Israel misled the world when it announced that it was about to uproot Hamas. Those who believed it, and those who doubted it, until a semblance of consensus crystallized on the impossibility of liquidation and the inevitability of going to a settlement.

The settlement in which Hamas is being tamed to engage is the one that Fatah, i.e. the PLO, preceded it to, according to internationally agreed upon American conditions, including what remained of the Soviet Union at the time.

The settlement that began in Madrid and matured in Oslo collapsed, and its rope was cut off halfway, as it gave birth to an incompletely developed baby, the Palestinian National Authority, and the word patriotism is merely a Palestinian insertion into the term.

In the first part of the settlement process, influential international actors intervened to make it a prelude to the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, starting with its Palestinian essence. As for the second part, no one intervened to save the project from collapse, and I mean effective and decisive intervention, since the major attempt made by President Bill Clinton at the end of his term, “Oslo” continued to collapse, leading to a state that was completely opposite to what was wanted from it. The Palestinians got a war instead of a state, and the region that expected a permanent and comprehensive peace entered into a state of war on multiple fronts until the matter reached where we are now. From the possibilities of expanding the war on Gaza, and what accompanies it in the West Bank and southern Lebanon, to a regional war, although it seems unlikely, it is not impossible.

The epicenter of the earthquake now is Gaza, the center of the armed resistance is “Hamas,” and the center of the threat of war on all fronts is Israel. As for America, the godfather of settlement when it was possible, and the godfather of its distance and impossibility, it is pursuing the ghosts that target it in the heart of its influence and is working on settlements that, if they prevent the spread of war, will not be achieved. Peace that does not herald any danger lurking in all its regions.

America's problem is that its challenges arise and are exacerbated from the heart of its area of influence, and their root is the superpower's inability or negligence in satisfying its allies, even with the minimum limits of what they demand and deserve.

America, in the midst of the ongoing Gaza war, has written a story and imposed it as a topic of discussion and movement on the entire world, and its title is The Day After. This raises several questions; all of them are unanswerable, because the answer depends on the unknown, and what will happen the day before the war stops, what will the situation of Israel be, and what is the situation of Hamas, and it is the one who deserves to research its options after the war ends, so that the Palestinians will face the challenges that follow, which are the largest, most difficult and most urgent of all.

When Hamas survives the radical liquidation that Israel wanted and sought, this does not mean that it has moved from the position of the major faction to the position of the established leader in the Palestinian affairs. Whether it was at the height of its power or at a lower level, the matter will not be much different for it. It will not be a substitute for “Fatah” and the organization, but rather it will be a partner, and will not impose its program on the Palestinians. The matter is not decided by the strength of any party and its superiority over the other party, no matter how high the score in the polls, but rather it is decided by the need for the relationship with others to be based on partnership, not monopolization. .

This was the situation of the Palestinians from the beginning of their cause, even during the time of Fatah’s unparalleled influence, and the time of Yasser Arafat, on whom the Palestinians did not agree throughout his life. This is something that has been enshrined as a law, as no one has the ability to monopolize or have a life unless he is part of a whole.

What provided Hamas with an escape from radical liquidation was not its weapons, despite their undeniable importance in the military war, nor its rule of Gaza, which provided it with de facto legitimacy that made the whole world address it and deal with it, including Israel, but rather because it is an idea embraced by a large part. From the Palestinian people, and the idea cannot be filtered, as we have those who still celebrate ancient sites.

When America asks what should be done the next day, this is part of its global mission and the way it performs its roles, but what should be truly asked is the understanding of the Palestinians, “Hamas” the fighter and “Fatah” the negotiator, and the organization that is still qualified to bring the two sides together.

The Palestinians have not yet answered the question of the day after the cessation of the war, even though they need the answer the most.

By Sam Menassa

Both Iran and Israel have managed, in record time, to mobilize the largest number of adversaries or lose the largest number of friends. Iran has Europe’s overt or covert sympathy, pushing the Europeans to adopt a position more aligned with their US ally because they have concluded that Iran has become a destabilizing force in the region. Indeed, Iran has gone as far as undermining European economic interests, as it is accused of being behind the Houthis’ actions in the Red Sea, in addition to other reckless actions by its allies in the region. As for Israel, it has done more to alienate friends than its arch-enemy, dissipating the support it enjoyed after October 7th. At this point, almost the entire world has condemned the brutality of Israel’s retaliation to the "Al-Aqsa Flood'' attack. Israel has stubbornly rejected all initiatives and mediations, and it has insisted on perpetuating the violence with the declared aim of annihilating Hamas, and the hidden aims of displacing Palestinians, which do not end with the occupation of Gaza and could even include displacing the population of the West Bank. Iran, Israel, and some factions are the parties to the Gaza war and the smaller ongoing conflicts in the region, from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, and the Red Sea. The state of affairs has created a ticking time bomb that will eventually blow up in everyone's face. Although the United States and some Western countries share Israel's goal of containing and weakening Hamas, they oppose its right-wing government’s other war objectives. Instead, they seek, through initiatives and active diplomacy, to put an end to the war and reach a sustainable political settlement for the Israeli-Palestinian and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. 

The primary belligerents, namely Israel, Iran, and other factions, are unanimous in their rejection of the short-term or permanent initiatives and settlements on offer, raising questions about whether they can obstruct them and for how long. This question is particularly pertinent given the fact that the Europeans, the United States, and Arab states - specifically the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan, agree on the diplomatic objectives. These goals include a two-state solution, ensuring regional security, and the normalization of Arab-Israeli relations, which would ensure security for Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs. We must acknowledge that these are broad objectives, and the details need to be hashed out. The first question to answer is what a two-state solution would look like and what regional security actually means. They must also determine how these goals should be achieved, the guarantees needed by the parties concerned, and the entity or entities that will back these guarantees. Other questions regarding the approach to managing the ongoing conflicts across the region between Israel and Iran's local allies must be resolved. 

What are the costs Iran will pay, or what will it receive, and how will these costs or rewards align with its concept of regional security? Moreover, Iran is very apprehensive about the prospect of a final, permanent settlement of the conflict and Arab-Israeli normalization facilitated by US guarantees. How would Iran respond to such a scenario? Would it be capable of preventing it? Without delving into whether Iran wants to obstruct this process or not, the question of whether it has the capacity to disrupt a major settlement path remains, especially after it "shuffled the cards" in the region through the "Al-Aqsa Flood" operation and froze the US-sponsored peace process between the Arabs and Israel. The dynamics of the region, the intertwined interests of its various actors, and the capabilities of the parties involved complicate these questions and make the answers pivotal to the future trajectory of the region, its stability, and its diplomatic relationships. We should not underestimate the significance of the push to end the conflict, especially after everything that the Al-Aqsa Flood and the Gaza war have revealed to Israel, the Arab states, and the region. 

Indeed, recent developments have had serious implications for the security of the region, the interests of Western powers, and the balance of power in the region. Iran alone can create obstacles and hurdles to such a settlement if it materializes, and it is not alone in this battle. Rather, it is spearheading this effort after consolidating its hold on strategically important and sensitive areas of the region. Iran's influence reaches the Red Sea, and it has effectively encircled Israel from the north through Lebanon and from the east through Syria. Its proxy militias are spread across Iraq, dominate Yemen, and control the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait; it also has capabilities across the globe and relationships with a variety of powers. 

Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other members of the Resistance Axis are pushing in the opposite direction. They are patiently and methodically bolstering an alliance that could pose a direct challenge to the regional order established by the West that has shaped the Middle East for decades. The Iran-backed Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea show that they pose a threat to global trade and energy supplies, underlining the complexity and the multifaceted nature of the challenges to peace and security in the region. Iran is not the only entity capable of putting a stick in the wheels. It is unclear how much longer will Israel remain governed by the hard right, which is vehemently opposed to any form of settlement and poses its own set of challenges. Any potential changes in Israel would likely encounter staunch opposition from the right, which could resort to violence and undemocratic methods. Furthermore, the Palestinian issue remains on the margins. To change that, concerted Arab, American, and Israeli efforts. 

They must also wisely and carefully support a renewed Palestinian Authority committed to durable peace. The role of Russia, which is keen on hindering US efforts in the region, and this will perhaps eventually be true for China, should not be overlooked either. On the other hand, Western and Arab countries do not want the war in the Gaza Strip to escalate and set the region alight. 

However, rifts are deepening with time, and the pace of the "mini-wars" across the region is intensifying. Time is also not on the side of the Biden administration, which is set to face a fierce electoral contest, be it against Donald Trump, if he manages to secure the Republican nomination, or Nikki Haley. Biden needs a significant breakthrough that marks his presidency, as a Trump victory could upend everything, including the situation in the Middle East and the accomplishments of his administration. Achieving a breakthrough will certainly be challenging, it can only be achieved by pressuring Israel. That pressure is unlikely to include a halt in military, financial, or diplomatic support, particularly at international fora at a time when it is isolated and has been ordered to prevent genocide by the International Court of Justice. 

Biden's viable only option might be to immediately recognize the Palestinian state, leaving Netanyahu's government to deal with a fait accompli. This scenario is not far-fetched, as the Biden administration has already paved the way for this through its explicit support for a two-state solution. 

The most notable statement in this regard was made by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Speaking about Arab-Israeli relations and their link to a political solution for the Palestinians: “We determined that the best approach was to work toward a package deal that involved normalization between Israel and key Arab states together with meaningful progress and a political horizon for the Palestinian people... "It is President Biden's firm conviction that the best way to do that is two states with Israel's security guarantee." Will Biden dare to translate Sullivan's words into action?

Israel's military announced it would review the shooting of a Palestinian man who was killed in the Gaza Strip while walking in a group of people waving a white flag, saying footage of the episode raised concerns of possible wrongdoing by soldiers.

A video shows a group of five men walking slowly down a street in an area west of the southern city of Khan Younis, a current focus of Israel's ground offensive.

As clouds of dark smoke billow overhead, the men hold their hands in the air. One waves a white flag, an international symbol of surrender.

Suddenly, shots ring out, killing Ramzi Abu Sahloul, a 51-year-old Palestinian shopkeeper, who was part of the group.

The shooter is not seen in the video. But before the shots are fired, the camera pans, showing what looks to be an Israeli tank positioned nearby. Ahmed Hijazi, a citizen journalist who filmed the episode, told The Associated Press that an Israeli tank fired on the group.

“After the soldiers shot him, I rushed to help, but the firing continued toward us,” Hijazi said.

An Israeli military official said Sunday that the army was reviewing the shooting, which took place on Jan. 22.

The official said the footage, first broadcast by CNN, had helped authorities understand that there were military forces in the area and that there might be possible wrongdoing by soldiers.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because there had not yet been an announcement, would not say whether a formal investigation would take place.

The military says forces take great care to verify targets before they strike.

In the video, Hijazi interviewed Abu Sahloul shortly before he was shot. Abu Sahloul said that the group of men was trying to reach relatives whom they had left behind earlier in the day while evacuating their home in southern Gaza.

“The Israelis came to us and told us to evacuate, but they didn’t let my brother out,” Abu Sahloul says. “We want to go and try to get them, God willing.”

Within seconds, Abu Sahloul is shot dead. The other men quickly grab his body and rush back in the direction from which they came. The men declined to be interviewed for fear of retribution.

Palestinians and human rights groups have accused the Israeli military of using disproportionate or indiscriminate force in its Gaza offensive, leading to heavy civilian casualties. They say that even when such killings are caught on video, military investigations rarely result in indictments of the soldiers involved.

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, over 26,000 Palestinians have been killed by a blistering Israeli ground and air offensive, according to health officials in Hamas-run Gaza. They do not differentiate between civilians and combatants but say two-thirds of the dead are women and children.

Israel launched the offensive in response to an Oct. 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel in which militants killed 1,200 Palestinians and brought some 250 hostages back to Gaza.

Israel says that Hamas fighters have embedded themselves within civilian infrastructure, making it difficult to destroy the militant group without harming civilians. It says over 9,000 militants have been killed, though it hasn't released evidence to back the claim.

Abu Sahloul’s widow, 50-year-old Hanan Abu Sahloul, said that in the hours before last week's shooting, the army had entered a building where the family was sheltering along with over 300 others. She said that Israeli forces ordered residents to leave without their belongings.

“When I tried to take my bag, a soldier aimed his gun at my head and ordered me to leave it,” she said.

In the video taken by Hijazi, Hanan Abu Sahloul can be seen running toward her husband, screaming, while the group of men hastily haul his limp body back toward safety.

As gunshots continue to ring out, a bloodstain quickly spreads over her husband’s chest, dark red quickly enveloping the white flag that one of the other men placed on his chest.

“He was immediately killed — without even a few breaths to say goodbye,” Hanan Abu Sahloul said.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said on Monday that Washington will carefully study the steps taken by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) to respond to what Blinken described as “deeply disturbing” allegations of the participation of its employees in the October 7 attack on Israel. 

Washington said that it would temporarily suspend additional funding directed to UNRWA after Israel provided information alleging the participation of some UNRWA employees in the attack. Blinken said in a joint press conference with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg: “It is necessary for UNRWA to immediately investigate as it said, hold those responsible accountable, and review its procedures.”

