Israel vs Palestine/Lebanon/Iran/Yemen/Syria: a New Middle East War

[ExomatrixTV]

• Dead parents if they were still alive, they want to love & care for their children ... if they are in the spirit world they still want to be there for them ... children want to be loved & cared by their true parents ... most have NO CLUE how it must feel to have no parents anymore at that age! ... This mutual love is more sacred than ANY religious or territorial disputes.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JqrXU-ue3Zo

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=73CIQ9q_tBg

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DIoREz-d_xI

[shaberon]

We have seen that Iran blew up some Daesh and Mossad:

He noted that everything went smoothly at the stroke of midnight.


The Kheibarshekan missile can hit targets within a range of 1,450 kilometers with pinpoint accuracy.

The strategic weapon is a third-generation long-range missile developed by the IRGC with great capabilities.

The new missile is propelled by solid fuel and is capable of penetrating missile shields with high maneuverability during the landing stage.



They've done that before. Mossad luxury villas. Just asking to be wiped out instantaneously.

This is what withdrawal sounds like in the words of Israel's DM:

“In northern Gaza, All the [Hamas] battalion frameworks have been dismantled. We are now working to eliminate pockets of resistance. We will achieve this via raids, airstrikes, special operations, and additional activities,” he was quoted as saying by The Times of Israel.

In central Gaza, he also alleged, “we are destroying Hamas’ military industry, its production centers. These are the places that produce rockets, IEDs, explosives and other weapons to be used against us. The achievements [of our troops] are very impressive.”

Hours following Gallant remarks, a salvo of rockets were fired at the so-called settlement of Netivot in Gaza envelope, in what was described by the Israeli media as “one of the largest rocket barrages from Gaza in several weeks.”

Proving the success of his operation around the cabinet:

Although 102 days have passed, and despite Israeli claims that the occupation army allegedly “dismantled Hamas’ battalion frameworks”, the Palestinian resistance fired the largest rocket barrage in several weeks.

Following the rocket barrage, Israeli National Unity party minister Gideon Sa’ar called for convening the war cabinet.

Sa’ar said the body, of which he is an observer, “needs to discuss the continuation of the war in the Gaza Strip and the way it is being handled.”

“The reduction of the intensity and activities of the IDF in the Strip and the drawdown of forces there is a mistake,” Sa’ar said referring to IOF (Israeli occupation forces).

Oh, eh, the.

Here is perhaps a more coherent statement from Yemen:

A senior official in Yemen’s Ansarullah revolutionary movement Ali Al-Qahoum warned on Monday that the Arab country will turn into a graveyard for US forces.

“We tell the Americans that your actions against Yemen will be defeated and we will confront you with all of our power. After this aggression, Yemen will turn into the graveyard of the Americans and they will leave the region in humiliation,” Al-Qahoum, Member of Ansarullah Politburo, said in an interview with the Iranian state news agency IRNA.

The US and its allies should expect “strategic blows and a more painful response,” the senior Yemeni official said.

He stressed, meanwhile, that the Yemeni people and their leaders are “fully prepared to enter a direct and all-out war with the Great Satan to defend Palestine,” referring to the US.

which means they have caused some unspecified result:

Spokesman of the Yemeni Armed Forces General Yahya Sarea read out on Monday a statement which announces that the Yemeni navy carried out a missile attack on a US ship in Aden Gulf in response to the US-UK aggression on Yemen.

In support of the oppressed Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, who are still subjected to the worst kinds of massacres by the Zionist entity and in response to the American-British aggression on our country, the Yemeni Armed Forces’ Navy, with the help of Allah Almighty, carried out a military operation targeting an American ship in the Gulf of Aden, using a number of suitable naval missiles, achieving a precise and direct hit, the statement read.

General Sarea affirmed that all American and British warships participating in the aggression against our country are considered by the Yemeni Armed Forces as hostile targets within our forces’ target bank.

“The Yemeni Armed Forces confirm that a response to American and British attacks is inevitable, and that any new aggression will not go unanswered and unpunished.”

The statement added that the Yemeni Armed Forces will continue their military operations and enforce the decision to prevent Israeli navigation in the Arabian and Red Seas until the cessation of aggression and lifting of the blockade on the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

The Yemeni Armed Forces assure the continuity of trade movement in the Arabian and Red Seas to all destinations except the ports of occupied Palestine and are committed to taking all defensive and offensive measures within their right to defend and confront the American-British aggression, the statement concluded.

