The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing a case accusing Israel of war crimes. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Israeli officials fear that additional secret warrants may exist, targeting IDF officers and soldiers whose personal details were exposed in the media and on social networks. Beyond that, Israeli diplomats and legal teams are dealing almost daily with cases of former soldiers detained or questioned abroad amid growing anti-Israel sentiment.

According to information obtained by Israel Hayom, Israel has raised these concerns during ceasefire negotiations, insisting that any agreement must address them. It remains unclear whether this issue will be included in the so-called "21-point plan," since addressing these legal challenges involves complex processes with third countries and international bodies.

The ICC operates under the framework of the United Nations and the Security Council. In principle, the council has the authority to suspend an ICC investigation. But to prevent such a move from being blocked, Israel would need assurances that Russia and China would not use their veto power. The ICJ, on the other hand, is an independent body, making it even more difficult to halt its proceedings against Israel.

As previously reported, the war-ending agreement includes immunity for Gaza terrorists from prosecution. "It cannot be that they will receive international immunity while our people are pursued and arrested," a source familiar with the talks said.

The post Israel seeks legal protections for IDF troops in ceasefire deal appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a significant shift at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Judge Julia Sebutinde is poised to assume the presidency, marking another milestone in her groundbreaking career. The Ugandan jurist, who recently made headlines for her robust defense of Israel against South Africa's genocide allegations in the Gaza war, will take the helm following current President Nawaf Salam's departure to form Lebanon's next government.

Born Julia Semusso in February 1954 in Uganda's Central Province to a civil servant father and homemaker mother, Sebutinde's journey to The Hague reflects a remarkable career in international justice. Her ascent began with her 1996 appointment to Uganda's Supreme Court, where she distinguished herself by leading three pivotal anti-corruption investigations in her homeland.

The judge's international prominence grew with her 2005 appointment to the Special Court for Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, where she played a crucial role in the landmark trial of Liberian President Charles Taylor. Her appointment to the ICJ in February 2012 broke new ground as she became the first woman from Africa to serve on the court.

Sebutinde's recent ruling on the Israel-Hamas war has particularly resonated in international legal circles. She dismissed South Africa's requests for temporary injunctions to halt the Gaza war, asserting that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is fundamentally political rather than legal in both its nature and historical context, and therefore falls outside the court's purview for resolution.

Her stance, however, has created diplomatic ripples. Uganda's UN Ambassador Adonia Ayebare publicly distanced his government from her position, emphasizing that her ICJ decision does not reflect Uganda's official stance on the situation.

The transition in leadership comes at a crucial juncture, with Israel scheduled to present its defense brief against South Africa's case in July. According to the court's statutory framework, the president – elected every three years through a panel member vote – oversees the institution's administrative affairs and chairs its panels, wielding a decisive vote in cases of judicial deadlock.

The Lebanese parliament's recent acceptance of newly elected President Joseph Aoun's request to task Salam with government formation has necessitated this change in ICJ leadership. As Salam steps down, the UN faces the additional task of selecting a new judge to represent the Asia region on the court.

Sebutinde and Salam were both elected to their ICJ positions in February 2024, making this rapid transition particularly noteworthy in the court's history. Her elevation to the presidency not only marks a personal achievement but also comes at a critical time for international justice and Middle East diplomacy.

The post Hague tribunal could get pro-Israel judge as chief appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Pope Francis has suggested that the international community should examine whether Israel's military campaign in Gaza constitutes genocide, marking his most explicit criticism yet of Israel's conduct in the war, Reuters reported on Sunday.

In excerpts from an upcoming book published by La Stampa, the pontiff acknowledged that some international experts believe "what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. We should investigate carefully to assess whether this fits into the technical definition formulated by international jurists and organizations," the pope said in the excerpts.

Last week, the pope met at the Vatican with former hostages held by Hamas in Gaza who are advocating for the release of family members and others still in captivity.

The comments come amid ongoing legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice. Last December, South Africa filed a case against Israel, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. The court ordered Israel in January to ensure its forces do not commit genocidal acts, though it has not yet ruled on whether genocide has occurred in Gaza.

Francis, who leads the 1.4-billion-member Catholic Church, typically maintains neutrality in international conflicts while advocating for de-escalation. However, he has recently increased his criticism of Israel's military operations. In September, he expressed concern over Palestinian children's deaths from Israeli strikes in Gaza. He also issued strong criticism of Israel's airstrikes in Lebanon, describing them as going "beyond morality."