“Real hope”

Blinken also expressed hope of reaching an agreement to stop the fighting in Gaza in exchange for the release of hostages, after talks in Paris in which the director of the CIA and Qatar participated.

“Very important and constructive work has been accomplished,” Blinken said. “There is some real hope as we move forward.”

Gains at risk

The US Secretary of State warned that the field gains achieved by Ukraine against Russia would be at risk if Congress did not approve new aid to Kiev.

“Without it (aid), simply put, everything the Ukrainians have achieved and what we helped them achieve will be in jeopardy,” Blinken said.

By Joseph Massad

In planning for a 'post-war' Gaza, the western powers want to follow the same failed strategy of installing a Palestinian leadership that serves Israel’s colonial interests

The western enemies of the Palestinian people are clamouring over how to invent a new Palestinian leadership.

They imagine this leadership would continue all the services that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has provided to Israel and the West since 1993, only this time, it would maintain its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Crucially, these western conspirators fail to acknowledge that the PA’s function as Israel’s chief collaborator is precisely why it lost legitimacy among Palestinians. Rather, they blame its corruption and misrule in the West Bank, and before 2006, in Gaza, as if this misrule is not directly tied to its collaborationist role with Israel and its western allies.

The US has recently been market-testing proposals ventriloquized by some Arab states and the anti-Palestinian mainstream western press.

Some suggest a new Palestinian government that would include a demilitarized Hamas, purged of its commitment to armed struggle against Jewish supremacy and settler-colonialism. Others insist that while the PA must be reformed, there would be no place in it for Hamas.  

The western enemies of the Palestinians do not seem to know, or even care, about the history of the many previous failed attempts to design a Palestinian leadership that fits Israel’s Jewish supremacist and colonial needs. Perhaps a review would help.

Failed attempts

Following the British occupation of Palestine in December 1917, British authorities and their Zionist minions set out to cultivate Palestinian leaders who would collaborate with the invading colonists and supplant the national leadership of the Palestinian Muslim-Christian Associations (MCA) and its struggle for independence.

In the 1920s, the British and the Zionists established two such collaborationist bodies, including the sectarian National Muslim Society, which sought to split the Palestinian leadership and undermine the MCA. Led by a prominent Jerusalemite family, the Agricultural Party was another group that collaborated with the Zionists to usurp the land of Palestinian peasants. These organisations were immediately recognised as “traitors” by Palestinians and never gained legitimacy.  

In 1938, Zionist colonial gangs and the British army created the “peace bands”, a Palestinian mercenary force whose members began to kill Palestinian revolutionaries in an effort to suppress the Great Palestinian Revolt of 1936-1939.

In turn, Palestinian patriots assassinated many of the “peace band” leaders whose names went down in infamy.

After Israel was created, it recruited Palestinian village elders, or mukhtars, to collaborate with it. The mukhtars never found legitimacy among the captive Palestinian population, which Israel subjected to a military apartheid rule from 1948 until 1966.

Following the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in 1964 and Israel’s conquest of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel tried again to enlist more collaborators to delegitimise the popular coalition but failed. Israeli authorities in the occupied West Bank held mayoral elections in 1972 and 1976 and formed the Village Leagues in 1978 to install and foster Palestinian collaborator leaders. The mayors elected in 1972, however, were discredited and replaced by pro-PLO mayors in 1976, whom Israel would later remove from power as they refused to do its bidding.  

Meanwhile, the Non-Aligned Movement recognised the PLO (dominated by Fatah, which was the largest and best-funded Palestinian liberation group at the time) in 1973, as did the Arab League and the United Nations in 1974, as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”.

As for the Village Leagues, anyone who collaborated with them was branded a traitor immediately, not only by the PLO but also by the Jordanian government. The project was an ignominious failure.

Road to treachery

In the late 1980s, amid the first Palestinian uprising or intifada, the PLO’s resolve began to weaken, and it accepted a surreptitious deal. In exchange for its formal recognition from Israel and the West, the PLO would have to recognise Israel’s “right to exist” as a Jewish supremacist state.

Since 2007, Israel has waged multiple bombing campaigns to destroy Hamas, or at least to get Hamas to abandon armed resistance and rejoin the Fatah-controlled PA

After several hiccups, the deal was sealed in 1993 with the Oslo Accords. It allowed the PLO to set up the PA as the subcontractor of the occupation. As such, the PA lost all legitimacy soon after it assumed office, save among the Palestinian elites who shored it up for a while. But even those elites are no longer able to sustain their support for it, as they previously had done.

The road to the treachery of the Fatah-dominated PLO began in Algiers when the PLO formally accepted the two-state solution in November 1988. It was less than a year after the December 1987 emergence of Hamas, whose hallmark has been its development into a political and military wing and the dynamism of its understanding of the nature of Israel and its occupation. This is exemplified by the changes in its charter and its pronouncements on the nature of the Palestinian struggle, as scholars of its history have demonstrated.

Unlike the PLO, Hamas, along with Islamic Jihad, formed in 1981, opted for continued resistance. Both remain the two major Palestinian factions outside the PLO.  

After the Israeli occupation army redeployed around Gaza in 2005, the West made attempts, channelled through Arab regimes, to bring Hamas into the fold. The goal was to transform it into another PLO by goading it into abandoning the national struggle for liberation and independence, and joining the American-invented “peace process” racket, whose objective has always been to entrench Israel’s Jewish supremacy and settler colonialism and to defeat the Palestinian struggle for national liberation.

Talks between Hamas and the PA were held in Cairo. The political leadership of Hamas began to waver in its total opposition to the Oslo Accords and the procedures that ensued after it, and decided to participate in the 2006 elections to lead the PA, which operated under Israeli occupation. Hamas won a landslide victory, which precipitated a US, Israeli, and Fatah coup against it in 2007. The coup was successful in the West Bank, where a Fatah-ruled PA was restored, but failed in Gaza where the elected Hamas continued to rule.

Since 2007, Israel has waged multiple bombing campaigns to destroy Hamas, or at least to get Hamas to abandon armed resistance and rejoin the Fatah-controlled PA, which had overthrown Hamas when the latter won the last elections.

Wavering, yet again, the political wing of Hamas participated in new talks held in Cairo three years ago, in February 2021, and agreed on holding new PA elections, which the PA had refused to conduct since 2006 for fear that Hamas would win again.

Despite the flexibility and the concessions of the Hamas political wing, PA head Mahmoud Abbas reneged on the agreement and never held new elections. Meanwhile, the PA has continued to collaborate (what it calls “security coordination”) with Israel and suppress any and all Palestinian resistance to the occupation.

A month after the Cairo talks, in March 2021, the current leader of Hamas, Yayha al-Sinwar, was elected for a second term. Sinwar is close to the Hamas military wing, having been one of its founders. As late as May 2021, Sinwar expressed Hamas’s openness to talks with the PA in order to “put the Palestinian house in order”. He refused to abandon armed struggle as his proposal sought to combine “armed resistance, the legitimacy of the [Palestinian] Authority’s institutions, and peaceful efforts on the road to liberation and return”.

The PA and its western sponsors, however, continued to stall.

Western designs

During Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza and the complete collapse of the PA’s reputation as a treacherous entity, the western enemies of the Palestinians, who have been funding, arming, and defending Israel’s genocide, began to scheme for a new Palestinian leadership. As the PA has fulfilled its collaborationist role with aplomb but has lost all legitimacy in the process, the Americans want to design a new Palestinian collaborator body for their interminable “peace process”.

Several weeks after the war on Gaza began, The New York Times reported in November that “the only solution, many Palestinians say, is to find a way to bring Hamas into the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Palestinian Authority, both run by Mr Abbas and Fatah”.

The paper asserted that a “more representative PLO could hold new elections for a more representative Palestinian Authority, which would have much more credibility in both Gaza and the West Bank, this thinking goes. But it would also require a weakened Hamas to agree to accept the existence of Israel and commit to negotiating a Palestinian state alongside it”. This sounds more like US thinking, ventriloquised by the Times, rather than that of the Palestinians.

 In December, Foreign Affairs floated that “Palestinians will need to revive not just institutions of governance and security but also, more fundamentally, of politics: the lack of effective political leadership owing to the decay of Palestinian political institutions, notably the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.”

The publication added: “Any discussion of the ‘day after’ should therefore be predicated on encouraging the emergence of a unitary and cohesive Palestinian political leadership. Palestinian leaders will have to set aside their factional commitments, and Israel and the US will have to relinquish the wholly unrealistic idea that Hamas can be permanently excluded from Palestinian politics.”

Proposals in US governing circles include one whereby “Abbas could appoint a deputy, hand broader executive powers to his prime minister, and introduce new figures into the leadership of the organisation, the Palestinian and regional sources said”.

The US, the most cynical world power when it comes to supporting democratic rule anywhere in the world, insisted through the State Department that “leadership choices were a question for the Palestinian people and did not elaborate on the steps needed to revitalise the Authority”.

However, as polls revealed the growing popularity of Hamas and the decline of Abbas and his PA, which would lead to yet another election win for Hamas in the occupied Palestinian territories, the US “believes it would be premature to send Palestinians to the polls soon after the war ends. US officials are mindful of Hamas’ victory in 2006 legislative elections, which were encouraged by Washington and other western governments”.

So, while the State Department insists that the Palestinian people must decide who their own leaders should be, it asserts that “whenever elections are held, Hamas must be excluded”.

Arab collaborators

Such proposals coincided with the new Egyptian plan announced in late December, calling “for a new governing body of Palestinians to oversee both the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. It would direct the postwar reconstruction of Gaza and provide for possible future elections to create a national unity government”.

Due to Israeli and US opposition, that part of the plan has reportedly been “dropped from the latest two-page version of the proposal”. Nonetheless, the Egyptians claim that “the future Palestinian leadership was expected to be discussed in talks with Egypt and is expected to be a crucial part of any agreement”.

The PA welcomed the Egyptian plan, with Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh emphasising that “any proposal for the future leadership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip must not circumvent the internationally recognised Palestine Liberation Organisation”.

The PA’s sudden resurrection of the moribund PLO is most remarkable, given how it was the PA itself, as part of the Oslo strategy, that gutted the organisation and bankrupted it financially since 1994.  

Indeed, it was recently reported that unofficial messages sent by Mahmoud Abbas to Hamas and Islamic Jihad informed them that the two organisations could each obtain no more than one seat each to represent them in the PLO, even though both organisations carry more popularity among Palestinians than the 11 PLO factions, including Fatah, put together.  

Interestingly enough, none other than the leading Zionist New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman also recently called for “a reformed version of the current Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah - which has embraced the Oslo peace accord with Israel and worked with Israeli security forces - or some completely new institution named by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people”.

Friedman added that “Palestinians, through the Palestine Liberation Organisation, would go through their own process of naming a transitional governing authority - before they hold elections for a permanent one - and the West and Arab states would help this authority build proper institutions, including a security force for Gaza and the West Bank.”

Friedman is clear that none of this is for the benefit of the Palestinians at all. On the contrary, it is all to safeguard Israel’s Jewish supremacist apartheid regime: “Therefore, the key to Gaza no longer being a permanent threat and burden to Israel is having an alternative Palestinian governing structure that is viewed as legitimate because it is part of a two-state solution and effective because it has Arab state funding and backing.”

Friedman does not seem to include Hamas in the new leadership, as he defines Hamas per Benjamin Netanyahu as “a terrible organisation dedicated to destroying the Jewish state”.

The anti-Hamas former PLO negotiator Ahmad Samih Khalidi is also pushing for a new leadership in an appeal to Israel and its western backers, published in The Guardian.

Unlike Friedman, Khalidi realises that no amount of reform of the PA would endow it with legitimacy and that the only thing that would is for Hamas to join it: “With regard to re-establishing a viable political authority in the Gaza Strip and reconstituting a Palestinian representative body that is capable of taking and sustaining decisions, the real issue is how to incorporate Hamas and its associated ‘spirit of resistance’ into a new Palestinian Authority, rather than how to quash or excise it.”

Khalidi adds: “Within or associated with such an authority, Hamas could be part of the solution; outside, it would remain both a spoiler and an opposite pole of attraction.” But what Khalidi seems not to account for is that if the Hamas leadership were to become another PLO and concede Israel’s right to remain a Jewish supremacist colonial settler state, Hamas too would squander its national liberationist capital and become yet another PA.

The US and Israel realise that there could never be a legitimate Palestinian leadership that would accept Israel’s right to remain a Jewish supremacist state

Khalidi worries that “rather than crush Hamas”, the most likely effect of Israel’s genocidal war “will be to remythologise the notion of resistance and sow the seed for future iterations that may be inspired by Hamas”. While the continuation of anti-colonial resistance until national liberation is a time-honoured struggle that Palestinians have adopted since the 1920s, Khalidi is correct that it would not be a good thing for Israel and the Palestinians’ western enemies.

