10 times the US contradicted its own rhetoric on peace and justice

From blocking ceasefires to shielding allies from criticism, these instances highlight how Washington has undermined global efforts for peace and justice.



AA

The Gaza veto is just one of many instances where American interests have overruled the international community's collective will. / Photo: AA

The United States frequently portrays itself as a global champion of peace, democracy, and human rights. Yet its actions at the United Nations – and elsewhere – often tell a different story.

On Wednesday, the US vetoed a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza and measures to prevent the starvation of Palestinians. Despite 14 members voting in favour, Washington single-handedly blocked the resolution, stating it "could not support an unconditional ceasefire".


This marks the fourth such veto by the US since the onset of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023. Additionally, the US has vetoed at least 58 resolutions critical of Israel or condemning its violence against Palestinians since 1972, according to UN data.


The Gaza veto is just one of many instances where American interests have overruled the international community's collective will.


Here, we explore 10 historical examples of the US wielding its veto power to block resolutions aimed at fostering peace or holding nations accountable, exposing a troubling pattern.


1. Blocking condemnation of the bombing of Libya (1986)


In April 1986, the US launched air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in response to alleged Libyan involvement in a terrorist attack on a Berlin nightclub. These strikes resulted in civilian deaths and widespread international outrage.


A UNSC resolution condemning the attack as a violation of international law was introduced but vetoed by the US, which claimed the strikes were an act of “self-defence”.


2. Shielding Israel during the Lebanon War (2006)


During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel launched a military campaign in southern Lebanon, causing extensive civilian casualties and destruction. A draft UN resolution called for an immediate ceasefire and condemned the targeting of civilians.


The US vetoed the resolution, claiming it would undermine “Israel’s ability to respond” to Hezbollah.


3. Opposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa (1970s-1980s)


During the apartheid era, the UN introduced multiple resolutions calling for economic sanctions against South Africa to pressure its government to end racial segregation and systemic oppression.


The US repeatedly vetoed these resolutions, citing concerns about the economic impact on both South African and American businesses operating there, further delaying international efforts to dismantle the oppressive regime.


4. Blocking condemnation of US actions in Nicaragua (1980s)


Throughout the 1980s, the US provided military and financial support to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who were fighting the socialist Sandinista government.


The conflict caused widespread civilian suffering and was condemned as a violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) later ruled that US actions violated international law.


Multiple UN resolutions sought to condemn the US for its role in fueling the conflict and violating Nicaragua’s territorial integrity. The US vetoed these resolutions, fueling a devastating conflict while undermining global norms.



5. Opposing criticism of the invasion of Panama (1989)


In December 1989, the US invaded Panama, claiming it sought to protect American citizens and restore democracy. However, many countries viewed the invasion as a violation of Panama’s sovereignty.


When the UNSC introduced a resolution condemning the invasion, the US vetoed it, arguing that its actions were necessary for regional stability and democracy, justifying its own actions under the guise of promoting democracy.


6. Supporting Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights (1981)


In 1981, Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights, territory seized from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. The move violated international law, as UN resolutions prohibit the acquisition of territory by force.


The UNSC introduced a resolution declaring Israel’s annexation "null and void". The US vetoed it, claiming it would “complicate the peace process in the region”.


7. Blocking ceasefire efforts after Vietnam War (1960s-1970s)


The Vietnam War, which lasted from 1955 to 1975, was one of the deadliest conflicts of the 20th century. The US escalated its involvement in the 1960s, citing the need to stop the spread of communism. International calls for a ceasefire grew as civilian casualties mounted.


Throughout the conflict, the US opposed the UN resolutions aimed at the admission of Vietnam to the UN, further blocking peace efforts.


8. Opposing investigations into Iraq War (2003)


In 2003, the US led a coalition to invade Iraq, citing the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. No WMDs were ever found, and the war led to massive civilian casualties and regional destabilisation.


The UN introduced efforts to investigate the legality of the war and its humanitarian consequences, but the US blocked such initiatives, insisting that its actions were justified under the doctrine of preemptive self-defence.


9. Blocking resolutions on Gaza blockade (2010)


Following the Israeli assault on a humanitarian flotilla attempting to deliver aid to Gaza, international outrage grew over Tel Aviv’s blockade, which was a violation of international law. The blockade severely restricted the movement of goods and people, worsening humanitarian conditions in Gaza.


The UN introduced a resolution condemning the blockade and calling for its immediate end. The US vetoed the resolution, arguing it “failed to address security concerns”.


10. Supporting Israel’s occupation of West Bank (1967-Present)


Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, territories internationally recognised as part of Palestine.


The UN has consistently called for Israel to withdraw from these territories, as their occupation violates international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention.


However, the US has consistently shielded Israel from international criticism, often using its veto power to block resolutions critical of Israel’s actions.



Alarming pattern


From shielding allies to justifying its own military actions, the US has repeatedly prioritised strategic alliances and economic gains over global peace and accountability.


Each veto has had consequences, prolonging wars, delaying justice, and eroding trust in international institutions.


The latest veto of the Gaza ceasefire adds to the US' troubling legacy, making it clear who is complicit in the suffering of millions.

Opinion

Israeli prepares to annex the occupied West Bank and impose a fait accompli on the Palestinians



A view of the West Bank separation barrier, which separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem, has become the site of many artists’ drawings to depict the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, on November 12, 2024 in Bethlehem, West Bank [Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency]

MEMO
November 21, 2024 

by Aziz Mustafa


As soon as it was known that Donald Trump will be back in the White House in January, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that 2025 would be the year to impose the occupation state’s sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria”, known to the rest of the world as the West Bank. Naftali Bennett made a similar announcement in 2016, when Trump was a US presidential candidate for the first time. The Palestinian territory, said Bennett, should be part of the occupation state.

Annexation is illegal under international law.

Any Israeli attempt to annex the West Bank projects a worrying picture of the consequences. The Israelis themselves are monitoring this, but it is not acknowledged by the right-wing government, because even partial annexation could lead to some negative responses that would jeopardise the occupation state’s position. While the Jewish settlers and their leaders who support annexation claim that it can be implemented gradually and thus be revealed as a fait accompli, with reduced negative consequences, research suggests that this is a delusion.

The gradual annexation of so-called Area C of the West Bank (delineated by the Oslo Accords and controlled fully by Israel), or even part of it, is expected to lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, and thus the end of its security coordination with the occupation state, and the occupation army will have to control the occupied Palestinian territory. In such a situation, Israel will be forced to fund a military-run regime and be responsible for the lives of 2.8 million Palestinians. The cost of such a move is estimated at $14.5 billion annually, including expenses for health services, education and national insurance for Palestinians.

OPINION: Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real

Moreover, the annexation of the West Bank could damage the Israeli economy due to a predicted decline in foreign investment and the imposition of international sanctions. Security will also be affected, as the occupation army will be required to double its presence on the ground, hindering its readiness for war on other fronts. Vital security cooperation under the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt will be hit, with the potential for Jordan to become dangerously unstable within the international arena, and Israel could find itself in a serious diplomatic crisis.

Even if the incoming Trump administration supports the annexation move, even tacitly, the reaction of Europe and the Arab world is expected to be harsh. It is likely to include economic and diplomatic sanctions, and Israel’s international legitimacy, such as it is, will be damaged severely.


It might even be declared to be a pariah state, similar to South Africa during the apartheid era.

