 2024]

A subtle difference that speaks volumes.

In Arabic, the PA wants to provoke Palestinians into a state of rage and readiness to take revenge against Israel.

In English, the PA is aware that the US received the information from Israel that the shooting of Eygi was not intentional but was an accidental result of her participation in the violent riots.

Yet no one calls out the discrepancy, or what the PA is trying to do with its lies and different messages for different audiences.

The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). A version of this article originally appeared at PMW.

The post After Accidental Killing, the PA Admits the Truth in English, Incites Violence in Arabic first appeared on Algemeiner.com.