Dear Representative Jared Golden:

Your decision to vote in favor of sanctioning the International Criminal Court of Justice, (ICC) which had ordered Israel to take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza, was dismaying. This recent vote to sanction the ICC by Representatives of Congress erodes the ability of the high court to adhere to the principles of “ International Humanitarian Law, whose purpose is the reduce suffering during war”. 

The legislators passed this so-called “illegitimate Court Counteraction act” by a vote of 243-140, mostly supported by 198 Republican legislators. The question is why you, Rep Golden, felt it necessary to join this charade in support of a far-right regime in the Israeli Knesset, led by a man who is roundly detested by most citizens of Israel.

The intent of the legislation was to sanction anyone who assists the ICC in its attempts…to prosecute a citizen of an allied country” (ie Israel). In this case, it involved posting arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for their leadership in promoting genocide in Gaza.

Perhaps it would be to your benefit to do some serious reading on the horrors taking place in Gaza, with 46,500 civilians having been killed, including 16,000 children, by Israel bombs, supplied by the U.S.. 

Several highly regarded Israeli historians have written about the plight of the Palestinians which has now fallen upon extreme destitution, as most of  their homes, hospitals and schools have been destroyed by a continual barrage of  bombing. In addition, even many tents, inhabited by refugee families in  camps, have been bombed.

The Israeli military  (IDF) is being urged on by the extremist  leadership in the Knesset in a process of “ethnic cleansing”.  Israeli historians have taken note of this attempt to exterminate a population, such historians as Avi Shlaim, an Oxford University scholar raised in Israel who served with the IDF; Shlomo Sand who teaches in Tel Aviv University and has written books including “The Invention of the Jewish People”; Ilan Pappe, an historian teaching at Reading University in the UK who has written “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”.

Rep Golden, with the above in mind, it appears  that you are making decisions based on a very limited understanding of the history of Palestine. Are you aware that 5-6 million acres were expropriated from 750,000 Palestinians in 1947, forcing them into homelessness, and into becoming refugees, many having no choice but to move to Gaza.

It is shameful that you take the part of a right -wing cabal, led by a man totally lacking in empathy, not only for the thousands of children being killed by the IDF bombing, but also, until recently, for his unwillingness to negotiate in good faith, for the release of  Israeli captives. 

“Justice in Chains,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

There are over 160 organizations in Palestine/Israel involving hundreds of thousands of people devoted to building a shared society of cooperation, justice, equality and mutual understanding. Such groups as this are among a significant number of Israelis who are opposed to this genocidal bombing and killing that is taking place in Gaza.

Walls of separation between Palestinians and Israelis have, unfortunately, become a major issue.  Such walls are a form of “Apartheid” which our admirable former President, Jimmy Carter addressed in his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”. He noted that Israel’s “construction of settlements” has been the primary obstacle to a comprehensive peace agreement. In addition, he wrote: “some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and [then] justify their subjugation and persecution [thus creating a sense] of hopelessness among Palestinians”

I would hope that you had kept  in mind President Carter’s words  when you voted for this repugnant piece of legislation: to sanction the ICC (International Criminal Court) indicates that you did not reflect very deeply on the issues. Instead you supported far-right leaders in the Israeli government. The question that is paramount in my mind is that you might have been  persuaded by financial considerations. After all,  you received from the “American Israel Public Affairs Cmte”, (AIPAC) the sum of  $375,091, making Israel lobbyists your top Contributor for 2023-2024. (as reported by “opensecrets.org/members of congress).  

It may be worthwhile for you to reflect on  the ancestral home of many residents of Maine: Ireland, which recently filed a “declaration with the International Court of Justice (ICC) with their intention to intervene in [the] genocide case against Israel’s tactics in its war on Gaza. Ireland believes that every state, of the 189 nations who have signed the Genocide Convention, “has the right to intervene in the proceedings” based upon the principles expressed in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.

The essence of Ireland ‘s declaration is that “the crime [of genocide] may also be committed where a perpetrator– regardless of his or her purpose – knows (or should know) that the natural and probable consequence of these acts is either to destroy or contribute to the destruction of the protected group [ie Palestinians] , in whole or part, as such, and [yet] proceeds regardless.”

In conclusion, you still have an opportunity to develop a sense of fairness and justice for all, and not to allow yourself to  be swayed by political contributions meant to influence your vote on crucial issues relating to Palestine and Israel.

( Middle East Monitor ) – Israel’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) funded by European Union research programmes to target civilians is attracting a lot of criticism. Since the Israeli attacks on Gaza began on 7 October, 2023, the EU has provided over €238 million ($246m) to Israeli institutions for research and innovation. The funds are believed to have supported the development of AI-driven “location and killing” technology used by Israel against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Nozomi Takahashi, a member of the board of directors of the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCAP), told Anadolu that they are aware of allegations about EU funds aiding AI technologies targeting civilians. Takahashi said that they had addressed the issue in letters to high-level EU officials, including former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.

She pointed to AI-based systems used by the Israeli army called “Habsora” (The Gospel), “Lavender” and “Where is Daddy?” She said that these systems are used “to identify, locate and kill the targets in the current genocide in Gaza.”

Emphasising that these systems are used indiscriminately against civilians, Takahashi noted that, “Such extrajudicial killing is prohibited by international law. The scale and frequency of civilians killed in Gaza using such AI systems are devastating.”

The ECCAP official highlighted the EU’s particular focus on AI development, and said that Israeli research institutions are also involved in various EU-funded projects in this field. However, identifying which EU-funded project underpins those used by the Israeli army is impossible due to confidentiality and secrecy. “The potential high risk associated with such technology in the hands of a government that has a record of human rights violations should raise the alarm.”