The main fear, though, is that annexation will lead to a point of no return, where the occupation state will be forced to choose between two impossible options: a binational state in which it will lose its Jewish majority, or an apartheid regime in which millions of Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, without full civil rights. Israel has already been found to have passed the threshold as an apartheid state by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Coinciding with Israeli preparations to annex the West Bank, the government’s attitude towards Palestinian construction, especially in Area C, means implementing a demographic and population revolution in favour of the Jewish immigrant settlers at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians.

There were 2,868 new Palestinian buildings built in Area C from June 2023 to May 2024, less than half of the number built in the corresponding periods in previous years since 2018. The monthly average in 2023 was 260 new Palestinian buildings, compared with an average of 608 buildings per month in previous years from 2018 onwards. This is a 57 per cent decrease. Meanwhile, there has been very intense activity by the occupation army, prompting many Palestinians to stay in their homes and postpone their housing plans.

READ: Israel forces assault staff member after storming Palestinian school

The operations of the army-run Civil Administration in the West Bank; the appointment of far-right extremist Smotrich as Finance Minister and as an additional minister in the Defence Ministry; and the establishment of the Settlement Directorate have all contributed to imposing more control over Palestinian land in the West Bank. This began with building a strategy for work and determining the location for Palestinian construction, and has been extended to a legal advisory system to deal with petitions, the confiscation of engineering equipment and the demolition of “unlicensed” structures that deter Palestinian residents from trying to extend their homes or build new properties.

A major factor in the decline in Palestinian construction has been the decisive move by the Ministry of Settlements and National Missions, headed by Orit Strook, to fund land coordinators in all settlement councils. Their job is to patrol in a vehicle and use drones to detect and report any Palestinian construction. The result has been the confiscation of more than 440 tractors, small trucks and engineering tools used by Palestinian contractors, leaving them without tools for lengthy periods, which is costly and forces them to think twice before their next construction project.

The occupation authorities do not hesitate to demolish any new Palestinian building.

Unlike the past, the procedure is short and sharp. The heads of Palestinian villages know that anything being built has a low chance of survival and faces rapid demolition. The occupation authorities have destroyed 901 Palestinian buildings in Area C this year alone, and declared 5,978 acres to be state land. This is equivalent to half of the entire area that was declared as state land since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

With 19 per cent of Palestinian new-build sites destroyed in 2021, 27 per cent in the following year, 2022, and 22 per cent in 2023, a shocking increase has been recorded this year, with 68 per cent of new Palestinian buildings destroyed. All of this is in preparation for the annexation of the West Bank as soon as Donald Trump takes office in January. With many supporters of Israel’s illegal settlements nominated for major positions in his administration, the incoming US president may be unable to stop the annexation plan, even if, as Republican Party sources claim, he opposes it.

The shadow of Israeli settlement expansion hangs over Gaza

Analysis: With an emboldened Israeli far-right calling to resettle Gaza, Israel's systematic destruction is seen as a prelude to mass Palestinian displacement.

Mohamed Solaimane
21 November, 2024

THE NEW ARAB

Since its launch on 5 October this year, Israel’s campaign of forced evacuations in northern Gaza has claimed over 2,000 Palestinian lives and left more than 6,000 injured. While the immediate toll is devastating, Gazans fear an even darker threat looms over the enclave’s future.

Eyewitness accounts detail the widespread levelling of neighbourhoods in northern Gaza, with bulldozed infrastructure and new road networks tailored for military use. Coupled with growing calls within Israel’s political establishment to reinstate settlements in the area, these developments are deepening fears of permanent Palestinian displacement.

The destruction has sparked speculation that Israel intends to establish a buffer zone along its border with Gaza, a security measure that could also prevent the return of displaced Palestinians, but more troubling is the spectre of reintroducing settlements to northern Gaza, a region Israel evacuated in 2005 when it dismantled 21 settlements as part of a unilateral withdrawal.

The Israeli resettlement of Gaza is no longer a fringe idea
In-depth
Jessica Buxbaum

While Israel’s government has not explicitly announced plans to annex northern Gaza or resettle it with Israeli civilians, observers point out that the widespread displacement and destruction align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no-man’s land in northern Gaza, intended as a buffer zone against potential attacks.

Far-right parties and settlement organisations in late October organised a provocative rally held just hundreds of meters from Gaza’s border. The event featured members of Israel’s parliament and cabinet, all advocating for renewed settlement in Gaza. This gathering followed a January conference, during which far-right activists and lawmakers signed a petition urging the Israeli government to rebuild settlements in Gaza and northern parts of the West Bank.

Ahmed Fayad, a researcher in Israeli affairs, argues that these calls are “deeply rooted” in the ideology of the Zionist movement now dominating the government.

“This government believes that wherever settlements exist, the army will defend them, thereby ensuring security for surrounding areas,” Fayad told The New Arab, adding that he sees the push for settlements in northern Gaza as driven by “ideological conviction” as well as “political and military aims”.

Israel’s current actions in northern Gaza, which include razing buildings, displacing populations, and enforcing strict security protocols, appear designed to create “a buffer zone, ostensibly to protect nearby Israeli communities,” he adds.

The widespread displacement and destruction in north Gaza align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no man's land intended as a buffer zone. [Getty]


“It’s too early to conclude that far-right proposals for new settlements will gain traction,” he noted. “Settlements require a level of security and stability that simply doesn’t exist in Gaza right now. The territory is still a closed military zone, inaccessible even to Israelis.”

The future of Gaza, Fayad contended, depends on how Israel envisions its administration of the territory in the post-war era.

“There’s a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza,” Fayad said. “Legislative and administrative measures already in place could make this relatively easy to execute. However, such a move hinges on military and political decision-making, which is complicated by the memory of the severe security risks settlements faced before Israel’s 2005 withdrawal.”
Related

Israeli ethnic cleansing nears completion in northern Gaza
Analysis
Paul R. Pillar

The shift from political discourse to open calls for action is evident in statements by Israeli politicians and officials. Current and former members of Israel’s Knesset, ministers, and other high-ranking figures have increasingly advocated for establishing settlements across Gaza.

Mowaffaq al-Kafarna, a political science professor at Gaza University, does not rule out the eventual establishment of settlements but considers it unlikely during the current military campaign.

“The war is ongoing, and the complexities of ensuring security for settlements make such a move implausible at this stage,” he said.

However, he warns that Israel’s actions on the ground suggest a long-term strategy to completely evacuate northern Gaza.


“In this scenario, northern Gaza’s depopulation is just the beginning, with the process potentially extending to Gaza City itself,” al-Kafarna explained. “Israel seems intent on creating a northern Gaza entirely devoid of Palestinian presence, starting with this evacuation as a precursor to wider changes.”

He pointed to the systematic destruction of neighbourhoods and the construction of new road networks bisecting northern Gaza as evidence.

“The division of northern Gaza into isolated sections, combined with widespread destruction, lays the groundwork for gradual and comprehensive depopulation,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the first phase of a larger plan to establish security zones. Settlements may follow, depending on Israel’s long-term calculations.”

He also believes the overarching goal is to neutralise Gaza as a threat to Israel, dismantle resistance groups entirely, and replace Hamas with a pliable civilian administration loyal to Israeli interests.