[shaberon]

So far, here is a little more on what is being said:

Local sources in Erbil report at least 8 missile strikes.

The targets in Iraq included:

the HQ of Mossad in Erbil and the private residence of a local businessman linked with the Mossad.
reportedly facilities near the US military base at Erbil airport;
reportedly the U.S. Consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan;
reportedly the local headquarters of the Kurdish security service.


Local sources also report the death of Peshraw Dzeyi, whose residence was one of the targets during the night attack. The Kurdish businessman was owner of Empire and Falcon Group companies. He was closely associated with the Israeli Mossad. He reportedly participated in the training and financing of Mossad spies who carried out intelligence and terrorist missions in Iran. The businessman also played a key role in the supply of oil to Israel.


The US State Department claimed that none of the US facilities were damaged, no military and civilians were wounded as a result of the attack in Erbil. This is a routine message published by US officials in Washington. No victims from the US military were confirmed, although the Iraqi press claims that several ambulances were spotted heading to the US consulate and military base. The facilities suffered heavy damage.

Mossad:







This is a propaganda poster:






Although we do not know if that represents what happened earlier, they say:

Another open secret is that the aggression against Yemen led to no de-escalation in the region. The Yemeni government insisted that airstrikes by the US and UK will not make them stop their actions.

“The targeting was and will continue to affect Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine,” Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam wrote on Twitter (currently known as X).

The aggressive actions of the US and the UK in the region serve another confirmation of the total moral bankruptcy of the entire “Western-led world order”. The issue is that Western powers are ready to sacrifice millions of innocent people to prolong the agony of their collapsing dominance on the international scene.

[Rizotto]

"War in the Middle East has entered a dangerous new phase as Iran launches multiple strikes on Israeli targets in Iraq. Where is this headed? Col. Douglas MacGregor joins us live."

"This is about to BLOW UP in our faces and Biden is making it worse" Col. MacGregor | Redacted News (9 minutes)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=D42NTEKh1xY

[Bill Ryan]

This is just starting to be reported, but not yet in the western mainstream (at all ).

• https://newarab.com/news/s-africa-la...-against-us-uk

South African lawyers prepare case against US, UK for 'complicity in Gaza war crimes'

A group of around 50 lawyers led by South African attorney Wilkus Van Rensburg are working with lawyers from the US and UK to take their case to civil courts.

South African lawyers are preparing a lawsuit against the governments of the US and UK over alleged complicity in Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.

A group of around 50 lawyers led by South African attorney Wilkus Van Rensburg are working with lawyers from the US and UK to take their case to civil courts.

"The United States must now be held accountable for the crimes it committed," Van Rensburg told Turkey state news agency Anadolu, saying that his initiative has received lots of support from legal colleagues.

"Many lawyers decided to join us in the lawsuit. Many of those who have joined are Muslims, but I am not. They feel obligated to assist this cause, but I believe that what is happening is incorrect."

Van Rensburg has been closely following developments in his country's genocide filing against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), during which he has been writing to the ICJ and various states to urge the prosecution of those complicit in crimes against the Palestinians.

He says the ICJ case will serve as a guide for his initiative, and that his team will act according to the UN court's ruling. The ICJ is expected to rule on South Africa's request for "provisional measures" in the coming weeks, which could potentially see Israel be asked to halt its war on Gaza.

Though the international court has no power to enforce its rulings, Rensburg believes that the US could still face legal consequences even if it does not accept a ruling against Israel.

"The US must now be held responsible for the crimes it has committed. It must accept its responsibilities," he said, referring to Washington's deliveries of military aid to Israel.

The team of South African lawyers wrote to both the US and UK governments last week to inform them of their intention to open legal proceedings.

Israel's war on Gaza has raged on for more than 100 days, killing at least 24,285 people – the majority civilians, according to Gaza health authorities.

At the ICJ, South Africa has argued that Israel is committing the crime of genocide against Palestinians, highlighting the massive civilian death toll, displacement of over 1.9 million people and the destruction of key infrastructure.

Israel has responded that it is acting in "self defence" — a claim which legal experts have said that an occupying power has no entitlement to, and does not waive its responsibility to not commit genocide.

[bojancan]

War in Gaza... also have a deeper meaning... we know... trade routs...