Only civilian projects, added Takahashi, are eligible for funding through the Horizon Europe programme. “The development of such AI technology further blurs the border between civil and military applications.” She criticised the EU for its “narrow focus” when evaluating the goals of the projects that it funds, with insufficient monitoring and overlooking the potential for their use in the military.

Takahashi highlighted that Horizon Europe’s ethical principles require funded projects to uphold “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.” However, the research entity’s history with military activities or human rights violations is “neither questioned nor required” during ethics reviews, she claimed.

According to Eman Abboud, a lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, it has been demonstrated that EU funds have financed arms companies under the guise of civil security and tech research. She said that the EU is “culpable” by supporting the military industry in Israel — the state is currently facing genocide charges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — through its funding programmes.

“Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems Ltd. and Israel Aerospace Industries, which profit from and are deeply complicit in Israel’s long-term violent oppression and apartheid, as well as the current genocide of the Palestinian people, have received funding for security research from European funding programmes,” explained Abboud.

Criticising the ability of organisations contributing to human rights violations and the undermining of international humanitarian law to benefit from EU funds, she said, “The EU has refused to sever its trade links with Israel or ban them from Horizon Europe,” despite the ongoing ICJ case against the occupation state.

“Lavender Genocide Bot,” Digital, Midjourney, 2024

She referenced EU-GLOCTER, a “counter-terrorism” project involving Israeli institutions, noting the links to Israel’s military and intelligence, including Reichman University’s International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), which was co-founded by a former intelligence chief. “We must understand that institutions like these provide the means to create the intelligence apparatus that is used to target specific civilians in Gaza and in Lebanon. We cannot separate them, given the strategic dual use of academic research funding and military research funding.”

The AI technology developed within the Israeli military named Habsora, generating automated and real-time targets, frequently strikes civilian infrastructure and residential areas, with the number of civilian casualties always being known in advance.

The Lavender technology analyses data collected on approximately 2.3 million people in Gaza using ambiguous criteria to assess the likelihood of an individual’s connection to the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.

Sources told Tel Aviv-based +972 and Local Call that, early in the Gaza attacks, the military was “completely reliant” on Lavender, automatically targeting males it flagged, without oversight or specific criteria. Lavender has marked approximately 37,000 Palestinians as “suspects”.

Using the AI-based system called “Where is Daddy?” Israel simultaneously tracks thousands of individuals and when they enter their homes targeted individuals are bombed, with no regard for the presence of civilians, including women and children.

These AI technologies are known to make computational errors frequently and disregard the principle of “proportionality”. They have played a significant role in the killing of over 45,850 Palestinians since 7 October, 2023.

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

Via Middle East Monitor

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

(The Conversation) – The past year has been the deadliest for journalists since the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) began tracking fatalities in 1992. Since 7 October 2023, at least 146 journalists have been killed in Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, and Lebanon, though the actual numbers are likely much higher, as the CPJ is investigating numerous unconfirmed reports of other journalists being killed, missing or detained. Meanwhile, foreign journalists are denied access to Gaza by Israeli authorities.

Recently, Arne Jensen from the Association of Norwegian Editors and I attended The Cairo Media Conference at the American University in Cairo to discuss challenges of war and conflict journalism with journalists and academics. We encountered profound dedication and enthusiasm, but also a sense of powerlessness, anger, and despair over the dire situation in the region.

“The atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon challenge our shared humanity and test the ethics of journalism,” said Nidal Mansoor, from the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists in Jordan. He added that “the international legal system has collapsed, and journalism is collapsing with it.”

While we were in Cairo, the UN reported that children aged 5 to 9 make up the largest group of the then 43,500 people killed in Gaza. On average, more than 40 children have been killed daily for over 400 days. How do we process such horrifying statistics? How can journalists cover them?

The training of journalists in safety and security is also facing unprecedented challenges. What advice can we give to journalists operating in situations where mere existence is life-threatening? How do they deal with the unavoidable trauma of reporting on conflicts like this?

Refugee journalists

Two experienced Egyptian journalists and security trainers, Noha Lamloum and Cherine Abdel Azim, were at the conference. They have conducted numerous courses for journalists across the Middle East, and they now work with a group of female journalists from Gaza who have fled to Egypt – 12 women, most of whom have lost everything, including their families and children.

“End of Journalism,” Digital, ChatGPt, 2024

Some of these journalists escaped with small children who cower in fear at any loud noise. These women’s most fervent wish was simply to see the sea. Sitting silently with them on the beach, gazing at the same sea that once bordered their homeland before it was devastated, was profoundly moving.

When the women began to recount their stories, it was as though a floodgate opened – words, tears, and emptiness poured out. The trainers were deeply affected themselves, as are many journalists covering the human suffering. “I live off words,” said one of them. “They were my tools, my joy, but now they bring no comfort. They feel increasingly hollow.”

Journalistic double standards

Ten years ago, in January 2015, many of us proclaimed “Je suis Charlie” in solidarity after the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Where are the voices now for Hamza, Mustafa, Rami, and other journalists who have been targeted and killed?

“Where is the West?” This was a central theme. Where is the international community? Why the glaring double standards?

The violence in Amsterdam on 7 November 2024 between Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer fans and pro-Palestinian groups was a case in point. Media outlets failed to report that Israeli fans first burned Palestinian flags and shouted inflammatory slogans. Instead, the narrative focused on anti-Semitism driving the violence.

Zahera Harb, a former journalist from Beirut, now at City University in London, highlighted how UK broadcaster Sky News initially covered the provocations of the Israeli fans, but later replaced the segment with an edited version which largely omitted footage of their provocations. Instead it featured statements from Dutch and British officials condemning anti-Semitism. Sky News stated that changes to their coverage were made to meet their standards of “balance and impartiality”.

However, this is not an isolated incident. Insiders at Germany’s public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, and at CNN and the BBC, have recently spoken out over similar double standards, many of which are ingrained in the editorial guidelines that govern their newsrooms.

