Donald Trump is a MEGA-criminal. The presumption of innocence does not apply to political judgments

The presumption of innocence in the case of Donald Trump applies only to his trials and eventual criminal convictions. It does not apply to political judgments about his actions.

There is a common misconception is that it is improper to speak of an individual as having committed a crime unless and until he is convicted of a criminal offense in a court proceeding.

The ‘presumption of innocence”, however, applies only to the trial and criminal conviction of a defendant charged with committing a crime.

It is entirely appropriate, outside of this criminal trial context, to speak of individuals as having committed a crime, particularly when there is abundant evidence in the prublic record of the individual having committed the crime.

Consequently, we don’t need a court of law to declare Dondald Trump guilty of the many crimes he has apparently committed, often in broad daylight, and which appear confirmed by the public evidence, including that contained in the criminal indictments against him.

Trump is the political equivalent to a mafia boss, using bevies of lawyers to delay all criminal proceeds against him until after the November 5, 2024 election. If he wins, he will discontinue federal proceedings against him and his accomplices, and he’s said that he would pardon those who have been convicted of criminal offenses related to the January 6, 2021 attempt to overthrow the results of the November 2020 presidential election, including the physical attack on Congress.

Trump is a mega-criminal. In the political view of the public and the voting electorate he should be considered guiltywhere the pubilc evidence is strong. He is a mega-felon, and if justice is allowed to run its course, he is extremely likely to be convicted of the crimes with which he has been charged.

The American electorate should not be misled to believe that they may not consider Trump to be a criminal until he is formally convicted of criminal offenses in a court of law. The American people, and our political system, are not so stupid.

Moreover, Trummp should not even be allowed to run for the presidency, given the express wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides:

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

See James Rowles, “Trump appears barred by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from running for president,” Trenchant Observations, January 4, 2024.

If, despite the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court allows Trump to run in the November presidential election, and if he wins, we will have elected a mafia-style crime boss and his henchmen to run the United States. They would likely do so as a giant criminal syndicate.

A further word regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is in order.

It would appear to apply not only to Trump, but also to all of the Senators and House Members and other federal and state officials who, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States), “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (Constitution of the United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Consequently, all such officials should be barred from running for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

If citizens are paying attention, a large number of lawsuits should be initiated to prevent such persons from running for public office.

The issue here is whether the citizens of a democracy such as the United States will act to defend that democracy against those who would overthrow both the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

January 22, 2024 Dispatches

1) Edgar Morin, “Edgar Morin : « Le progrès des connaissances a suscité une régression de la pensée; Multiplication des guerres, réchauffement climatique, essor des régimes autoritaires : le monde court au désastre, mais il nous faut résister à la haine, estime, dans une tribune au « Monde », le sociologue et philosophe,” Le Monde, le 22 Janvier 2024 (modifié à 15h07);

In a country with no memory, Donald Trump and the fascist Republican Party may win in November

In America, a country with no memory, Donald Trump and the fascist Republican Party may win in November.

Political leaders and journalists speak of Donald Trump now as if he’s just another candidate.

They assume the population and likely voters remember why there are 91 criminal indictments against Trump, that he has been found guilty of sexual battery amounting to rape in a civil trial (where in a civil trial rape was not charged), that over 60 courts all rejected Republican charges that there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election, that Donald Trump instigated an insurrection that included the invasion of the Capitol causing five deaths and many injuries to policemen–as Trump watched on TV–and also a well-orchestrated attempt to overthrow the November 2020 election results. They may even assume, if they remember themselves, that the population remembers the ten felony cases of obstruction of justice Robert Mueller laid out in great detail in his Report.

But if they are making such assumptions, they are dead wrong.

America has become a country with no memory. America has lost even the memory it once had.

In such a memory void, where truth and actual facts have no weight, or at best a diminishing influence that vanishes after weeks, or even months, a charlatan and accused felon like Donald Trump can appear on television and weave his web of lies and distortions almost without commentary.