While Francis has not previously used the term genocide publicly regarding Gaza, controversy arose last year after Palestinians who met with him at the Vatican claimed he used the word in private conversations. The Vatican stated he had not used the term.

The post Pope calls for study into possible 'genocide' in Gaza appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

British attorney Natasha Hausdorff has emerged as one of the most articulate voices defending Israel's position on the international stage, particularly in the United Kingdom. Since October 7, Hausdorff has been tirelessly advocating for Israel in British media outlets and academic forums, challenging prevailing narratives and offering legal expertise on complex issues surrounding the conflict.

"People's memories are quite short," she responds with a smile. "As a student of history, I know that in Israel's 76 years, there have been previous occasions where it felt utterly isolated and alone and where it felt that it was acting entirely against the odds. These are absolutely dark times and the reaction of the international community is unsurprising. It is certainly one that has made the situation even darker and has made Israel's mission against Hamas even harder, and yet the country has come together in a way that I have personally never previously experienced. If we think about the divisions before the 7 of October, that, in and of itself, is remarkable. Even in the political discussions that are happening at the moment between various political parties, at its core, I think you know, Israel remains united in the war effort. So that glimmer of hope, I think needs to be recognized as more than a glimmer – it is a shining beacon."

Hausdorff, an expert in international law volunteering with the organization "UK Lawyers for Israel," may not be a household name for Israeli readers, but many around the world consider her one of the most eloquent voices in explaining the Israeli position, certainly in Britain. Since October 7, her schedule has been quite busy; immediately after our conversation, she has an interview lined up with the British YouTube channel TalkTV. But it's also important for her to reach the Israeli audience.

"I'm here in London on a 'mission' for Israel," she says in Hebrew, in an interview conducted mostly in English. "Israel is fighting the West's war for it."

Hausdorff grew up in London to an Israeli father and a German-Christian mother. Her parents met at a horse farm while her mother was staying in Israel, and after they married, they immigrated to Britain. Young Natasha thought the Hausdorff family was practically the only Zionist family in the kingdom. The family frequently traveled to Israel for visits.  She studied law at Oxford and Tel Aviv University and interned at the Supreme Court during the presidency of Justice Miriam Naor.  On several occasions, she has spoken in the British media about the insecurity Jews feel on London's streets since the war began, partly due to the massive anti-Israel demonstrations across the city.

It's hard to imitate the style of the young attorney (34) living in London: in an elegant British accent, she manages to combine measured and intelligent discourse with sharp arguments and an unapologetic tone. In a BBC interview with Katya Adler at the outbreak of the war, she repeatedly corrected the host who claimed that Israel was allegedly delaying the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

"These interviews are frustrating. The interviewers at the BBC, for example, don't really want to listen to arguments, but rather to argue at all costs. The goal is not to search for the truth, but blatant interference and an attempt to create a scandal at best. In the worse case, they are simply biased from the start," she says.

Q: Do you ever think that in light of this attitude, perhaps it's simply not worth it to appear on these shows? 

"I think it's worth the effort. I don't see other voices on the BBC who approach what's happening in Israel the way I do. The process isn't easy, and can even be frustrating at times, but the opportunity to tell the truth in the face of distortions on the internet is worth it. I receive supportive responses from all over the world, and not just from Jews. People have told me that I really changed their minds, or that I made them think differently about what's happening in Gaza."

Q: Do media outlets like the BBC shape British consciousness towards Israel, or do they simply reflect the prevailing public opinion?

"I think it has a huge role in shaping not just British public opinion; the BBC is viewed around the world and has an incredibly long reputation of being a credible source of news. I mean there are some very well-known examples of this, such as the al Al-Ahli Hospital strike, the ruling of the ICJ in January, where it was saying, along with everyone else, that Israel was plausibly guilty of genocide, and more recently, with respect to the ongoing operation in Rafah. Especially with the BBC, this agenda is not a new one. It has been the subject of debate in the United Kingdom. But what we have seen over the last seven months is the whole thing on our television screens every single day."

About five years ago, Hausdorff participated in a public debate on the popular debate program "Intelligence Squared," where, alongside former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, she represented the position supporting international recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. About a year ago, she spoke at the University of Cambridge, arguing against Israeli anti-Zionist historian Avi Shlaim in a discussion on whether Israel should be pressured to give up territory for peace. After the war broke out, she stood in the hostile arena of Trinity College Dublin to represent Israel's position.