What is evident from these schemes is that neither the US nor its Arab allies have new ideas. Instead, they want to continue the very same failed strategy followed since the early 1970s, which the British and the Israelis have used since the 1920s. The Oslo agreement indeed succeeded for a short time in tricking a good number of Palestinians into believing that the PA leadership it propped up was legitimate. However, the majority soon abandoned such illusions.

The US and Israel realise that there could never be a legitimate Palestinian leadership that would accept Israel’s right to remain a colonial-settler Jewish supremacist state, no matter what autonomy or a disempowered micro-state is granted to the Palestinians. It is why it has to scheme to produce a leadership that only appears to be legitimate while simultaneously destroying or co-opting any existing legitimate Palestinian leadership.  

Israel and the western enemies of the Palestinians were successful for a short time in 1993 when they transformed the PLO into the PA. Their chances today in transforming the PA back into the PLO, with or without Hamas, are far less likely to succeed.  

Israeli special forces in civilian clothes stormed Ibn Sina Hospital, went to the third floor, and assassinated 3 young men using silenced pistols.

Special forces from the Israeli occupation army assassinated 3 Palestinian young men, including two brothers, inside Ibn Sina Hospital in Jenin in the occupied West Bank, at dawn on Tuesday.

According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the three killed are: the two brothers Muhammad and Bassem Ghazawi and Muhammad Jalamneh, thus bringing the number of martyrs in the West Bank to 8 during the past 24 hours.

Eyewitnesses reported that heavy gunfire was heard in the vicinity of Ibn Sina Hospital in the city of Jenin, after Israeli special forces stormed it.

Palestinian sources indicated that the killed were one of the most prominent leaders of the "Al-Qassam Brigades" and "Al-Quds Brigades" in Jenin.

Basil, had been receiving treatment in the hospital since October 25, 2023, as a result of his injury in an Israeli bombing from a drone inside the Jenin cemetery.

The sources reported that the special forces infiltrated the hospital and shot him while he was sleeping, while his brother and the Jalamneh were next to him.

This comes hours after 5 Palestinians were killed by occupation forces' bullets in Jenin, Hebron, and Bethlehem.

This brings to 58 the number of Palestinian killed since the beginning of this year in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, and since the beginning of the Israeli war on Gaza, to 377.

An Israeli security delegation visited the Egyptian capital, Cairo, on Monday, according to what the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (“Kan 11”) reported, as part of the ongoing talks in an attempt to reach a deal that would lead to the release of Israeli prisoners held by Palestinian resistance factions in the besieged Gaza Strip.

The report stated that the Israeli security delegation visited Cairo at noon and returned in the evening. He pointed out that the delegation arrived in the Egyptian capital on a private plane chartered by the Mossad on more than one occasion during recent months. The head of the agency, David Barnea, and the head of the Shin Bet, Ronen Bar, boarded it on their trip to the French capital, Paris, yesterday.

According to Israeli reports, Cairo will witness a meeting, in the coming days, between the Qatari and Egyptian circles, with senior officials in the Hamas movement, to discuss the broad lines about which understandings were reached during the talks that took place in Paris, on Sunday, and present them to the movement’s officials.

Egyptian sources familiar with the movements regarding the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip revealed, in exclusive statements to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, that two separate meetings were held on Monday evening in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, one of which was between Egyptian officials and a delegation from the leadership of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). Another with an Israeli delegation that included security and military figures.

An Egyptian source said that an Israeli delegation that included the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Occupied Territories, Ghassan Alyan, the Israeli Army’s envoy for hostages, Nitzan Alon, and the Coordinator for Hostage Affairs in the Prime Minister’s Office, Gal Hirsch, arrived in Cairo on Monday evening, to discuss a group of outstanding issues, for which no consensus had been reached. regarding it at the Paris meeting on Gaza.

The Paris meeting included CIA Director William Burns, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani, Mossad chief David Barnea, and Egyptian General Intelligence Director Major General Abbas Kamel.

The source explained that the meeting is scheduled to discuss the thorny issue of the border region, which has led to an Egyptian-Israeli dispute over the past few days.

On the other hand, the source revealed to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed another separate meeting between prominent officials in the Egyptian General Intelligence Service and leaders of the Hamas movement who have been in Cairo for several days, where the understandings that took place in the Paris meeting are scheduled to be delivered to the movement’s delegation. And discuss the initial movement observations.

The source explained that the movement’s delegation is scheduled to leave for Doha, before returning to Cairo again in the coming hours.

The Qatari Prime Minister, whose country plays a key role in mediation efforts, announced during a symposium in Washington on Monday that a proposal would soon be presented to Hamas regarding stopping the fighting in the Gaza Strip and releasing detainees.

In this context, Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari said on Monday that there is a “tremendous” national effort to create conditions for the return of detainees held by the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip.

This came during a press conference by Hagari, according to the Hebrew newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

Hagari said, "There are 136 kidnapped women and men still detained in the Gaza Strip."

He added: "There is a tremendous national effort being made by the Israeli army, in cooperation with other security agencies, to create conditions for their return."

During the past few hours, talk has increased in the Hebrew media about the crystallization of a prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas, while the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied the validity of these reports.

Netanyahu said in a brief statement issued by his office, “What was reported about the deal is incorrect and includes conditions that are unacceptable to Israel, and we will continue (the war) until absolute victory.”

Channel 13 reported on Monday that Israel “agreed to a humanitarian deal that includes the release of women and the elderly, as well as the wounded detained by Hamas in Gaza, but does not include soldiers and young detainees.”

It stressed that "Israel, within the framework of the same deal, will be forced to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including prisoners convicted by Tel Aviv of killing Israelis."

It continued: "Israel will agree to a temporary cessation of fighting for a period extending for two months or more, without committing to ending the war, according to the same source."

On Sunday, the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (official) said that the discussions held in the French capital, Paris, with the participation of Israel, the United States, Egypt and Qatar to discuss a temporary truce, had ended, and there was progress in prisoner exchange negotiations between Tel Aviv and Hamas.

Regarding the discussions themselves, Netanyahu’s office later issued a statement in which he said, “The meeting was constructive, but there are still large gaps, which the two parties will continue to discuss this week in additional mutual meetings.”

Israeli media quoted the Minister of National Security in the occupation government, Itamar Ben Gvir, as telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “if the fighting is stopped, this will mean the dissolution of the right-wing government.”

This statement comes as part of several threats that Netanyahu received from the right-wing parties in his government, to discourage him from proceeding with the deal that the Western and Israeli media talked about behind the scenes.

The Likud ministers themselves registered loud objections, as the Minister of Education, Yoav Kisch, considered accepting the deal “a surrender to the Hamas movement.”

For his part, Finance Minister and head of the Religious Zionism Party, Bezalel Smotrich, said on Monday that his party “will not agree” to stop fighting in Gaza for two months, calling for the establishment of Israeli military rule in the Strip.

This came during a meeting of the “Religious Zionism” party in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), according to what the Israeli Channel 12 reported.

At the meeting, Smotrich said that stopping the fighting in Gaza for two months “means losing all the achievements we achieved with the blood of our fighters, and will allow Hamas to regain control of the region.”

He added: "The release of a large number of saboteurs will make all the Jews of the country and the world a target for kidnappings, so we will never agree to such a bad deal."

Smotrich's statements came against the backdrop of reports in the Hebrew media about the imminent reaching of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, which includes a two-month ceasefire and the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.

During his party meeting, Smotrich called for the formation of a military rule in the Gaza Strip, and said: “We have already seen during the terrible folly of the expulsion and disengagement (Israel’s withdrawal from the Gush Katif settlements in 2005) from the Gaza Strip that as soon as we leave and the Israeli army forces leave, terrorism enters.” As he says.

He continued: "The only way to ensure our control over the region in the long term is through the formation of a military government that will govern Gaza, supervise the distribution of humanitarian aid, and not allow civilian elements affiliated with Hamas to return to power there, until a local leadership is formed that rejects terrorism and is able to deal with... Civil issues for the residents of Gaza.

Smotrich added that the Israeli military government in the Gaza Strip "will have to expel UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees) employees."

He went on to say: “Everyone knows that their employees were part of the October 7 attack,” he claimed.

The Israeli minister also called for the expulsion of UNRWA from the West Bank, including Jerusalem, adding: “I intend to raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the mini-political and security ministerial council (cabinet).”

On Monday, the number of countries that “temporarily” suspended their funding to the UN agency rose to 12, following Israeli allegations of the participation of 12 UNRWA employees in the October 7, 2023 attack on the settlements adjacent to the Gaza Strip.

The countries that suspended their funding to the agency are the United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, Britain, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Japan, and Austria.

On Friday, UNRWA said that it had opened an investigation into allegations of the involvement of a number of its employees (without specifying) in the October 7 attacks.

Smotrich said: “This is in addition to a systematic solution for the future of the Gaza Strip by enabling the migration of hundreds of thousands of Arab (Palestinian) refugees who are begging to leave Gaza to other places in the world where they can live safely,” as he put it.

Smotrich continued: “In addition to imposing security control, Israel must also resume settlement in the Gaza Strip, because there is no security without settlement, and it is not possible to create a military presence in the region without civilian life.”

Ministers from parties in the government coalition participated, on Sunday evening, in a conference in West Jerusalem initiated by the extreme right-wing “Jewish Power” party, which promoted the restoration of control over the Gaza Strip, settlement there, and encouraging its residents to immigrate.

The American network "NBC News" had quoted a source familiar with the ongoing talks in Paris, regarding a prisoner deal between the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian resistance, as saying that negotiators from "Israel", the United States of America, Egypt and Qatar "agreed on a framework for a new deal." .

According to the source, the agreement includes “the release of the remaining American and Israeli prisoners in Gaza,” in stages, starting with women and children, and this will be accompanied by a gradual cessation of fighting and the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, in addition to the exchange of Palestinian prisoners.

The Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman, also indicated that the current phase of the talks may lead to a permanent ceasefire in Gaza in the future.

He added, "Progress has been made on laying the foundation for moving forward on the issue of prisoners, and the talks are improving compared to previous weeks, but the current escalation in Gaza will not lead to any progress regarding the issue."

For its part, the Hamas movement confirmed, through the media advisor to the head of its political bureau, Taher Al-Nono, that “the ceasefire in Gaza is the basic premise for any subsequent step,” stressing the movement’s firm position on the necessity of “a comprehensive and complete ceasefire, followed by a prisoner exchange and reconstruction.” 

Since October 7, 2023, the Israeli army has been waging a devastating war on Gaza, which as of Monday left 26,637 killed and 65,387 injured, most of them children and women, according to the Palestinian authorities, and caused “massive destruction and an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe,” according to the United Nations. .

The media advisor to the head of the Hamas political bureau, Taher Al-Nono, said on Monday that the movement “wants a comprehensive and complete ceasefire, not a truce” in Gaza.

Al-Nono added, in a statement to Agence France-Presse: “We are talking first about a comprehensive and complete ceasefire, and not about a temporary truce.” He stressed that when the fighting stops, "the rest of the details can be discussed," including the release of detainees in Gaza.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani, whose country plays a key role in mediation efforts, announced during a symposium in Washington on Monday that a proposal would soon be presented to Hamas regarding stopping the fighting in the Gaza Strip and releasing detainees. He pointed out that The movement presented a “clear demand” for a “permanent ceasefire before negotiations,” and that the current proposal “may lead to a permanent ceasefire in the future.”

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani stressed that "Qatar's role is to mediate and not to put pressure on the parties."

In turn, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said on Monday that “Hamas must make its own decisions regarding talks related to detainees.”

Blinken stressed that “the talks on the detainees are important and give rise to hope,” noting that “the proposed proposal regarding the detainees is strong and convincing, and there is great agreement among the countries concerned on its strength,” noting that he discussed with the Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister “the ongoing efforts to release the hostages and reach a solution.” To an expanded truce.

A meeting was held in Paris on Sunday that included CIA Director William Burns, Egyptian and Israeli intelligence officials, and the Qatari Prime Minister.

On the other hand, Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine stressed, in a joint statement, the necessity of stopping the Israeli aggression and the withdrawal of the occupation army from the Gaza Strip before any exchange of prisoners from both sides takes place “on the basis of all for all.”

This came during a visit by a leading delegation from Hamas to the headquarters of the “Popular Front” in Beirut, where the attendees reviewed the developments of the “Aqsa Flood” battle and the situation in occupied Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip.

The attendees demanded the permanent opening of the Rafah crossing, the entry of food, medical and fuel aid, and the provision of prefabricated housing and tents in all areas of the Strip.

The British newspaper “The Guardian” reported, Monday, January 29, 2024, that dozens of American government employees decided to go on a hunger strike to denounce the policy pursued by US President Joe Biden, which supports the Israeli occupation, in addition to drawing attention to the catastrophic situation experienced by the residents of the Gaza Strip. Gaza as a result of the ongoing Israeli aggression.

According to the same newspaper, the strike will be carried out by a group calling itself “United Federalists for Peace” and consisting of dozens of US government employees.

The Guardian newspaper quoted a statement from representatives of the group in which they confirmed that the main reason behind this step is their condemnation and categorical rejection of the Israeli occupation’s use of starving the residents of Gaza as a weapon against civilians, due to its continued prevention of food and humanitarian aid from entering the Strip.