We are not living in a rational world, where truth and remembered facts may influence the opinions of voters and the votes actually cast.

In 1985 Neil Postman wrote a prophetic book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, which accurately predicted the situation we presently find ourselves in.

As a fascist takeover in the United States draws nearer, we must in all candor report on the failures of the many political and other leaders who have accelerated the growth of fascism in the United States.

First of all, there are the many Republican leaders who have either surrendered to their fear of Trump and his supporters, have abandoned all principles and their oaths to uphold the Constitution in blind pursuit of personal ambition, or who have succumbed to ideology and beliefs that Trump will be better for the country (and for their companies’ earnings and their own pocketbooks) due to cuts in taxes and other decisions favoring business.

Fear, ambition, and ideology (often at variance with the facts) have all contributed the the growth of the Cult of Trump and of fascism in the United States.

Would-be authoritarians and fascists will always exist. But what has contributed to the extraordinary growth in their numbers in the U.S. in recent years has been the failures of the Democrats and Independents and other “democratic” opponents of Trump to take resolute action to stop Trump and his fascist supporters and enablers.

Foremost among these have been President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland who for over two years refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Trump and his accomplices, for the blatant commission of multiple apparent felonies. These crimes ranged from cases of Obstruction of Justice (e.g., as outlined in the Mueller Report) to the many crimes apparently committed in Trump’s many efforts to overthrow the results of the November 3, 2020 election.

For a very long time Nancy Pelosi blocked efforts by Democratic members of the House to launch a full and broad investigation into Trump’s many apparent crimes. Finally, after almost two years, she allowed the Democrats to impeach Trump on two counts related to pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski to provide information against Hunter Biden for Trump’s personal political purposes. While the proof was overwhelming, enough Republicans violated their oath of office to prevent Trump’s conviction and removal in the Senate trial.

After the January 6 Insurrection, Pelosi allowed the House Democrats to impeach Trump. Again, though also by a narrower margin, Republicans violating their oath of office blocked Trump’s conviction. He had already left office.

After Biden and Garland took office in January, 2021, they both stalled as Garland refused to publicly initiate an investigation into Trump’s many alleged crimes related to overthrowing the election.

Finally, on ____. 2023, Garland appointed Jack Smith as a Special Prosecutor to undertake that case. So far he has succeeded in obtaining multiple criminal indictments against Trump, both for his attempt to overthrow the election and the Constitution, and for his violation of secrecy laws regarding highly sensitive intelligence information, including that regarding nuclear secrets.

Some of the indictments are for extremely seriously felonies involving the mishandling and revelation of highly sensitive intelligence.

The final shortcoming of the Democrats has been their failure to develop a viable younger candidate who without Biden’s age and foreign policy leadership liabilities, might help Biden run a strong and winning campaign against Trump and his supporters.

With hands folded, they have been passively observing Biden as he drags tho party down to what may be a resounding loss. They should take the polls seriously, which show that Trump has moved from a dead heat with Biden to a widening six-point lead. while the economy continues to improve, they simply don’t get the central point: The majority of voters just don’t like Biden. In a world ruled not by facts but rather by mass political emotions impervious to facts, Biden is losing support.

The polls tell a clear and increasingly devastating tale of Biden’s looming defeat. He is likely to take a lot of Democrats down with him.

Biden is a very weak and defective candidate. Vice President Kamala Harris was a poor choice for VP in 2020, and does nothing to strengthen the Democratic ticket in 2024.

Theoretically, if Biden were to replace Harris on the ticket with a young and dynamic leader with a strong record on foreign policy, he could strengthen the ticket and Democratic chances of winning the presidency in November, 2024.

But because Biden is a stubborn and willful old man, this could only happen if there were a concerted rebellion among the Democratic ranks in the Senate and the House, and possibly among the major contributors in the Democratic donor class.

Given their track record, this is not a likely scenario.