"I will not forget that occasion, because the first question that I was asked by the audience was: Where is your evidence for the 7 of October? They even laughed when I talked about the evidence. Unfortunately, this was the quality of the students who were attending in Dublin."

In such debates, she sometimes encounters violent attempts at silencing. Just before a debate at Durham University in Britain, anti-Israel protesters blocked the entrance to the debate hall, trapping a dozen students who were preparing the hall for the debate inside for about two hours. Following the demonstration, Dr. Shahid Mahmood, the university's vice-chancellor for equality, diversity, and inclusion, ordered the debate canceled.

Asked about the phenomenon in which Israeli left-wingers join the pro-Palestinian camp, she says it is unfortunate.

A: "It's true and it's not just individuals, but it's also groups called 'human rights organizations.' I think the only thing that can be done is to prove them wrong with the facts. It's extremely harmful and one has to question what the motivation of these individuals could possibly be, because, unlike certain unsuspecting Western enthusiasts for human rights and international law, they should know better. They do know better, and yet they pursue a false narrative, perhaps because it makes them popular in the international community that they focus on the world's punching bag – the Jewish state. I think from the position of those that seek to uphold the reality and proper application of the law and that push back against a rewriting of history simply means that those efforts need to be redoubled."

Israel's relations with the international courts in The Hague have never flourished, but now they are on the verge of a historic crisis. On May 21, Karim Khan, the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC), announced that he would seek arrest warrants against Hamas leaders and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip. This is compounded by South Africa's lawsuit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Israel is committing genocide. Libya, Mexico, and Spain have asked to join South Africa's lawsuit.

Q: Can you break down the legal threat posed by the courts?

"The threats that we're seeing from what is a legal organization are largely politically motivated. Despite the absence of jurisdiction – and this is key because a 'state of Palestine' doesn't exist – there are recognized criteria in international law, they come from the Montevideo Convention and they set out that a state must have defined borders, a permanent population government, and the capacity to enter into international relations. Despite this, the so-called 'state of Palestine' reported to join the court by signing onto the Rome Statute and there was in 2021 already an application by the previous prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, to the court for a ruling on jurisdiction. The chamber was engaging in the legal acrobatics that the prosecutor had put forward in order to establish jurisdiction in this case, and because Israel is not a signatory to the court, that ruling has formed the basis of the previous prosecutor's investigation, and now the current prosecutor, Karim Khan, and his application for arrest warrants."

Q: Did we err in our conduct towards the court? Should we have foreseen this?

"It's predicated on the basis that the 'state of Palestine' has the ability to join the Rome Statute and therefore the court says it has jurisdiction over the territory of that state. The decision by the prosecutor to present himself as acting in some sort of even-handed situation, by issuing arrest warrants both against the leaders of Hamas and the democratically elected leadership in Israel is monstrous. It is preposterous, but it is not surprising and unfortunately, I think it has been born out of a naive desire. Especially on the part of victims of the 7 of October and their families to engage with the court, I think it's extremely problematic, because the court doesn't have jurisdiction."

Q: How do you deal specifically with the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?

A: "We know the origins of the term of genocide. It was coined by Raphael Lemkin to provide a legal lexicon to what had been perpetrated against the Jews in the Holocaust that there simply wasn't legal language around to describe the mass slaughter, the concerted effort to eradicate a race from the face of the earth. We, of course, see a repeat of acts of genocide by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups that crossed Israel's border on the 7 of October. The fact that the real victims of genocide here are being blamed for the crimes that were perpetrated against them is mind-boggling."

Q: Why has South Africa deployed this false allegation?

"It provides a legal hook to bring Israel to the ICJ, whereas the ICC does not have jurisdiction to investigate. Because of Israel's obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel has allowed the court that authority unlike at the ICC."

Q: Perhaps Israel shouldn't have participated in the proceedings in the ICJ in the first place?

"I think that's an extremely difficult decision for a country that considers itself to be a law-abiding state. While it recognizes real international law and, in fact, has a long and substantial track record of applying international law even domestically in the courts, what we are witnessing at the ICJ is not the proper application of international law. So I imagine that Israel will inevitably keep its involvement at the court under review."