Moreover, the newspaper revealed that the members of the group of American employees will take a number of symbolic initiatives to express their protest, such as wearing black clothes, the keffiyeh, or other signs and symbols that express solidarity with the Palestinians.

It is noteworthy that this strike is the first of its kind undertaken by this group of government employees, as it had previously undertaken a similar gesture, Tuesday, January 16, 2024, a move that aroused the ire of a number of American politicians and they considered it a “rebellion” against the American administration.

The conflict in Palestine since the founding of Israel 76 years ago has not passed through a more mature stage to reach a final solution as is happening now, according to a report by the American magazine Foreign Policy.

“A Middle Eastern Contradiction,” under this title Foreign Policy published its report, which monitors how the current tragedy on the land of historic Palestine represents the most “moment of clarity” regarding the essential, inevitable elements for building a future peace settlement.

Since the “Al-Aqsa Flood” military operation, on October 7, Israel has launched an air and naval bombardment on the Gaza Strip, followed by a ground invasion, causing more than 26 thousand martyrs, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians, women and children, and also destroyed The entire infrastructure of the sector.

“Al-Aqsa Flood” is the name given by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” to the comprehensive military operation, which began at dawn on October 7, in response to “the continuing Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people,” which crossed all red lines since most governments took office. Israel will assume responsibility in late 2022.

Netanyahu's war on Gaza

Since the establishment of Israel on the land of Palestine in 1948 and the occurrence of the Palestinian Nakba, the occupation’s crimes against the Palestinian people have not stopped, nor has resistance to this occupation with multiple tools stopped. But the fundamental difference between the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and what preceded it is that once the war stops this time, the hour of reckoning regarding the conflict in general will come, according to a Foreign Policy report.

If Israel, or the extreme right-wing camp in it, now stands united behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist government, then even though the war machine stops rotating and the flaming emotions subside, Netanyahu himself will face strong waves from all directions that will inevitably cause him to drown politically. . Indeed, these waves of criticism of Netanyahu and demands for his departure did not stop and intensified despite the continuation of the war.

Netanyahu and the Israeli War Council based their calculations on waging war on Gaza out of revenge for the resounding defeat that the occupation suffered in front of the resistance on October 7, and set impossible goals such as eliminating Hamas and liberating prisoners held in the Strip by force.

Israel began its aggression through intense, indiscriminate, and unprecedented bombardment, by air, land, and sea, on the Gaza Strip, in what it called the first phase. Then it began the land invasion of the Strip on October 27, 2023, which is the second phase, which the occupation government tried to prolong as much as possible. But it was later forced to demobilize part of the forces operating in the sector, and announced the move to the third phase.

Now, after nearly 5 months, it has become clear that achieving a “military solution” is far-fetched, and that the occupation army does not have the ability to achieve the declared “war goals” in the Gaza Strip except for destroying the foundations of civilian life, which is reflected in the complexity of the political scene. In light of increasing international and American pressure to change the form of the war without having a vision of how to end it.

This retaliatory Israeli aggression represents not only a bad idea, but a leap into the unknown with goals that are impossible to implement. Even the recent modification of goals, namely undermining Hamas' rule in Gaza, is not the product of deliberate strategic thinking, but rather a random reaction on the part of those who are supposed to be Israel's security guards, according to the American magazine's report.

The goal of eliminating Hamas

After decades of stifling Israeli occupation, a huge Palestinian explosion was bound to occur, regardless of its nature and tools, according to the Foreign Policy report, which believes that Hamas could have “chosen peaceful protests at the borders of the Gaza Strip as it did 5 years ago, but the greatest impact was this time it came by undermining the Israeli iron fence around the Strip.”

But it is important here to remember that Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance factions in the Gaza Strip tried in various ways to confront the occupation and draw the attention of the countries of the region and the world to the crimes and provocations committed by Israel against the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, without anyone doing anything.

The formation and program of the current Netanyahu government has raised concern in Washington itself, and the American media has warned of the seriousness of the situation in Palestine and the possibility of it exploding at any moment. In late January 2023, that is, one month after the formation of that government, the New York Times published a report monitoring how its provocations increase the risk of escalation in the occupied Palestinian territories, in light of the escalation of settler attacks in the West Bank, and placing settlement at the forefront of its important files.

Even now, after the situation exploded and the war was launched on Gaza, Netanyahu still prefers to expose Israel to danger rather than expose his government to disintegration, due to his continued submission to the tendencies of those belonging to the extreme right in the government, regarding the annexation of Palestinian lands, building settlements, Jewish racial superiority, and fueling wars, according to a report. For the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The newspaper considered that this was the only explanation for his alarming disregard for repeated warnings from the Israeli occupation army and the General Security Service "Shin Bet" regarding the consequences of turbulent conditions in the occupied West Bank. This comes despite the fact that the Israeli security establishment sent the government an unequivocal warning that Israel must do something to alleviate the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions in the West Bank, and the Americans also told the Israeli government the same opinion.

In the same context, what Israel is now doing in the Gaza Strip in terms of targeting civilians represents “a step towards the destruction of the occupation itself,” and not the destruction of Hamas, as this aggression increases the determination of the people of the Gaza Strip to join the resistance as it is the only way to stand up to Israel, according to Foreign Policy report. 

There is no solution to the conflict except by establishing a Palestinian state

Foreign Policy believes in its report that Israel had other options before the October 7 explosion. In light of the normalization process, which began in 2020, Israel enjoyed diplomatic relations with an increasing number of Arab countries, and it could have built on that and expanded its integration into the region, if it had not pursued a strategy of completely ignoring the Palestinians as if they did not exist.

Here lies the “contradiction” in what is currently happening. Due to all these factors, the birth of a new peace process from the ruins of the current devastation has become more powerful than ever, for two reasons.

The first: It is the collapse of a myth that Israel, and specifically Netanyahu, sought to perpetuate over many years. This myth is that the Palestinians are a defeated and surrendered people and that the Palestinian cause has become abandoned and forgotten. It is the myth that the Foreign Policy report describes as always being “empty talk and nonsense that is impossible to believe.”

The second: It is the illusion that the Palestinian issue can be managed and not solved. Meaning that Israel does whatever it wants and continues to displace the Palestinians and swallow their lands without anything happening. Now this illusion has been shattered, and there must be a radical solution to the Palestinian issue, otherwise there will be other explosions from which the region and the entire world will not be spared from its flying fragments.

It is impossible for the issue to be resolved radically without Israel completely ending its occupation of the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem and its siege of Gaza so that the Palestinians can live in freedom and dignity and establish their independent state, according to the American magazine.

Since the 1967 war, in which Israel occupied the rest of Palestine, every explosion led to talk of peace conferences even if none of them led to an actual result, from the 1973 war until the Arab “Land for Peace” initiative in 2002. But Netanyahu invented his own concept.” Peace for peace,” which is the illusion that he sold to the Israelis and to the world, until the explosion of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” came to shatter this illusion irreversibly.

In this context and for the future, there is no need to invent the vehicle, as peace can only be between independent and sovereign states, and this is the only path to ending the current nightmare of destruction and violence, Foreign Policy says in its report.

All the components and elements of this peace are found in the Arab initiative, which was also supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It is an initiative that needs to be revived and perhaps some of its provisions reviewed, if necessary, quickly, and to be accompanied by certain guarantees to the Palestinians that they will be safe and stable in their lands and under the flag of a state. Independent Palestine.

The deaths of Americans in the Jordan attack on Sunday, January 28, 2024, may be a final warning bell for the administration of US President Joe Biden to look into the origin of the current conflict and not be drawn into expanding it, as this is exactly what Netanyahu wants.

Israeli Security Minister Yoav Galant told American officials last week that he and the Israeli army will not allow the rebuilding of outposts or illegal settlements by Israeli settlers inside the Gaza Strip, according to what the Axios website reported on Monday, citing four American and Israeli officials. .

The Joe Biden administration is concerned about a buffer zone, which Israel plans to create within the Strip to rebuild the settlements that were dismantled during the Israeli withdrawal from it in 2005.

US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller previously said in December: “If there is any proposed buffer zone inside Gaza, it will be a violation of the principle of preserving the territory of the Strip, which is something we oppose.”

The Washington Post newspaper quoted an American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, as saying that the Israeli occupation government informed the United States that the buffer zone being built inside Gaza is only a temporary security place to eliminate Hamas’ firing positions near the border.

According to Israeli Channel 12, of a total of 2,850 buildings located in the planned buffer zone, the occupation army destroyed approximately 1,100 of them.

The Washington Post monitored clips published by the occupation army and satellite images showing the destruction of dozens of homes, residential complexes, and schools and their leveling to the ground in the eastern regions of the besieged sector from both the north and south.

According to Axios, American concern has increased in recent weeks, after the settlement lobby in Israel and members of the ruling coalition began to increase pressure and call for the complete occupation of the Gaza Strip and rebuilding the settlements.

Last week, Gallant met with the US Ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, and the US envoy for humanitarian affairs, David Satterfield, to discuss the situation in Gaza, Israeli and American officials told Axios.

Axios added that Lew and Satterfield asked Gallant whether the buffer zone was a basis for settlements, emphasizing Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's public statements that rejected any change in Gaza's territory and opposed any damage to civilian infrastructure.

According to the website, a senior Israeli official and American officials said that Gallant committed that he would not allow the rebuilding of settlements in Gaza, and stressed that the buffer zone would be temporary and for security purposes only.

According to the Israeli official, Oded Basiuk, head of the IDF Operations Branch who attended the meeting, said that the Israeli army will not allow Israeli civilians to enter the buffer zone, because that conflicts with its security purpose.

On Sunday, twelve Israeli ministers, including three from the Likud Party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, participated in a conference in Jerusalem, which called for the rebuilding of settlements in Gaza and encouraged the exodus of Palestinians from the Strip.

Eighteen representatives in the government coalition also participated in the conference, which was, according to the website, the largest political demonstration in support of rebuilding settlements in Gaza and uprooting the Palestinian population in the Strip, since October 7.

War Cabinet members Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot condemned the conference. But Netanyahu said that "the Likud members who participated in the conference have freedom of expression," but stressed that the Cabinet determines "Israeli policy."

Qatari Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said on Monday that talks on Israeli prisoners in Gaza are improving compared to previous weeks.

The Qatari Foreign Minister added in media statements that the current stage of talks between the Israeli occupation and Hamas may lead to a permanent ceasefire in the future.

He continued: "We have moved in the talks to a place that can lead us to a ceasefire. We cannot predict Hamas' response, but we are committed to continuing our efforts."

Abdul Rahman explained that Qatar's main role is to work to reach a solution that leads to the release of prisoners and a ceasefire in Gaza.

He pointed out that the current escalation in Gaza will not lead to any progress regarding the return of the hostages, pointing out that Qatar has warned from day one of the possibility of expanding the war in the region.

The Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister continued: "Putting an end to the war in Gaza is not only a demand of the people in Gaza, but also a regional demand."

Abdul Rahman said that Qatar is a mediator and not a party to the conflict, and we are trying to bridge the gap, adding: “Our role is to mediate and try to bridge the gap and bring the parties together, and we have no role more than this.”

For his part, Hamas leader Osama Hamdan said that occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not serious about reaching a settlement and a ceasefire, and he does not care about killing prisoners in Gaza.

Hamdan added during a press conference: “Until this moment, we have not received anything about initiatives published through the Hebrew media, or what is issued by the enemy’s media regarding an expected deal aimed at satisfying the families of prisoners held by the resistance.”

He continued: “We presented specific initiatives and ideas regarding reaching a ceasefire agreement, but they were met with evasion from the Israeli occupation.

Some experts believe that the decisions on precautionary measures taken by the International Court of Justice in the “genocide” case brought against Tel Aviv pave the way for the trial and arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his army commanders, in accordance with internal Israeli law.

On January 26, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocide against the Palestinians and improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, but the decision did not include a “ceasefire” text.

While the International Court's decision was welcomed internationally and regionally, including the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the "Islamic Jihad" movement warned against Israel exploiting the court's failure to issue an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which would allow it to "act as it pleases."

On January 11 and 12, the International Court of Justice in The Hague held two public hearings, as part of the start of consideration of the lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel on charges of committing “genocide crimes” against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

A “first step” towards holding Israel accountable

Speaking to Anadolu, Pakistani lawyer Hassan Islam Shad stressed the importance of the International Court of Justice describing the case brought by South Africa as “reasonable” for consideration.

Shad, the first lawyer from a Muslim country at the International Criminal Court, said that this decision “represents the first step towards holding Israel accountable for some, though not all, acts of genocide.”

He explained that "this conclusion also revealed the legal basis for Israel's responsibility," noting that "major political momentum" had been formed in this context.

Shad pointed out that "there is a concept of universal jurisdiction that links all countries, and therefore they must take the necessary steps to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide within their domestic laws."