Yet is appears to be the only scenario which might lead to a Democratic victory in November.

Biden and his coterie cling to the belief that the very strong state of the economy, and other Biden successes, will as the campaign progresses convince voters that he is the better

In a rational world, that scenario might be possible.

In a world where voters had a memory, that scenario might be plausible.

But America, today, has no memory.

We are not living in the United States today, in a world of reason.

Rather, we are living in phantasmagoric times, in a world of Unreason, governed by mass political emotions, as is confirmed by the strength of Trump and the fascist movement represented by the Republican Party.

At no point before 1933, did the outlook for Adolf Hitler and the fascists in Germany look as favorable as it does now for Donald Trump and the fascists in the United States.

Anything is possible, and the worst seems increasingly likely.

Willful Ignorance and Mental Occlusion: Gaza, Ukraine, and the fascist threat in America

1) Yair Ben David, “Why Israelis Don’t Want to Know What’s Really Happening in Gaza, According to Psychology Research; A meta-analysis of behavioral studies questions a strange phenomenon: What makes people shut their eyes to the truth – in Gaza, for example?” Haaretz, January 20, 2024;

2) James Rowles,”Suppressed Thought: Ukraine and the West could lose the war–What a Russian victory would mean,” Trenchant Observations, February 8, 2023;

3) Cristian Segura y Javier G. Cuesta (Kiev / Moscú), “Rusia ultima una triple ofensiva para ocupar todo Donbás y avanzar en el frente sur; Las autoridades ucranias, los servicios de inteligencia occidentales y medios independientes rusos dan por hecho que el ataque será en febrero,” el 7 de febrero 2023 (05:40 CET);

4) Cristian Segura and Javier G. Cuesta (Kiev/ Moscow), “Russia finalizes a triple offensive to occupy all of Donbas and advance on the southern front; Ukrainian authorities, Western intelligence services and Russian independent media assume that the attack will take place in February,” February 6, 2023 (23:40 EST);

Germany’s intervention on behalf of Israel in the Internal Court of Justice in South Africa’s genocide case

1) “Völkermordklage gegen Israel in Den Haag: Täter sind schlechte Richter; In Südafrika und Namibia ist man über Deutschlands Arroganz irritiert. Der deutsche Zeigefinger zeigt sich von seiner hässlichen Seite,” TAZ (Die Tageszeitung), den 15. Januar 2024;

2) “Genocide lawsuit against Israel in The Hague: The perpertrators are bad judges; In South Africa and Namibia, people are irritated by Germany’s arrogance. The German middle ffnger shows its ugly side, (Die Tageszeitung), January 15, 2024;

3) Dominic Johnson (Kommentar),”Schwerpunkt Völkermord an den Herero und Nama,” TAZ, den 15. Januar 2024 (07:14 Uhr);

Ab 1904 begingen deutsche Truppen in der damaligen Kolonie Deutsch-Südwestafrika (heutiges Namibia) Völkermord an den Herero und Nama. Anfangs wollten sie damit einen Aufstand gegen die Kolonialherrschaft und ihre Gräuel niederschlagen. 1911 lebten nur noch 20.000 Personen aus dem Volk der Herero – 1904 waren es noch 60.000 bis 80.000. Unter den Nama starben rund 10.000 Menschen. Der Genozid gilt als der erste Völkermord des 20. Jahrhunderts.

Im Mai 2021 erkannte die Bundesrepublik Deutschland den Völkermord erstmals offiziell an.

4) Dominic Johnson (Commentary), “Focus on Genocide of the Herero and Nama,” TAZ, January 15, 2024 (07:14 am);

From 1904, German troops committed genocide of the Herero and Nama in the then colony of German Southwest Africa (today’s Namibia). Initially, they wanted to suppress an uprising against colonial rule and their atrocities. In 1911, only 20,000 people from the Herero people lived – in 1904 there were still 60,000 to 80,000. Around 10,000 people died among the Nama. The genocide is considered the first genocide of the 20th century. Century.

