In recent years, a new line of attack has emerged from many pro-Israel groups, conservative commentators, politicians and activists – the idea that “wokeness” and oversensitivity to giving offence are threatening free speech. According to this argument, left-leaning activists and their allies are trying to shut down any speech they disagree with by claiming it is offensive or hurtful. In the name of protecting marginalised groups, the reasoning goes, the “woke mob” wants to “cancel” anyone who challenges their orthodoxy. This is the basis of the moral panic gripping the right, a panic so preposterous as to suggest that all our institutions have descended into the abyss and the entire Western civilisation is on the brink of collapse because of the “woke mob”.

However, while the right-wing claims to be the victim of cancel culture and de-platforming, the reality is that the most significant silencing and censorship is being directed at pro-Palestine activists and critics of Israel. From academic institutions to political circles, those who speak out against the Israeli government’s policies and human rights abuses are facing unprecedented levels of suppression and harassment.

The latest example is the case of Asna Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian-American Muslim, who was set to deliver her valedictorian speech at the University of Southern California’s (USC) graduation ceremony on 10 May. However, due to a campaign of racist hatred and security threats from pro-Israel critics, USC decided to cancel Tabassum’s speech. In an official statement, the University cited safety concerns, stating, “While this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety.”

Tabassum, who has been an outspoken advocate for human rights for all, expressed her shock and disappointment at the University’s decision, saying, “I am surprised that my own University—my home for four years—has abandoned me.” This incident is the latest of many, demonstrating that the so called “woke” playbook, which the right claims it is the main victim of, has in fact been weaponised against critics of Israel.

Eyewitness 7 NY Video: “Pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia University growing in size”

Like Tabassum, former Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, faced censorship and suppression last week when he was banned from entering Germany to attend a three-day Palestinian Congress in Berlin. The conference, which aimed to discuss the ongoing struggle for Palestinian rights and Israel’s genocide in Gaza, was shut down by German police just moments after it began. Additionally, several speakers, including Palestinian cartographer, Salman Abu Sitta, were prevented from addressing the conference, even remotely.

Another prominent Palestinian, Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah – nephew of Salman Abu Sitta – who had also flown into Germany to speak at the Palestine Congress, was denied entry into the country. Upon arrival, the recently appointed rector of Glasgow University, was stopped at the German passport office. Abu-Sittah was then escorted down to the basement of the airport, where he was questioned for around three-and-a-half hours and then told he would not be permitted to enter German soil. Abu-Sittah was also warned that if he attempted to link up by Zoom or FaceTime with the conference, or send a video message, even if he was outside Germany, that would constitute a breach of German law.  Abu-Sittah was threatened with fines or even up to a year of prison.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Varoufakis shed light on the disturbing reality behind the suppression of the Palestinian conference in Berlin. He pointed out that the organisers, including progressive Jewish activists, were unjustly dismissed as Islamists. “They do not want a congress like ours, especially one that includes progressive Jews. That is the main thing that they detested, that they were Jewish demonstrators, Jewish activists, Jewish intellectuals, Jewish speakers with us, with one voice, saying one thing, one thing alone: equal political rights, civil liberties, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea,” Varoufakis said, highlighting the unified call for justice and equality that advocates of Israel are seeking to silence.

Varoufakis, who identifies as neither Jewish nor Palestinian, emphasised the universal obligation to demand equal political rights for all people in the region. “I think every single human person on this planet has an obligation — not a right, an obligation — to demand, from the river to the sea, equal political rights. And the German political establishment does not want to listen to this,” he asserted.

Furthermore, Varoufakis argued that the crackdown on pro-Palestine voices is part of a larger sacrifice of democratic principles in order to enable Israel’s actions. “The bourgeois, liberal, democratic rights and principles have all been sacrificed on the altar of enabling Israel to complete the genocide which is carrying out — that it’s carrying out not just in Gaza but, as we heard before in the news bulletin, in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank,” he said. Drawing parallels to the moral imperative to support Jews during the Nazi era, Varoufakis stressed that we have a similar duty today to end the genocide in Palestine.

The silencing of pro-Palestine voices is not limited to academic institutions and conferences. In the US, the House of Representatives, this week, passed a resolution condemning the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as anti-Semitic. The resolution, introduced by Rep Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.), passed with a 377 to 44 vote, with most Democrats supporting the measure and progressives opposing it.

The examples cited above, from Tabassum’s cancelled graduation speech to the shutdown of the Palestinian conference in Berlin and the House resolution condemning pro-Palestinian chants, all occurred within a single week, underscoring the relentless nature of the attacks on pro-Palestine voices, and silencing of speech critical of Israel. They lay bare the hypocrisy of right-wing commentators who have long railed against “wokeness” and over-sensitivity to giving offence against the left.

The hypocrisy of the right wing’s claims about cancel culture and free speech becomes even more apparent when contrasted with their own efforts, which are more vicious and more successful, in suppressing pro-Palestine voices. While they decry the supposed over-sensitivity of the left and the dangers of “wokeness”, they actively participate in the de-platforming and cancellation of those who speak out against Israel’s human rights abuses.