Q: In recent interviews with British media, you've highlighted the growing insecurity Jews feel on London's streets since the outbreak of the war, partly due to massive anti-Israel demonstrations across the city. What future do you envision for British Jews?

"Since the Israeli military entered Rafah, we've witnessed an escalation in the violence accompanying these protests. Recent days have seen about forty violent arrests of so-called 'pro-Palestinian' demonstrators – though to call a spade a spade, we should really label them 'pro-Hamas.' It's evident that law enforcement has failed to address blatant legal violations since October 7, including breaches of public order laws when we consider the calls for Jewish genocide that feature in almost every demonstration. The police consistently claim they lack the resources to properly enforce the law. If they were to arrest everyone chanting 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' or calling for an 'intifada,' they simply couldn't manage the numbers. The thousands of protesters, in turn, exploit this shortage of officers and often resort to violence. Unfortunately, the situation shows no signs of improving anytime soon. Central London has become a 'no-go' area for Jews, as these protests continue on a weekly and even daily basis."

Q: Do you anticipate British Jews emigrating to Israel due to the current climate?

"With elections looming in early July, polls currently predict a decisive victory for the Labour Party. Given this outlook, we could very well see a large-scale exodus of Jews from Britain. From conversations with friends in the Jewish community, I know this is a hot topic around Sabbath dinner tables. It's a sobering reflection of the reality here."

Q: How detrimental do you expect a Labour government to be for Israel?

"You can still vacation here in England until the July 4 elections. After that, I'm not sure it would be advisable," Hausdorff says with a smile, though her tone remains serious. "The implications spell bad news for Israel. Britain's population is increasingly polarized, but despite the cost of living crisis, immigration concerns, and numerous other issues troubling the British – such as the decline of our elite universities – one of the central issues Labour wants to spotlight in the elections is Gaza.

"Even before the elections were announced, David Lammy, Labour's shadow Foreign Secretary, endorsed Karim Khan's request for arrest warrants and declared that the International Criminal Court is an independent body that should have Britain's support. We've also heard promises from prominent Labour politicians to recognize a Palestinian state. So when it comes to Labour's stance, the cards are clearly on the table."

Q: That sounds rather alarming

"I can offer a glimmer of hope, though. I believe there's a silent majority in Britain that's currently keeping quiet in the face of pro-Palestinian incitement but understands Israel's predicament. They recognize that these threats extend beyond Israel; Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups pose a tangible threat to liberal-democratic Western values worldwide. From this perspective, the more voices that speak truth about the situation in Israel, the more this majority will be emboldened to voice its concerns and challenge the prevailing media narrative."

Q: Let's discuss Ireland, which appears to be uniformly opposed to Israel. Is there any audience there receptive to pro-Israel arguments, or is the country a lost cause?

"I've spoken in Ireland on several occasions, and it's crucial to emphasize that media portrayals don't necessarily reflect the entire Irish population. Clearly, this issue resonates strongly in Irish politics, and there are historical reasons for this. The Irish see Palestinians struggling against 'occupation' and identify with them due to their own historical conflict with England. Regrettably, there's potential for relations with Israel to deteriorate further. Ultimately, I believe it boils down to the messages Irish media convey to their citizens. The anti-Israel narrative in Irish media is even more pronounced than the prevalent discourse in Britain. This manifests in academia, street protests, and increasingly in official statements by politicians."

Q: After months of conflict, it seems Israel's public diplomacy efforts are falling short, and some have already thrown in the towel. What would you advise?

"I'd encourage Israel to be more 'tachles,'" Hausdorff says, using the Hebrew term for 'straightforward.' "It's crucial that we don't sugarcoat reality. We need to be unequivocal in our message: Israel is fighting the West's war. For decades, Israeli public diplomacy has tended to apologize for defending itself against Arab terrorism. I hope to see a shift in this stance. If we apologize for self-defense, we can hardly expect the international community to go out of its way to support Israel in its ongoing struggle against Palestinian terrorism.

"We need to invest far more in bringing the truth to light, and I mean presenting facts in real-time. One of Israel's challenges stems from being a responsible country with institutions operating under the rule of law and accountability – which means government ministries are hesitant to disseminate unverified information. Hamas and other terrorist organizations spread blatantly false propaganda, but they're the first to provide information, and that's what gets broadcast worldwide. I'm aware of efforts to expedite Israel's media response processes. We're already seeing improvements in prioritizing the dissemination of accurate information to the world, and I hope this trend continues to gain momentum. Take heart: I, and many others like me, are in London fighting for you in Britain and around the globe."