Crises on Trade Routes: Leading to WAR?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EijVnjZDg3w

[bojancan]

Also Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir- Abdollahian... attends World Economic Forum event in Davos... I added this video here... mostly it's topic is about Gaza etc...


Davos 2024 LIVE: Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian Attends World Economic Forum Annual Meet

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy5_jNSbTVc

[shaberon]

More "friendly fire" on Episode IV of spare not the rod:

The video ended with the Qassam Brigades stating in Arabic, Hebrew and English: “Wait for us… we will inform you of their fate tomorrow. Your government is lying.”

Meanwhile on Sunday, Al-Qassam Spokesman Abu Ubaida said the fate of many Israeli hostages has become unknown due to the random and relentless Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip.

In his first televised appearance for several weeks, marking the 100th day since the outbreak of the Israeli war, Abu Ubaida said many of the Israeli captives “may have been killed”, blaming their fate on the Zionist occupation.

He added “any talks before stopping the Israeli aggression are worthless.”

And, as of the moment, the shoe is on the other foot:

The dwellers of the 47 northern Zionist settlements have started to rehearse after every missile fire from Hezbollah, “North is breaking down.”

The Israeli media outlets reflected the case of frustration plaguing the Zionist settlers who turned hopeless about returning to the northern settlements and started renting houses and searching for new jobs elsewhere.

Head of Margaliot settlement Eitan Davidi said that, after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, the Zionist officials promised the settlers in the North of occupied Palestine to experience nice days, adding that Zionists nowadays cannot return to the north amid the confusion of the government.

“Israeli displaced from the North are searching for new jobs and renting new houses elsewhere. The North is breaking down,” Davidi added.

Wait until it gets serious.

Are some of them hanging around the Golan? That would be bad.

Not that I can think of a single good thing about Zion.

It doesn't even have instructions on how to purge Senators from other states; this is a problem.








A bit more on the para-military targeting:


...along with another businessman who was identified as British-Iraqi Karam Mikhail.

Although the U.S. said that no American facilities were attacked, it admitted that three drones were shot down over Erbil International Airport which hosts U.S. troops. There were also reports of impacts in al-Harir Air Base which is located to the northeast of Erbil.

...a U.S.-owned ship, the MV Gibraltar Eagle...


Also on January 16, the U.S. military reported that the Navy confiscated components of Iranian-made missiles intended for the Houthis. The missiles were found on a ship in the Arabian Sea, which was detained on January 11. During the operation, two Navy SEALs went missing. Their fate remains unknown.


and a little bit of ineffective homegrown animosity:

A makeshift explosive device went off on January 17 morning outside the Greece offices of Zim, Israel’s main international cargo shipping company, Greek police sources and Hebrew media reported.

Two gas canisters were used in the attack which caused slight material damage to a wall and a fuse panel in the building hosting Zim offices in the port city of Piraeus.

Protest leaflets were found at the entrance of the building reading “Freedom for Palestine,” which indicates that the attack was carried out by pro-Palestinian activists as a form of protest to the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

Police detained a number of suspects after the attack, according to the state-run Athens News Agency. However, they were later released.

Zim itself was impacted by the war. Last December, the Malaysian Government rescinded its permit for the company to use their ports, responding to “Israel’s actions that ignore basic humanitarian principles and violate international law” in Gaza.

Maybe they weren't trying to hurt anybody.

Zim has no point in Piraeus if they can't use the Suez Canal.

Are the Greek police supposed to cough up a Zim Battalion? Give them free rent? Apologize for something? Overlook the fact they once owned Palestine as well? I am not sure how it works, but, I think it means everyone who is not Zim is bad, and you need to do something. Money is fine.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
A most excellent piece by Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, who is one of the best we've got. The article, published today, is absolutely worth reading in full by anyone who's been following the ICJ hearing closely.

The many well-informed comments at the foot of the article are also WELL worth reading, constituting a high quality, detailed discussion in its own right. (The whole thing is far too long to properly post here.)

https://nakedcapitalism.com/2024/01/...es-relief.html

Israel Raises Major Procedural Problem with South Africa Filing, Challenges “Genocidal Intent” by Citing Policies, Relief

It would be better if I were wrong. However, my take, having listened to the Israel presentation at the International Court of Justice hearing on South Africa’s genocide filing, is the court will not approve South Africa’s “request for the indication of provisional measures”.