“Is it Europe’s lingering guilt over the Holocaust that continues to paralyze its response?” asked one prominent editor in Cairo. “It’s horrifying to think that the victims of hatred and genocide in Europe are now implicated in the suffering of another people. The term ‘anti-Semitism’ has become a trump card, nullifying ethical journalistic standards.”

Is Western media failing?

Western media, guided by balance and impartiality, excels in many areas. However, the extremity of the war in Gaza raises questions about whether the pursuit of balance sometimes impedes the pursuit of truth.

During our discussions with journalists in a region ravaged by mass civilian casualties and direct attacks on reporters, our input on war imagery and hate speech felt somewhat inadequate, a token gesture akin to offering inflatable armbands to someone drowning in a violent hurricane.

“Show the pictures of the dead children,” urged a young female journalist who had been in Rafah. “Consideration for the survivors is a luxury we cannot afford,” said an editor, alluding to the difficult ethical discussions in Western newsrooms about what to publish. These debates highlight the gap between young people’s unfiltered reality on platforms like TikTok and the more curated coverage by traditional media.

It is worth noting that “Western media” is a potentially unhelpful category. In Norway, for instance, we pride ourselves on consistently ranking highest in measures of freedom of expression and media independence.

Our ongoing research (Riegert & Orgeret, forthcoming) highlights the exemplary efforts of Norwegian journalists in their coverage of the October 7 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza and Lebanon – they have verified facts, demonstrated methodology, and offered essential context. Many Norwegian correspondents have shown the human side of suffering, and collaborated courageously with journalists on the ground.

Yet difficult questions linger: How are we using our freedom? What can we do when our journalistic tools are insufficient against the horrors of relentless war and potential genocide? More than 60 years after Hannah Arendt documented Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, her reflections on the banality of evil remain disturbingly relevant.

Kristin Skare Orgeret, Professor of Journalism and Media Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – What are war crimes and when did they start? – Artie, 12, Queens, New York

I imagine you’re asking about “war crimes” because you’ve heard that term mentioned lately in news about the conflicts underway in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. The idea may sound confusing, because war always includes killings and destruction. But special rules restrict how wars can be fought.

I am a professor who studies international law – the set of rules that defines what a war crime is.

Why do we need laws about war?

Historically, war had few limits. Individual societies occasionally attempted to control how wars were fought. But for much of human history, when nations attacked each other, it wasn’t just soldiers who died. Many civilians – ordinary people who weren’t fighting in the war – died, and whole cities were destroyed.

After wars ended, survivors from the losing country might even end up as slaves taken back to the victorious country.

There were no “laws of war” that restricted conquests by the Egyptians and Romans in ancient times between 600 and 30 B.C. No laws limited the Mongol invasions of Europe in the 13th century or the European colonial invasions of Latin American, African and Asian societies in the 18th through 20th centuries.

Even as recently as the 1940s, during World War II, U.S. and U.K. forces killed hundreds of thousands of people in their bombings of German and Japanese cities. Nazi Germany systematically murdered approximately 6 million Jews and others during the Holocaust.

When did war get laws?

There is no supreme world government that can create laws for all countries, so international law is formed by rules that countries agree to respect. These are called treaties.

In the 19th century, countries and many private groups worldwide began working to develop the laws of war.

Early treaties on war were meant primarily to protect soldiers from unnecessary pain and suffering. Countries agreed to stop using really dangerous weapons such as poison gas, for example. They also banned murdering wounded enemies and soldiers who tried to surrender, because those killings aren’t necessary to win a war.

Later, after the horrors of World War II, the laws of war were expanded to protect civilians.

Developing all these rules has taken well over a century. Nations agreed to them because everyone has a shared interest in limiting some of the worst aspects of how war is fought. The goal is to keep everyone caught up in war as safe as possible, while accepting that some innocent people will still die.

What are war crimes?

The rules of war are set out primarily in four treaties from 1949 called the Geneva Conventions. Every country in the world accepts these rules, which have been expanded several times in the years since.

The Geneva Conventions are very specific about what warring nations cannot do during an armed conflict. The things they cannot do are called war crimes.

Here is a partial list of war crimes:

• Deliberate killing that is not justified by a legitimate military objective.
• Torture.
• Inflicting severe harm on enemies.
• Taking hostages.
• Wounding or killing a soldier who has surrendered.
• Attacking civilians not participating in the conflict.
• Using certain prohibited weapons.
• Starving people as a weapon of war.

How are war crimes punished?

Most people generally agree that these are good rules and that warring countries should try to obey them. The problem is enforcement.

War crimes are committed not by entire countries but by individual people, such as soldiers who torture the captured enemy or destroy a family’s crops unnecessarily. Since individuals commit the crimes, individuals must be held responsible.

Many countries have laws stating what can and cannot be done during war. They generally reflect the rules of the Geneva Conventions. However, history shows that governments are often reluctant to prosecute their own soldiers for war crimes. Accusations of such crimes are often ignored, punished lightly or dismissed.

That’s why the International Criminal Court exists. In 1998, representatives from 160 countries met in Rome to create this world court, which can investigate, bring to trial and decide the guilt or innocence of individuals accused of war crimes and certain other international crimes.

“Justices,” Digital, Midjourney, 2025

Today, 124 countries have accepted the court’s authority. If war crimes are committed in these countries, the court can act. In 2014, for example, the head of a rebel force in the Democratic Republic of Congo was convicted of murder and deliberately attacking civilians; he was put in prison for 12 years.

However, several big and powerful countries have not consented to the authority of the International Criminal Court, including the United States, China and Russia. Many countries in which brutal wars have occurred also reject its powers, including Iraq, Israel, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. This limits its powers.

Additionally, the International Criminal Court has no international police force to arrest suspects. It relies on governments to detain people accused of war crimes and deliver them to the court.