The post Natasha Hausdorff: The British attorney who fights Israel's wars – and sounds alarm on a UK Labour government appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is taking an extremely radical line against Israel, as part of his political survival efforts and dependence on the far-left 'Sumar' camp," international journalist and lecturer on governance at Reichman University Henrique Cymerman says in a conversation with Israel Hayom, against the backdrop of Spain's decision to join the lawsuit against Israel at The Hague. "Sánchez has a deputy prime minister named Yolanda Díaz, who is a kind of BDS activist supporting the severing of relations with Israel, something that has never happened since Spain established relations with Israel."

Q: Is this a momentary move or one with long-term significance for Israel-Spain relations?

"I think we are in the midst of an unprecedented crisis in which the Israeli ambassador has returned to the country twice for consultations within a few months, something that has not happened since 1986, the year relations were established."

Q: How should Israel's government respond?

"The deterioration in relations is serious, not just with Spain. We also see countries that have joined Spain and intend to recognize a Palestinian state – Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia. This could become a contagious phenomenon, and Israel's problem with this issue is that, in my opinion, we should not be complacent about the fact that far-Right parties support Israel, because these are the grandchildren of those who killed us 80 years ago."

"And so we need to be extremely cautious here," Cymerman emphasizes. "The only solution that exists now, and I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu is aware of this, is to make an offer. It must be understood that Israel cannot always be dragged by the proposals of Americans, Europeans, and others. Israel needs to show goodwill, take the initiative, and not just react, because that is always too little and too late, and it leads to an escalation against Israel that is dangerous."

Q: What do the Spanish people think about their government's attitude towards Israel?

"No one in Spain is indifferent to Israel. There is a certain circle that is completely with the government in a blunt way and totally aligned with this line, and there are people who totally oppose it and understand that a great injustice is being done to the State of Israel. What is being said today in Spain in recent months is how Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and anything that serves this thesis is expressed, and nothing else. In academia in Spain, we are losing big time, and if there are polls among the public, then this gap narrows a bit."

The post Political surrender to the far-Left: Why Spain's government is acting against Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Spain announced Thursday it would join the lawsuit against Israel at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, becoming the first European nation to officially back the case.

Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said his country would officially add itself to the list of petitioners in the case that alleges genocide in the Gaza Strip.

The lawsuit – initially filed by South Africa – has received backing from countries such as Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.

The move continues Spain's recent hardline stance toward Israel under the governance of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. In late may, Spain – as well as Ireland and Norway – recognized a Palestinian state, although ironically, its diplomats have refused to work from Ramallah due to concerns over lifestyle and safety.

Analysts view the decision as driven by Sánchez's need to maintain his minority government's alliance with the far-left Unidas Podemos party, which holds extremely critical views of Israel.

"Sánchez is taking an extremely hardline position toward Israel as part of his political survival efforts due to his dependence on Unidas Podemos," Henrique Zimmerman, an international affairs analyst at Reichman University, said.

Zimmerman noted that Unidas Podemos leader and Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz is a proponent of the anti-Israel boycott movement BDS, advocating for cutting all ties with the Jewish state.

While largely symbolic given the ICC's limited jurisdiction over non-member states like Israel, the lawsuit process could take years to wind through the judicial system in The Hague.

Israel rejects the "genocide" allegations, asserting its military actions in Gaza are defensive measures against Hamas and other terror groups threatening Israeli civilians.

The post Spain joins ICJ lawsuit against Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has resigned from the panel of judges at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, citing "personal family" reasons, according to reports on Wednesday. In his resignation, Barak expressed gratitude to the court for the cooperation he received from the staff and fellow judges.

Barak was selected to serve as an Ad Hoc Judge on the court by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a right that a country can exercise if no judge of its nationality is present on the bench. Judges do not necessarily have to be of the same nationality as the government that selects them.

Former Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak has resigned from the International Court of Justice in The Hague "for personal reasons." pic.twitter.com/AsFnuOlijX

— Noga Tarnopolsky נגה טרנופולסקי نوغا ترنوبولسكي (@NTarnopolsky) June 5, 2024

 The Israeli government now faces the decision of whether to appoint a new judge to replace Barak on the ICJ. Legal sources speculated to Ynet that if a replacement is chosen, the top contenders would likely be former Supreme Court Presidents, such as Esther Hayut or Dorit Beinisch.