Remember, this is not a final ruling on the allegation that Israel has been engaging in genocide. This is an expedited initial ruling, analogous to a preliminary injunction in the US. Here, the standard is that the plaintiffs presented a credible-enough factual and legal case regarding conduct that if not halted, could result in serious harm.

Mind you, this not being an Anglosphere court, the procedure and specific standards are different. In the normal course of events, the underlying case still proceeds on its normal (leisurely) timetable, with the alleged perps still perping until a final ruling.

Nevertheless the distressing thing is such a ruling against South Africa’s “request for the indication of provisional measures” would be ballyhooed by Israel and its backers as the court validating Israel’s version of events, that Hamas is a bunch of monsters and everything Israel did was warranted as self defense.

If Israel wins this round by successfully punching holes in the South Africa filing, particularly on procedure, don’t expect to see a lot of fastidious reporting.

If you managed to catch the start of Israel’s oral arguments, it was infuriating if you have been following the debunkings of Israel’s charge of Hamas engaging in wanton savagery during its October 7 raid. Expect Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal having a field day shredding these recycled and largely debunked claims.

(... the long and important article continues)

~~~

More on this. But it has to be said that if this procedural issue really is a showstopper, then the court would surely already have announced its simple ruling. The fact that the judges are clearly still in the process of making their decision suggests that it's not clear-cut at all.

• https://consortiumnews.com/2024/01/1...-case-v-israel

Technicality Could Sink Genocide Case v Israel

South Africa may have given the World Court a way out of ruling that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and must halt its attacks, writes Joe Lauria.

In its defense last Friday before the World Court against allegations by South Africa that it is committing genocide in Gaza and must be stopped, Israel made a legal argument that could torpedo the case if the court buys it.

In order for a claim to reach the International Court of Justice, there must be an established dispute between two states. Israel’s argument is that such a dispute was never established and thus the ICJ lacks jurisdiction to hear South Africa’s claim.

There would be a political outcry from those who seek to stop Israel’s ongoing slaughter in Gaza if the Court decides to dismiss the case on this technicality.

But given the pressure the Court is no doubt feeling from the United States, Germany and other allies of Israel it might be the best, if not the only way for the Court to escape without having to decide that it’s merely plausible that Israel is committing genocide.

That is the bar that needs to be met at this preliminary stage of the case for the Court to issue provisional measures to order Israel to cease its military operation.

The Dispute Over a Dispute

On Thursday, South Africa tried to build a case, probably in anticipation of Israel’s bid, that this was indeed a dispute between Israel and South Africa and it indeed belonged before the World Court.

John Dugard, a South African professor of international law, told the Court:

“The South African Government repeatedly voiced its concerns, in the Security Council and in public statements, that Israel’s actions had become genocidal. On 10 November, in a formal diplomatic démarche, it informed Israel that while it condemned the actions of Hamas, it wanted the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the leadership of Israel for international crimes.
On 17 November South Africa referred Israel’s commission of the crime of genocide to the International Criminal Court for ‘vigorous investigation’. In announcing this decision President Ramaphosa publicly expressed his abhorrence ‘for what is happening right now in Gaza, which is now turned into a concentration camp where genocide is taking place’.
To accuse a State of committing acts of genocide and to condemn it in such strong language is a major act on the part of a State. At this stage it became clear that there was a serious dispute between South Africa and Israel which would end only with the end of Israel’s genocidal acts.
South Africa repeated this accusation at a meeting of BRICS on 21 November 2023 and at an Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 12 December 2023. No response from Israel was forthcoming. None was necessary. By this time, the dispute had crystallized as a matter of law. This was confirmed by Israel’s official and unequivocal denial on 6 December 2023 that it was committing genocide in Gaza.”

Dugard argues that there is a dispute between Israel and South Africa.

Dugard added that “as a matter of courtesy” before filing the case with the ICJ on Dec. 29, South Africa sent a “Note Verbale to the Embassy of Israel to reiterate its view that Israel’s acts of genocide in Gaza amounted to genocide — that it, as a State party to the Genocide Convention, was under an obligation to prevent genocide from being committed.”