He added, "It is indeed possible that in the very near future we will see news of arrest warrants being issued against Benjamin Netanyahu, or the leaders of the Israeli army and individuals participating in the military campaign, and once that happens, it will be the day when Israel regrets its actions in Gaza." According to the Pakistani lawyer.

Shad also pointed out that "pressure is increasing against Israel, which has not respected international law throughout its history," and that "after the International Court of Justice's decision, internal political pressure on Netanyahu will increase."

"Historical precedent"

For his part, the editor-in-chief of “Palestinian Facts” magazine, Ramzi Baroud, said, “Israel used the Jewish Holocaust in many ways to justify its presence and the acts of violence it committed against Arabs and Palestinians in Gaza over the years.”

Baroud explained that "Israel also used the Holocaust to accuse its critics and enemies of anti-Semitism."

He expressed his belief that "the decision of the International Court of Justice is very important and historic, and the Israeli government knows very well that it constitutes a historical precedent."

Baroud said, "This gives great legitimacy to the Palestinian resistance, because it is now fighting genocide more or less officially."

He said, "The International Court of Justice did not refer to Hamas or other Palestinian groups as terrorists, but rather referred to them as Palestinian groups."

Political bankruptcy

Baroud stressed that "Israel has begun to realize that it is losing legitimacy because of its actions as a country that does not recognize international law based on a general position."

He said, "Netanyahu's quick statement and the statements made by other Israeli officials (after the judicial decision) are only indicators that the issue (in international justice) is being taken seriously."

Baroud explained that Netanyahu's statements following the decision issued by the International Court of Justice "were full of contradictions" and lacked logic.

He added, "Netanyahu accuses the International Court of Justice of making a shameful decision, and also says that Israel will continue the war, but will respect international law. It seems that Israel no longer has a logical political discourse."

Baroud expressed his belief that "the political bankruptcy of the Netanyahu government continues after the International Court of Justice's decision, and this will certainly lead to more isolation of Israel over time, and will further strengthen the position of the Palestinians."

He pointed out that "the court that Israel respects most internationally is the International Court of Justice, because of its position on ethnic cleansing and genocide (against the Jews) and that the historical experiences of the Jews have an impact on that. Therefore, it is a historical contradiction for the Israelis to begin to look at the court itself as a An enemy,” according to Baroud.

He believed that "South Africa has played its role to the fullest in this issue, and other countries must also think about what they should do."

There is also “a need to put pressure on the countries that support Israel,” according to Baroud, “because without the support of these countries, Israel would not have been able to do these things (violations), and today Israel is accused of committing genocide crimes.”

Baroud concluded by saying, “Therefore, countries have every moral and legal reason to say that we have a legal obligation to initiate measures to boycott Israel until it ends its occupation of Palestine, or perhaps until it is proven that it did not commit genocide in Gaza.”

Since last October 7, the Israeli army has been waging a devastating war on Gaza, which left 26,637 killed, and the number of wounded reached 65,387, most of them children and women, according to the Palestinian authorities, and caused “massive destruction and an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe,” according to the United Nations. .

NBC News quoted a source familiar with the Paris talks regarding a prisoner deal between the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian resistance, saying that negotiators from Israel, the United States of America, Egypt and Qatar “agreed on a framework for a new deal.”

According to the source, the agreement includes “the release of the remaining American and Israeli prisoners in Gaza,” in stages, starting with women and children, and this will be accompanied by a gradual cessation of fighting and the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, in addition to the exchange of Palestinian prisoners.

The network reported that a draft of the agreement will be presented to Hamas on Monday, explaining that the movement insists on an immediate and permanent ceasefire first, “which could lead to the failure of the deal,” according to NBC.

For his part, the political commentator on the Israeli Channel 12, Amit Segel, said that the details of the deal include, in its first phase, a 45-day truce, in exchange for the release of 35 Israeli prisoners.

For every Israeli prisoner, between 100 and 250 Palestinian prisoners are freed, including prisoners classified by the occupation as “dangerous,” according to what Siegel added.

He explained that this means liberating 4,000 to 5,000 Palestinian prisoners, which is the highest number of prisoners to be liberated in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The deal also includes “significant humanitarian assistance,” according to the Israeli commentator.

What NBC reported came after Israeli officials spoke, on Sunday, of “making progress” regarding an agreement on the framework of the deal. In this context, the Office of the Prime Minister of the Occupation Government described the meeting as “constructive,” noting that “there are major gaps.”

The Palestinian Prisoners' Club affirmed on Monday that the issue of Gaza detainees is the greatest challenge facing the relevant institutions as a result of the occupation's continued imposition of the crime of enforced disappearance against them, stressing at the same time that the Israeli occupation continues its arrest operations against civilian citizens in Gaza, harassing them and detaining them in humiliating conditions.

The Prisoners' Club said, in a statement issued by it, that in light of the continued arrest operations against civilians in Gaza, and their detention in harsh and humiliating conditions in the bitter cold, based on the pictures published on the media of dozens of detainees from Khan Yunis, as well as in light of testimonies reported by media outlets, Media coverage of female prisoners from Gaza who were released from occupation prisons and camps revealed a number of facts.

In a related context, a report revealed that the American CNN channel broadcast one of the episodes of the crime that Israel continues, and broadcast scenes of blindfolded men arrested by the occupation army on the Gaza border while they were suffering from severe fatigue, while they were barefoot and wearing light clothing, before they were transferred to an unknown destination.

In turn, the Palestinian Prisoners' Club emphasized that the testimonies of Gaza detainees, including women and children, reflect a high level of brutality as a result of torture, abuse, and harsh and humiliating conditions of detention, which caused them physical injuries, in addition to the psychological effects they were exposed to as a result of the torture and humiliation.

The statement continued by saying: The Israeli occupation still refuses to disclose any clear data about Gaza detainees in its prisons and camps, and is carrying out the crime of enforced disappearance against them, in light of the number of military orders and laws imposed by the occupation regarding dealing with Gaza detainees, as well as in light of the recent approval by the Israeli Knesset. The regulations prohibiting Gaza detainees from meeting with a lawyer will take effect for another four months.

The Prisoner’s Club emphasized that “the data available to the institutions until today are very small data obtained by the institutions through the detainees who were released, as the institutions face great challenges in following up on the issue of Gaza detainees, and the available data is represented by some of the names of the camps and prisons in which the detainees are held.” From Gaza, including Sde Teman camp in Beersheba, Anatot camp, Ofer prison, Damon prison, and other camps belonging to the occupation army.

It added that with regard to the issue of Gaza detainees who were martyred in the occupation prisons and camps, two Gaza detainees out of 7 detainees who were martyred in the occupation prisons after October 7th, one of them whose identity was revealed, and another whose identity the occupation did not reveal, in addition to the occupation’s confession of the execution of one of the detainees, in addition to what the occupation media revealed about the martyrdom of a group of detainees in the Sde Teman camp in Beersheba.

At the end of last December, the occupation prison administration announced the detention of 661 Gaza detainees, whom it classified as “unlawful combatants,” according to the occupation’s description of them, including female captives.

The Prisoners' Club said: According to the competent institutions and international human rights organizations, estimates of the number of detainees in Gaza reach thousands, the majority of whom are civilians.

It is noteworthy that Israel released today a group of Gaza detainees from the Karem Abu Salem military crossing, including, according to available data, 19 female prisoners, some of whom are from one family.

The club concluded its statement by saying: Despite all the calls made by Palestinian institutions to human rights institutions at all levels, to reveal the fate of Gaza detainees, international human rights institutions have failed, to date, to play their necessary role towards the issue of prisoners and detainees, due to the continuation of the comprehensive aggression against our people and genocide. in Gaza.

The American CNN channel published a report showing a group of Palestinian prisoners who were arrested by Israel forces from the Gaza Strip, exhausted and in a miserable condition.

According to the channel’s report, there were more than 20 men sitting on the ground, blindfolded and barefoot, with their hands tied behind their backs. While masked Israeli soldiers stood guard.

The report said that the scene was observed last Saturday, showing exhaustion on some of the men, whose heads fell forward and swayed as they tried to remain crouched. While one of the detainees was lying on the ground before an Israeli soldier arrived to wake him up.

The men were barefoot and appeared to be wearing only white disposable aprons, despite the cold weather and temperatures reaching 10 degrees Celsius.

On Monday, an Israeli parliamentary committee discussed the expulsion of MP Ofer Kassif, after he supported the “genocide” lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

On December 29, South Africa filed a lawsuit before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing “genocide crimes” in the Gaza Strip.

The Knesset Parliamentary Committee heard the legal arguments regarding a proposal signed by 85 members of the Knesset, to expel Representative Cassif from the Knesset, due to his support for South Africa’s request.

Kasif is a Jewish representative in the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality, a joint Arab-Jewish party.

“I signed the petition (in support of South Africa’s lawsuit), which is supposed to be the reason behind this action, based on the same values that have confronted me throughout my political life,” Kasif said in a statement before the committee.

He added that he supported the petition "in order to prevent human suffering against hundreds of thousands of people, out of my belief that only a ceasefire will return the kidnapped people to their homes, and prevent further killing of Israelis and Palestinians."

He continued: "This is why I signed the petition and participated in the demonstrations in the past weeks to demand a ceasefire."

Kassif noted, “I have devoted all of my political and public activity to promoting human values, advancing human rights, promoting the principle of equality and achieving democratic principles and peace.”

He stressed that "freedom and security are for all, for Jews and Arabs, for Israelis and Palestinians, for religious and secular people, for women and men."

In turn, the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" indicated, on Monday, that "the Knesset is allowed to dismiss Knesset members only in cases of incitement to racism, or support for armed struggle against Israel, and it is not clear whether any of Cassif's statements comply with this definition."

“If the committee approves the request, it will be transferred to the Knesset for a final decision, and a majority of 90 Knesset members will be needed to pass the proposal,” she said.

It continued: "Kasif will have two days from the date of issuance of the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court," without specifying the date of issuance of the decision.

The newspaper quoted the Knesset’s legal advisor, Sagit Afek, as saying: “There is an inherent irony in the request, and the decision restricts the voters who elected an elected official, and limits the scope of freedom of expression.”

However, Oded Forer, a member of the Knesset from the right-wing opposition "Israel Beytenu" party, told the committee that he submitted the request "not only because of Cassif's support for South Africa's request against Israel in The Hague, but also because of his posts on social media alleging that Israel is committing crimes." war".

On January 8, the Hebrew newspaper “Israel Today” said: “The head of the Yisrael Beytenu bloc, Member of the Knesset Oded Forer, collected 70 signatures from members of the Knesset, in order to dismiss Representative Ofer Kassif from the Israeli Knesset.”

Cassif previously said, “The only appropriate way at the present time is to stop the war on the Gaza Strip as soon as possible, conduct a prisoner exchange, withdraw from Gaza, and begin a serious peace process.”

He pointed out "the contradiction in the discourse of the Israeli authorities while they claim not to target civilians in Gaza, they also say that there are no innocents in the Strip."

Cassif became a target of criticism in his country because of his support for the “genocide” lawsuit in Gaza, which South Africa filed against Tel Aviv at the end of last December.

On March 6, 2019, the Central Elections Committee decided to exclude Kassif from running, because of his positions against the occupation, but the Supreme Court (the highest judicial body) rejected the committee’s decision and allowed him to run, and then enter the Knesset.

The Ministry of Health in Gaza announced, on Monday, that the death toll from the Israeli war on the Strip had risen to “26,637 killed and 65,387 injured” since last October 7.

This came in a press conference by Ministry spokesman Ashraf Al-Qudra, held in front of “Tal Al-Sultan Maternity Hospital” in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip.

Al-Qudra said, "The toll of the Israeli aggression has risen to 26,637 killed and 65,387 injured since the seventh of last October."

He explained, "During the past 24 hours, the Israeli occupation committed 14 massacres against families in the Gaza Strip, claiming 215 dead and 300 injuries."

Al-Qudra pointed out that "a number of victims are still under the rubble and on the roads," explaining that "the occupation prevents ambulance and civil defense crews from reaching them."

He said, "The Israeli occupation is still tightening its siege of Nasser Medical Complex and Al-Amal Hospital (in Khan Yunis), which paralyzes the health system's capabilities in rescuing the wounded as a result of the siege and the depletion of many anesthesia and intensive care medications, bone stabilizers, and blood units."

He added: "The Israeli occupation commits field executions of citizens in Khan Yunis and prevents the arrival of ambulances to evacuate the dead and wounded."

The spokesman for the Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip called on international organizations to "quickly intervene to protect all hospitals, especially Khan Yunis hospitals, which are under direct targeting, to protect their staff, hundreds of wounded, and thousands of displaced people, and to provide medicine, food, and fuel."

Regarding the cessation of international support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), Al-Qudra condemned “the systematic targeting of the United Nations and its humanitarian institutions and the cessation of its support, in line with the occupation’s displacement policy.”

He explained that "stopping support (for UNRWA) undermines its relief and health efforts and increases the catastrophic conditions" in the Strip.

On Monday, the number of countries that “temporarily” suspended their funding to the UN agency rose to 12, following Israeli allegations that 12 UNRWA employees participated in the October 7, 2023 attack on the settlements adjacent to the Gaza Strip.