In May 2021, the Federal Republic of Germany officially recognized the genocide for the first time.

5) “Namibia zu Den Haag: „Schockierende Entscheidung“; Die Bundesregierung steht im Völkermord-Prozess in Den Haag an der Seite Israels. Namibia übt daran scharfe Kritik – und zieht historische Parallelen,” den 16. Januar 2024;

6) “Namibia to The Hague: “Shocking decision”; The Federal Government is on Israel’s side in the genocide trial in The Hague. Namibia sharply criticizes this – and draws historical parallels, TAZ, January 16, 2024;

7) Francisco Cellini,”Israel vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof; Wie lässt sich Völkermord beweisen, Herr Tams? Südafrika wirft Israel Völkermord an den Palästinensern in Gaza vor. Völkerrechtler Christian J. Tams sagt, wie das Verfahren in Den Haag abläuft – und was die Folgen sein könnten (Ein Interview von Francesco Collini), Der Spiegel, den 11. Januar 2024 (12.18 Uhr);

Christian J. Tams, Jahrgang 1973, ist Professor für Völkerrecht an den Universitäten Glasgow und Paris 1 (Panthéon Sorbonne)

8) Francisco Cellini, “Israel before the International Court of Justice: ‘How can genocide be proven, Mr. Tams?’ South Africa accuses Israel of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. International lawyer Christian J. Tams says how the procedure in The Hague works – and what the consequences could be (Interview),” Der Spiegel, January 11, 2024 (12:18 pm);

Christian J. Tams, born in 1973, is a professor of international law at the universities of Glasgow and Paris 1 (Panthéon Sorbonne)

9) Lucia Schulten, “Was bedeutet eine Intervention beim IGH? Deutschland hat erklärt, dem Völkermord-Verfahren gegen Israel vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof als Drittpartei beizutreten. Der Völkerrechtler Stefan Talmon beantwortet die wichtigsten Fragen.”, den 16. Januar 2025 (05,00 Uhr);

10) Lucia Schulten, “What does an intervention at the IGH mean? Germany has declared that it will join the genocide proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice as a third party. The international lawyer Stefan Talmon answers the most important questions, DW, January 16, 2024 (05:00);


Israel and Gaza: Commentary


1) Nicholas Kristoff, “The Things We Disagree on About Gaza, New York Times, January 13, 2024;

2) Iris Leal, “ICJ Genocide Trial Showcases Israel’s Collective Temporary Insanity and Vile Government,” Haaretz, January 15, 2024 (5:45 pm IST);

3) Eliot A. Cohen, “The Decatur Option; The U.S. knows how to put an end to attacks on shipping,” The Atlantic, January 15, 2024 (6:00 am ET);


Scandalous attacks on South Africa and the International Court of Justice


1) Patrick Wintour, “Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel; Israel’s decision to defend itself at the international court of justice will make it harder for it to brush aside any adverse finding,” The Guardian, January 4, 2024.

2) Barak Ravid, “Inside Israel’s plan to quash South Africa’s Gaza genocide case,” AXIOS, January 5, 2024.


3) Pauline Jäckels, “Zwischen blinder Loyalität und deutscher Überheblichkeit; Pauline Jäckels über die Israel-Unterstützung der Bundesregierung vor dem IGH,” ND: Journalismus von Links, den 14.Januar 2024 (17:49 Uhr);

4) Christian Walter,”Warum Deutschland vor dem IGH dem von Südafrika gegen Israel erhobenen Vorwurf des Völkermords entgegentreten sollte,” Verfassungsblog den 11. Januar 2024;

Christian Walter is the Chair of Public International Law and Public Law at the Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität München (University of Munich)


South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide in Gaza was heard by the International Court of Justice (” World Court” on Thursday, January 11 and Israel’ s defense against South Africa’s allegations was heard before the ICJ on Friday, January 12, 2024.