“Israel responded,” Dugard said, “by way of a Note Verbale that failed to address the issues raised by South Africa in its Note and neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a dispute.”

On Jan. 4, South Africa sent another Note Verbal highlighting Israel’s failure to respond adequately to South Africa’s concerns, and concluded that the dispute between the nations was “plainly not capable of resolution by way of a bilateral meeting.”

In addition, on Nov. 20 Israel recalled its ambassador to South Africa in protests over South Africa calling Israel’s operation in Gaza “genocidal,” which can clearly be interpreted as a dispute.

Israel Says There is No Dispute

For its part, Israel on Friday argued that no such dispute exists and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Quoting from Article IX of the Genocide Convention, British attorney Malcolm Shaw KC, representing Israel, told the Court:

“Whether or not a dispute in these terms exists at the time of the filing of the Application is a matter for objective determination by the Court, ‘it is a matter of substance, and not a question of form or procedure’. The Court will ‘take into account in particular any statements or documents exchanged between the Parties as well as any exchanges made in multilateral settings’, the Court has said.
The key point here is the use of the term ‘exchange’ between the parties. Unilateral assertion does not suffice. There needs to be some element of engagement between the parties. The element of interchange and bilateral interaction is required. A dispute is a reciprocal phenomenon.”

Shaw made clear Israel does not believe such an exchange took place:

“South Africa cites only a couple of general public statements by Israel referencing merely a press report by Reuters and a publicity release from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These responses were not addressed directly or even indirectly to South Africa. There is no evidence of ‘positive opposition’ as required by the Court.
Further, South Africa cites no relevant exchange between the Parties, which would be the normal fashion for the expression and determination of a dispute between States. This actually typifies how South Africa has approached this matter. It seems to believe that it does not take two to tango. It is sufficient if one State determines there is a dispute, leaving the other party flummoxed.
It is thus disingenuous for Professor Dugard to conclude that ‘Israel must have been aware from South Africa’s public statements, démarche and referral to the International Criminal Court of Israel’s genocidal acts that a dispute existed between the two States’. This is not a dispute, it is a ‘unispute,’ a one-sided clapping of hands.”

The World Court in The Hague hearing South Africa v. Israel.

Shaw said Israel did respond to the Notes Verbale on Dec. 26 by offering to arrange a meeting between the two foreign ministries at South Africa’s “earliest convenience.” The Israeli embassy tried to deliver this note on Dec. 27 to the South African foreign ministry but the ministry was closed because of a holiday, Shaw said.

He claims Israel was informed by the South Africans on Dec. 28 that the note should be hand-delivered on Jan. 2, but on Dec. 29 filed the case with the ICJ, allowing no time for the states to have a dialogue.

That South Africa did not wait for this bilateral meeting before filing with the court puts its case at risk.

Legal Experts Weigh In

“There does have to be a position stated by one side and rejected by the other before there is a dispute,” John Quigley, professor emeritus at the Moritz College of Law of Ohio State University, told Consortium News. “But there was probably sufficient statement by [South Africa] that it thought Israel was committing genocide, and sufficient statement by Israel that it was not committing genocide for there to be a ‘dispute” between the two.'”

Quigley added, “If the court wants to avoid giving provisional measures, it could use this.” He made clear, however, that he thought this was unlikely to happen.

Analyst Alexander Mercouris concurred. He told CN:

“In a sane world it should not defeat the claim. After all, in what sense has Israel been prejudiced? And given that the case is about genocide there is a strong case for acting with urgency. However if the Court wants to find some way out of hearing the case, this lapse has provided it.
If the Court were to take this view, South Africa would have the option of requesting the Israeli response, and then re-filing, either when Israel provided its reply or, in the event that Israel inordinately delayed its reply, when that became clear.”

American academic Norman Finkelstein, told an interviewer: “It will completely discredit the Court if they issue a decision — we have decided not to pursue this case of genocide because we don’t think there is a dispute. That just can’t work.”

Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, represented Bosnia-Herzogovina at the ICJ where he brought a case of genocide against Yugoslavia in 1993.

“To the best of my knowledge the [Yugoslavs] did not know of my genocide lawsuit until the Registrar informed them of it,” Boyle said in an email. “Again, this created no problems for me with the Court on winning my first Order of Provisional Measures of Protection on April 8 [1993].”