“This is about ensuring Gaza can never challenge Israel again,” al-Kafarna said. “It’s not just about military domination but also political control, ensuring free movement for the Israeli military while maintaining a civilian administration subservient to Israeli security interests.”

There's a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza. [Getty]


One possibility, he suggests, is the incorporation of Gaza under Israel’s broader political and security apparatus. However, this would likely exclude any responsibility for the Palestinian population, which Israel might delegate to international organisations.

“This would contrast sharply with the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority manages civilian life. In Gaza, there would be no place for any Palestinian-led authority,” he noted.

From the Palestinian perspective, the signs on the ground suggest that settlements are not a distant possibility but an imminent reality. Nasser Attaallah, a Palestinian writer and political analyst, believes that Israel’s policies and actions in northern Gaza are preparing the ground for settlement expansion.

“Netanyahu and his extremist government have dredged up distorted historical and ideological justifications to legitimise these brutal crimes,” Attaallah said. “Settlement in Gaza is no longer just a plan; it’s becoming a reality.”

He warned that such moves will further entrench Palestinian dispossession, with “devastating consequences for the already shattered social and economic fabric of Gaza”.


For Palestinians like Attaallah, the renewed settlement discourse signals a return to a dark chapter they hoped was closed.

“We are witnessing the resurrection of an old nightmare,” he said, “and the world seems powerless to stop it”.

As Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza, Palestinian voices express a deepening sense of despair and inevitability over the region’s future. For many, the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, which set off the latest escalation, has become a pretext for what they describe as the total obliteration of Gaza.
Related


With Trump's win, Israel moves closer to annexing the West Bank
Analysis
Jonathan Fenton-Harvey

“Gaza is facing a full-scale settlement project,” Attaallah asserts. He argues that years of far-right planning, previously limited to policy papers, are now becoming a reality under the current government. The situation is further compounded, he believed, by the global landscape, particularly the influence of now-President-elect Donald Trump.

“During his first term, Trump legitimised settlements and supported every move by the Israeli right wing. With an administration sympathetic to the settler cause, the situation for Palestinians can only worsen,” he explained.

For Palestinians, this rhetoric, combined with the devastation on the ground, signals the erasure of any prospects for autonomy or stability. The stakes, Attaallah emphasises, could not be higher.

“This is about more than land - it’s about the survival of a people and the obliteration of their existence.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

Opinion

Realism and the invasion of Gaza: 

Critiquing Israel’s Zionist agenda


Palestinians fleeing to Gaza City with their belongings they could take with them, on October 23, 2024 in Gaza City, Gaza. [Mahmoud Isleem – Anadolu Agency]

MEMO
by Syeda Fatima Shuja

November 21, 2024

Realism is a prominent school of thought in international relations and often justifies state actions based on national interests, power dynamics and security. It prioritises the preservation of the state’s autonomy and survival, even at the expense of ethical considerations. However, realism fails to address the moral implications of state actions adequately, particularly when they result in human suffering and violations of international law.

“States,” said Kenneth Waltz in 1979, “are the principal actors in international politics, and their primary concern is survival. The structure of the international system compels states to act in ways that maximise their security.”

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, realism’s reliance on power and security has often masked the underlying injustices and deprivations faced by the Palestinians. It has perpetuated a binary understanding of the conflict, overlooking the complexities of historical grievances, political motivations and the legitimate Palestinian struggle for self-determination.


This narrow perspective overlooks the crucial need for justice, accountability and the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Israel’s latest invasion and occupation of the Gaza Strip, a densely populated territory now under complete Israeli control, is a stark example of how realist thinking can fail to address fundamental moral concerns. The ongoing blockade, military operations and restrictions on movement have caused immense human suffering, yet these actions are often justified by the need to ensure Israel’s security. This approach ignores the long-term consequences of the occupation, including the erosion of trust, the perpetuation of violence and the hindering of peace negotiations. Not for nothing has it been called a “plausible genocide” by the International Court of Justice.

READ: IDF soldiers will pay for Netanyahu seeking to impose military rule in Gaza, warns Gallant

The justification used by Israel for its capture of the Gaza Strip is rooted in a combination of historical narratives, security concerns and political calculations. The claim that Gaza is a strategic buffer zone for Israel is often used to justify the occupation, arguing that the territory’s control is vital for Israel’s security. This narrative, however, is highly contested, with critics arguing that it overlooks the disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians and the role of the “unlawful” (as per the ICJ) occupation itself in fuelling conflict.

For Israel, the war in Gaza is framed as a war of self-defence against the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, but, in reality, it amounts to a genocide against the Palestinians. The occupation of the Gaza Strip can be seen as a strategic move, aiming to gain an advantageous position in future negotiations. Moreover, Israel is interested in the natural gas fields off the coast of Gaza. The Zionist state also wants to eliminate the possibility of serious resistance from Gaza when extremist Jews seek to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and build a temple in its place.

Although the ongoing air strikes, blockade of humanitarian aid and essential goods and services, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools and homes have led to a staggering number of civilian casualties, there has been little or no adequate action by the international community to stop the carnage. At least 44,000 Palestinians have been killed, mainly women and children, while 104,000 have been wounded. The sheer scale of the violence, along with the targeting of civilians, has drawn accusations of disproportionate force and collective punishment.


The loss of innocent lives, particularly children, has been devastating.

Thousands of children have been killed or severely wounded in their homes and schools, leaving families in shock. Women’s rights and safety have also been undermined as they bear the burden of displacement, loss of loved ones and injury. Rapes by soldiers have been reported. Whole communities and generations have been affected, losing their homes, futures and hopes.

READ: British MPs urge government to endorse ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Gallant

The ongoing genocide in Gaza raises serious questions about Israel’s treatment of civilians. This is not self-defence as outlined by the realist perspective, as the state is not focusing on addressing the threat posed by Hamas, which it regards as a terrorist organisation. That’s just an excuse. Ethnic cleansing of the enclave is the objective, either through killing or displacement. What’s more, an occupation state — Israel in this case — has no legal right to claim “self-defence” against the legitimate resistance of the people living under its military occupation.

The occupation state has ignored the repeated calls by the international community to respect international law and protect civilians. This highlights the need for reform of the United Nations, where Israel has been protected by the US veto and no means of enforcing resolutions are available. This emboldens Israel and allows it to act with total impunity. The effects are starting to be felt badly across the whole region.

While there has been much talk about the political aspects of “the day after” the war, little thought has apparently been given to the undoubted serious physical and mental health issues affecting the Palestinians in Gaza. Children are traumatised, as are their parents. Who is going to help them?

In the middle of all of this, even as Western governments struggle with poverty and declining public services in their own countries, they continue to give billions of dollars in aid to Israel as well as preferential trading, research and arms agreements.


Nobody is able to explain why with any degree of conviction.

Realism fails to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza because it focuses solely on power dynamics and security concerns, ignoring the human suffering and rights violations. This narrow perspective perpetuates the cycle of violence without tackling the underlying cause: the decades-old occupation. A just approach based on international law and human rights is needed to end the conflict.

“The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an affront to human rights, an act of aggression, and a violation of international law,” said Noam Chomsky. How right he was.