The countries that suspended their funding to the agency are the United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, Britain, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Japan, and Austria.

On Friday, UNRWA said that it had opened an investigation into allegations of the involvement of a number of its employees (without specifying) in the October 7 attacks.

Move by several countries comes after allegations that UNRWA staff took part in attacks on Israel last year

The decision by the US, UK and other western nations to freeze ­funding for the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees will significantly worsen the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, Palestinians have warned.

Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland joined the United States, Australia and Canada in pausing funding after UNRWA, the UN’s Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, revealed an investigation had been launched into 12 members of staff who allegedly took part in the 7 October attack led by Hamas that killed 1,140 people.

Israel’s retaliatory war has killed 26,000 people and sparked a dire humanitarian crisis, with about 85% of the strip’s population of 2.3 million displaced from their homes.

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, pleaded on Saturday for donor states to “guarantee the continuity” of the body.

“While I understand their concerns – I was myself horrified by these accusations – I strongly appeal to the governments that have suspended their contributions to, at least, guarantee the continuity of UNRWA’s operations,” Guterres said in a statement.

“The abhorrent alleged acts of these staff members must have consequences… But the tens of thousands of men and women who work for UNRWA, many in some of the most dangerous situations for humanitarian workers, should not be penalised.”

Guterres confirmed that 12 UNRWA employees were cited in the accusations, which the UN is investigating. Nine had been fired, one was dead and the “identity of the two others is being clarified”, Guterres said.

The agency’s commissioner general, Philippe Lazzarini, on Saturday called the decision to suspend funds shocking and urged the countries involved to reverse course. “These decisions threaten our ongoing humanitarian work across the region including and especially in the Gaza Strip,” he said.

On Friday, Lazzarini had said that Israel provided UNRWA with evidence that agency staff had been involved on 7 October.

Appeals from the UN officials were not enough to prevent some of the organisation’s biggest funders from pausing their support. The UK Foreign Office soon followed the US and other major allies in freezing its funding to the agency.

“The UK is appalled by allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attack, a heinous act of terrorism that the UK government has repeatedly condemned,” a spokesperson said. “The UK is temporarily pausing any future funding of UNRWA while we review these concerning allegations. We remain committed to getting humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza.”

Palestinians and aid workers argued that freezing funding could have catastrophic consequences.

“Sanctioning UNRWA, which is barely keeping the entire population of Gaza alive, for the alleged ­responsibility of a few employees, is tantamount to collectively punishing the Gazan population, which is living in catastrophic humanitarian ­conditions,” Johann Soufi, a lawyer and former director of the agency’s legal office in Gaza, told Agence-France Presse.

UNRWA, formed in 1949 after the creation of Israel, supports more than 5.6 million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and refugees and their descendants in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

It has struggled to raise funding in recent years, an issue dramatically exacerbated by Donald Trump’s 2018 decision to cut US support. That was restored by the Biden administration, which is the agency’s biggest donor, providing $340m in 2022, but the state department said Friday it had “temporarily paused additional ­funding” while it reviewed the claims. Six other western countries quickly followed suit.

Torrential rain over the weekend in Gaza has made it clear how desperately humanitarian aid, much of which is facilitated by UNRWA, is needed. Footage from makeshift camps in the south of the strip showed flimsy cloth and tarpaulin tents collapsing in flooding and mud.

Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis – the largest hospital still functioning in the strip – was reportedly completely without power overnight. The local health ministry said that 174 people were killed and 310 injured in the past 24 hours.

Hussein al-Sheikh, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, also called for donor countries to immediately reverse their decisions, which he said entail “great political and humanitarian relief risks”.

“At this particular time and in light of the continuing aggression against the Palestinian people, we need the maximum support for this international organisation and not stopping support and assistance to it,” he said.

The funding freeze also drew condemnation from Hamas. “It’s clear that UNRWA is subject to blackmail by countries that support Israeli terrorism. While Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are facing mass extermination – even according to [the international court of justice],” it said in a statement, referring to the ruling from the UN’s top court that Israel must prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.

A total of 152 UN employees have been killed in Israel’s almost four-month-old offensive, and relations between UNRWA and Israel – frosty at the best of times – have deteriorated after an attack on an UNRWA shelter in Khan Younis last week that killed 13 people.

The agency said Israeli tank fire had hit the building where 800 ­people were seeking refuge. The Israeli army said the incident was under review, and that it was possible the strike was a “result of Hamas fire”.

The crisis could also impact the UN agency’s operations in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Earlier this month, it was told by the Israel Land Authority to vacate a compound in occupied East Jerusalem, and issued a fine for missing building permits.

Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, said in a rare statement yesterday, the Jewish holy day, that the country would take steps to remove UNRWA from the Gaza Strip after the war. “We have been warning for years: UNRWA perpetuates the refugee issue, obstructs peace, and serves as a civilian arm of Hamas in Gaza,” he said.

Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group thinktank, said on X, formerly Twitter: “Israel has been building a case against UNRWA for a long time. It said weeks ago it wants it phased out of Gaza.

“Regardless of the veracity of the charge, the decision to go with this news last night seems like an attempt to distract from the ICJ ruling on ­genocide in Gaza.”

By Yuval Shany

The case brought by South Africa was weak, but the judgment may encourage Israel’s allies to push for a change of tactics

The decision by the international court of justice (ICJ) to issue provisional measures in the case brought by South Africa against Israel on the basis of the genocide convention came as no shock to most longtime observers of the court. Although most of the evidence presented by South Africa in support of its claims that Israel is violating the convention was merely circumstantial in nature (relying heavily on inferences drawn from the high death toll in Gaza, the dire humanitarian situation on the ground and statements by Israeli officials which could be read as eliminationist in nature), most judges were not willing to determine, at this early stage of the proceedings, that the case was implausible.

In fact, only two judges (Julia Sebutinde from Uganda and Aharon Barak from Israel) were ready to accept Israel’s position: that Hamas’s extensive use of human shields, the harm mitigation efforts by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the causal disconnect between the aggressive statements uttered by Israeli politicians and the actual cabinet directives provided to the IDF, rendered the South African genocide case implausible.

Indeed, as an institution that serves as the “principal judicial organ of the United Nations”, it would have been very surprising had the ICJ declined to intervene in this high-stakes case, which has attracted huge international attention, and which relates to a most urgent and serious humanitarian catastrophe about which multiple UN agencies have voiced extreme concern. This is especially so given the fact that the court was quick to intervene less than two years ago in the Russia-Ukraine war.

Still, you can hardly read the decision as a strong endorsement of the South African legal characterisation of Israel’s conduct. The standard of “plausibility of claims” applied by the court when considering whether or not to issue provisional measures is already a very low and ambiguous standard of proof for factual allegations, and the court muddied it even further by holding that “at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa” are plausible, without indicating which claims are more plausible than others.

Indeed, one of the judges, Georg Nolte from Germany, has indicated that, for him, it is implausible that the IDF military campaign is being conducted with genocidal intent. He voted with the majority, he said, because “dehumanising and discriminate language” used by Israeli officials causes a risk of future violations of the genocide convention.

It is also notable that the most consequential provisional measures requested by South Africa – cessation of the war, non-aggravation of the crisis, repeal of specific measures (such as those instructing north Gaza residents to evacuate to the south) and providing access to fact finders – were rejected by the court. The court did not call for a ceasefire – though talks aimed at negotiating a temporary pause in fighting to allow further hostage releases are reported to have progressed in recent days.

Ultimately, almost all the measures indicated by the court can be regarded as general demands on Israel not to violate various provisions of the genocide convention. Since Israel maintains that its operations are already consistent with international law (including the criminal investigation of acts of incitement, which it has started to undertake), it seems unlikely that the ICJ’s provisional measures will result in an actual and palpable change in Israeli policies relating to the war.

There are two significant contexts, however, in which the court’s order may complicate things significantly for Israel, potentially leading to a reconsideration of its approach to the conflict. First, the very holding by the court concerning the plausibility of some of the South African claims – weak and vague as it may be – is still likely to generate more political pressure on Israel from its allies. Some of these allies may even be concerned that the order could generate for them a new legal risk – albeit remote – of complicity in violations of the convention should they continue to support Israel’s war effort in its current configuration. As a result, expectations are likely to increase for Israel to do more on the humanitarian front, to apply a greater level of care in its military operations and to move as quickly as possible towards winding down the war.

Second, the court’s order to Israel to report to it within a month “on all measures taken to give effect to its order” creates a potential opening for ongoing monitoring of Israel’s conduct in the war by the court. (A similar strategy was adopted by the ICJ in a case between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where it has reconsidered its provisional measures five times within two years.) Complicating any such ongoing monitoring are new allegations by Israel that 12 members of the staff of UNRWA, the UN’s Relief and Works Agency for Palestine – on whose reports the court relied when issuing provisional measures – took part in Hamas’s 7 October attack.

The upshot of the ICJ judgment is that international legal scrutiny of Israel’s activity is here to stay – notwithstanding Israel’s deep reservations about international institutions, including international courts. With the ICJ scheduled to hear pleadings next month regarding the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories, and with the international criminal court (ICC) actively investigating allegations of crimes committed by both parties to the Israel-Hamas war, legal and political pressures on Israel are only expected to further increase in the foreseeable future, potentially narrowing its military and policy options.

Yuval Shany is the Hersch Lauterpacht chair in public international law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute

By Rowena Mason 

Party investigating MP for Edmonton after she said Gaza should be remembered as genocide on memorial day

The Labour MP Kate Osamor has had the whip suspended while she is investigated for saying Gaza should be remembered as a genocide on Holocaust Memorial Day.

The MP for Edmonton in north London is due to meet party whips on Monday after issuing an apology over the message she sent on the eve of the day marking the murder of 6 million Jews during the second world war.

Osamor had distributed the message to her party members, saying Holocaust Memorial Day should be observed, but other genocides should also be remembered – listing Gaza as one of them.

The former shadow development secretary, who served in Jeremy Corbyn’s top team, shared a photograph of herself signing the Westminster remembrance book of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

She also wrote that there was an ‘“international duty” to remember the victims of the Holocaust, as well as “more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and now Gaza”.

Osamor later tweeted: “Holocaust Memorial Day is a day to remember the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust and the genocides that have occurred since. I apologise for any offence caused by my reference to the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza as part of that period of remembrance.”

Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow business secretary, told Sky News that Osamor had met the chief whip to discuss her comments and was due to meet officials again this week.

“What is happening in Gaza is clearly a humanitarian catastrophe that is recognised,” he said. “But there are specific reasons why the Holocaust is considered as it is. It’s important on Holocaust Remembrance Day to remember that.

“And I understand Kate has apologised. There’s been a conversation with the chief whip. There’ll be further conversations next week, but of course we take anything in this space extremely seriously.”

Asked if Osamor was likely to be disciplined, Reynolds added: “There will be those conversations, and I can tell you that they have already been scheduled for the week ahead. Of course, whenever we have a situation like this, we take it extremely seriously.”

Starmer has supported Israel’s “right to defend itself” in Gaza against Hamas, but more recently called for a sustainable ceasefire and hit out at the “intolerable” casualties.

His position has caused tensions within Labour. Many in the party have pressed him to be more critical of Israel’s military action, which has caused an estimated 24,000 deaths.

Momentum, the pressure group on the left of Labour, said it was an “outrageous decision [that] further damages Labour’s reputation for anti-racism under Keir Starmer, and should be immediately reversed”.

By Rafqa Touma

The UN agency that provides aid for Palestinian refugees has become embroiled in allegations some staff were involved in the Hamas attacks on Israel

UN officials and aid groups are urging countries to reconsider their decision to pause funding for the UN refugee agency for Palestinians, a vital source of aid in Gaza.

Eleven countries have paused funding following allegations from Israel that a dozen of UNRWA’s staff were involved in the 7 October Hamas attacks on Israel.

What is UNRWA?

Mandated by the UN general assembly, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

Formed in 1949 after the creation of Israel, it supports more than 5.6 million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and refugees and their descendants in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. UNRWA describes itself as “unique in terms of its longstanding commitment to one group of refugees”.

It has a dual role that encompasses humanitarian and developmental responsibilities – in effect delivering governance-like services across dozens of refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

UNRWA has 13,000 staff in Gaza, of whom 125 health staff work in rotating shifts at health centres.

How dependent is Gaza on international aid?

Israel’s air, land and sea blockade of Gaza since 2007, and Egypt’s restrictions on access, has limited food, fuel, medical supplies and people from passing into Gaza. This has isolated the territory, making it heavily dependent on international aid organisations for basic necessities.

The UN presence in Gaza dates back decades. Since 1993, the Palestinian territories have received more than $50bn in international development and humanitarian aid – one of the largest international interventions since the second world war.

UNRWA has struggled to raise funding in recent years, an issue dramatically exacerbated by Donald Trump’s 2018 decision to cut US support. That was restored by the Biden administration, which is the agency’s biggest donor.

Various other UN organisations also operate in the occupied territories, including the Office for Works and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

What has UNRWA been doing since war erupted?

