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

by

Dispatches

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,

Analysis

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.

Ukraine War, January 7, 2024: Fear of Putin and the Losing military strategy of Biden and the West

by

Dispatches

1) “„Kann das nicht nachvollziehen“ – Gauck kritisiert Scholz‘ Taurus-Zögern,” den 7. Januar 2024 (02:13 Ukr);

2) “‘Can’t understand this’ – Gauck criticizes Scholz’ Taurus hesitance,” Die welt, January 7, 2024 (02:13 a.m.);

Analysis

While further U.S. military aid for Ukraine is stalled in Congress and further European military aid is blocked by Hungary, it is important to stress that Joe Biden’s and Olaf Scholz’s fear of Putin and his nuclear threats severely handicap the military strategy of Ukraine and the West, denying Ukraine victories and dragging out the war.

Germany has many Taurus cruise missiles with a range of 500:kilometers which Ukraine desperately needs. Former President Joachim Gauck (the presidency us largely a ceremonial position) has strongly criticized German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for his failure to supply Ukraine with the Taurus missiles it so desperately needs.

Biden continues to enforce Putin’s “red line” that no Western-supplied weapons be used to attack targets in Russia proper or the Kerch Strait Bridge, which is a lifeline linking the Crimea to the Russian mainland.

The prohibition against striking targets in Russia prevents Ukraine from using Western-supplied weapons to attack military installations in Russia from which missile and drone attacks or aircraft making such attacks are being launched, and from attacking Russian supply lines for Russian military operations in Ukraine.

Biden refuses to allow the use of force with Western weapons to defend Ukraine against Russian attacks in exercise of the right of self-defense.

Similarly, he appears afraid and unwilling to use force to take out the sites in Yemen from which Houthi missiles and drones are being launched against shipping in the Red Sea.

Biden is weak, very weak, when it comes to using force to defend the vital national security interests of the United States.

Ukraine War, January 6, 2024: All wars escalate

by

Dispatches

1) Lluís Bassets,”Todas las guerras escalan; Cuando las armas arrinconan a la política, solo rige la espiral de la violencia. Lo vemos entre Ucrania y Rusia, entre Hamás e Israel y este miércoles en el doble atentado que ha costado la vida a un centenar de personas en Irán,” El País, el 3 de enero, 2024(17:06 EST);

2) Lluís Bassets, “All wars escalate; When weapons corner politics, only the spiral of violence governs. We see it between Ukraine and Russia, between Hamas and Israel and this Wednesday in the double attack that has cost the lives of a hundred people in Iran,” El País, January 3, 2024 (17:06 EST);

Analysis

Trump appears barred by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from running for president

by

Dispatches

1) David French, “The Case for Disqualifying Trump Is Strong,” New York Times, January 4, 2024;

Analysis

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the following:

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.

Part of the breakdown in the Rule of Law in the United States is revealed by the number of calls for the Supreme Court to decide the case of Trump’s disqualification to run for president, one way or another, on the basis of political and/or practical arguments.

This reflects the widespread view, not without justification, that the Supreme Court acts on the basis of political considerations in important cases.

The Prime example is its decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 in which it decided the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.

The Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court which had found Gore won Florida and with it the electoral votes to become president.

Since the Florida Court’s decision was based in part on Florida law, the Supreme Court could not reverse the decision without basing its decision on a provision in the U.S. Constitution and a Constitutional right based on such a provision.

No such right existed under the Court’s previous ruleings.

So the Supreme Court pulled a rabbit out of the hat, and by tortured reasoning found the Florida Court’s decision violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Moreover, the Court held that its decision, which was based on no precedent, could not be cited as a precedent for the new right it had created out of thin air.

In this manner, the Supreme Court decided the future course of American history.

Think of it: Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan after September 11, 2011, Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush’s use of torture in secret CIA prisons and at Abu Gharib, and much more.

It is not an overstatement to say that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore changed the direction of the United States in history, and not in a good way.

The decision cost the Supreme Court much of its legitimacy and authority in the coming years, as the process of nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices became overtly political.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow hearings or a floor vote on Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, depriving the Democrats of a justice they had nominated who surely would have been confirmed had McCullough not resorted to strong-arm tactics in the Senate to thwart such an outcome.

After Donald Trump became President in 2017, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Court. Gorsuch was confirmed in a bitterly partisan vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Let us now hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the Rule of Law by applying the plain text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president in 2024–or ever again.

David French lays out in cogent arguments why the Supreme Court should hold that Trump is barred from running for president by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

It is time to end the politicization of the Supreme Court.  Pulling another rabbit out the hat to ignore Section 3 would destroy what is left of the Court’s legitimacy and authority.

In contrast, a decision based on the plain text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would be a necessary and important step toward restoring the authority of the Court.