Again, not all of them cooperate. National leaders have sometimes traveled abroad after International Criminal Court arrest warrants were issued against them and have not been arrested.

Finally, interpreting international law can be tricky.

It is a war crime to deliberately attack civilians, but countries at war with each other still bomb apartment buildings, hospitals and schools sometimes, claiming enemy forces are inside those buildings. If true, that could make the buildings legitimate military targets – though international law still requires militaries to do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties.

What next?

Right now, you may be thinking: If people aren’t punished for breaking the rules of war, do these rules even matter?

It’s a reasonable question. But consider this: Countries have had criminal laws against murder and robbery for thousands of years, yet these crimes are still committed. The concept of war crimes has been around for a much shorter time. It is not surprising that not all war criminals can be brought to justice, but I think the fact that most countries now agree that war crimes should be prohibited is important.

Plus, when war crimes are investigated and condemned, victims may feel that their suffering will not be forgotten. Even if no one is punished, proving a crime was committed has value.

International law isn’t easy to enforce, but at least most of the world now recognizes that even wars must have their limits.

Hurst Hannum, Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“I speak on behalf of the commanders who serve in northern Gaza. There are war crimes being committed there,” Ya’alon told the Israeli public broadcaster KAN.

“IDF (army) soldiers are putting their lives at risk and will be subject to lawsuits in the International Criminal Court,” he said.

“I have to warn about what is happening there (in northern Gaza) and what they are trying to hide from us, where they are committing war crimes.”

On Saturday, the former defense minister accused Israel of carrying out “ethnic cleansing” in northern Gaza, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of leading the country to “ruin.”

“I take responsibility for what I said about ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza,” Ya’alon said.

He also criticized far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s call for the displacement of Gaza’s population.

“Smotrich is proud of the opportunity to reduce Gaza’s population by half,” he said. “What do you call that? He has no moral issue with killing two million Gazans. We were once a democratic state.”

Last month, Smotrich had called for the reoccupation of Gaza and suggested reducing its population by half through encouraging what he calls the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians from the territory.

Several Israeli ministers have called for re-occupying Gaza and reducing its Palestinian population by encouraging what they term as voluntary migration amid Tel Aviv’s deadly onslaught on the enclave.

Since Oct. 5, Israel has launched a large-scale ground operation in northern Gaza to allegedly prevent Palestinian resistance group Hamas from regrouping. Palestinians, however, accuse Israel of seeking to occupy the area and forcibly displace its residents.

Since then, no humanitarian aid, including food, medicine, and fuel, was allowed into the area, leaving most of the population there on the verge of imminent famine.

More than 2,300 people have since been killed, according to Palestinian health authorities.

The onslaught was the latest episode in Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip that has killed nearly 44,400 people, mostly women and children, since Oct. 7, 2023.

On Nov. 21, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

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

READ: Over 415,000 displaced Gazans sheltering in UN schools: UNRWA

Via Middle East Monitor

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

——

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

Middle East Eye: “Israel ‘ethnically cleansing’ north Gaza says former Israeli defence minister”

A Year of Violence: A Tragedy for Palestine

For over a year, the Israeli occupation authorities have pursued increasingly aggressive military operations in Gaza and the West Bank. Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, with entire neighborhoods razed, hospitals bombed, and essential infrastructure destroyed. The blockade of Gaza has deepened, leaving millions without access to necessities such as adequate water, food, and medical care. This is not just warfare; it is the systematic destruction of a people -— genocide, according to many scholars and human rights organizations.

What is perhaps most disheartening is the international community’s response — or lack thereof. Despite widespread documentation of war crimes, including targeting civilians, collective punishment, and disproportionate use of force, there has been no meaningful intervention. Israel’s actions flagrantly violate international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians and calls for the protection of those in occupied territories. Yet, condemnation from global institutions has been largely symbolic, devoid of enforcement or consequences.

Lebanon: The Conflict Expands

Now, as Israel extends its military campaign into Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah, the crisis has escalated into a regional conflict. The Lebanese civilian population, already struggling under economic collapse and political instability, now faces the terrifying prospect of attacks. As with Gaza and the West Bank, civilians are caught in the crossfire, and international law once again appears impotent in the face of aggression.

The expansion of conflict raises broader geopolitical concerns. The Middle East has long been a powder keg, and Israel’s unchecked military actions risk pulling the region into greater chaos. Yet, despite these dire consequences, the international community remains largely passive, offering only calls for restraint and diplomacy, which ring hollow in the absence of real accountability.

The Collapse of International Law

This ongoing crisis exposes the deep flaws within the international legal system. Israel’s continued breaches of international humanitarian law, from illegal settlements to disproportionate military force, challenge the very foundation of the post-World War II order. International law is designed to prevent such atrocities, yet when its mechanisms fail to hold powerful actors accountable, it becomes a dead letter.

The role of international organizations, particularly the United Nations, is central to this failure. The UN, founded to prevent the horrors of war and promote human rights, has become a symbol of ineffectiveness. UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions have been met with vetoes by powerful member states, most notably the United States, rendering the institution powerless. Year after year, the Security Council has been paralyzed, and while the UN General Assembly passes resolutions condemning the violence, these carry no legal weight.

The UN Secretary-General’s recent statements, calling for ceasefires and peace negotiations, are admirable but fall far short of addressing the root problem: the lack of enforcement. If international law cannot be enforced against powerful states, particularly when geopolitical interests are involved, it loses credibility in the eyes of the world. On the one hand, Israel has declared the UN Secretary-General as “persona non grata.” Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz claimed that Guterres, whom he described as anti-Israel, ‘supports terrorists, rapists, and murderers.’