Moreover, the silencing of pro-Palestine activists is not merely a matter of hurt feelings or political disagreement. It is a systematic attempt to erase the voices and experiences of Palestinians, who have endured decades of occupation, dispossession and violence at the hands of Israel.

It is crucial that we recognise and resist the weaponisation of discourse that has evolved to defend the rights of the marginalised to support an occupying power and perpetrators of genocide. Accusations of “offence”, “hurt feelings”, “safe spaces” and anti-Semitism must not be exploited to silence pro-Palestine speech. We must demand that academic institutions, political bodies and society at large uphold the principles of free speech and open debate, even when it comes to controversial and sensitive issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The silencing of pro-Palestine voices is not a matter of over-sensitivity or hurt feelings, but rather a concerted effort by the establishment and the right wing to suppress dissent and maintain the status quo on Israel-Palestine. By exploiting accusations of anti-Semitism and the language used by marginalised groups to defend themselves against social injustices, they seek to censor and de-platform those who challenge Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. It is our responsibility to resist this silencing, stand up for free speech and amplify the voices of those who are being suppressed.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

At that point, 26,000 Palestinians had perished, much of Gaza was pummelled into oblivion and 85 per cent of its 2.3 million residents had been expelled from their homes. Measures were therefore required to prevent: “Real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible before it gives its final decision.”

Israel was duly ordered to take all possible measures to prevent the commission of acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention; prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to genocide” against the Gaza populace; permit basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip; ensure the preservation of and prevent destruction of, evidence related to acts committed against Gaza’s Palestinians within Articles II and III of the Convention and report to the ICJ on how Israel was abiding by such provisional measures within a month. The balance sheet on that score has been uneven at best.

Since then, the slaughter has continued, with the Palestinian death toll now standing at 32,300. The Israelis have refused to open more land crossings into Gaza and continue to hamper aid going into the Strip, even as they accuse aid agencies and providers of being tardy and dishonest. Their surly defiance of the US has seen airdrops of uneven, negligible success (the use of air to deliver aid has always been a perilous exercise). When executed, these have even been lethal to the unsuspecting recipients, with reported cases of parachutes failing to open.

On 25 March, the United Nations (UN) Security Council, after three previous failed attempts, passed Resolution 2728, thereby calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan “leading to a lasting sustainable” halt to hostilities, the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,” “ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs” and: “Demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain.”

Emphasis was also placed on: “The urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip.” The resolution further demands that all barriers regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law, be lifted.

Al Jazeera English Video: “Gaza healthcare crisis: UNICEF says Gaza ‘feels like a coffin for children'”

Since January, South Africa has been relentless in its efforts to curb Israel’s Gaza enterprise in The Hague. It called upon the ICJ on 14 February, referring to “the developing circumstances in Rafah”, to urgently exercise powers under Article 75 of the Rules of Court. Israel responded on 15 February. The next day, the ICJ’s registrar transmitted to the parties the view of the Court that the “perilous situation” in the Gaza Strip, but notably in Rafah: “Demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024.”

Throughout the following month, more legal jostling and communication took place, with Pretoria requesting on 6 March that the ICJ “indicate further provisional measures and/or to modify” those ordered on 26 January. The application was prompted following: “Horrific deaths from starvation of Palestinian children, including babies, brought about by Israel’s deliberate acts and omissions … including Israel’s concerted attempts since 26 January 2024 to ensure the defunding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and Israel’s attacks on starving Palestinians seeking to access what extremely limited humanitarian assistance Israel permits into Northern Gaza, in particular.”

Israel responded on 15 March to the South African communication, rejecting the claims of starvation arising from deliberate acts and omissions “in the strongest terms”. The logic of the sketchy rebuttal from Israel was that matters had not materially altered since 26 January to warrant a reconsideration: “The difficult and tragic situation in the Gaza Strip in the last weeks could not be said to materially change the considerations upon which the Court based its original decision concerning provisional measures.”

On 28 March, the Court issued a unanimous order modifying the January interim order. Combing through the ghoulish evidence, the judges noted an updated report from 18 March on food insecurity from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Global Initiative (IPC Global Initiative), stating: “Conditions necessary to prevent famine have not been met and the latest evidence confirms that famine is imminent in the northern governorates and projected to occur anytime between mid-March and May 2024.” The UN Children’s Fund had also reported that 31 per cent of children under two years of age in the northern Gaza Strip were enduring conditions of “acute malnutrition”.

In the face of this Himalaya of devastation, the Court could only observe that: “Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing a risk of famine, as noted in the Order of 26 January 2024, but that famine is setting in, with at least 31 people, including 27 children, having already died of malnutrition and dehydration.” There were: “Unprecedented levels of food insecurity experienced by Palestinians in the Gaza strip over recent weeks, as well as the increasing risks of epidemics.”

Such “grave” conditions granted the Court jurisdiction to modify the 26 January order, which no longer fully addressed: “The consequences arising from the changes in the situation.” In view of the “worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular, the spread of famine and starvation,” Israel should take: “All necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.”

The list of what is needed is also enumerated: food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene, sanitation requirements and: “Medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary.”