Israeli officials have stated their willingness to appoint a future judge, as long as the court remains "fact-based." The officials told Ynet that so far, the court's orders have not "harmed the IDF's ability to advance the achievement of the war goals."

President Isaac Herzog thanked Barak for his service, saying, "[Barak's] special contribution and influence on the legal world in Israel and in the world was of great importance in the legal campaign against those who seek our harm. We will continue to stand firm against the evil, the hypocrisy, and the false plots against the State of Israel and the IDF."

Barak's resignation comes at a time of ongoing tension between Israel and the ICJ over the court's investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israeli forces during the recent conflict.

The post Aharon Barak resigns from ICJ citing family reasons appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It's doubtful whether the judges from The Hague have ever visited St. Clement Danes church in London. Adjacent to it, for over 30 years, stands the statue of British General Arthur Harris. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother proudly unveiled the monument despite vehement protests from the German government. Harris was the key figure who directed the British policy of "area bombing" – massive air raids targeting German population centers. Those bombings made a decisive contribution to the eventual surrender of the Nazi enemy.

Imagine a scenario where The Hague's ICJ tribunal (which didn't exist then) or some other international court had ordered Harris to cease those massive bombing campaigns that created what is now known as "firebombing." They killed around 600,000 civilians and destroyed about 6 million buildings in Hamburg, Dresden, Cologne, Berlin, and other cities.

Picture an alternate reality where a Hague-style tribunal ordered Winston Churchill, who dispatched Harris and his bombers to pound Nazi German cities, to completely or partially halt the war effort there – akin to The Hague's order to Israel on Friday regarding Rafah. If such an unthinkable thing had happened by having the Allies cease combat, this would have assisted the Nazis in continuing the extermination of the Jewish people and their conquests and crimes. It would obviously have also delayed their eventual surrender. Harris himself articulated his moral philosophy to critics then, stating: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

The obvious historical parallel returns to 1945, because The Hague is now assisting Hamas – the Nazis of our time who have repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel and murder its people – to maintain their stamina. They refuse to surrender and insist on holding captives. The Hague is now helping one of the world's most heinous terrorist organizations maintain its power and its evil and continue perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Morally and pragmatically, Israel must refuse to comply with the ICJ ruling. Our obligation to the captives still held in Gaza is to continue militarily pressuring Hamas with full force, patience, perseverance, and wisdom. Or, borrowing Harris' words, let Hamas reap what they sowed. .

Israel has conducted itself in Gaza like Mother Teresa. No other army in the world behaves like the IDF in Gaza. The Hague judges seeking to stop us in Rafah (and this is only the beginning) know this, but their arrogant, hypocritical ruling is not legal - it's political, biased, anti-Semitic, and fueled by basic hostility towards Israel. It also suffers from a glaring double standard, ignoring contemporary wars and armies that have killed thousands of non-combatants while singling out Israel aggressively – Israel, which feeds, hydrates, and fuels its enemies, even providing protective shelters for the "uninvolved" who chose Hamas as their leadership.

In the annals of history, The Hague's ruling from this past Friday will be recorded as a nadir. Historians will analyze how this judicial body deteriorated to such depths, while Israel's expected refusal to obey the ruling will appear, in hindsight, as a glimmer of light in profound darkness.

The post The ICJ is helping modern-day Nazis appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a scathing dissent, a United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) judge urged the court not to micromanage the conflict in Gaza and chided her colleagues for requiring Israel to work on the Jewish Shabbat while responding to a case brought by South Africa under the Genocide Convention.

ICJ Vice President Julia Sebutinde issued a lengthy nine-page dissenting opinion, challenging the court's ruling that called for Israel to cease its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. This ruling stems from South Africa's request, which accuses Israel of genocide in its ongoing war with Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Israel has vehemently denied these charges.

In her dissent, Sebutinde, who is Ugandan, objected to the court's handling of South Africa's request and the "incidental oral hearings." She stated, "In my view, the Court should have consented to Israel's request to postpone the oral hearings to the following week to allow for Israel to have sufficient time to fully respond to South Africa's request and engage counsel." Sebutinde noted that Israel's preferred counsel was unavailable on the dates scheduled by the court.

Furthermore, she expressed regret that "Israel was required to respond to a question posed by a Member of the Court over the Jewish Shabbat." She emphasized, "The Court's decision in this respect bears upon the procedural equality between the parties and the good administration of justice by the Court."