In a written statement released by the Foreign Ministry, it was reported that Guterres was declared ‘persona non grata’ for not explicitly condemning the Iranian missile attack on Israel. ‘No one who cannot unequivocally condemn Iran’s vile attack on Israel deserves to set foot on Israeli soil,’ Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in a statement, claiming that Guterres, whom he described as anti-Israel, ‘supports terrorists, rapists, and murderers.’ Katz also argued that Guterres stands with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and now Iran, which he described as ‘the mother of global terrorism,’ and said that Guterres will go down in UN history as a ‘black stain.’ As we can see, Israel demands not only substantial support from individual states but also knee-jerk support from international organizations.

The Failure of Political Will

The problem, however, extends beyond institutional failures. At its core, the crisis reflects a lack of political will among world leaders to prioritize human rights and justice over strategic alliances and national interests. Israel’s position as a close ally of the United States and other Western powers shields it from meaningful consequences. This political reality undermines international law, creating a world where rules apply only to the weak, while the powerful operate with impunity. As public trust in international organizations erodes, so does the belief in the effectiveness of international law. This erosion has long-term consequences, not only for the Palestinian people but for global stability. If the world allows the precedent of unchecked violence and lawlessness to continue, other conflicts may follow, and other authoritarian regimes may exploit the international system’s weaknesses.
Where Do We Go from Here?

The current situation demands more than empty rhetoric and non-binding resolutions. If international law is to remain a force for justice, it must be enforced consistently, without regard to political alliances. This requires a fundamental overhaul of global institutions like the UN, which must become more democratic and less beholden to the vetoes of powerful nations. International courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), must be empowered to investigate and prosecute war crimes without political interference. The world cannot afford to stand idly by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolds in Palestine and now threatens to engulf Lebanon. Global leaders must rise above their national interests and act in the name of justice, not only for the sake of the Palestinian people but for the integrity of international law itself. The time for decisive action is now, and the world must not let another year of violence and impunity pass.

Erosion of Public Trust

International law, particularly humanitarian law, is designed to protect human rights, prevent atrocities, and promote peace and justice on a global scale. Organizations like the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and various international treaties are supposed to provide mechanisms for accountability. However, when these institutions are unable—or unwilling—to enforce their rules, public trust in them erodes.

That Israel can attack Palestinians, routinely violating international law without consequence, sends a message to the global public that these laws are impotent. The inability to hold powerful states accountable creates the perception that international law is applied selectively, undermining its legitimacy. People lose faith in these institutions when they see that global powers can act with impunity, leading to cynicism about the entire international order. This erosion of trust can be deeply damaging. Citizens around the world may start to believe that international organizations are incapable of protecting human rights or negotiating an end to wars. The loss of confidence in these bodies weakens their authority, making it harder for them to mediate future conflicts, provide humanitarian aid, or broker peace agreements.

A Global Crisis for Humanity

When international law fails, it is not just the immediate victims of conflict who suffer. The breakdown of these systems can lead to a broader global crisis for humanity. The unchecked violation of human rights and international humanitarian law contributes to a cycle of violence, displacement, and instability that affects millions. Refugee crises, for example, often stem from conflicts where international law is disregarded, forcing entire populations to flee their homes in search of safety. Moreover, when international organizations are unable to intervene effectively, it emboldens other states or actors to disregard international norms, setting a dangerous precedent. This can lead to a proliferation of conflicts and human rights abuses, as countries see that there are no real consequences for violating international law. The result is a global jungle where might makes right, and the rules meant to protect the vulnerable are ignored.

“Lawless,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / PS Express, 2024

In the long term, this instability can contribute to global crises, such as the rise of extremism, the collapse of states, and increased poverty and suffering. When people no longer believe that international law can protect them, they may turn to other, often more violent, forms of resistance or support authoritarian regimes that promise stability over justice. This creates a vicious cycle where international organizations lose their ability to intervene meaningfully, further eroding trust and exacerbating global instability.

Beyond the undeniable failure of institutions, courts, and international law, this situation sends a stark message to the world: if what is happening in Gaza and Lebanon were to happen to us, there would be no mechanism or institution to protect us. Perhaps this is the intended outcome — to make us feel utter despair, to break our spirit, and to compel us to bow to power. But it is precisely for this reason that we will continue to resist, to fight, and to defend human rights with as much resolve as the people of Gaza.

(ProPublica ) – The U.S. government’s two foremost authorities on humanitarian assistance concluded this spring that Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.

The U.S. Agency for International Development delivered its assessment to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s refugees bureau made its stance known to top diplomats in late April. Their conclusion was explosive because U.S. law requires the government to cut off weapons shipments to countries that prevent the delivery of U.S.-backed humanitarian aid. Israel has been largely dependent on American bombs and other weapons in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

But Blinken and the administration of President Joe Biden did not accept either finding. Days later, on May 10, Blinken delivered a carefully worded statement to Congress that said, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”

Prior to his report, USAID had sent Blinken a detailed 17-page memo on Israel’s conduct. The memo described instances of Israeli interference with aid efforts, including killing aid workers, razing agricultural structures, bombing ambulances and hospitals, sitting on supply depots and routinely turning away trucks full of food and medicine.

Lifesaving food was stockpiled less than 30 miles across the border in an Israeli port, including enough flour to feed about 1.5 million Palestinians for five months, according to the memo. But in February the Israeli government had prohibited the transfer of flour, saying its recipient was the United Nations’ Palestinian branch that had been accused of having ties with Hamas.

Separately, the head of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration had also determined that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid and that the Foreign Assistance Act should be triggered to freeze almost $830 million in taxpayer dollars earmarked for weapons and bombs to Israel, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.

The U.N. has declared a famine in parts of Gaza. The world’s leading independent panel of aid experts found that nearly half of the Palestinians in the enclave are struggling with hunger. Many go days without eating. Local authorities say dozens of children have starved to death — likely a significant undercount. Health care workers are battling a lack of immunizations compounded by a sanitation crisis. Last month, a little boy became Gaza’s first confirmed case of polio in 25 years.