A less reported aspect of the 28 March order, passed by 15 votes to one, was that Israel’s military refrain from committing “acts which constitute a violation of any rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group” under the Genocide Convention including by preventing, through any action: “The delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.”

In this, the Court points to the possible, and increasingly plausible, nexus between starvation, famine and deprivation of necessaries as state policies with the intent to injure and kill members of a protected group. It is no doubt something that will weigh heavily on the minds of the judges as they continue mulling over the nature of the war in Gaza, which South Africa continues to insist is genocidal in its scope and nature.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. He was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

( Middle East Monitor ) – The ongoing genocide in Gaza has starkly exposed Western governments’ unequal and wholly selective application of international law whilst also managing to draw much-needed attention to the dysfunctional role that foreign donors and their development agendas play in the region.

Following Israel’s hitherto unproven allegations, suggesting that members of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) played an active role on 7 October, over fifteen Western governments took the draconian decision to cease funding of the organisation’s life-saving programmes in Gaza. Erroneous food package airdrops have subsequently been the order of the day, with Western states dropping aid whilst simultaneously supplying the weaponry to the Israeli state that has been erasing the presence of a starving Palestinian people in the besieged Gaza Strip.

As the US military prepares to build a pier off the shore of Gaza, with the alleged purpose of facilitating aid delivery, the weaponisation of humanitarian intervention has never been laid so bare. This is at the same time as thousands of trucks laden with aid for the people of Gaza, ready to deliver essentials amidst this ongoing man-made catastrophe, remain prohibited from entry by the Israeli authorities. With more than 1.1 million Palestinians facing emergency levels of food insecurity, the situation is growing beyond desperate by the day.

However, it must be remembered that this is not due to Western governments’ inability to act or intervene, but rather is due to an unwillingness to address the root causes of Palestinian suffering and oppression – a tendency that stems from decades-long application of a de-contextualised “business-as-usual” approach to humanitarian intervention. Since the emergence of an oxymoronically named the “peace process” and the decision to pursue a liberal “peace-building” agenda in the 1990s, one that centres Western intervention around the proclaimed goal of achieving a mythical two-state solution, development intervention in the region has been profoundly ineffective, despite high levels of fiscal support.

Democracy Now! Video: “Aid Workers Say Israel Must End Attack on Gaza, Open Aid Routes”

According to the UN, donors have consistently placed Israel’s territorial interests and purported security demands, as well as their own political goals, above the implementation of international law. Development aid in Palestine has, for decades, failed to be applied on an equal footing or on a perceived rights-based platform.

In order to try and achieve tangible “development results” despite the chronic and steadily deepening economic and democratic deficit in Palestine, organisations like the UN have started to apply a so-called “resilience framework”, a process that a number of scholars and practitioners have shown to be deeply flawed.

The recent decision to engage in tokenistic aid drops from the sky, despite the outcry from international humanitarian organisations arguing against their efficacy, is yet further evidence of a deeply problematic Western intervention strategy in Gaza. Many of these aid drops have ended up landing in the sea or, in fact, in parts of Israel, whilst others have failed to deploy their parachutes, killing Palestinian children on impact. This flawed and impotent intervention serves nothing more than a photo-op for the sponsors of this ongoing genocide, further dehumanising Palestinians living in Gaza.

The West’s sponsorship of the genocide in Gaza, in supplying weapons and political cover for Israel’s actions, alongside its engagement in ineffective humanitarian interventions that put Palestinian lives at further risk, is the perfect example of how it has treated the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians ever since the formation of the Israeli state in 1948.

In addition to extending the humanitarian crisis by months, building a “temporary” pier off the coast of Gaza for the purported delivery of aid could, in effect, work to facilitate “voluntary migration” out of the Strip. As both the US and Israel have failed to exert pressure on neighbouring Egypt to open its borders to Palestinians fleeing starvation and indiscriminate bombing, the pier will conveniently create an entry point into Gaza that does not border Israel. It is thus far from cynical to argue that these purported humanitarian interventions are anything other than a stalling tactic designed to allow the US and Israel time needed to achieve their ultimate political aims and objectives – an ethnically cleansed Gaza.

Using aid as a weapon against a besieged population amidst a genocide shames those in the international donor community and reveals their deep complicity in crimes against humanity. Development and humanitarian intervention in Palestine have long been a smokescreen, allowing for the ongoing oppression and dispossession of Palestinians whilst simultaneously presenting a sense of feigned concern to onlookers in the West. Foreign humanitarian intervention in Palestine has been catastrophic, and the time for a fulsome re-evaluation of the root causes of humanitarian need has long since passed.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

( Middle East Monitor ) – What a mad world humanity lives in, where we see the US dropping missiles and bombs through its ally, Israel, on the helpless people of Gaza while, at the same time, we see it airdropping food to the same people. Is this a case of schizophrenia, or swapping roles?

How can this be done by someone who provides Israel with weapons and decisions saying that the war cannot be stopped, then sends its chorus of spokesmen out every night to present the world with justifications, excuses and arguments for the continuation of the war and justifying the continued crushing of children and women in a way that does not haunt them every night, neither due to the magnitude of the heinous crime nor by the continuous groaning but, rather, due to the elections’ indicators?