Boyle added that Bosnia’s then president, Alija Izetbegovic was at the time “pretty busy negotiating” the Vance-Owen peace deal at U.N. headquarters in New York. “I don’t think he said anything about my genocide lawsuit to the [Yugoslavs] there before I sued them.”

Thus the fact that Sarajevo and Belgrade never directly disagreed about a genocide claim did not affect the Court’s decision to issue provisional measures against Yugoslavia.

In an article published on Consortium News on Sunday, former British diplomat Craig Murray, who was in the public gallery for both days of the hearing, wrote that simply refusing to respond to an allegation of genocide cannot become a way for a nation to continue committing it with impunity. He wrote:

“The case could be technically invalid, and then [the judges] would neither have to upset the major Western powers nor make fools of themselves by pretending that a genocide the whole world had seen was not happening. For a while, they looked visibly relieved. Israel is hoping to win on their procedural points about existence of dispute …
The obvious nonsense [Israel] spoke about the damage to homes and infrastructure being caused by Hamas, trucks entering Gaza and casualty figures, was not serious. They did not expect the judges to believe any of this. The procedural points were for the court. The rest was mass propaganda for the media.”

Murray added:

“I am sure the judges want to get out of this and they may go for the procedural points. But there is a real problem with Israel’s ‘no dispute’ argument. If accepted, it would mean that a country committing genocide can simply not reply to a challenge, and then legal action will not be possible because no reply means ‘no dispute’. I hope that absurdity is obvious to the judges. But they may of course wish not to notice it…”

[ExomatrixTV]

• FINALLY Piers Morgan Says Israel’s War Has Gone Too Far:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ox8nFuyGX9g

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
Unbelievable. Stéphane Séjourné, France's new minister of foreign affairs, essentially said that France wouldn't support the ICJ's decision if it rule against Israel because accusing them of genocide is "crossing a moral threshold" and is "exploiting the notion of genocide for political purposes".

Here's the exact quote (translated):
"As for the International Court of Justice, we firmly tell the Israelis that international law applies to everyone, the systematic strikes in Gaza must stop... but words have meaning and accusing the Jewish state of genocide is crossing a moral threshold! We cannot exploit the notion of genocide for political purposes, that is our consistent position."

So first of all it's an egregious lie that it would be their "consistent position" that "we cannot exploit the notion of genocide for political purposes" because less than a year ago the French parliament (including Macron's party) voted to recognize as "genocide" the Holodomor in Ukraine, and the year before that they voted (also including Macron's party) to recognize the so-called "Uyghur genocide"; both clearly done for political purposes (on the Uyghurs only some Western countries - led by the U.S. - have ever called it a "genocide" and a UN Human Rights Office investigation on the ground did not retain this designation)... So when it's directed at geopolitical foes of the West, France happily exploits the notion of genocide for political purposes.

And in this case this isn't even about this, since we're speaking about an official ruling by the International Court of Justice, of which France is a founding member. So if the ICJ ruled in the sense that Israel was indeed committing genocide, by definition it wouldn't 'be an "exploitation of the notion of genocide for political purposes" but a ruling based on international law.

So as I've said since the very beginning, this demonstrates once again that the war in Gaza is essentially the war of the "rules-based order" with all its double standards vs "international law". And sadly now France has made it clear that faced with the choice, they opt to side with the rules-based order against international law 😢


https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1747806233711743122

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)
Text:
Unbelievable. Stéphane Séjourné, France's new minister of foreign affairs, essentially said that France wouldn't support the ICJ's decision if it rule against Israel because accusing them of genocide is "crossing a moral threshold" and is "exploiting the notion of genocide for political purposes".

I have to say, that strikes me as encouraging — the reason being that there's clearly political nervousness in Europe (and elsewhere!) that the ICJ will indeed rule in South Africa's favor.

[Ravenlocke]

https://x.com/aaronjmate/status/1748055658778231087

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

More on this. But it has to be said that if this procedural issue really is a showstopper, then the court would surely already have announced its simple ruling. The fact that the judges are clearly still in the process of making their decision suggests that it's not clear-cut at all.

• https://consortiumnews.com/2024/01/1...-case-v-israel

Technicality Could Sink Genocide Case v Israel