The USAID officials wrote that because of Israel’s behavior, the U.S. should pause additional arms sales to the country. ProPublica obtained a copy of the agency’s April memo along with the list of evidence that the officials cited to back up their findings.

USAID, which is led by longtime diplomat Samantha Power, said the looming famine in Gaza was the result of Israel’s “arbitrary denial, restriction, and impediments of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” according to the memo. It also acknowledged Hamas had played a role in the humanitarian crisis. USAID, which receives overall policy guidance from the secretary of state, is an independent agency responsible for international development and disaster relief. The agency had for months tried and failed to deliver enough food and medicine to a starving and desperate Palestinian population.

It is, USAID concluded, “one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world.”

In response to detailed questions for this story, the State Department said that it had pressured the Israelis to increase the flow of aid. “As we made clear in May when [our] report was released, the US had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed to a lack of sustained delivery of needed humanitarian assistance,” a spokesperson wrote. “Israel subsequently took steps to facilitate increased humanitarian access and aid flow into Gaza.”

Government experts and human rights advocates said while the State Department may have secured a number of important commitments from the Israelis, the level of aid going to Palestinians is as inadequate as when the two determinations were reached. “The implication that the humanitarian situation has markedly improved in Gaza is a farce,” said Scott Paul, an associate director at Oxfam. “The emergence of polio in the last couple months tells you all that you need to know.”

The USAID memo was an indication of a deep rift within the Biden administration on the issue of military aid to Israel. In March, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, sent Blinken a cable arguing that Israel’s war cabinet, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, should be trusted to facilitate aid shipments to the Palestinians.

Lew acknowledged that “other parts of the Israeli government have tried to impede the movement of [humanitarian assistance,]” according to a copy of his cable obtained by ProPublica. But he recommended continuing to provide military assistance because he had “assessed that Israel will not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede U.S. provided or supported” shipments of food and medicine.

Lew said Israeli officials regularly cite “overwhelming negative Israeli public opinion against” allowing aid to the Palestinians, “especially when Hamas seizes portions of it and when hostages remain in Gaza.” The Israeli government did not respond to a request for comment but has said in the past that it follows the laws of war, unlike Hamas.

In the months leading up to that cable, Lew had been told repeatedly about instances of the Israelis blocking humanitarian assistance, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the embassy operations but, like others quoted in this story, not authorized to speak about them. “No other nation has ever provided so much humanitarian assistance to their enemies,” Lew responded to subordinates at the time, according to two of the officials, who said the comments drew widespread consternation.

“That put people over the edge,” one of the officials told ProPublica. “He’d be a great spokesperson for the Israeli government.”

A second official said Lew had access to the same information as USAID leaders in Washington, in addition to evidence collected by the local State Department diplomats working in Jerusalem. “But his instincts are to defend Israel,” said a third official.

“Ambassador Lew has been at the forefront of the United States’ work to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, as well as diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would secure the release of hostages, alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, and bring an end to the conflict,” the State Department spokesperson wrote.

The question of whether Israel was impeding humanitarian aid has garnered widespread attention. Before Blinken’s statement to Congress, Reuters reported concerns from USAID about the death toll in Gaza, which now stands at about 42,000, and that some officials inside the State Department, including the refugees bureau, had warned him that the Israelis’ assurances were not credible. The existence of USAID’s memo, Lew’s cable and their broad conclusions were also previously reported.

But the full accounting of USAID’s evidence, the determination of the refugees bureau in April and the statements from experts at the embassy — along with Lew’s decision to undermine them — reveal new aspects of the striking split within the Biden administration and how the highest-ranking American diplomats have justified his policy of continuing to flood Israel with arms over the objections of their own experts.

Stacy Gilbert, a former senior civil military adviser in the refugees bureau who had been working on drafts of Blinken’s report to Congress, resigned over the language in the final version. “There is abundant evidence showing Israel is responsible for blocking aid,” she wrote in a statement shortly after leaving, which The Washington Post and other outlets reported on. “To deny this is absurd and shameful.

“That report and its flagrant untruths will haunt us.”

The State Department’s headquarters in Washington did not always welcome that kind of information from U.S. experts on the ground, according to a person familiar with the embassy operations. That was especially true when experts reported the small number of aid trucks being allowed in.

“A lot of times they would not accept it because it was lower than what the Israelis said,” the person told ProPublica. “The sentiment from Washington was, ‘We want to see the aid increasing because Israel told us it would.’”

While Israel has its own arms industry, the country relies heavily on American jets, bombs and other weapons in Gaza. Since October, the U.S. has shipped more than 50,000 tons of weaponry, which the Israeli military says has been “crucial for sustaining” the Israel Defense Forces’ “operational capabilities during the ongoing war.”

The U.S. gives the Israeli government about $3.8 billion every year as a baseline and significantly more during wartime — money the Israelis use to buy American-made bombs and equipment. Congress and the executive branch have imposed legal guardrails on how Israel and other partners can use that money.

One of them is the Foreign Assistance Act. The humanitarian aid portion of the law is known as 620I, which dates back to Turkey’s embargo of Armenia during the 1990s. That part of the law has never been widely implemented. But this year, advocacy groups and some Democrats in Congress brought it out of obscurity and called for Biden to use 620I to pressure the Israelis to allow aid freely into Gaza.

In response, the Biden administration announced a policy called the National Security Memorandum, or NSM-20, to require the State Department to vet Israel’s assurances about whether it was blocking aid and then report its findings to lawmakers. If Blinken determined the Israelis were not facilitating aid and were instead arbitrarily restricting it, then the government would be required by the law to halt military assistance.

Blinken submitted the agency’s official position on May 10, siding with Lew, which meant that the military support would continue.