No positions, meetings, summits, protests, sit-ins or even courts have succeeded in stopping the war, 150 days after it broke out and the reason for this is the US veto and the implicit decision to continue. This approach is accompanied by harmful discourse in which the desperate defence of the Jewish state was repeated, as one of the American spokesmen said, “The US has not observed acts in Gaza that constitute genocide”, then, a few days later, said that there were no signs that Israel is preventing the entry of aid, followed by claims that there are no signs that Israel is targeting children, women and the elderly. There were several claims of the sort, allowing Prime Minister Netanyahu to continue what he is doing in the Amalek war he is leading.

However, as the US presidential election race intensified, positions began to change, to show, albeit dishonestly, an alleged contrast in positions between the US administration and Tel Aviv. Washington also received Netanyahu’s rival, his strongest competitor for the prime minister’s seat, and one of the pillars of his war council, Benny Gantz. US Vice-President made a statement a few days ago, specifically on 3 March, calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, noting: “We saw hungry, desperate people approach aid trucks simply trying to secure food for their family after weeks of barely any aid reaching northern Gaza, and they were met with gunfire and chaos.” This is coming from the heart of the White House, which is saying that Israel is hindering the flow of aid, and that the US will continue to airdrop food to the starving Gazans, using all methods to deliver food. How strange!

CBC News Video: “Airdropping aid to Gaza ‘nowhere near adequate,’ says Refugees International president”

So, the simple question remains: Why don’t you stop the flow of weapons and support if you are actually concerned over the harming of innocent people in Gaza and the West Bank, instead of being concerned with remaining in power? Also, so that the Palestinian aftershocks do not reach your ballot boxes, allowing Gaza to contribute to the overthrow of the Democrats in favour of their rival, Trump? Enough, for God’s sake! Enough mocking the free people of the world and our people in wounded Palestine. The play has become ridiculous, your matters have become scandalous.

Enough disregard and under-estimation of the entire world, as dropping bombs and dropping food cannot go hand in hand. Those who want to show compassion to the poor who are waiting to satisfy their hunger, and the hunger of their children, must first stop killing them with their words and their actions. “Death for food” is an equation that no one would accept, and no one would be convinced of it, regardless how much some try to whitewash and refine it. The cold, harsh, and shocking reality is that partial humanity cannot be tolerated. Only humanity full of action, honesty and credibility can. Did they receive the message? We will wait and see.

This article appeared in Arabic in Al-Quds on 8 March, 2024. 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor. or Informed Comment.

Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Above, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been identified by name and an unclear sentence was omitted, in accordance with IC house style.

( Middle East Monitor ) – Canada is considering the resumption of funding the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), amid the macabre spectacle of humanitarian aid drops and limited delivery, which worked more as traps for Palestinians than a temporary alleviation of hunger. According to Norwegian Foreign Minister, Espen Barthe Eide, more countries might reconsider their decision, if it can be managed in a way that enables governments to save face.

“But then, of course, they need an honourable way out, which means they are hoping, I think – without speaking for individual countries – that they will get something from these investigations that suggest that they can say: “Well, we needed to suspend, but now we’re back’,” Barthe Eide explained.

An honourable way out of complicity in genocide does not exist. Certainly, governments may be able to rely on the fact that Israel has, so far, failed to provide credible evidence to justify its allegations that UNRWA staff members were involved in the 7 October incursion into Israel. But genocide is a war crime, and starvation as a weapon of genocide is not only dishonourable, but intentional.

There was no pondering about the best way to stop funding UNRWA, despite the repercussions of such decisions on the Palestinian people in Gaza. A mere announcement that played into Israel’s genocidal narrative was reason enough, it seemed, for donor countries to not only renege on their pledges, but also to become complicit in genocide. To reverse the decision, however, governments are seeking recognition of their supposed benevolence, after knowingly contributing to starving Palestinians – some of them to death.

As the world awaits the ICJ’s verdict,

Israel’s genocide continues – [Cartoon / Mohammad Sabaaneh]

Now that the UN has shifted its focus on Gaza’s famine, the humanitarian paradigm comes into play again. Israel massacred Palestinians seeking aid, and seeks to close down UNRWA permanently.

This means that there is not much the international community can claim to have accomplished, if it does not contribute to the colonial mess it created decades ago when it recognised Israel and set up UNRWA as a substitute for the Palestinian people’s stolen land.

Indeed, the only contribution to Palestinians has been funding UNRWA, and much of that focus has been on the Agency itself rather than the Palestinian people. One could also argue that the international community is keen on funding the humanitarian program it created for the sake of keeping it going. Certainly the priority is not the Palestinian people; otherwise, no government would have embarked as accomplices upon Israel’s genocidal starvation policy, not even temporarily, because genocide is always a war crime.

So, if, or when, the decision is reversed, let there be no oblivion of the fact that governments will not be funding UNRWA out of any compassion for Palestinians, or in the name of human rights, or even standing in opposition to Israel, which it could have done by forcing the genocide to a halt. It simply does not serve the international community, for now, to lose the façade it built as a result of UNRWA’s existence, which has become as permanent as the Palestinian people’s forced refugee status.