UNRWA’s focus has been converting the schools it runs in the territory into shelters, where medical workers can provide health care and counsellors and social workers provide psychological help and other services. Mobile toilets and showers have been deployed as needed and bread and canned foods have been distributed.

It says 152 of its staff members had been killed since 7 October, when Hamas launched its attack into Israel, prompting Israel to pummel Gaza with airstrikes. More than 140 UNRWA installations have been damaged since the violence began.

Even before funding to the agency was paused, the amount of aid entering Gaza was well below the daily average of about 500 trucks before the war. Additionally, in the past week, family members of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza have blocked aid trucks from entering at the Kerem Shalom crossing.

The military later declared the area around the crossing a closed military zone, which would prohibit protests there.

Who has paused funding to UNRWA?

Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan and Finland joined the United States, Australia and Canada in pausing funding after UNRWA revealed an investigation had been launched into 12 members of staff who allegedly took part in the 7 October attack led by Hamas that killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

The US is UNRWA’s biggest donor, providing $340m in 2022. The state department has said this funding will be paused while the US reviews the claims, originally aired by Israel.

Together, the countries that have paused funding provided about 60% of UNRWA’s budget in 2022.

How has UNRWA responded to the allegations?

Of the 12 employees who have been accused by Israel of taking part in the attacks, nine were immediately sacked, one was confirmed dead and two were still being identified, according to UN secretary general, António Guterres. He said they would be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution.

“The abhorrent alleged acts of these staff members must have consequences,” Guterres said. “But the tens of thousands of men and women who work for UNRWA, many in some of the most dangerous situations for humanitarian workers, should not be penalised. The dire needs of the desperate populations they serve must be met.”

Spokesperson Juliette Touma warned that the pause in funding meant the agency would be forced to stop its support for more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza by the end of February, while UNRWA commissioner general Philippe Lazzarini said the lifeline to Gaza could “collapse any time now”.

Senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority have reportedly met in Riyadh to discuss post-war Gaza.

A confidential meeting between Arab security officials was recently held in Riyadh to discuss possible post-war Gaza scenarios, Axios reported on Monday.

Security chiefs from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and representatives from the Palestinian Authority focused on coordinating plans for Gaza when Israel ends its war on Gaza - which has killed more than 26,000 people - and discussed ways to involve Ramallah in the process.

Saudi National Security Advisor Musaed bin Mohammed Al-Aiban hosted his Egyptian and Jordanian counterparts who stressed to the Director of Palestinian General Intelligence, Majed Faraj, the need for the Palestinian Authority to implement serious reforms to reclaim its political leadership, according to the report.

A proposal to form a new Palestinian government was discussed with the prime minister taking on some of the powers currently held by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Saudi National Security Advisor reportedly also indicated that Riyadh could still normalise relations with Israel if concrete steps toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state were made.

The four countries involved in the talks have not commented on the meeting.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has consistently refused to cede security control over Gaza and again opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The UAE, Morocco, Bahrain and Sudan normalised relations with Israel in 2020, as part of the Abraham Accords.

Jordan and Egypt had already signed peace agreements with Israel and exchanged ambassadors, although normalisation remains deeply unpopular with citizens in both countries.

Israel's war on Gaza has killed at least 26,422 people and wounded 65,086 others since 7 October, the vast majority civilians, flattening entire neighbourhoods and civilian infrastructure

By Myriam Francois

Israelism, a controversial new film on the relationship between Israel and Jewish identity, tells a story which we all need to hear.

“If you want to change the world, you need to change your story”, so says Michael Margolis, CEO and founder of Storied, a strategic consultancy that specialises in storytelling for disruption.

As a filmmaker, the quote makes perfect sense to me. Stories provide us with an emotional sustenance which can galvanise, hearten and sustain humanity through its most complex and arduous challenges. But stories, unlike mere ideas, or arguments, speak to the heart, a space beyond hardened misconceptions which can impede our ability to relate and connect to our shared humanity.

In a new, controversial documentary film called Israelism, two young American Jews raised to unconditionally love Israel, experience a profound and life-changing awakening as they bear witness to the brutality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. As they join a growing movement of young American Jews battling the old guard to redefine Judaism’s relationship with Israel, the protagonists take us into the battle over the very soul of modern Jewish identity.

The film has been touring US campuses, where its release during the ongoing genocidal assault on Gaza has led to numerous calls for censorship and cancellations of scheduled screenings by campus authorities. In the midst of a highly censored public debate around the Israeli occupation, the efforts to censor the film is a reflection of the times – even the Jewish voices for peace being targeted by the machine which has for so long sought to silence Palestinian calls for liberation.

Israelism tells a story which we all need to hear, not least because today the United States is the only force that can rein in Israeli extremism. It offers a small window into how powerful special interest groups in the US groom young Jews into blindly supporting Israel, and how some, like its protagonists, manage to escape it.

But to a non-Jew like myself, the most compelling element of the film was its candid depiction of the emotional bond most Jews have been made to develop with Israel, and the difficulties they experience when they attempt to step outside of the powerful, unifying narrative that sustains this bond.

While its many critics, including myself, view Israel as an ethno-nationalist, racially supremacist rogue state, at odds with international law and operating an apartheid system, Jews are taught from a young age that the modern state of Israel is the embodiment of Jewish self-actualisation and freedom.

That’s no small narrative to dismantle because, in part, it is true. After years of persecution and exile, Jews do finally have a home. Except it is not their home. It’s that of the Palestinians. The displacement of Palestinians from their land to actualise the Zionist myth of a “land without people for a people with a land” is no less objectionable than the persecution and exile imposed on the Jews historically.

While the main characters in Israelism come to see that their dream of Israel has been built on a lie, what was missing from the film was an alternative story.

Academic Barnett R Rubin poetically describes the Jewish narrative about modern Israel in his article titled “False Messiahs”: “Repeated in every era, this grand narrative – slavery to freedom, exile to redemption – was the constant, if sometimes barely audible, background music of the Jewish people’s understanding of their encounter with history.”

Rubin paints a poignant picture of Jewish history, replete with the horrors of anti-Semitic European persecution through the centuries, exile, and a deep longing and hope for a place of safety and security. Political Zionism does not emerge out of a vacuum, he explains, but from the inability of European states to guarantee the safety and security of the Jewish people. With the pogroms and eventually, the culmination of European racialised violence in the form of the Holocaust in the mid-20th century, the toxic intersection of colonialism and Zionism sets the stage for our current crisis.

“Israeli Jews are settler colonialists with a historical memory of indigenous origin,” writes Rubbin. “They developed an ideology and a political rather than purely religious movement of ‘return’. But their historical memory was not shared by the land’s inhabitants. The historical memory of the Jewish people did not create the right or capacity to confiscate or occupy a single dunam of land against the will of its possessors. The historical memory of one people, however tenacious, creates no right to rule over another.”

That narrative of dispossession, persecution and triumph is what is buttressing support for the current state of Israel. While a growing movement of critics is dismantling this, the next generation of haunted residents of this contested land, desperately need a new story of hope to replace it.

Today, as the Israeli founder and executive director of Idealist.org, Ami Dar, writes, “If everyone, everywhere, truly accepted that seven million Jews and seven million Palestinians are not going anywhere, and that any possible future has to include and encompass both, the whole energy around this conflict would shift.”

For that shift to happen, we need new stories. Stories which recognise and honour claims to the land which, whilst presented as competing, are not inherently so. After all, Indigenous philosophies might push us to consider that land belongs to no one and that in fact, the Abrahamic stewards of the land have a common mission to preserve and protect its sacred nature and honour all its inhabitants.

Rubbin seems to suggest that a “decolonised” Zionism, one divorced from the corrupting supremacy of colonialism, and therefore more of a cultural longing for a place, than a political or territorial claim to it, should be distinguished from the violent settler ideology currently unleashed: “The Palestine they [the Jews] longed for was the embodiment of their hopes, rather than a few provinces of the Ottoman empire with Arab Muslim and Christian populations.” And so it may be from within those hopes, married to the longing of the Palestinians for a return to their land, for autonomy over their lives, and for peace, that the next story might be weaved. And while it is arguably those same elemental dreams which render the current power struggle so apocalyptic, they also render a story which honours them profoundly compelling.

While the focus of Israelism is on the need for Jews to dismantle the Frankenstein that is Israel’s violent occupation, what is missing is a narrative of hope.

A growing number of Jews are joining the ranks of anti-Zionism and the mass protests of Jewish Voices for Peace and Jewish elders have proven powerful counters to the otherwise assumed consensus around support for the current Israeli state. But counter-narratives require more than simple opposition to last.

The story being sold to young Jews around the world is profound, moving and utterly compelling. And this means that any struggle to free Jews from this mischaracterisation of the state of Israel as a redemptive embodiment of Jewish self-actualisation will necessarily require an equally, if not more compelling, counter-narrative. One which honours legitimate Jewish fears of history repeating itself, provides the community and communion of a shared dream, of cosmic dimension, but also promises to liberate the Palestinians.

As Rubin also points out: “What is objectionable about colonialism is not the immigration or settlement of a population of a different ethnic or national origin, or of people that are in some sense non-indigenous, but the domination of one group over another. It is impossible to rewind and rerun history. But it is possible, indeed necessary, to assure a future where Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights.”

As Israelis become increasingly disillusioned with Netanyahu, Jewish voices within and outside of Israel need to confront the impact of militaristic ideology on their culture, politics and identity. The Israel Democracy Institute survey, a monthly gauge of Israeli sentiment on current events, found diminishing levels of optimism for the country’s future security and democratic character. If the nihilistic TikTok videos mocking maimed Palestinian children weren’t a wake-up call, the telegram groups in which thousands revel over snuff movies of Palestinian civilians being tortured and killed should be. Any denigration of the humanity of another necessarily diminishes our own. This loop of dehumanising violence should not be varnished by propaganda tales any longer.

While honouring legacies of suffering and exile, opposition to the apartheid state must also make way for the promise of a new dream. Nelson Mandela’s freedom movement wasn’t led merely by opposition to white supremacy – it was guided by a dream of coexistence, equality and justice for all. Contrary to narratives of Palestinian contrariety, Palestinian leadership has consistently and generously made space for the Jewish presence on their land. It is now up to the new generation of Jews to reimagine their history in a way which honours all God’s children equally – and in that new story lies the true promised land.

Myriam Francois

Award winning Franco-Irish documentary filmmaker, journalist and writer

Liberation newspaper said that several Western countries took the initiative to suspend their donations to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) immediately after Israel accused employees of the agency of participating in the attack on October 7, 2023, a decision that the political expert specializing in Middle East affairs, Jean-Paul Chaneloud, believes “has Severe consequences.” 

The newspaper explained - in an interview summarized by Maria Malagardes - that more than 10 Western countries, including the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom, have suspended vital funding for this organization that has been responsible since 1949 for the fate of Palestinian refugees, and which is the only source of humanitarian aid for the residents of the Gaza Strip who are being subjected to army bombing. Israelis 3.5 months ago, at a time when starvation threatens 40% of them.

UNRWA immediately terminated the contracts of 9 suspected employees, another died, and the rest were not identified. It also opened an investigation to determine the precise responsibilities of dozens of targeted employees, but that did not seem sufficient, as the speed of the donor countries’ reaction coincided with the issuance of the International Court of Justice’s order to “accept” the occurrence of genocide in Gaza, and its call to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians stranded in the Gaza Strip.

The Middle East affairs expert spoke about the indispensable role of UNRWA in the lives of 6 million Palestinian refugees, two million of whom are in Gaza, noting that the Israeli right has always been hostile to this agency, and former US President Donald Trump withdrew financial support for it, but he was succeeded by an atmosphere Biden brought it back.

But behind the financial aspect - as the expert says - there is always the political question: How do we make the issue of Palestinian refugees disappear? Because this is the logic that prevailed before October 7, when Israel was preparing to normalize its relations with Arab countries, before the ongoing war revived the idea of eliminating UNRWA.

Two contradictory positions

Although we do not know what the charge is against UNRWA employees, and that the agency’s immediate reaction after Israel revealed the involvement of some was honest and transparent, the speed with which the United States and some European countries stopped funding it raises questions, because weakening UNRWA today is ridiculous and dangerous, and it is also supporting Implicit in the position of the Israeli government and the violent attack it is leading in the Gaza Strip.

The Middle East affairs expert pointed out that the Europeans took a fairly clear position supporting the implementation of the order issued by the International Court of Justice, but we have the impression that some countries such as Germany immediately wanted to “rebalance” this position by suspending funding for UNRWA in the wake of the Israeli accusations.

Shanyolod: Western alignment with Israeli positions towards UNRWA is a sign of our contradictions and weakness in defending the law

The two positions appear - to the expert - to be contradictory, as it is not possible to support the urgent need for more humanitarian measures on the one hand, and to cut off funds from UNRWA, which provides this aid on the spot, on the other hand, and because striking this agency contradicts what the Court of Justice requested.