“Blinken, Soup Nazi,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / IbisPaint / Clip2Comic, 2024

In a statement that same day, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized the administration for choosing “to disregard the requirements of NSM-20.”

“Whether or not Israel is at this moment complying with international standards with respect to facilitating humanitarian assistance to desperate, starving citizens may be debatable,” Van Hollen said. “What is undeniable — for those who don’t look the other way — is that it has repeatedly violated those standards over the last 7 months.”

As of early March, at least 930 trucks full of food, medicine and other supplies were stuck in Egypt awaiting approval from the Israelis, according to USAID’s memo.

The officials wrote that the Israeli government frequently blocks aid by imposing bureaucratic delays. The Israelis took weeks or months to respond to humanitarian groups that had submitted specific items to be approved for passage past government checkpoints. Israel would then often deny those submissions outright or accept them some days but not others. The Israeli government “doesn’t provide justification, issues blanket rejections, or cites arbitrary factors for the denial of certain items,” the memo said.

Israeli officials told State Department attorneys that the Israeli government has “scaled up its security check capacity and asserted that it imposes no limits on the number of trucks that can be inspected and enter Gaza,” according to a separate memo sent to Blinken and obtained by ProPublica. Those officials blamed most of the holdups on the humanitarian groups for not having enough capacity to get food and medicine in. USAID and State Department experts who work directly with those groups say that is not true.

In separate emails obtained by ProPublica, aid officials identified items in trucks that were banned by the Israelis, including emergency shelter gear, solar lamps, cooking stoves and desalination kits, because they were deemed “dual use,” which means Hamas could co-opt the materials. Some of the trucks that were turned away had also been carrying American-funded items like hygiene kits, the emails show.

In its memo to Blinken, USAID also cited numerous publicly reported incidents in which aid facilities and workers were hit by Israeli airstrikes even sometimes after they had shared their locations with the IDF and received approval, a process known as “deconfliction.” The Israeli government has maintained that most of those incidents were mistakes.

USAID found the Israelis often promised to take adequate measures to prevent such incidents but frequently failed to follow through. On Nov. 18, for instance, a convoy of aid workers was trying to evacuate along a route assigned to them by the IDF. The convoy was denied permission to cross a military checkpoint — despite previous IDF authorization.

Then, while en route back to their facility, the IDF opened fire on the aid workers, killing two of them.

Inside the State Department and ahead of Blinken’s report to Congress, some of the agency’s highest-ranking officials had a separate exchange about whether Israel was blocking humanitarian aid. ProPublica obtained an email thread documenting the episode.

On April 17, a Department of Defense official reached out to Mira Resnick, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department who has been described as the agency’s driving force behind arms sales to Israel and other partners this year. The official alerted Resnick to the fact that there was about $827 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars sitting in limbo.

Resnick turned to the Counselor of the State Department and said, “We need to be able to move the rest of the” financing so that Israel could pay off bills for past weapons purchases. The financing she referenced came from American tax dollars.

The counselor, one of the highest posts at the agency, agreed with Resnick. “I think we need to move these funds,” he wrote.

But there was a hurdle, according to the agency’s top attorney: All the relevant bureaus inside the State Department would need to sign off on and agree that Israel was not preventing humanitarian aid shipments. “The principal thing we would need to see is that no bureau currently assesses that the restriction in 620i is triggered,” Richard Visek, the agency’s acting legal adviser, wrote.

The bureaus started to fall in line. The Middle East and human rights divisions agreed and determined the law hadn’t been triggered, “in light of Netanyahu’s commitments and the steps Israel has announced so far,” while noting that they still have “significant concerns about Israeli actions.”

By April 25, all had signed off but one. The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration was the holdout. That was notable because the bureau had among the most firsthand knowledge of the situation after months of working closely with USAID and humanitarian groups to try to get food and medicine to the Palestinians.

“While we agree there have been positive steps on some commitments related to humanitarian assistance, we continue to assess that the facts on the ground indicate U.S. humanitarian assistance is being restricted,” an official in the bureau wrote to the group.

It was a potentially explosive stance to take. One of Resnick’s subordinates in the arms transfer bureau replied and asked for clarification: “Is PRM saying 620I has been triggered for Israel?”

Yes, replied Julieta Valls Noyes, its assistant secretary, that was indeed the bureau’s view. In her email, she cited a meeting from the previous day between Blinken’s deputy secretary and other top aides in the administration. All the bureaus on the email thread had provided talking points to the deputy secretary, including one that said Israel had “failed to meet most of its commitments to the president.” (None of these officials responded to a request for comment.)

But, after a series of in-person conversations, Valls Noyes backed down, according to a person familiar with the episode. When asked during a staff meeting later why she had punted on the issue, Valls Noyes replied, “There will be other opportunities,” the person said.

The financing appears to have ultimately gone through.

Less than two weeks later, Blinken delivered his report to Congress.

(The Conversation) – The operation that used pagers and walkie-talkies to kill members of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah was ingenious – but was it legal?

Certainly, there are those who will argue that it was. That thinking goes like this: Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets, and the pagers and radios purchased by Hezbollah could be expected to be used by the same people involved in decisions to send those missiles. As such, the killings, if carried out by Israel as is widely believed, would appear to be targeted and warranted. While some bystanders may die or be injured, they would likely be associated with Hezbollah, according to this line of thinking.

But that is not the right assessment, according to international law. Under law I have taught for over 40 years, hiding explosives in everyday objects makes them booby traps – and in almost every case, using a booby trap designed to kill is a crime.

Prohibited means of warfare

It is important to affirm that the acts that apparently led Israel to strike Hezbollah are also illegal under international law. In fact, Hezbollah, a nonstate armed group supported by Iran, has no right to use violence of any kind, let alone missile strikes targeting civilians in northern Israel.