 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

( Middle East Monitor ) – Emotions ran high yesterday as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) started its hearing on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, with Palestine’s UN envoy Riyad Mansour moved to tears as he delivered his final remarks. Mansour spoke about a future where the children of Palestine would be treated as children and not as a “demographic fit”; when the human rights of Palestinians would not be “diminished” because of their ethnicity and identity; and where two states would live side by side, in peace.

Over six days, the world court is hearing oral arguments from 52 countries and three international organisations, following a UN General Assembly request filed in 2022 for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The hearing comes as Israel continues its devastating war on the Gaza Strip, where it has now killed nearly 30,000 Palestinians and laid waste to most of the besieged enclave.

The UN’s top court is already deliberating on a case filed by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, having ordered provisional measures and finding a plausible risk of genocide in its interim ruling in January.

All of the speakers during the hearing will present their views on why they support or oppose the measures that Israel has enforced in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel itself has opted out of the hearing and instead submitted a written argument.

A court ruling is likely to take months, but could be possible somewhere between April and June, suggested Victor Kattan, assistant professor of international law at the University of Nottingham in the UK. Any decision in favour of the Palestinians will be “a vindication of their rights by the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,” he told Anadolu.

If the court comes out and holds Israel responsible for the “prohibition of the crime of apartheid, for example,” that could be quite significant, explained Kattan, because the UN has special organs and institutions to deal with combating apartheid, which have not been used for almost four decades. “They could be used to coordinate policies aimed at putting pressure on Israel to end its occupation in discriminatory policies against the Palestinian people.”

Kattan has written extensively on the Israel-Palestine issue, and said that the ICJ has essentially been asked to defend international law and to make it relevant again. “In a way, it kind of reinforces the importance and value of this approach to the International Court of Justice.”

The hearings, Kattan explained, will deal with two issues, the first being to look at the ongoing violations that Israel has committed by prolonging its occupation, denial of self-determination, major demographic changes, human rights violations and racial discrimination, as well as apartheid. The second is the question about the consequences for states arising from these violations of international law.

Al Jazeera English Video: “Palestine demands end to Israeli occupation at ICJ hearing”

The legal expert noted that the participating countries had submitted their arguments well before the 7 October Hamas attack, so it would be interesting to see how Israel’s allies shape their arguments in light of its deadly actions in Gaza. “The argument that Israel or these allies would be putting in front of these proceedings will be that this does not come under the (court’s) jurisdiction or that this is not admissible. They may say this is a political issue that needs to be resolved in negotiations.”

According to Kattan, “They’re going to simply ask the court not to consider the request at all on the grounds of jurisdiction and admissibility. However, in my view, it’s a very weak argument given the special role of the court in matters concerning decolonisation and the like.” They may also say that this is a bilateral process and that peace can only come — statehood can only come — when the Palestinians reach an agreement.

“That may be their argument, but UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron just came out and said that, actually, a Palestinian state doesn’t have to wait until the end of negotiations,” Kattan pointed out. “So, we may already be seeing a shift even in the stance of Israel’s friends in that regard, and this would explain why [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is coming out with such belligerent statements and saying that he’ll never accept a Palestinian state.”

Kattan warned that the ICJ proceedings have enough significance that Israel might do something to divert the world’s attention away from them.

“That could, for example, be deciding to attack Rafah,” a reference to Israel’s planned ground assault on the southern Gaza city currently sheltering over 1.4 million displaced Palestinians, an attack which has been condemned around the world.

Once the oral arguments conclude on 26 February, the court will start its deliberations and likely give an opinion in a few months.

“The judges will have heard the oral submissions, and they have access to written statements and comments on written statements since last year, which they have undoubtedly read, which may have also informed them, by the way, on the genocide case as well. The key points to look out for are how far does the court accept some of the arguments that Palestine has made, what kind of majorities or dissenting opinions emerge, and what are the reasons for the dissent,” said Kattan.

“If the court does give a good opinion, a majority opinion, that the occupation, for example, is illegal or that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, for example, and that states have an obligation to… refrain from trading in arms [with Israel] that will then be referred back to the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly will take note of it and then it’ll have to pass a resolution.”

The legal expert pointed out that these resolutions are not formally binding, and if it gets to the UN Security Council, we can expect the US to veto any attempts to enforce international law against Israel. “However, it is possible that some states may take matters into their own hands if the opinion is drafted well. If it’s got a large majority, it would give some states the opportunity to enforce international law themselves.” he said.

These states could contend that the court has said they should not be trading with Israel or with entities that are operating in the occupied territories, Kattan suggested.

“It might give a reason for those states to cut diplomatic relations or to take measures to enforce international law. So, even if it doesn’t come from the UN Security Council level, it’s possible for states to implement sanctions unilaterally. Whether they do so or not, we have to wait and see.”

Regarding the participation of countries in favour of Palestine, Kattan said that it is “testimony to the hard work of Palestinian diplomats, who undoubtedly would have been lobbying their friends to support them in this case.” The case also shows that Israel is “more isolated” than before 7 October, particularly in the Global South.

“Perhaps it is also becoming more isolated with states from areas it considers its friends, such as in Europe,” he added. Initially there was massive sympathy for Israel after the Hamas attacks, continued Kattan, but that has “now dissipated because of the Israeli military operations and attacks in Gaza.”