~~~

And more still. In this half hour interview, journalist Karan Thapar interviews Nasreen Rajab-Budlender, a senior counsel at the Pan African Bar Association who has acted as a judge of the High Court of South Africa on several occasions.

Has South Africa Persuaded the ICJ to Halt Israel’s War on Gaza?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0eaclEeIqb4

Nasreen wasn't part of South Africa's presentation of the ICJ hearing, but of course she's exceptionally well-qualified to comment. At the start of the video she introduces herself as a proud South African but one who also examined the proceedings with a very critical eye.

At 10:55, Thapar asks Nasreen about the potential technicality concerning the 'dispute'. Her summary response was that it's the ICJ's jurisprudence (i.e. their considered judicial opinion) about what constitutes a 'dispute', and in terms of precedent there's actually very little guidance on this.

Some of this may seem very picky and trivial to the layperson, but of course these are the agate points on which the wheels of judicial verdicts turn. (With apologies to Churchill. ) So it's potentially important, and anyone following this case closely may appreciate listening to what Nasreen explains.

My own simplistic overview on the whole thing, but one which is echoed by a zillion analysts out there, is that it already barely matters what the verdict is.

• If South Africa's case is decided in favor of Israel (i.e. there's no potential genocide to consider, nothing to see here), then the court will be a laughing stock in the eyes of 80% of the world and will never be taken seriously again.

• If South Africa's case is dismissed because of a legal technicality, then it'll also be never taken seriously again — and, to rub salt into that fatal wound, other countries may present exactly the same case again this time making sure that a 'dispute' is categorically present.

• If South Africa's case is upheld, well, then. Even if Israel, the US, and a few other countries in Europe reject the ruling, it's such a clear moral victory that it'll be impossible to ignore it from here on out.

[Ravenlocke]

https://www.rt.com/news/590684-yemen-us-uk-attack/

Scott Ritter: How the US misleads the world about its involvement in Yemen
While Washington maintains that the strikes on Houthi installations are defensive and fully legal, neither is the case

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
“The strikes in Yemen were necessary, proportionate, and consistent with international law.” With this statement, the United States delegate to the United Nations defended the joint US-UK military strikes against targets affiliated with the Houthi militia undertaken on the night of January 12, 2024.

The irony of this statement is that it was made before a body, the United Nations Security Council, which had not authorized any such action, thereby eliminating any claim to legitimacy that could possibly be made by the US.

The Charter of the UN specifies two conditions under international law in which military force can be used. One is in the conduct of legitimate self-defense as articulated in Article 51 of the Charter. The other is in accordance with the authority granted by the UN Security Council through a resolution passed under Chapter VII of the Charter.

British Foreign Minister David Cameron cited the UN Security Council in his justification of the UK’s involvement in the attacks on Yemen, claiming that the Council had “made clear” that the “Houthi must halt attacks in the Red Sea.”

While the Security Council had issued a resolution demanding that the Houthi cease their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea, this resolution was not passed under Chapter VII, and therefore neither the US nor the UK had any authority under international law to carry out their attacks on Yemen.

Both the US and UK invoked the notion of self-defense in their attacks on Yemen, thereby indirectly alluding to a possible cognizable action under Article 51 of the UN Charter. US President Joe Biden justified the US military attack on Houthi militia forces in Yemen in a statement released shortly after the strikes ended. “I ordered this military action,” he declared, “in accordance with my responsibility to protect Americans at home and abroad.”

The main problem with this argument is that the Houthis had not attacked Americans, either at home or abroad. To the extent that US forces had previously engaged weapons fired by the Houthis, they had done so to shield non-American assets – either the State of Israel or international shipping – from Houthi attack. Under no circumstances could the US argue that it had been attacked by the Houthis.

The US attacks, Biden asserted, “were carried out to deter and weaken the Houthi ability to launch future attacks.”

This language suggests that the US was seeking to eliminate an imminent threat to commercial maritime operations in international shipping lanes. To comply with the requirements of international law regarding collective self-defense – the only possible argument for legitimacy since the US itself had not been attacked – the US would need to demonstrate that it was part of a collective of nation states that were either under attack by the Houthis or were threatened with imminent attack of a nature that precluded seeking Security Council intervention.

In late December 2023, the US had, together with several other nations, gathered military forces in what was known as Operation Prosperity Guardian to deter Houthi attacks on maritime shipping that had been taking place since November 19, 2023.

However, the US subsequently undermined any case it could possibly have made that its actions were consistent with international law, namely that they were an act of collective pre-emptive self-defense done in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

US Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for operations in the Middle East, issued a press release shortly after Washington launched a second attack against a Houthi radar installation that it claims was involved in targeting shipping in the Red Sea.