Under international law, a nonstate actor gains the right to fight only if it is associated with a regular armed force of a sovereign state involved in armed conflict hostilities. And that is not the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon. This means each Hezbollah missile constitutes the commission of a serious crime.

But that fact does not give rise to any right of Israel to use booby traps in response.

A booby trap is defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the body charged with oversight and implementation of the Geneva Conventions and related treaties on the law of armed conflict, as a “harmless portable object” – but redesigned to contain explosive material. They are a prohibited means of warfare and are equally prohibited by law enforcement authorities.

“Booby Trap,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

In peacetime, police and other law authorities are restricted to using lethal force only in cases in which a life is immediately in danger. Carefully dismantling a device, adding explosives and sending them on to be used in homes or places of worship, for example, cannot be seen to be saving a life immediately.

And it is peacetime law that applies in Lebanon at this time. There is, under international law, no war currently taking place in Lebanon. Israel is involved in armed conflict hostilities in Gaza, not Lebanon. The intermittent attacks across the Lebanon-Israel border do not constitute hostilities as defined under international law.

Growing list of violations

Even if hostilities were occurring between Israel and Lebanon, as might well happen, Israel would have no right to use booby traps. In hostilities, an adversary’s fighters may be intentionally targeted and killed. Ambushes and other clandestine operations are permitted. And the lives of civilians may be lost in doing so.

But weaponizing an object used by civilians is strictly prohibited in wartime. It is a form of “killing treacherously,” meaning with deception. It is the opposite of carrying weapons openly, as required by the venerable treaty the Hague Convention Annex of 1907 – which is still binding law for all engaged in warfare.

Despite being clearly illegal for over a hundred years, the use of booby traps persists. During the terrorist violence that plagued Northern Ireland for decades, the anti-British Irish Republican Army deployed booby traps, in particular car bombs. Members of the group were regularly prosecuted under U.K. law. Members of the United States military would be prosecuted too if they decided to create and use a booby trap.

The use of booby traps adds to Israel’s growing list of post-Oct. 7 violations of international law. The country itself was the victim of a brutal criminal act by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. And international law permits significant, robust responses to such a crime. But it also sets strict conditions and limits – and it clearly holds that the use of booby traps goes beyond those limits.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

There is no cure for polio once it is contracted. Its victims can be paralyzed or can die.

Without a ceasefire, UNICEF points out, you cannot get the families to line up their children to receive the vaccine by mouth. Some 95% of the infants in Gaza need to have the vaccine administered to prevent an outbreak, and they need two doses. Without a ceasefire, the aid workers cannot even safely move around to make arrangements for giving out the doses. The aid organizations want to use Deir al-Balah to store and distribute the vaccines, but the Israeli army has just once again ordered everyone out of it and has invaded it, risking destroying the remaining medical infrastructure there. Some 250,000 Palestinians have once again been expelled from their shelters since the beginning of August.

UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini warned regarding Gaza, “Delaying a humanitarian pause will increase the risk of spread among children.” He suggested that some Israeli children could suffer from an epidemic, as well, but of course Israeli children have largely been vaccinated continually. Palestinian children had also been almost entirely vaccinated up until the Israeli total war on Gaza was implemented last fall.

UNICEF wrote of another war, Ukraine, “UNICEF helps vaccinate over 400 million children globally against polio every year, to eradicate polio worldwide. In Ukraine, UNICEF works to secure uninterrupted availability of life-saving vaccines for children and adults and to maintain high routine immunization coverage. As the war and subsequent displacement continues, gaps in immunization coverage put children’s health at risk.”

Although children in Ukraine are also at risk from polio outbreaks, the human toll of that war pales in comparison to Gaza. Some 2,000 children have been killed as a result of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s total war on the Gaza population has blown over 15,000 children to smithereens.

Whereas Putin’s Russia has been massively sanctioned for its illegal occupation and warfare in Ukraine by the US and most NATO countries, Israel’s government, which illegally occupied Gaza in 1967 and which has shown a reckless disregard for civilian life that may amount to genocide, has been given tens of billions of dollars by the Biden administration.

Type 2 polio vaccinations are substantially down over the past ten months, since the population and the aid workers have been constantly expelled from a succession of supposed safe zones by the Israeli military, medical facilities have been destroyed, and medicine deliveries have been made difficult or impossible by the bombings, artillery barrages, machine gun fire, drone strikes, lack of fuel and general chaos deliberately inflicted on the entire population by monstrously permissive Israeli rules of engagement — which entirely disregard the value of civilian, noncombatant life.

“Gaza Polio,” by Juan Cole, Digital, Dream / Dreamland v. 3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Although Israeli authorities are allowing the delivery of the refrigerated trucks necessary for the vaccines, as well as the vaccine doses themselves, through the Kerem Shalom crossing, the aid workers are pointing out that these steps do no good at all unless there is a ceasefire that allows the aid workers to move around and give the vaccines to the children. Borger quotes Lazzarini as saying, “It is not enough to bring the vaccines into Gaza and protect the cold chain. To have an impact, the vaccines must end up in the mouths of every child under the age of 10.”

UNICEF points out that “The world has made tremendous progress against polio in the past three decades, vaccinating over 2.5 billion children and reducing cases by 99 percent. But this progress is fragile, and we cannot afford to lose focus. Millions of children are still missing out on routine vaccinations because of pandemic disruptions, conflict, climate disasters and displacement.”

It quotes Yuliia Dovjanych, Head Doctor at the ‘Dbayu’ medical centre “Infectious diseases do not disappear during the war. The fight against them is our ‘medical front’ where we must remain resilient. Therefore, we must continue to get vaccinated, take care of our health and the health of our children!” Some 11,520 civilians have been killed in the Ukraine war, whereas over 40,000 people have been killed in Gaza, a majority of them women and children.

At the medical front in Gaza, the war to save the children is going very badly. It will be lost without a ceasefire.