He asserted that Israel’s war on Gaza has revived the issue of Palestinian statehood and brought it back onto the global agenda. “It has undoubtedly galvanised the tension and reminded everyone that this conflict, although it’s very old, is not finished. It is still there, festering.”

While most states recognise Palestine, there are some like the UK that have already made a legal determination that Palestine is a state, but have withheld formal recognition for political reasons.

“There were some states, for instance, that voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution according Palestine observer status and statehood all the way back in 2012, but withheld from upgrading their relations,” said Kattan. “And now we can see that for some Western countries the idea of recognising Palestine is back on the agenda in connection with debates on how to end the conflict in Gaza, how to give the Palestinian people a political horizon, and how to ensure that the conflict that we are seeing never happens again.”

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Via Middle East Monitor

( Middle East Monitor ) – One of the most prominent results of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza and its residents, who were cornered in Rafah on the Egyptian border to force them to migrate to Sinai, is the spread of Arab and international awareness and informing the public of the importance of the Palestinian issue, after its decline and marginalisation.

The Trump administration also succeeded, in exchange for gains, in reaching the “Deal of the century”, or the Abraham Accords, to integrate Israel into the Arab environment by normalising and establishing diplomatic relations with the UAE and Bahrain in the heart of the Arabian Gulf, and with Sudan and Morocco. This is at the expense of the Palestinian cause and not for its benefit, and violates the Arab initiative agreed upon by the Arabs at the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002, “Land for Peace”, that is, Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab Territories in exchange for full Arab recognition of Israel and normalising relations with it.

As the war on Gaza turned into a costly war of attrition for both sides and with it entering its fifth month, the war brought the Palestinian cause to the forefront and highlighted the systematic, brutal Israeli behaviour against the Palestinians. It also exposed the crimes committed by the Occupation, which have been documented over 75 years, and put an end to the decline in the status of the Palestinian issue, despite the repeated closing statements issued at Arab summits and meetings, stating that the Palestinian issue remains their central issue.

Today, we are witnessing signs of the expansion of the war with the first round of American retaliation against targets belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iranian-backed factions in Syria and Iraq and, before that, against the Houthis in Yemen.

In light of this, the US and British foreign ministers announced their idea of recognising a demilitarised Palestinian state as a solution to ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and the recurring Gaza wars.

However, these promises, which have been repeated for decades, hit obstacles that are difficult to overcome, starting with the position of Netanyahu and his partners in his government, the most extreme in the history of occupation governments, including the Religious Zionism Party, which is given a biblical religious aspect and which believes in the right to establish the Greater State of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and refuses to demarcate the borders. Netanyahu personally bragged that he rejects the Oslo Accords, 30 years after it was signed between Rabin and Yasser Arafat through the mediation of President Clinton in 1993, which led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu also boasts and publicly reiterates his rejection of the two-state solution because it threatens Israel’s security, providing the example of Hamas’s operation against Israel as the Al-Aqsa Flood. This embarrasses President Biden and his vision of promoting the importance of establishing a Palestinian State to end the conflict.

The challenge for those who promote the two-state solution, which seems to be a mirage is, first, how to reach a ceasefire and end the war of genocide, as well as convince the most extremist government that blatantly and publicly rejects the two-state solution to accept the two-state solution vision.

The important question is: How serious is the American-British proposal? How can the two-state solution be achieved, which continues to be the vision and strategy adopted by successive American administrations? The US State Department spokesman confirmed at the end of January, “We are actively pursuing the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with real security guarantees for Israel, because we do believe that is the best way to bring about lasting peace and security for Israel, for Palestinians and for the region.” US news site, Axios, reported Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, asked the State Department to conduct a review and present policy options on possible US and international recognition of a Palestinian State after the war in Gaza and considering not using its veto to block the UN Security Council.

CIA Director, William Burns, stressed, in an important article in Foreign Affairs magazine, a few days ago, the need for “resurrecting hope for a durable peace that ensures Israel’s security as well as Palestinian statehood and takes advantage of historic opportunities for normalisation with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.”

Guardian News Video: “David Cameron: UK could recognise a Palestinian state before a deal with Israel”

However, Biden’s positions are complicated, by his insistence on refusing to stop the war and providing the Israeli killing machine with weapons and cover. This is despite the differences and disagreements between Tel Aviv and Washington, the increased disputes within the Israeli war government, Biden’s expansion of his war in the region and the role of Congress, along with the House of Representatives, in supporting a bill banning the entry of all members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and members of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad Movements into the US. These are all challenges that are difficult to overcome!

Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, confirmed that the British government is thinking of recognising the Palestinian State, and that the Palestinians must be given a political horizon to encourage peace in the Middle East. This is an interesting position from the UK, which has a colonial past, the Balfour Declaration and has paved the way for the establishment of the Occupying entity and the division of Palestine.