At a time when the world has completely abandoned the Palestinian population, the presence of UNRWA on the spot hinders the Israeli strategy that wants to “destroy everything,” as the Israeli Defense Minister clearly said, especially since Israel today - as the expert believes - wants to liquidate the Palestinian issue and expel the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, UNRWA is a collateral victim of this strategy.

The Middle East affairs expert expressed his fear that the decision to cut funding for UNRWA would strengthen the idea of expelling Palestinians from Gaza, concluding that Western alignment with Israeli positions toward UNRWA is “a sign of our contradictions and weakness in defending the law.”

Source: Liberation + Aljazeera

An article in the New York Times criticized the West's selectivity in applying the standards of the international system based on laws and regulations, and its reluctance to impose them specifically on the State of Israel.

Columnist Lydia Polgreen stated in her article in the American newspaper that last year the world witnessed an “astonishing and high-stakes” international drama taking place in the Dutch city of The Hague, the seat of the International Court of Justice.

There, a group of poorer and less powerful countries - the so-called Global South, led by South Africa - managed to drag the Israeli government, along with its allies, rich and powerful countries, into the “highest judicial body” of the Western rules-based system, accusing Israel of waging a brutal war in the Gaza Strip. Gaza has a "genocidal" character.

The article described the responses of the leading countries in this global system to the lawsuit filed against Israel as being quick and clear, rejecting the accusations directed against Tel Aviv. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak considered it a “completely unjustified and wrong” step, while US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby described it as “worthless, counterproductive, and completely baseless.” As for the German government spokesman, he said: His country opposed the "political exploitation" of the genocide law.

The International Court of Justice issued a temporary ruling, on Friday, requiring Israel to take “measures to prevent acts of genocide, including preventing irreparable harm to the people of Gaza, including easing the almost complete blockade of humanitarian aid,” but the decision did not call for a complete cessation of military operations. Israeli in the Strip.

According to Bulgarin, the court's decision was characterized by sobriety and accuracy, and entailed a rebuke of countries that reject the charges against Israel.

The writer pointed out that accusing Israel is a necessary step, as it is the state that was established in the wake of the Holocaust, which the Jews were subjected to at the hands of Nazi Germany during World War II, after which - ironically - the term genocide was coined.

Whatever the final outcome of this case, it ignites - in the opinion of the author of the article - an epic battle over the meaning and values of the so-called rules-based global order. If these rules are not applied when powerful countries do not want them to be applied, are they in this case considered rules? Polgreen wonders.

Mavura: The kind of evasion that we see happening regarding Gaza, the downplaying of the humanitarian crisis, and the cowardice in criticizing the Israeli government for its actions, has diminished the moral authority of the United States in the eyes of many people around the world.

The writer quoted Thuli Madonsela - a jurist and lawyer well-versed in South Africa, who contributed to drafting the post-apartheid constitution in her country - saying: “As long as those who set the rules impose them on others while they believe that they and their allies are above those rules, the international governance system is in danger.” dilemma".

The lawyer added: “We say that the laws are the laws, whether when Russia invades Ukraine, or when the Rohingya (the Muslim minority) are killed in Myanmar, but if Israel is now slaughtering the Palestinians, depriving them of food, and working to displace them en masse, then the rules do not apply to it.” “Anyone who tries to enforce them is anti-Semitic, and that puts those rules in jeopardy.”

While Polgreen acknowledges, in her article, that investigating the charges against Israel will take years, she describes Israel’s war in Gaza as “the most heinous crime” that a state can commit, “and it has a special resonance,” noting that the one who coined the term “genocide” is the legal researcher. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, was used during the Holocaust to give a legal definition to the massacre and ensure that it would not happen again.

Although the International Court of Justice lacks mechanisms to implement its decisions, this case - in Bulgreen’s view - is of great importance because it is directly related to the challenges facing the rules-based global order led by the United States, which has persisted since World War II, despite some obstacles that Get in his way.

According to the New York Times article, the wealthy Western countries that set the terms of that system are retreating on several fronts as China’s global ambitions rise. While Russia under its President Vladimir Putin threatens Europe, and liberal democracy is declining in many parts of the world; While emerging powers of strategic importance - such as Türkiye and India - tend towards authoritarianism.

All the caveats warn that the world risks rushing “recklessly” into a new era of realpolitik whose slogan is “might makes right,” where everything is permissible, and international laws and norms are disdained.

The writer said that all warnings warn that the world risks rushing “recklessly” into a new era of realpolitik whose slogan is “might makes right,” where everything is permissible, and international laws and norms are disdained.

What does a rules-based system mean, if rules are applied selectively, and if trying to apply them to specific countries is seen as clearly prejudiced?

According to Polgreen, it is short-sighted in these times that President Biden's administration has chosen to overlook the carefully documented case prepared by South Africa.

In her assessment, one of the biggest threats to the rules-based international order is the growing consensus in the poor world that the rich world applies those rules selectively as it sees fit and when it suits the powerful states that make up the Global North, as happened when Russia invaded Ukraine.

The writer quotes the legal researcher in South Africa, Dan Mavora, saying that this kind of evasion that we see happening regarding Gaza, the underestimation of the scale of the humanitarian crisis, and the cowardice in criticizing the Israeli government for its actions, all of this has undermined the moral authority of the United States in the eyes of many. From the people of the world.

She concludes by saying that the only way out of this “tragedy” is to include the Palestinian people in the family of self-governing states that live, imperfectly, under the rules that have maintained an unstable but continuous peace for many generations, as she puts it.

Source: New York Times + Aljazeera

A global declaration signed by figures from around the world warned that the ongoing “atrocities” in the Gaza Strip represent a moral challenge to the entire world, while at the same time rejecting the policy of “turning a blind eye to heinous crimes against humanity” against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

The list of the first signatories to the statement included more than 100 figures from around the world, including leaders of countries and governments, former ministers, winners of prominent international awards, Muslim scholars, church leaders, thinkers, writers, writers, and artists from several countries.

The declaration said, "We witness, with sorrow and anger, terrible atrocities targeting more than two million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, most of whom are children and women. This represents a moral challenge to the entire world that calls for urgent humanitarian vigilance and a strict initial review."

The public figures who signed the declaration issued in eight languages affirmed their refusal to “turn a blind eye to the heinous crimes against humanity taking place against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, which take the character of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

It denounced in the strongest terms the continued military, political and propaganda support it received from international powers.

Serious imbalances

The declaration indicated that these developments revealed that the world is suffering from grave imbalances, a worsening moral crisis, an intractable value dilemma, and misleading propaganda practices, warning of the consequences that result from the absence of charters and laws and the overthrow of international law and international humanitarian law on world peace and the interests of peoples.

It stressed that "supporting military occupation, policies of oppression and persecution, campaigns of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes with narratives that invoke morals, principles, and humanity is a misleading packaging that uses the moral, principled, and humanitarian slogan as a tool for killing, oppression, and persecution."

The signatories of the declaration pointed out that “the ongoing terrible aggression against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip has caused people and masses around the world to lose whatever confidence they have in the ethics of the international system, in the work of international criminal justice, and in the effectiveness of values, principles, charters, and slogans in reality.”

The figures said, "It is a source of horror that international, political, and media platforms celebrate speeches devoted to justifying aggression, glorifying its perpetrators, blaming its victims, and holding them responsible for their horrific fate of killing, crushing, thirst, starvation, and displacement."

The signatories believed that “what is happening in Palestine brings to mind horrific chapters from the memory of the colonial era. This confirms the importance of opening the files of colonialism, prosecuting it morally and in principle, and drawing necessary lessons from it for the present and the future.”

Monopoly on truth

The signatories to the Universal Declaration warned against the approach of monopolizing the truth, confiscating values and principles, operating them selectively according to the interests of international powers, and imposing a unilateral narrative on the world based on bias, arrogance, neglect, and justification.

The Universal Declaration warned that “succumbing to rhetoric justifying genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes heard from international, cultural, and media platforms represents a threat to all of humanity, not to the Palestinian people alone.”

The figures warned that "our world lacks a moral accountability authority that stands in the face of arrogance, power, violation of charters and laws, policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and persecution."

The Universal Declaration urged pioneers of philosophy, thought, culture, literature, and art, and leaders of religious and civil societies to fulfill their principled and moral role in achieving rights, justice, freedom, and human dignity in Palestine and everywhere, and in confronting injustice, oppression, persecution, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and racist policies.

The Universal Declaration concluded that “a world that determines its position on atrocities and violations according to the identity of the perpetrator and the identity of the victim is a world in which there is no safety, no rights, and no justice, and its countries and armies will not hesitate to kill some people, to enable some policies that put their interests ahead of their declared commitments,” as stated in it. .

Source: Al Jazeera

During the past hours, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, caused an uproar among Americans on social media, especially after she indicated that some of the protests taking place in the United States to demand a ceasefire in Gaza may be linked to Russia, demanding that the FBI That is, an investigation into the financing of these demonstrations.

Pelosi said, yesterday evening, Sunday, in an interview on CNN: “We must try to stop the suffering in Gaza, but the calls for a ceasefire by some demonstrations are a message from Putin,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. She added: “Do not be fooled, this is directly related to his ambitions.”

"Linked to Russia"

She also added, "I think that some of these protesters are spontaneous and sincere, but some of them have a connection to Russia, so some aspects of the financing must be investigated, and I want to ask the FBI to investigate that."

These are the first statements in which a prominent American politician publicly accuses Putin of supporting American demonstrators demanding a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Pelosi, who was first elected Speaker of the House in 2007, and again in 2019, led Democrats in the House of Representatives for 20 years before she is stepping aside in favor of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader. However, she still has significant influence among Democrats in Congress, the New York Times reported.

In a later statement, a Pelosi spokesperson pointed to a social media post by Ian Bremmer, a political scientist and professor at Columbia University, who wrote that “Putin is profiting from the ongoing war in Gaza and the expanding chaos in the Middle East.”

The spokesman said Pelosi would continue to focus on "stopping the suffering in Gaza" and demanding the release of all hostages.

"Interference by foreign adversaries"

He also noted that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has always supported and defended the right of all Americans to express their opinions through peaceful protest, but at the same time she is aware of how foreign adversaries interfere in American politics to sow division and influence our elections, and she wants to see further investigation before Elections in 2024.

The United States has recently witnessed the organization of protests to demand a ceasefire in Gaza, some of which were organized near airports and bridges in New York City and Los Angeles, in addition to protests outside the White House and marches in Washington.

Democrats are deeply divided over policy toward Israel since Hamas killed about 1,200 people and kidnapped 240 others during its attack on October 7. The Israeli military response led to the deaths of more than 26,000 people, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.

Division poses a challenge

A New York Times poll conducted in collaboration with Siena College showed that voters broadly disapprove of Biden's handling of the conflict, with almost as many Americans saying they want the Israeli military campaign to stop as those who say it should continue.

It is noteworthy that this division posed a severe challenge to Biden as he seeks re-election and tries to form a Democratic coalition that will elect him to the White House in 2020.

Many countries have called for a ceasefire, with 153 countries in the UN General Assembly voting in favor of an immediate ceasefire in December. The International Court of Justice on Friday called on Israel to take action to prevent genocide in Gaza.

The Israeli Cabinet approved the United States' request to send a United Nations delegation to visit the northern Gaza Strip to examine the situation there and determine the needs to allow residents to return to the north.

The Ynet website said that this approval is linked to three conditions, the first of which was set by Defense Minister Yoav Galant, which requires that the delegation visit the settlements surrounding the Strip before entering the northern Gaza Strip.

The second condition is an Israeli clarification that approval of the tour does not aim to return residents to the northern Gaza Strip, and the third condition is that an American official participate in the UN delegation’s tour.

According to the Israeli website, the visit of the United Nations delegation to the northern Gaza Strip is supposed to be coordinated by the envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Middle East, Tor Vansland, indicating that there is still an unresolved issue: which force will secure the United Nations delegation, will the Israeli army or the United Nations security forces.

It added: "There is no doubt that the visit will require very sensitive coordination with the IDF to ensure that members of the delegation are not harmed."

The Munich Security Conference made the decision to exclude Israel from the main stage of the event due to the ongoing war, according to an interview conducted by Israel's Channel 12 with the event's organizers.

The Jerusalem Post newspaper said that this decision came as a surprise because the conference is considered one of the most prestigious conferences in the field of national security, and Israel has historically been a major contributor to this event, noting that until last year, the conference gave Israeli representatives an important place in the conference, as it granted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Ministers Benny Gantz, Yoav Gallant and Moshe Ya'alon have central seats at the conference.

But before the conference, which is expected to be held in two weeks, the conference administration decided to reject all applications submitted by Israel to participate.

A request from the office of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to speak at the conference was denied, as he has done in the past. Instead, he was offered to participate as a panelist.

The families of the hostages are also subjected to pressure from the conference administration. Their request to hold a ceremony to honor the hostages still in captivity was rejected. The alternative offered to families was to hold a "side event", which meant fewer participants would participate in the conference, and international media interest would also be limited.

The interview also mentioned that the organizer of the Munich conference is former German National Security Advisor Christoph Heusgen, who is said to have a problematic record regarding Israel.