Even before the hearings on January 11 and 12 and the revelation by Axios that Israel was asking its ambassadors to press their host countries denounce the proceedings, U.S. National Security Advisor John Kirby issue the following statement:

“We find this submission meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” the White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said on Wednesday.

AXIOS reported on January 5 that

The Israeli Foreign Ministry is instructing its embassies to press diplomats and politicians in their host countries to issue statements against South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, according to a copy of an urgent cable obtained by Axios.

Behind the scenes: The Israeli Foreign Ministry cable states that Israel’s “strategic goal” is for the court to reject the request for an injunction, refrain from determining that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and recognize that the Israeli military is operating in the Strip according to international law.

“A ruling by the court could have significant potential implications that are not only in the legal world but have practical bilateral, multilateral, economic, security ramifications,” reads the cable, a copy of which was obtained by Axios from three different Israeli officials.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry declined to comment.

“We ask for an immediate and unequivocal public statement along the following lines: To publicly and clearly state that YOUR COUNTRY rejects the outragest, absurd and baseless allegations made against Israel,” the cable also says.strong

The cable suggests, as confirmed by other Israeli statements, that its strategy is to politicize the case, attacking the Court, so that when the Court issues an Order of Provisional Measures sometime in the next few weeks, it will be dismissed out of hand by other countries.

According to an old lawyer’s maxim, “When the law is on yor side, discuss the law. When the law is against you, discuss the facts. When the law and the facts are both against you, scream and shout.”

Israel has obviously decided to scream and shout.

What is utterly regrettable, and utterly shameful, is John Kirby’s political statement that

We find this submission meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.

This is a political statement, not the measured judgment of a responsible government which respects international law and the International Court of Justice, originally established in 1919 under the League of Nations, and reauthorized in 1945 as a constituent part of the United Nations Charter, under American leadership-

The timing and wording of Kirby’s statement makes it quite clear that it does not reflect the judgment of the Office of the Legal Adviser to the State Department. which is the authoritative voice of the U.S. government on all questions of international law.

News reports suggest that Israel has successfully pressured German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to direct that Germany will file a brief in the ICJ supporting Israel’s position in the case brought by South Africa.

Christian Walter, the chair of the Department of Public International Law and Public Law at the University of Munich, has published an article in the Verfassungsblog (Constitution Blog) in support of Germany’s intervention in the case of South Africa v. Israel.

After making a number of useful clarifications of the procedure under the Statute and Court Rules of the ICJ, and tracing Germany’s incidental interventions in the genocide cases of The Gambia v. Myanmar (1918) and Russia v. Ukraine (1922), Walter argues that the case is inadmissible before the Court because while Israel has accepted the Court’s jurisdiction by ratifying the 1948 Genocide Convention, it has not explicitly consented to the application of a number of legal norms of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law which might be applied in the case.

Consequently, Walter concludes, South Africa’s complaint is inadmissible and the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Walter’s argument is fallacious on several grounds.

First, Israel has ratified the international conventions on International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law which contain many of the norms which might be applied in the case.

Second, many of these norms have become customary international law, which is binding on all states. The most important of them have become norms of peremptory international law or jus cogens, from which there can be no derogation even by agreement.

Finally, the argument that a state must have specifically consented to every law that might be applied in the case is not supported by any legal authority. This defect is even more glaring if we consider the fact that we are at the Provisional Measures phase of the proceedings, before the Court even considers in detail the jurisdictional issues that might be raised in the Preliminary Objections phase of the proceedings.

Professor Walter is an international lawyer of great distinction. One cannot escape the impression that he might have been pressured into writing an article supporting the position of Israel in this matter. If that is indeed the case, one can only sympathize with the dilemma he may have faced. To make the argument he did in his article may have been the most honorable course available to him, short of outright refusal or resignation.