Meanwhile, President Biden, after a long wait, issued an executive order imposing US Treasury sanctions on 4 settlers involved in violence in the West Bank for threatening the security and interests of the US, as if the problem lies in the violence of the settlers and not in the approach and the American administrations’ empowerment and enablement of Israel’s governments, and especially Netanyahu, the most extremist Prime Minister in the history of the Occupation, to allow groups of settlers to wreak havoc, destruction and abuse on the Palestinians, their property, farms and crops, by destroying and burning them, and even allowing them to kill the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Journalist, Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times, who is close to decision-makers in the US, also promotes and explains a clear doctrine adopted by President Biden, consisting of three tracks. One of those tracks is working to develop an unprecedented American diplomatic initiative to promote a Palestinian State, which would “involve some form of US recognition of a demilitarised Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that would come into being only once Palestinians had developed a set of defined, credible institutions and security capabilities to ensure that this State was viable and that it could never threaten Israel. Biden administration officials have been consulting experts inside and outside the US government about different forms this recognition of Palestinian statehood might take.”

However, the clear truth is that the best that can be expected after marathon negotiations without specifying a time limit is not a fully sovereign State, but rather a “demilitarised Palestinian State” that is preceded by pressures to proceed with normalisation with the Arab environment, especially the biggest prize: Saudi Arabia. This completely reverses the Arab initiative by granting normalisation before the establishment of the alleged Palestinian State, so let us not be fooled by the promotion of the two-state solution illusion.

This article first appeared in Arabic in Al-Quds on 4 February, 2024

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Via Middle East Monitor

( Middle East Monitor ) – Since 7 October 2023, the relentless Israeli aggression on Gaza has displaced more than 85 per cent of the enclave’s population, with over 27,000 Palestinians killed, mostly women and children. This displacement has plunged civilians into a dire situation with shortages of food, water and medicines, made worse by the cold weather. In the words of Michael Fakhri, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, “famine was imminent” and now it is “inevitable”.

At a time when Gaza is going through an extreme humanitarian crisis, including famine, epidemics, and diseases, the abrupt funding cuts by Western liberal democracies to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), amid unproven allegations, contradict the humanitarian values they typically champion. This decision lies contrary to the basic principles of humanity and risks worsening the plight of innocent civilians in Gaza. To date, 18 countries, including the UK, the US and Canada, have suspended aid to UNRWA following Israel’s accusations that a handful of agency workers, of the 30,000 strong workforce in Gaza, were involved in the 7 October attack.

For the past few months, Israel has aggressively adopted the ‘collective punishment’ of the entire community in Gaza through continued indiscriminate bombardment and deliberate deprivation of aid, which is prohibited in all circumstances under International humanitarian law. In October 2023, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called to ‘stop collective punishment’ of the entire population in Gaza. Referring to the aid suspension, Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA commissioner-general, said: “It would be immensely irresponsible to sanction an Agency and an entire community it serves because of allegations of criminal acts against some individuals, especially at a time of war, displacement, and political crises in the region.”

Aid suspension to UNRWA and its potential impact

UNRWA isn’t just an organisation; it’s a lifeline for the two million people, over half of whom are children in Gaza. Beyond flashy headlines and unproven allegations, UNRWA is a beacon of hope to war-struck people, providing aid, shelter, food and healthcare in all circumstances. The suspension of funding by donor states will impact life-saving assistance for millions of civilians who rely on UNRWA aid in Gaza. Moreover, the aid cuts significantly threaten its ability to maintain operations, potentially leading to a shutdown and creating an unimaginable humanitarian disaster.

An important factor as to why Israel is razing Gaza to the ground, including schools, hospitals and cultural and religious sites, followed by this aid cut, is to physically and psychologically break the civilians, potentially forcing displacement. Ashok Swain, professor and head of the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, shared that the current Israeli regime seems to be creating unbearable conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, possibly pushing them to leave, and “a major obstacle in this plan is the presence and work of UN agencies, particularly the UNRWA, in providing humanitarian support to the people of Gaza.”

Aljazeera English Video: “It’s immoral’: UN special rapporteur on UNRWA funding cuts | UpFront”

Additionally, in the ongoing conflict, nearly 136 UNRWA aid workers have been killed, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres remarked, “136 of our colleagues in Gaza have been killed in 75 days —  something we have never seen in UN history,” besides the decision to suspended funding came on the same day as the ICJ’s ruling on potentially genocidal actions by Israel in Gaza. One cannot deny a political motive behind this move, as Israel has been lobbying against it for long. Being the only UN agency to have a specific mandate to provide assistance and protection for registered Palestine refugees, it stands as a threat. Thus, Israel aims to close UNRWA to eliminate the refugee issue, denying the right of return for Palestinian refugees to their land. Noga Arbell, a former Israeli Foreign Ministry official, said in January that, “It will be impossible to win the war if we do not destroy UNRWA, this destruction must begin immediately.” So, all those countries stopping their aid to UNRWA align with a political agenda to undermine the agency and its efforts.

The war in Gaza, entering its fourth month, has caused enormous suffering – many families struggle to find flour, many only eat once a day, and some have even resorted to eating animal feed. As per the International Rescue Committee’s Bob Kitchen: “It is the most intense hunger crisis I have ever seen.” Moreover, Israel is using starvation as a ‘weapon of war,’ which is a war crime. As per the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally starving civilians by “depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies” is a prohibited method of warfare.