Opinion

Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real


Israel’s Finance Minister and leader of the Religious Zionist Party Bezalel Smotrich on March 20, 2023 [GIL COHEN-MAGEN/AFP via Getty Images]

MEMO
by Hussein Laqra’a
November 20, 2024


The leaders of 56 Arab and Islamic countries advocated at the Riyadh Summit last week for the “two-state solution” and the need to establish a Palestinian state on the nominal borders of 4 June 1967, and tried to convince the world that it is the only solution to the Palestinian issue. In response, the extreme far-right Finance Minister of the occupation state, Bezalel Smotrich, insisted that 2025 will be the year that “Judea and Samaria” — the occupied West Bank — will be annexed to Israel and that he expects US President-elect Donald Trump to support this step. He basically confirmed that the quest for “Greater Israel” is real.

The nominal borders as at 4 June 1967 were the 1949 Armistice (“Green”) Line between the Zionist state of Israel and the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. These occupied Palestinian territories combined make up no more than 22 per cent of occupied Palestine. This means that the 56 Arab and Islamic countries have agreed that 78 per cent of Palestinian land should be served to the Zionist occupation state on a silver platter. In fact, the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut approved of this.

Some Arabs paid for advertisements in Israeli newspapers to promote this “Arab Peace Initiative”, but the Zionist Prime Minister at the time, war criminal Ariel Sharon, said that it “is not worth the ink it was written with” and rejected it completely. This rejection of the initiative continues to this day, despite Arab pleas and appeals, as well as the many humiliating concessions made by the Palestinian Authority since the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed. The occupation regime and parliament passed a bill recently refusing to recognise a Palestinian state, even if the entire world does so. The Israeli right and left, government and opposition, all agreed on this.

OPINION: A nation in denial: Why Israel’s defeat is imminent

Now Smotrich is working to bury the two-state solution once and for all, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports him. We have to ask, therefore, why the Arab and Islamic countries are trying to revive the moribund “two-state solution” despite it being biased and complicit with the occupation?


More than 30 years of “negotiations” have simply bought time for the occupation regime to steal more Palestinian land.

We now know — if anyone was ever in any doubt — that the settler-colonial state rejects sharing Palestine with the Palestinians, even if it is only 22 per cent of the historic territory. While arguing that chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are “anti-Semitic”, the Zionists have no qualms about stating openly that they want a Jewish state “from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] sea”. Intensive settlement activity — all illegal under international law — is swallowing up what remains of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and probably northern Gaza as well if the occupation regime is allowed to get away with its ethnic cleansing and genocide. It would have made far more sense, therefore, for the Arab and Islamic leaders to turn this humiliating page, forget about a “two-state solution” and declare the death of the so-called “peace process”. At the same time, they could have announced their collective political and practical support for legitimate resistance to the brutal Israeli occupation.

I have been saying for years that the Palestinian Authority is wrong to participate in futile negotiations with the occupation state to establish an independent Palestinian state that the Zionists will never accept. And that this path will lead to the loss of what remains of Palestine and thus the liquidation of its cause.

I have also said that the Arabs are wrong to waste their time chasing the mirage of peace with a criminal, fascist, racist, expansionist regime which wants all of Palestine for itself; and, indeed, wants to establish “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates, despite the peace treaties and normalisation agreements with its neighbours whose land it will steal. When the occupation finishes swallowing the West Bank and East Jerusalem with settlements and announces their annexation, it will devote itself to expanding at the expense of its Arab neighbours, into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even if it takes another eight decades. When the right time is right, the occupation will do this and will not care about any of the normalisers who are now supporting it against any and all legitimate resistance, thinking that they are thereby weakening Iran’s influence in the region and creating the appropriate conditions for a comprehensive peace deal.

Smotrich stood next to a map of the State of Israel in March 2023 in France, and “Israel” included Jordan, even though the Zionist entity signed a peace treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom in 1994. Didn’t the terrorist Menachem Begin sign a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979?

That won’t stop the Zionists. They want it all, and give nothing in return.

The issue is quite clear, but unfortunately the Arabs continue to bury their heads in the sand. If they were rational, they would have stopped the reckless promotion of the two-state solution illusion that the occupation regime does not want, and the normalisation countries would have severed, not strengthened their relations with it. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority would announce the end of security coordination with the enemy forces in the West Bank, the cancellation of the Oslo Accords, and its return to resistance against the occupation. If the Arabs were rational, they would have backed the legitimate resistance as their own first line of defence instead of abandoning the Palestinians in Gaza. Are they all insane?

Translated from Echoroukonline, 

16 November 2024

ICC court issues arrest warrant for Israeli war criminal NetanyahuIsrael's leaders are war criminals—and so are their backersBinyamin Netanyahu should be arrested for war crimesBy Arthur TownendThursday 21 November 2024 SOCIALIST WORKER IssueThe International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for “crimes against humanity and war crimes”.On Thursday, the ICC unanimously rejected Israel’s appeal over the court’s jurisdiction. Netanyahu had rejected the ICC’s prospector Karim Khan application for arrest warrants in May as “absurd”.The decision means the ICC’s 124 member states are obliged to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they set foot on their soil.The court said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare”. It said there were also reasonable grounds to believe that they had “intentionally and knowingly deprived” Gaza’s civilians of food, water, medicine, medical supplies, fuel and electricity.The court issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, leader of Palestinian resistance group Hamas, to seem “balanced”. Israel says it has assassinated him.But the ICC’s move is a devastating blow for Israel—and its Western backers. Khan previously revealed that “a senior leader” told him the ICC “is built for Africa and for thugs like Russian president Vladimir Putin”, not for the West and its allies.Now the leaders of Israel, held up by the West as the “one democracy in the Middle East”, face arrest for war crimes.The ICC’s announcement comes as the United States and Israel tried to block moves towards a ceasefire in Lebanon. A ceasefire agreement was backed by 14 members of the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, but the United States vetoed the agreement.The US then justified its ongoing support for Israel’s slaughter in Lebanon. US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood, “The United States worked for weeks in good faith to avoid this outcome.“We made clear throughout negotiations that we could not support an unconditional ceasefire. A durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages.Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah initially returned the proposal with some additional comments earlier this week. Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to the Lebanese parliament’s speaker Nabih Berri, said, “All the comments that we presented affirm the precise adherence to UN Resolution 1701 with all its provisions.”UN official slams Starmer—‘human rights lawyers shouldn’t be genocide deniers’Read MoreThe UN Resolution 1701 was used to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. It requires a full ceasefire, disarmament and the removal of troops from the border and the full sovereignty of Lebanon.Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire based on Resolution 1701, stressing the importance of Lebanon retaining its sovereignty.In response, Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar said any ceasefire with Lebanon must ensure Israel has the “freedom to act” against Hezbollah. “In any agreement we will reach, we will need to keep the freedom to act if there will be violations,” he added.Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem said on Wednesday, “Israel cannot impose its conditions on us.“Our goal is to prevent the Israeli army from settling inside Lebanon and we have achieved victories in doing so. We are working on two tracks—the battlefield and negotiations—and we will not suspend the battlefield as we wait for the negotiations.”Israel struck over 100 targets in Lebanon over Wednesday. The terror state has killed over 2,700 people in Lebanon since it began intense bombing in September and a ground invasion last month. Over 200 of Israel’s victims are children.The US veto shows its uncompromising support for Israel. As the US looks to secure its interests in the Middle East, Binyamin Netanyahu knows he has the full support of Biden and Donald Trump. It’s essential to keep mobilising the Palestine movements in the West to end all arms sales to Israel.