Harvard is at fault for Dr. Claudine Gay’s plagiarism and for selecting her as President

by

Dispatches

1) Douglas Murray, “Claudine Gay has exposed the rot at the heart of the woke establishment; The former Harvard president failed to stand up against racism. The BBC and the Left are bizarrely treating her as the victim,” The Telegraph, January 3, 2024 (7:47 pm);

2) Maureen Farrell and Rob Copeland, “How Harvard’s Board Broke Up With Claudine Gay; Facing intense pressure, it went from standing behind her as the university’s president to pushing her out within weeks,” New York Times, January 6, 2024 (7:40 am ET);

UPDATE

3) Jennifer Wilton, “Niall Ferguson (Interview): ‘Dann wird diese Welt überhaupt nicht mehr existieren, sie wird zerfallen,'” Die Welt, den 8. Januar 2024;

4) Jennifer Wilton,”Niall Ferguson (Interview): ‘Then this world will no longer exist at all, it will disintegrate,'” Die Welt, January 8, 2024;

Analysis

The plagiarism charge, and ample evidence of plagiarism, is what forced Claudine’s resignation as President of Harvard University.

Elise Stefanik’s ambush of the presidents of Harvard Penn and M.I.T. on December 12, 2033 revealed what a vile politician Stefanik is, and her utter lack of principle in trying to generate headlines and controversy that will serve the campaign narratives of the authoritarian Republican party controlled by Donald Trump.

Many who opposed Dr. Gay on other grounds joined the mob calling for her ouster.

The Harvard Corporation rightly refused to fire her because she answered Stefanik’s theatical questions with a succinct statement of the Constitutional law of free speech in the U.S.

What were Stefanik and the Republicans doing anyway conducting hearings into the conduct of presidents and administrations at leading private universities in the U.S.?

The plagiarism charge is the one that stuck. It was a clear indictment of the president of Harvard for conduct that could not be ignored–although at first the Corporation did its best to do so.

Israeli compliance with International Law including International Humanitarian Law–and policy of political assassination abroad

by

Adapted and expanded from an article published in The Trencant Observer, on December 1, 2023

Dispatches

1) Dion Nissenbaum”Israel Plans to Kill Hamas Leaders Around the World After War; Nation’s spy agencies have long history of targeted assassinations,” Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2023 (updated 12:06 am ET);

2) “Netanyahu’s references to violent biblical passages raise alarm among critics, NPR Morning Edition, November 7, 2023 (5:09 am ET);

3) Robert Kagan, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending,” Washington Post, November 30, 2023(8:00 a.m. EST);

4) Nicole Hong, “How a Suspected Indian Murder-for-Hire Plot on U.S. Soil Was Foiled; After a murder in Canada, a sting operation, prompted by an explosive tip through an unexpected channel, rushed to prevent another killing, New York Times, December 2, 2023 ( 301 a.m. ET);

Analysis

Nissenbaum refers to international law, but does not elaborate on the topic, which is perhaps understandable given the main thrust of his reporting and the outstanding contribution it makes. He or another Wall Street Journal reporter should address the international law consideration in a subsequent article, taking care to consult experts and authorities from cou tries other than or in addition to Israel and tge United States.

Today he merely mentions the issue, as follows:

Targeted killings abroad can violate international law and run the risk of blowback from nations in which assassins operate without their permission. In practice, however, Israel and others have pursued targeted killings and weathered the repercussions.

Israeli and American officials tend to have idiosyncratic views on the legality of targeted killings or assassinations in foreign countries, as both Israel and tge United States have engaged in such programs. Consequently, the legality of such actions under international law cannot be assessed consulting only officials from those two countries.

To gain an accurate appreciation of tbe requirements of international law and whether Israel is complying with them, reporters need to reach out to international law experts and officials in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico,Colombia, Chile, Nigeria, South Korea, and China.

See James Rowles, “What is International Law? Lesson One: International Law is INTERNATIONAL,” Trenchant Observations (Substack newsletter), November 17, 2023

During the American war in Afghanistan and the U.S. world-wide war on terror, the United States espoused some extreme interpretations of international humanitarian law, used in particular to justify its program of targeted assassinations not only in the war theater of Afghanistan but in far away countries in tge Middle East and Africa.

In Afghanistan, it appears the program of targeted assassination was an important factor in pushing rural populations toward greater sympathy with the Taliban.

U.S. interpretations of international humanitarian law were so extreme that they justified the assassination Al-Awqi in ____! despite the fact that he was a U.S. citizen and entitled to the due process under the Fifth Amendment before being deprived of his life.

See,

1) “U.S. Targeted Assassinations Violate Citizen’s Right to Life and Due Process, Undercut International Law,” The Trenchant Observer,February 3, 2010.

2) “UPDATE: Anwar al-Aulaqi: Targeted Killings, Self-Defense, and War Crimes, The Trenchant Observer, August 6, 2010.

The fact that Israel and other countries (e.g., India) feel they can go and assassinate their opponents on foreign soil is in part due to the bad U.S. example and the extreme interpretations of international humanitarian law it has asvanced to justify its targeted killing programs.

The Trenchant Observer

As others see us: Lluis Bassetts of El País offers opinion on If Trump wins”

by

Developing. We are publishing this article as it is being written. Please check back for updates

Dispatches

1) Lluís Bassetts, “Tirana por libre elección popular: Si Trump sale vivo del avispero y llega a la meta, será el presidente con mayor poder de la historia de Estados Unidos, situado por encima de la ley con el aval del Supremo. En tal caso, no sabemos qué será de la Constitución ni de la democracia,” El País, el 20 de diciembre 2023 (23:00 EST);

Analysis

The Trenchant Observer

***