Geopolitical motives should not hinder the considerations of humanitarian aid. Penalising an entire aid agency and a starving, dying community is akin to a crime against humanity. Countries like Ireland and Norway expressed continued support for UNRWA, highlighting the distinction between individual actions and the agency’s vital role in Gaza.

Instead of cutting crucial funding for those in need, the global community should call for an immediate and lasting ceasefire and full humanitarian access. It is high time for the Western nations to shun their double standards, as saving human lives should come above anything else.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment .

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Middle East Monitor

Imperilled, tormented Palestinians in Gaza had little time to celebrate the January 26 order of the International Court of Justice.  In a case brought by South Africa intended to facilitate a ceasefire and ease the suffering of the Gaza populace, Israel received the unwanted news that it had to, among other obligations, ensure compliance with the UN Genocide Convention, including by its military; prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to genocide” against the Palestinian populace in Gaza and permit basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip.

Within hours, Israel, bruised and outraged by a body its officials have decried as anti-Semitic and favourably disposed to Palestinian propaganda, found an excuse to flaunt the ruling.  12 employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), the agency responsible for distributing aid in Gaza, were accused (not found) by Israel’s intelligence agency, Shin Bet, of involvement in the Hamas attacks of 7 October.

The response from UNRWA was swift.  Contracts were terminated; an investigation was launched, including a full inquiry into allegations made against the organisation.  The Agency’s Commissioner General, Philippe Lazzarini promised, on 27 January, that “Any UNRWA employee who was involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution.”

Not content with this, Israel stormily took to the campaign trail hoping to rid Gaza of the UN agency it has despised for years.  UNRWA, after all, is a salutary reminder of Palestinian suffering, dispossession and desperation, its existence a direct result of Israeli foreign policy.  Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, was severe in laying bare his country’s loathing for UNRWA.  “We have been warning for years: UNRWA perpetuates the refugee issue, obstructs peace and serves as a civilian arm of Hamas in Gaza,” he stated on Shabbat.  “UNRWA is not the solution – many of its employees are Hamas affiliates with murderous ideologies, aiding in terror activities and preserving its authority.”  Deviously and fiendishly, Katz was dismissing the entire enterprise of aid through a UN outlet as a terroristic extension, rather than the ghastly product of Israel’s own ruthless, generational war against Palestinians.  Leave it to us to oversee matters of aid: we know best.

Powers, many with military ties with Israel and sluggish about holding the Jewish State to account in its Gaza campaign, were relieved by the distraction.  Rather than assessing their own export regime, the grant of licenses in the arms market in gross violation of human rights and the facilitation of crimes against humanity, an excuse to continue and prolong the weapons transfers and assistance to Israel, had presented itself.

Within hours, nine states had added their names to the list suspending allocated aid.  Australia, along with the United States and Canada, rushed to the podium to condemn UNRWA and freeze funding.  The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland followed.

The measure of rage could now be adjusted and retargeted.  A spokesperson for the UK government was “appalled by allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attack against Israel, a heinous act of terrorism that the UK government has repeatedly condemned.”  The US State Department was “extremely troubled” and had “temporarily paused additional funding.  Canada was also “deeply troubled by the allegations relating to some UNRWA employees”.

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, despite accepting that UNRWA’s role in conducting “vital, life saving work”, “providing essential services in Gaza directly to those who need it, with more than 1.4 million Palestinians currently sheltering in its own facilities”, felt a suspension of funding was wholly sensible.  This, coming from a minister who never tires about praising international law and its profoundly sacred qualities.

The assessment by Lazzarini was one of dismay and bafflement by the speed at which the funding had been halted.  “These decisions threaten our ongoing humanitarian work across the region, including and especially in the Gaza Strip.”

Aljazeera English Video: “UN Secretary General meets UNRWA donors: Numerous countries suspend funding of UN agency

The measure could almost be regarded as hysterical, given that a mere 12 individuals had been tarnished from a pool of some 30,000 members.  Johann Soufi, a lawyer and former director of the Agency’s legal office in Gaza, gave this assessment to Agence-France Presse: “Sanctioning UNRWA, which is barely keeping the entire population of Gaza alive, for the alleged responsibility of a few employees, is tantamount to collectively punishing the Gazan population, which is living in catastrophic conditions.”

Australian Greens Senator and defence spokesman, Senator David Shoebridge, also picked up on the grotesque twist the latest stifling of aid to the beleaguered residents of Gaza entailed.  “The one temporary pause [Senator Wong] has been able to achieve is not the bombing or killing, or even weapons exports, it’s providing aid to [Palestinians].”

For Israel, the focus can now shift back to prosecuting the war against Palestinians collectively blanketed for terrorist tendencies.  Meddlesome aid workers can also be put into the mix.  Cut the aid, cut the means of survival.  Along the way, international law can be blithely mocked and ignored by the principles of might.  With grimmest irony, the provisional measures outlined by the ICJ order, which includes increased humanitarian aid to Gaza, are being frustrated by signatories to the UN Genocide Convention. The collective regime of punishment ushered in by Israel’s policy of murderous asphyxiation, and which so concerned South Africa’s legal team, can now continue.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.