UPDATED

World reacts to ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant

Some countries have said they will respect the ICC's decision to issue the arrest warrants, while others, such as ally the US, have slammed the decision

The New Arab Staff & Agencies
21 November, 2024


Thursday's decision has been anticipated since the ICC prosecutor said he would seek arrest warrants since May [Getty/file photo]

The International Criminal Court on Thursday issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The move had been anticipated for months after ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan said in May he would seek warrants for the Israeli officials.

Now, the 124 national members of the ICC are obliged to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant on their territory.

More than 44,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war erupted there last year. Israel imposed a siege on the enclave very early on in the conflict, which has led to catastrophic results including famine and patients not being able to receive medical treatment.

Here's how some countries and non-state actors have responded to the ICC issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.


Hamas

The Palestinian group called on the ICC "to expand the scope of accountability to all criminal occupation leaders."

The group's senior official, Basem Naim, said: "This is an important step on the path to justice and bringing justice to the victims, but it remains a limited and spiritual step if it is not backed practically by all countries."

An arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas commander Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, aka Mohammed Deif, who Israel claimed it killed in an airstrike in Gaza's city of Khan Younis earlier this year.

Hamas has denied this and says he is still alive.

United States: Fundamentally rejects decision

The United States, Israel's top ally, said it "fundamentally rejects" the decision by the ICC, according to a White House statement on Thursday.

"We remain deeply concerned by the Prosecutor's rush to seek arrest warrants and the troubling process errors that led to this decision. The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter," a National Security Council spokesperson said.

Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, said: "The Court is a dangerous joke. It is now time for the US Senate to act and sanction this irresponsible body."

The US, Israel's biggest arms supplier, is not a signatory of the ICC, meaning Netanyahu and Gallant would not be arrested if they travelled there.


United Kingdom: Respects decision, focused on pushing Gaza ceasefire

Britain said it would respect the independence of the ICC, according to comments by Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesperson.

"We respect the independence of the International Criminal Court, which is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern," the spokesperson told reporters.

"There is no moral equivalence between Israel and democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terrorist organisations. We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza."

Europe: Decision must be respected

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant are not political and the court decision should be respected and implemented.

France's foreign ministry spokesperson said the French reaction to the warrants would be "in line with ICC statutes".

Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris said the court's arrest warrants were a significant and serious step, saying: "The decision ... is an extremely significant step. These charges could not be more serious."

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said: "We support the ICC, while always remembering that the court must play a legal role and not a political role. We will evaluate together with our allies what to do and how to interpret this decision."

Netherlands Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp was cited by Dutch news agency ANP as saying the country was prepared to act on the arrest warrant against Netanyahu if needed.


Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said: "It is important that the ICC carries out its mandate in a judicious manner. I have confidence that the court will proceed with the case based on the highest fair trial standards."

Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said her country "and the EU support the important work of the court and safeguard its independence and integrity."

Argentina: In disagreement

Argentina's right-wing President Javier Milei wrote on X that his country was in "deep disagreement" with the decision.

Milei is a close ally of Israel, which he visited in February this year when he vowed to move his country's embassy to Jerusalem. He had compared Hamas' attack in southern Israel to the Holocaust.

Jordan: Justice for Palestinians

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said the ICC rulings should be respected and implemented, adding that "Palestinians deserve justice."

Ties between Israel and Jordan have seriously deteriorated since the start of the war. The kingdom has repeatedly called on Israel to immediately end its offensive in Gaza.

The two countries have shared diplomatic relations since 1994.

Jordan has warned against any attempts by Israel to displace the Palestinians from the occupied West Bank, which borders the kingdom to the west.


Turkey: 'Positive decision'

Turkish Justice Minister Yilmaz Tunc said on X that the ICC's decision was "a belated but positive decision to stop the bloodshed and put an end to the genocide in Palestine".

"The barbaric Israeli authorities, who target our innocent Palestinian brothers and sisters... must be brought to justice as soon as possible for their war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly condemned Israel’s war in Gaza as a "genocide," and likened Netanyahu to Hitler. The two countries still share ties.

Rights groups: A breakthrough

"The ICC arrest warrants against senior Israeli leaders and a Hamas official break through the perception that certain individuals are beyond the reach of the law," said HRW.

"These warrants should finally push the international community to address atrocities and secure justice for all victims in Palestine and Israel," it added.

Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard said, "Prime Minister Netanyahu is now officially a wanted man."

"ICC member states and the whole international community must stop at nothing until these individuals are brought to trial before the ICC's independent and impartial judges."

Israeli rights group urges enforcement of ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant


MEMO

November 21, 2024 

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators stage a sit-in protest outside U.S. Consulate General in Toronto to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the United States Congress in Canada on July 24, 2024.   [Mert Alper Dervis/Anadolu via Getty Images]

The Israeli human rights organisation, B’Tselem, urged all member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to enforce arrest warrants against Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence chief, Yoav Gallant, Anadolu Agency reports.

“Israel’s crimes of starvation, persecution and intentionally directing an attack against civilians is one of the lowest points in Israeli history,” the group said in a statement.

Available evidence about Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip during the last year, carried out with the knowledge and direction of the Prime Minister and members of the ministerial cabinet, clearly “indicates that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity,” it said.

B’Tselem emphasized that holding decision-makers personally accountable “is a key element in the struggle for justice and freedom for all human beings”.

“All states parties to the Court must respect the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision and enforce the warrants,” according to the rights group.

OPINION: What’s next after ICC issues warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders?

The ICC currently has 124 member states, according to its website. Under the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, member states are required to fully cooperate with the Court, including executing arrest warrants. Cooperation is essential to ensuring accountability and combating impunity.

B’Tselem also highlighted that it and other human rights groups have long warned about the severe human rights violations inherent in Israel’s apartheid system.

The severity of the abuses, however, has reached unimaginable dimensions in the last year, it said.

The ICC announced in a landmark move, Thursday, it issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber I said it “issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.”

“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity,” the decision said.

Israel has launched a genocidal war on Gaza following an attack last year by the Palestinian Resistance group, Hamas. The ensuing response by Israel has killed more than 44,000 people, most of them women and children, and injured over 104,000.

The second year of the genocide in Gaza has drawn growing international condemnation, with officials and institutions labelling the attacks and blocking of aid deliveries as a deliberate attempt to destroy a population.

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its deadly war on Gaza.

Palestinians welcome ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant

Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have welcomed the ICC's arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant

The New Arab Staff & Agencies
21 November, 2024

Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority welcomed the ICC arrest warrants [Getty]

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas both welcomed the International Criminal Court's arrests warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant over the Gaza war.

"The State of Palestine welcomed the decision" to issue the warrants against Netanyahu and ex-defence minister Yoav Gallant, the Palestinian Authority said in a statement published by official news agency WAFA.

The ICC said it had found "reasonable grounds" to believe Netanyahu and Gallant bore "criminal responsibility" for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, as well as the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

"The ICC's decision represents hope and confidence in international law and its institutions," the Palestinian statement said, urging ICC member states to sever "contact and meetings" with Netanyahu and Gallant - who was sacked by the Israeli prime minister earlier this month.

The statement from the Palestinian Authority, which has partial administrative control in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, did not make any mention of the warrant also issued Thursday for Hamas's military chief Mohammed Deif over war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israel said it killed Deif in Gaza in July, but Hamas has not confirmed his death.