Sebutinde also argued that the court's initial ruling "does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah." She urged the court to "avoid reacting to every shift in the conflict and refrain from micromanaging the hostilities in the Gaza Strip, including Rafah" to maintain its judicial integrity.

Clarifying the ruling's scope, Sebutinde stated that it "partially restrict[s] Israel's offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention." However, she warned that the ruling is "susceptible to ambiguity and could be misunderstood or misconstrued as ordering an indefinite, unilateral cease-fire, thereby exemplifying an untenable overreach on the part of the Court."

The court's decision comes amid escalating tensions, as Norway, Ireland, and Spain recently announced their recognition of the Palestinian state, and the chief prosecutor of a separate international court sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leaders of Hamas.

Israel initiated its military operation in Gaza following Hamas' attack on Oct. 7, during which terrorists infiltrated southern Israel, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1,200 individuals, predominantly civilians. The attack also led to the abduction of around 250 people. According to Israel, approximately 100 hostages remain captive in Gaza, along with the bodies of around 30 additional individuals.

The post UN judge slams court for forcing Israel to defend itself in The Hague on Shabbat appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

While Ireland, Norway, and Spain announced unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, the IDF conducted large-scale counterterror operations in the Jenin area – part of the never-ending effort to thwart terrorism's strongholds in the West Bank.

Since Oct. 7, the security forces have conducted over 4,000 arrests in Judea and Samaria, averaging a staggering 18 per day. This fundamental component allows Israel to maintain security stability and curb terrorism in areas under Palestinian Authority control – the same authority now being recognized as a state by some. Without such uncompromising measures, Israel would likely be unable to independently confront the threats it faces.

Hamas swiftly claimed credit, explaining to Norway's prime minister and other naive leaders that far from bolstering moderates, such recognition following the October massacre is considered an achievement for the terror group.

"Recognition of the Palestinian state came after the 'Al-Aqsa Flood' war and the steadfastness of the 'resistance,'" boasted senior Hamas official Husam Badran. His words were published while footage of the abduction of the observers from Nahal Oz filled television screens in Israel.

While the hypocrisy of this move is obvious, it lacks an understanding of the potential implications it may have on the balance of power within the Palestinian camp itself: Crowning Hamas as the factor by virtue of which the Palestinians will receive this achievement, together with their high levels of public Palestinian support, and with the background of an already raging struggle over the succession of Mahmoud Abbas' seat, could pave the way for the terror organization to take over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank as well.

And not only that. This step, which will be credited to Hamas, is necessarily a tailwind for the entire "axis of resistance" and a strengthening of the path of the Islamic extremists wherever they are. Instead of uniting around the position that the way of terror is flawed and will not yield achievements, the message of this step is the opposite: Terror pays off.

In practical terms, the impact of unilateral recognition is quite limited. The recognition does not address the issue of borders, and in this way, most countries of the world have already recognized a Palestinian state when it was admitted as an observer to the UN.

The impact of these declarations is mainly on the level of awareness and the momentum they could create, especially when they occur in parallel with proceedings at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague and at a time when the US administration is pressuring Israel to agree to a deal, one component of which is a commitment to a process that will eventually lead to a Palestinian state.

In this sense, the US' reservations about the unilateral recognition move are very important, both to prevent a momentum of more countries recognizing a Palestinian state and to prevent this idea from gaining a foothold in Washington itself. After the heavy price Israel has paid and is still paying, the political leadership not only has the right but is obligated to take a sober, cautious, and suspicious stance. Israel needs to rely only on itself and avoid entering processes that would be difficult, if not impossible, to exit.

In the security arena, whatever the definition of the Palestinians may be, Israel will need to continue its presence and do everything it is currently doing for its security, without any compromises.

It will have to continue to maintain absolute and effective control over the borders and the seamline, ensure security and freedom of operation within the territory, and prevent processes such as those that took place in Gaza.

The IDF and the Shin Bet will be required to continue their activity against terrorist infrastructures, thwart smuggling or production of combat means, take a suspicious approach also towards Palestinian mechanisms, and prevent by all means the possibility of Hamas taking over the governing institutions, whether directly, through a partnership with another political factor or through proxy actors. This is the meaning of the statement – we must defend ourselves by ourselves.

The post Palestinian state recognition and ICJ proceedings are a prize for Hamas appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.