The statement claimed the attack on the Houthi radar installation was a “follow-on action” of the strikes carried out on January 12, and had “no association with and are separate from Operation Prosperity Guardian, a defensive coalition of over 20 countries operating in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden.”

By distancing itself from Operation Prosperity Guardian, the US has fatally undermined any notion of pre-emptive collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, highlighting the unilateral, and inherently illegal, nature of its military attacks on Yemen.

[Ewan]

Posted by Ravenlocke (here)

Text:

Here's the exact quote (translated):

"As for the International Court of Justice, we firmly tell the Israelis that international law applies to everyone, the systematic strikes in Gaza must stop... but words have meaning and accusing the Jewish state of genocide is crossing a moral threshold! We cannot exploit the notion of genocide for political purposes, that is our consistent position."


https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1747806233711743122

Unbelievable!

Except it is not. When, oh when, will the people wake up?

Simple answer, when it too effing late!

[Rizotto]

"Krystal and Saagar are joined by Antony Loewenstein to discuss how Israel uses Gaza as a weapons and surveillance testing ground."
(10 minutes)

Israel Using Gaza As Weapons TESTING Ground

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=g8AjJTp4OBY

[Ravenlocke]

https://x.com/QudsNen/status/1748335240819429578

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
Philadelphia Corridor gives Israeli premier pretext to prolong war on Gaza - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's insistence on seizing the Philadelphia Corridor, a key area between Gaza and Egypt, is seen as a strategy to extend the ongoing war in Gaza.

· Netanyahu asserts that controlling the Philadelphia Corridor is essential for defeating Hamas in Gaza, implying a prolonged military engagement.
· Any Israeli military action in the Philadelphia Corridor risks escalating tensions with Egypt and complicating relations with the U.S., which is aiming for de-escalation.
· Political analysts view Netanyahu's focus on the corridor as a means to expand the conflict for his own political benefit, potentially lengthening his tenure in power.
· The ongoing conflict has led to a significant displacement of Palestinians, with many seeking refuge near the border area, further complicating the humanitarian situation.
-Ahmed Asmar
@anadoluagency

https://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/phi...n-gaza/3109925

https://x.com/Last24Report/status/1747661609558851988

https://x.com/ShamiOverseer/status/1746205955451474389

https://x.com/TOT_Middle_East/status...75573810319643

https://x.com/DougAMacgregor/status/1746654479284387922

[Ravenlocke]

Text:
Escalation: Egypt and the Philadelphia Corridor 🇮🇱
Palestinian media reported heavy clashes at the Egyptian Border to the Gaza Strip yesterday. Israeli news also reported that Egyptian Army crossed the Israeli border and opened fire against IDF border forces.

This was later downgraded to "Smugglers."

However, an Egyptian military source has refuted the drug smuggling narrative and said it was specifically armed militants trying to get in and help Gaza.

"An unidentified group of 20 militants, who were apparently on their way to infiltrate Palestine through Awja, engaged with Egyptian and Israeli forces on the border, seriously injuring three Israeli soldiers," a military source told The New Arab on condition of anonymity, for not being authorised to talk to the media.

The source added, "Egypt detained a total of six, while 14 others managed to flee the scene."

Some facts from the last few weeks:
🔻IDF said last week that they wanted to secure the Philadelphia route and area near the border to keep out "Smugglers" or people who are helping Hamas.
🔻The Egyptian population is actively protesting their own President El-Sisi for not doing more for the Palestinians. (See comment video)
🔻Videos of Egypt reinforcing their border wall was published a few days ago.
🔻Egypt has also sent tanks and units to the border back in early December to ensure that Palestinians aren't forced into their nation.

Israel and the media often tries to blame Egypt for their exploits in Gaza, asking the question, "Why doesn't Egypt just take all the Palestinians?"

For one, Egypt shouldn't have to deal with the problems created by Israel and their internal struggle or refusal to share land.

For two, Egypt has 80 million people and most of them supports a Palestinian state in Palestine. Egypt can barely keep it's population fed and going in the right direction at the best of times, so this kind of event could easily cascade into a riot or worse.

This is another potential flashpoint that could open another front for Israel and the IDF.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-ha...b56fadd5b9da74

https://reuters.com/world/middle-eas...za-2023-12-30/

https://newarab.com/news/not-drugs-s...r-clash-claims

https://x.com/pl0t_sickens/status/1747408189769826675