The group, in its own statement about the ICC decision, similarly did not mention Deif.

Hamas said the warrants for the Israeli leaders were "an important step towards justice and can lead to redress for the victims in general".

"But it remains limited and symbolic if it is not supported by all means by all countries around the world", the group's political bureau member Bassem Naim said.

Massacres

Asked by AFP about the Deif warrant, a Hamas official who wished to remain anonymous said there was "no comparison between the criminal occupier and the victim".

Palestinians uprooted from their homes in Gaza suggested the ICC warrants will make no difference to their suffering.

Yussef Abu Huwaishel, inside a flimsy shelter with a dirt floor in central Gaza, said "it is important to see someone speaking out about these massacres and the oppressed people" but "there is still the United States" which supports Israel.

At the same encampment in Al-Zawayda, Hasan Hasan said he was certain that "the decision will not be implemented because no decision in favour of the Palestinian cause has ever been enforced."

Israel's war on Gaza has killed over 44,056 people since October, most of them women and children, and utterly devastated the territory.

UK Government Must Act After Arrest Warrants Issued for Netanyahu – PSC

21st November 2024Leave a Commenton UK Government Must Act After Arrest Warrants Issued for Netanyahu – PSC

“The British government has previously stated its support for the independence of the ICC. It must now publicly reiterate its commitment to implement these arrest warrants.”

In response to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over War Crimes, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) have issued the following statement.

The British government must make clear its commitment to act on arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

PSC welcomes the belated decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Yoav Gallant, the former Minister of Defence for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed since October 2023. In its public statement, the ICC says there are reasonable grounds to believe that both men bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts, and the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

The ICC further states ‘that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity’. Disgracefully, Keir Starmer initially argued that Israel had a ‘right’ to carry out these despicable crimes.

The British government has previously stated its support for the independence of the ICC. It must now publicly reiterate its commitment to implement these arrest warrants and make clear to Netanyahu and Gallant that they will be arrested if they ever set foot in Britain.

These arrest warrants must only be the start. All those responsible for Israel’s crimes against humanity and war crimes must be held to account. Israel is currently standing trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the world court has already ruled that Israel is guilty of the crime against humanity of apartheid.

It is long past time for the British government to act. This announcement places Britain in the grotesque position of continuing to sell weapons and provide diplomatic support to a state which is not only on trial for genocide but is led by a man who from today is a fugitive from international justice. The government must immediately end all arms trade with Israel and apply meaningful sanctions to bring an end to Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people.

---

• You can follow the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.
• This statement was originally published by the PCS on 21 November 2024.

British MPs urge government to endorse ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Gallant

MEMO

November 21, 2024 

Former Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn makes a speech attending a protest against the Israeli army’s attack on displaced civilians in Al-Mawasi, on September 12, 2024 in London, United Kingdom. [Raşid Necati Aslım – Anadolu Agency]

British lawmakers, on Thursday, called on the UK government to endorse the International Criminal Court’s new arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, Anadolu Agency reports.

In a landmark move, The Hague Court on Thursday announced it had issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over war crimes it accuses them of carrying out in Palestinian Territories, including Gaza.

On the announcement, Jeremy Corbyn, an independent MP, called the warrants “long overdue” and the “bare minimum”, urging Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, to “immediately” endorse the move.


Will the UK government now, finally, honour its international obligations to prevent genocide and end all arms sales to Israel?

Corbyn, also a prominent former Labour Party leader, asked on X.

Zarah Sultana, Labour MP for Coventry South, also urged the government to act in line with the decision.

READ: Palestine envoy to UK welcomes ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu, calls for full accountability

“The UK government must comply with the ICC, end all arms sales, impose economic sanctions & suspend its trade deal with Israel. Nothing less will do,” she said.

Adnan Hussain, an independent MP for Blackburn, said the government must now change its position “immediately” and take firm and resolute action against Israel, including cutting all diplomatic ties and stopping all arms sales.

“To refuse is to be complicit,” he said.

My question to the @10DowningStreet and the Prime Minister will now be that if either (Netanyahu or Gallant) come to the UK; will they be arrested and put before the international courts!” Ayoub Khan, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, wrote on X.
‘Barbaric crimes are clear for all to see’

Andy McDonald, another Labour Party MP, hailed the warrants as a “major development”, saying the Court found reasonable grounds of responsibility for crimes against humanity.

Richard Burgon, Labour Party MP for Leeds East, also welcomed the warrants, saying the two top Israeli officials’ “barbaric crimes are clear for all to see”.


Our Government must commit to enforcing these arrest warrants. And Governments must now impose sanctions on Israel to stop more war crimes

he noted.

Apsana Begum, independent MP for Poplar and Limehouse, said that the government needs to get behind the Hague Court now to “uphold international law and end its own complicity”.

The warrants come as Israel’s genocidal offensive in Gaza recently entered its second year, having already killed some 44,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and injured over 103,000 others.

The Israeli onslaught has displaced almost the entire population of the Territory amid an ongoing and deliberate blockade that has led to severe shortages of food, clean water and medicine, pushing the population to the brink of starvation.

ICC court issues arrest warrant for Israeli war criminal Netanyahu

Israel's leaders are war criminals—and so are their backers

Binyamin Netanyahu should be arrested for war crimes

By Arthur Townend
Thursday 21 November 2024  

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for “crimes against humanity and war crimes”.

On Thursday, the ICC unanimously rejected Israel’s appeal over the court’s jurisdiction. Netanyahu had rejected the ICC’s prospector Karim Khan application for arrest warrants in May as “absurd”.

The decision means the ICC’s 124 member states are obliged to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they set foot on their soil.

The court said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare”. It said there were also reasonable grounds to believe that they had “intentionally and knowingly deprived” Gaza’s civilians of food, water, medicine, medical supplies, fuel and electricity.


The court issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, leader of Palestinian resistance group Hamas, to seem “balanced”. Israel says it has assassinated him.

But the ICC’s move is a devastating blow for Israel—and its Western backers. Khan previously revealed that “a senior leader” told him the ICC “is built for Africa and for thugs like Russian president Vladimir Putin”, not for the West and its allies.

Now the leaders of Israel, held up by the West as the “one democracy in the Middle East”, face arrest for war crimes.

The ICC’s announcement comes as the United States and Israel tried to block moves towards a ceasefire in Lebanon. A ceasefire agreement was backed by 14 members of the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, but the United States vetoed the agreement.

The US then justified its ongoing support for Israel’s slaughter in Lebanon. US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood, “The United States worked for weeks in good faith to avoid this outcome.

“We made clear throughout negotiations that we could not support an unconditional ceasefire. A durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages.

Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah initially returned the proposal with some additional comments earlier this week. Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to the Lebanese parliament’s speaker Nabih Berri, said, “All the comments that we presented affirm the precise adherence to UN Resolution 1701 with all its provisions.”


UN official slams Starmer—‘human rights lawyers shouldn’t be genocide deniers’
Read More

The UN Resolution 1701 was used to end the war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. It requires a full ceasefire, disarmament and the removal of troops from the border and the full sovereignty of Lebanon.

Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire based on Resolution 1701, stressing the importance of Lebanon retaining its sovereignty.

In response, Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar said any ceasefire with Lebanon must ensure Israel has the “freedom to act” against Hezbollah. “In any agreement we will reach, we will need to keep the freedom to act if there will be violations,” he added.

Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem said on Wednesday, “Israel cannot impose its conditions on us.

“Our goal is to prevent the Israeli army from settling inside Lebanon and we have achieved victories in doing so. We are working on two tracks—the battlefield and negotiations—and we will not suspend the battlefield as we wait for the negotiations.”

Israel struck over 100 targets in Lebanon over Wednesday. The terror state has killed over 2,700 people in Lebanon since it began intense bombing in September and a ground invasion last month. Over 200 of Israel’s victims are children.

The US veto shows its uncompromising support for Israel. As the US looks to secure its interests in the Middle East, Binyamin Netanyahu knows he has the full support of Biden and Donald Trump. It’s essential to keep mobilising the Palestine movements in the West to end all arms sales to Israel.

Situation In The State Of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I Rejects The State Of Israel’s Challenges To Jurisdiction And Issues Warrants Of Arrest For Benjamin Netanyahu And Yoav Gallant

By ICC

November 21, 2024

Source: ICC

Source: jbdodane - International Criminal Court, The Hague. Flickr.

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine,unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.

Decisions on requests by the State of Israel

The Chamber ruled on two requests submitted by the Israel on 26 September 2024. In the first request, Israel challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general, and over Israeli nationals more specifically, on the basis of article 19(2) of the Statute. In the second request, Israel requested that the Chamber order the Prosecution to provide a new notification of the initiation of an investigation to its authorities under article 18(1) of the Statute. Israel also requested the Chamber to halt any proceedings before the Court in the relevant situation, including the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, submitted by the Prosecution on 20 May 2024.

As to the first challenge, the Chamber noted that the acceptance by Israel of the Court’s jurisdiction is not required, as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine, as determined by Pre-Trial Chamber I in a previous composition. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that pursuant to article 19(1) of the Statute, States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus Israel’s challenge is premature. This is without prejudice to any future possible challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction and/or admissibility of any particular case.

Decision on Israel’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19(2) of the Rome Statute

The Chamber also rejected Israel’s request under article 18(1) of the Statute. The Chamber recalled that the Prosecution notified Israel of the initiation of an investigation in 2021. At that time, despite a clarification request by the Prosecution, Israel elected not to pursue any request for deferral of the investigation. Further, the Chamber considered that the parameters of the investigation in the situation have remained the same and, as a consequence, no new notification to the State of Israel was required. In light of this, the judges found that there was no reason to halt the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest.

Decision on Israel’s request for an order to the Prosecution to give an Article 18(1) notice

Warrants of arrest

The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.

The arrest warrants are classified as ‘secret’, in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of the investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing. Moreover, the Chamber considers it to be in the interest of victims and their families that they are made aware of the warrants’ existence.

At the outset, the Chamber considered that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Chamber recalled that, in a previous composition, it already decided that the Court’s jurisdiction in the situation extended to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Chamber declined to use its discretionary proprio motu powers to determine the admissibility of the two cases at this stage. This is without prejudice to any determination as to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the cases at a later stage.

With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

Alleged crimes

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied. This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The Chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.

The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.

In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.

Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.

Background

On 1 January 2015, The State of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting jurisdiction of the Court since 13 June 2014.

On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force for The State of Palestine on 1 April 2015.

On 22 May 2018, pursuant to articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute, The State of Palestine referred to the Prosecutor the Situation since 13 June 2014, with no end date. 

On 3 March 2021, the Prosecutor announced the opening of the investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine. This followed Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision on 5 February 2021 that the Court could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation and, by majority, that the territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. 

On 17 November 2023, the Office of the Prosecutor received a further referral of the Situation in the State of Palestine, from South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti, and on 18 January 2024, the Republic of Chile and the United Mexican State additionally submitted a referral to the Prosecutor with respect to the situation in The State of Palestine.

Wanted for War Crimes: ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu & Gallant over Gaza

By Akbar Shahid Ahmed, Nermeen Shaikh , Amy Goodman 

November 21, 2024

Source: Democracy Now


The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during Israel’s assault on Gaza. The court also issued a warrant for Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif, whom Israel said they killed in August. This is a major development on the international stage, says HuffPost correspondent Akbar Shahid Ahmed, particularly in its implications for U.S. culpability in Israeli war crimes. The Biden administration, as Netanyahu’s “ultimate enabler,” is visibly “totally alone” in its refusal to recognize Israel’s crossing of “red lines,” as even its ally nations who are party to the ICC are now legally required to cooperate with the court’s decision.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In The Hague, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during Israel’s assault on Gaza. In a statement, the ICC said the Israeli leaders had, quote, “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”

The ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, though Israel’s military claims it killed Deif in a July airstrike.

The ICC arrest warrants come a week after a U.N. special committee found Israel’s actions in Gaza since October 2023 are, quote, “consistent with genocide,” including using starvation as a weapon of war and recklessly inflicting civilian casualties.

AMY GOODMAN: In related news, on Wednesday, the United States vetoed a Gaza ceasefire resolution at the U.N. Security Council for the fourth time, and the U.S. Senate rejected a resolution brought by Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to block the sale of U.S. tank rounds, bomb kits and other lethal weapons to Israel. Nineteen senators supported blocking the arms.

For more on all of this, we’re joined by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent for HuffPost. His latest piece is “Exclusive: White House Says Democrats Who Oppose Weapons to Israel Are Aiding Hamas.”

Ahmed, thank you so much for being with us. As you write your book on the Biden administration in Gaza called Crossing the Red Line, clearly the ICC has ruled that today by issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Can you talk about the significance of this move?

AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Yeah, Amy. This is just an absolutely huge development, and it’s significant for a number of reasons. It’s significant because the ICC has come out and amplified and affirmed the allegations of crimes against humanity, of war crimes. This is one more international body. These are [inaudible] international charges with a great deal of respect. This is a court that most of the world is a member of. And they’re coming out and saying, “Look, we think there are reasonable grounds to believe that these major international red lines have been crossed by the Israelis.”

What’s really important to remember is that this isn’t just a decision about Israel. By extension, it fundamentally is a decision about the United States, which has been the ultimate enabler of Israel’s offensives in Gaza and Lebanon, which are under consideration by the ICC. And even in this ICC statement today, they point out that in the situations where Israel has addressed concerns over what it describes as starvation as a method of warfare — right? — depriving civilians, Palestinians, of food, water and medical equipment, Israel has really only done so in an extremely arbitrary and, what the ICC judges call, conditional way in response to the U.S. So, fundamentally, Amy, what we’re seeing is the ICC is saying yet again that Israel and the U.S., as its major enabler and backer, are in the dark and will continue to be in the dark for years to come.

This kind of adds to a broader picture in which there are now ICC warrants for the sitting Israeli prime minister and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who remains a significant politician in Israel. Simultaneously, there’s the genocide case at the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, which is ongoing and will be ongoing for years to come. And there’s the Geneva Conventions conference underway next year regarding kind of similar issues — right? — violations of international law, laws of war and the Israeli grave abuses that are alleged. So, the U.S. and Israel will be kind of on trial on the international stage for years to come.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Akbar, would you say that this move is mostly a symbolic one? Because, as you pointed out, of course, most countries are members of the International Criminal Court, but in this instance, perhaps most importantly, neither Israel nor the U.S. are.

AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Right, Nermeen. And that’s something that the ICC judges did get into today — right? — because Israel said, “Look, the International Criminal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over us.” That said, the state of Palestine is a member of the court, and that’s why this becomes a relevant and interesting thing, because you’ve seen European nations recognize Palestine as a state. You’ve seen Palestine join the United Nations General Assembly over just last year. So, yes, while the U.S. and Israel continue to reject international scrutiny by the ICC, by the ICJ of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, there’s a growing international push to kind of challenge that, right?

And I think you will see the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration assertively push back against the ICC. The Trump administration did actually target the ICC directly when President Trump was last in office, threatening to put sanctions on ICC officials. And we also know from reporting that the Israelis have spied on and threatened the ICC themselves, according to reporting by The Guardian. So, yes, there will be increased pressure.

But I think we’re really in a place that no one thought we would be even a few months ago, right? I think even the prospect of the ICC prosecutor successfully getting these warrants issued, it was initially thought that would be quite quick. It’s taken a long time. The fact that judges were able to issue those warrants suggests that even though it’s an uphill battle to get this international scrutiny, there’s a real determination and clear will. And we’ve seen a lot of states turn around and say over 13 months, right? Since the October 7 attack by Hamas within Israel that did spark this current round of fighting, there have been calls to say, “We don’t want this to escalate,” right? The U.S.’s allies, Western countries have said, “We want to resolve this. We don’t want you on trial. Can the U.S. and Israel please change course?” And what you’ve seen is a defiance from Tel Aviv and from Washington to say, “Actually, no, we’re continuing these wars.” So, that does take it to a different forum to kind of change the policy.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Akbar, could you also — while we’re looking at the way in which international organizations, multilateral ones, are responding to this, what about the latest vote at the Security Council and the fact that the U.S. blocked it for the fourth time, a ceasefire vote?

AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: It’s really striking at this point — right? — to see the Biden administration totally alone. And you see how this develops over the course of the war. Initially, the U.S. was able to get Britain, even France, kind of abstaining, standing with them. And now, 13 months in, where conduct hasn’t changed, and you still have daily strikes that are killing dozens, sometimes over a hundred civilians, you have a mounting death toll of mostly women and children, the U.S. is totally alone, where it’s shielding Israel on the world stage diplomatically.

And this is really important to see in the context of the Biden administration as an outlier even among American presidents and administrations. When President Barack Obama was in office, after he was in the lame-duck period that Biden is in now, he actually did abstain at the United Nations Security Council and said, “You know what? Go ahead and pass a resolution that Israel doesn’t like,” because tacitly the U.S. acknowledged there was a basis, there were credible grounds for that resolution, which in that instance was about Israeli settlement activity.

Here, what you’re seeing from the Biden administration, even in their dying days — right? — two months to go, there’s an obstinacy, a defiance, and a real commitment to shielding Israel, even if they are totally alone against now their closest allies — Britain, France and everyone else on the Security Council. So, I think the context of that veto kind of presages whatever may come in the next two months in terms of the Biden administration allowing any U.N. scrutiny of the wars.

AMY GOODMAN: Akbar, I wanted to play Palestine’s envoy to the United Nations, Majed Bamya, speaking yesterday.


MAJED BAMYA: There is no right to mass killing of civilians. There is no right to starve an entire civilian population. There is no right to forcibly displace a people. And there is no right to annexation. This is what Israel is doing in Gaza. …


Maybe for some, we have the wrong nationality, the wrong faith, the wrong skin color. But we are humans! And we should be treated as such. Is there a U.N. Charter for Israel that is different from the charter we all have? Tell us. Is there an international law for them, an international law for us? Do they have the right to kill, and the only right we have is to die?



Akbar Shahid Ahmed is a foreign affairs reporter based in the D.C. bureau of HuffPost. A native Pakistani, Akbar has reported from across the Muslim-majority world. He's also written for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Generation Progress and, in Pakistan, Newsline magazine and DAWN, and provided expert commentary for MSNBC, Al Jazeera, BBC Radio and SXSW 2018.

Opinion

What's next after ICC issues warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders?

MEMO
November 21, 2024 

In this photo illustration, the International Criminal Court (ICC) logo is seen on a smartphone screen on 16 February 2024 [Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images]


Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former Defence chief and a Hamas leader for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, Reuters reports.

The move comes after the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced on 20 May that he was seeking arrest warrants for alleged crimes connected to the 7 October attacks on Israel by Hamas and the Israeli military response in Gaza.

Here is a look at what could happen next, and how the ICC Prosecutor’s move might affect diplomatic relations and other court cases focused on Gaza.

Will Netanyahu and the Hamas leader be arrested?

All 124 member states of the ICC are obliged by the Court’s founding statute to arrest and hand over any individual subject to an ICC arrest warrant if they set foot on their territory.

READ: Hamas welcomes ICC arrest warrants for ‘terrorists’ Netanyahu and Gallant

But the Court has no means of enforcing such an arrest. It has no police force, so the arrest of suspects must be carried out by a member state or a cooperative state.

Sanctions for not arresting someone despite a warrant are little more than a diplomatic slap on the wrist, such as the referral of a country to the ICC’s governing body made up of member states and ultimately to the UN Security Council.

ICC members include all European Union countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Brazil and Australia. In the Middle East region, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan are ICC members. Israel is not a member state, nor is the United States.

The Court bases its jurisdiction over Israeli officials on the fact that the Palestinian Territories were admitted as a member state in 2015. The Court can prosecute alleged atrocity crimes committed by nationals of member states and crimes committed by anyone, regardless of their nationality, on the territory of member states.

Can an ICC investigation or warrant be paused?

The Court’s rules allow for the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution that would pause or defer an investigation or a prosecution for a year, with the possibility of renewing that annually.

After a warrant is issued, the country involved or a person named in an arrest warrant can also issue a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of the case.

A case can be deemed inadmissible at the ICC when it is already being investigated or prosecuted by a state with jurisdiction over the crimes alleged.

But the Court has made it clear in the past that this exemption could only apply when a state is investigating or prosecuting the same people for substantially the same alleged crimes. An investigation into corruption charges, for instance, would not meet that “same person, same conduct” rule.

If there is a request to delay the investigation, the Prosecutor will pause the case and review if the state which requested the deferral is, indeed, carrying out a genuine investigation.

If the Prosecutor deems the national investigations are insufficient, he can apply for judges to reopen the investigation.

Can Netanyahu and other accused still travel?

Yes they can. The issuance of an ICC arrest warrant is not a formal travel ban. However, they do risk arrest if they travel to an ICC signatory state, which may influence indictees’ decision-making.

There are no restrictions on political leaders, lawmakers or diplomats from meeting individuals with an ICC arrest warrant against them. Politically, however, public perceptions of this may be bad.
Will this application for warrants influence other cases?

Not directly, but perhaps indirectly.

The ICC application is a separate matter from, for example, court cases demanding an arms embargo against Israel or South Africa’s case at the UN’s top Court, the International Court of Justice, which accuses Israel of violating the Genocide Convention in Gaza.

However, a decision by ICC judges that there are reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, are committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, it could strengthen South Africa’s ICJ case, as that Court also looks at other courts’ determinations.

The decision to issue a warrant can also bolster legal challenges demanding an arms embargo elsewhere, as numerous states have provisions against selling arms to states which might use them in ways that violate international humanitarian law.