Unfortunately, there are other cases in Germany’s past where leading academics and even judges were pressured to take a particular position. If this has occurred here, it represents a scandal of immense proportions.

Germany has in the past been a strong supporter of international law. The German constitution or Basic Law provides-in Article 25 the following:

Article 25
[Primacy of international law]

The general rules of international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory.

The Convention on Genocide represents peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens). They undoubtedly form part of “the general rules of international law” under Article 25 of the German Constitution, and therefore “take precedence over the laws”.

The 1948 Genocide Convention to which Germany, the U.S., South Africa and Israel are parties contains in Article IX a commitment to submit disputes under the Convention to the International Court of Justice for decision. By ratifying the Convention, Israel has agreed to submit all such disputes to the ICJ.

Article IX provides:

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Moreover, the decisions o fthe ICJ are binding on all members of the United Nations. Article 94 paragraph 1 of the U.N. Charter establishes:

1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

As the ICJ has recently reaffirmed in the case of Armenia v. Azerbaijan (Interim Order of February 22, 2023, orders indicating provisional measures of protection under Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ are legally binding on the parties.

The expected forthcoming Order of Provisional Measures in the genocide csdr brought by South Africa against Israel will therefore be legally binding on both countries. Failure to comply by either country will constitute a violation of Article 94 paragraph 1 of the Charter, and subject the con-compliant party to potential measures adopted by the U>S. Security Council, provided of course that it is able to reach a decision.

After three months of an Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip and some 23,000 Palestinians reportedly killed, what is truly scandalous and deeply shameful is that John Kirby would characterize South Africa’s
complaint against Israel for genocide to be ” meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.” The quoted words apply to Kirby’s statement, not to the action brought by South Africa.

The 1048 Genocide Convention established clear rules for the adjudication by the International Court of Justice of any disputes regarding the application of the Genocide Convention.

What is sad is that the U.S., and now apparently Germany and other countries, ceding to political pressures, have denounced the case and the Court.

Peter Beinart: Israel is “commiting a sin ‘that cannot be atoned for’

1) “Peter Beinart, “The hard truth if Israel’s endgame in Gaza; Peter Beinart warns that the country is “commiting a sin that ‘cannot be atoned for’,” New York Times, January 9, 2024 (podcast);

What are Israel’s plans for Gaza if it succeeds in expelling Hamas? In this audio essay, Peter Beinart argues that the country’s goal is very clear: to force Palestinians to leave. Beinart believes America’s blanket support of Israel makes it complicit in crimes against humanity. “I want U.S. diplomats to understand that the forced expulsion of a population or part of a population is a war crime,” Beinart says. “I want U.S. government officials to fear that this will be their legacy and to ensure that it’s not.”


Beinart, in one of tge most outspoken statements by an American Jewish learer, affirms the following:

There is a concept in Judaism called “Chillul Hashem.” It’s one of the greatest sins that a human being can commit. And it is to do something that would bring God’s name itself into disrepute. It seems to me that forcing Palestinians in Gaza into a situation where their choices are either death or expulsion is Chillul Hashem, a sin for which there, actually, in Jewish law, cannot be atoned for.

In a more historical vein, it strikes me as a profound and deeply disturbing irony that a people whose own history has been marked by mass expulsion now has a state that is speaking in our name and enacting policies that are very likely going to create mass expulsion of other people.

Ukraine War, January 9, 2024: U.S. and Europe fail to produce munitions needed by Ukraine, as Russia gears up war economy


1) Robert Clark, “The West could soon hand Putin the keys to Europe; Western leaders will regret terribly the decision to turn their backs on an increasingly desperate Ukraine,” The Telegraph, January 9, 2024 (12 pm);

2) “Israel-Hamas war: Cameron says Israel may have broken international law ,” The Telegraph, January 9, 2024 (4:05 pm);

3) Ben Farmer, “Jeremy Corbyn joins genocide case against Israel; South Africa names former Labour leader among its supporters for International Court of Justice action over alleged targeting of civilians, The Telegraph, January 9, 2024 (4:53 pm);

4) Yaroslav Trofimov, “How the best chance to win the Ukraine war was lost, Washington Post, January 9, 2024 (6:30 a.m. EST);


5) Alfred Hackensberger, “So schlecht steht es gar nicht um die Ukraine,” Die Welt den 14. Januar 2924;

Stand: 14.01.2024 | Lesedauer: 6 Minuten
Hackensberger Alfred
Correspondent für Kriegs- und Krisengebiete

South Africa accuses Israel of genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)–with link to the complaint


1) Patrick Wintour, “Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel; Israel’s decision to defend itself at the international court of justice will make it harder for it to brush aside any adverse finding,” The Guardian, January 4, 2024.

2) Jake Johnson, “Israel Accused of ‘Effort to Intimidate the Judges’ Ahead of Genocide Hearings; ‘Israel is pressing others to denounce the case in the hope of persuading the International Court of Justice to decide based on politics rather than the facts,’ said one critic,” Common Dreams, January 7, 2024;

3) Barak Ravid, “Inside Israel’s plan to quash South Africa’s Gaza genocide case,” AXIOS, January 5, 2024.

4) South Africa, “Application instituting proceedings and request for the indication of provisional measures (South Africa v. Israel), December 29, 2023.

5) International Court of Justice, “Request for the indication of provisional measures; Public hearings to be held on Thursday 11 and Friday 12 January 2024,” Press Release No. 2024/1 3 January 2024,


South Africa brought a case against Israel under age 1948 Genocide Convention and a request for an indication of Provisional Measures on December 29, 2023.

In a Press Release on January 3, 2024, the ICJ announced that public hearings on South Africa’s Request for Provisional Measures would be held on February 11 and 12, 2024, at the seat of the Court in the Peace Palace in The Hague.

South Africa will present its arguments on Thursday, February 11, from 10 am-12pm. Israel will present its arguments on Friday, February 12, from 10 am-12pm.

The proceedings will be streamed live and on demand on the Court’s website and also on UN Web TV.

Jake Johnson writes in Uncommon Dreams that Israel, is reportedly pressuring governments to denounce the proceedings.

Johnson reports,

According to a cable obtained by Axios, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is calling on the country’s embassies to pressure host country diplomats and political leaders to swiftly issue an “immediate and unequivocal statement along the following lines: To publicly and clearly state that YOUR COUNTRY rejects the outrage[ous], absurd, and baseless allegations made against Israel.”

Axios reports that the U.S. in knee-jerk fashion already denounced the South African complaint:

The Biden administration has already rejected South Africa’s appeal.

“We find this submission meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” the White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said on Wednesday.

Kirby’s statement onlybreveals how clueless of or unconcerned by international law the Biden administration. Three years after taking office, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has yet to nominate and secure the confirmation of the top international lawyer in tge government, the Legal Adviser to the State Department.

Israel is justifiably concerned. At long last, Israel’s actions in Gaza will ultimately be measured against the requirements of international law contained in the Genocide Convention.

The hearings on February 11 and 12 relate to the indication of provisional measures, the international judicial equivalent of an injunction but one which the Court lacks the power to enforce.

Israel is likely to ignore the Court’s interim order. The next phase of the proceedings may be on “Preliminary Objections” to the jurisdiction and competence of the Court to hear the case.

This will take time. Then the Court is likely to proceed to the Merits phase of the proceedings, in which itvwill hear evidence and reach decisions regarding the allegations contained in South Africa’s complaint.

The whole process could take a couple of years. In the case of Nicaragua v. U.S., brought by Nicaragua in 1984, the Court issued an order of interim protection, a decision holding it was competent to hear the case, and in 1986 a final Judgment on the Merits condemning the United States.

While the proceedings will take time, the final Judgment on the Merits by the International Court of Justice is likely to render a harsh judgment against Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu for their actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023.