Despite military achievements in Gaza, Israel faces defeats on other fronts: public relations, diplomacy, and legal battles. These are part of public diplomacy, which is as crucial as military strategy.

The failure lies in framing the war. Framing events is critical in the battle for media and public opinion, and whoever sets the narrative first gains a significant advantage.

Since October 7, Israel is not only fighting in Gaza. The war is against Iran and all its proxies in the region, including Hamas, Hezbollah, militias in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran also directly attacked Israel on the night of April 13-14.

Why, in response to South Africa's unfounded complaint to the International Court of Justice in The Hague against Israel for alleged "genocide" intentions in Gaza, which are baseless, does Israel not file a justified complaint against Iran for its intentions and plans to destroy Israel?

The Palestinians have enormous achievements in the field of public relations because they appear weak compared to Israel and because of the destruction in Gaza. But framing the war against Iran and its proxies would change the picture, as Iranian power is equal to or greater than Israel's. Iran's civilian and military leaders have repeatedly declared their intention to destroy Israel, and the circle of fire they have created around it is aimed at achieving this goal.

Hamas' attack on October 7 was intended to ignite the Iranian circle of fire, or at least to test the waters for a more decisive move in the future.

Even the term "the war against Hamas in Gaza" is misleading. Few people in the world know who Hamas is and are familiar with its charter and platform, which call for the destruction of Israel. Few know about its conduct in Gaza since it took over. The war is presented in the media as aggression against Gaza's civilians, not against Hamas fighters and the military infrastructure they built above and below ground.

When the skilled IDF spokesperson provides evidence against Hamas, it is often too late.

Therefore, from the outset, the war should have been defined as one against Iran and its proxies, not against the Palestinians or Hamas in Gaza.

Hezbollah claims it attacks only military targets in Israel. This is a lie. Anti-tank missile fire directly at houses along the entire northern border is not aimed at military targets. The Houthis have fired several times at Eilat and recently hit Tel Aviv. Hezbollah and the Houthis are committing serious war crimes. Israel's counterattacks in Gaza and on all other fronts are justified as basic self-defense.

The propaganda war against Israel is waged in international UN bodies, and it must be addressed primarily there. It is unclear why Israel does not file complaints with the Security Council against Lebanon and Yemen for aggression and war crimes whenever Hezbollah attacks from the north and the Houthis from the south, demanding condemnation and action against them. Why, in response to South Africa's unfounded complaint to the International Court of Justice in The Hague against Israel for alleged "genocide" intentions in Gaza, does Israel not file a justified complaint against Iran for its intentions and plans to destroy Israel?

The UN and its institutions are indeed heavily biased against Israel and infected with covert or overt anti-Semitism. Therefore, Israel tends to ignore them. But many countries, including those in the liberal West, regard them with respect and seriousness. When Israel is accused of war crimes in UN institutions and only tries to defend itself, the result is predictable, and ultimately, only Israel is found guilty.

Effective public diplomacy uses all available tools and, like any war, must combine defense with offense. It is time to launch a multi-front public relations, diplomatic, and legal offensive against Iran and its proxies. If UN institutions seriously consider Israel's complaints and act accordingly, Israel will benefit. If not, they can be condemned as biased and one-sided, making it harder for the West to accept their decisions against Israel.

The post Defeats on non-military fronts appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The crisis between the US and Israel is growing, and there is an increasing understanding in Washington that Israel needs to be saved from itself. Indeed, this is US meddling in Israel's internal affairs, which is an unusual phenomenon – but not a new one.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The concern of the US is not only regarding the judicial reform but also Israel's conduct toward the Palestinians and the violence in Judea and Samaria. Moreover, the Americans are worried that Israel's internal division is undermining its deterrence against enemies in the region, primarily Iran.

The relations between the US and Israel are special; therefore, the Biden administration thinks it is allowed to demand more consideration from Israel regarding its positions. Administration officials are furious over statements made by coalition ministers and Knesset members who say that the president, his vice president, and his staff do not understand what is happening here.

Netanyahu's assumption that the US will not go too far in pressuring Israel due to the upcoming US presidential elections in 2024 is mistaken. American Jewry disapproves of the Israeli government's policy regarding the judicial reforms and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is the one pressuring Biden to take a clearer stance towards Israel.

The US looks more at the rifts in the Coalition than at the one between the Coalition and the Opposition. Netanyahu assured the US that he was the one holding the reins. Still, in the US sees the Coalition's more extreme members – Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir – as the ones calling the shots. Therefore, the US is pressuring him to deal with them and tone down the government's policy regarding judicial matters and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Thomas Friedman's commentary represents a more radical position of the Biden administration against Netanyahu. Still, in my assessment, it somewhat strengthens the criticism because it uses the term "reassessment," – which implies a negative impact on the American supply of weapons to Israel, as was the case in 1975.

At this stage, the United States' disapproval may be reflected less in its military and security relations with Israel and more in political matters, primarily in its defense of Israel in the international institutions of the UN and its agencies.

All recent American positions are signals to Netanyahu that he needs to change his policy, or else the crisis will worsen. Therefore, what needs to be done, especially against the backdrop of Iran's advancing nuclear program, is to voice less outlandish criticism against US views, and adopt a moderate policy regarding the topics that are important to it, and be more considerate of the American concerns.

But Israel's internal affairs are not the only thing bothering the US government; its conduct in Judea and Samaria does as well. They believe that the Israeli government did not properly handle the Jewish reprisal rampages in Hawara and Turmus Ayya, the more problematic village, because Turmus Ayya has many residents who are American citizens.

The United States' recent statements can indeed sound like they support the protests. Still, they are much more about the relations within the Israeli Coalition and the US government's demand that Netanyahu take control of its radical members and dictate policy to them, not vice versa.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Netanyahu has been misreading the US signals appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

One of the main objectives of US President Joe Biden's upcoming visit to the Middle East is to strengthen strategic alliances, to contain both adversaries and allies.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Biden's visit follows the pattern set by the last two American presidents: Barack Obama and Donald Trump—that after the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States can no longer function as the world's sole policeman and seeks a more isolationist foreign policy. Biden is rejuvenating the alliances the United States established to contain the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War: NATO in the Atlantic sphere, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in Southeast Asia and the Baghdad Pact in the Middle East.

All three American presidents have defined China as the main adversary of the United States in the international arena. However, China is also an important player in the global economy and, therefore, can be defined as a "frenemy" of the United States. China is a partner in the economic sphere and a rival on security issues. Trump chose to confront China economically through trade wars and high tariffs. Biden has chosen a different strategy.

In September 2021, Biden initiated and established two related and important defense alliances in Asia: AUKUS, the English-speaking alliance with Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the Quad, with the United States, Australia, Japan and India. These alliances were designed to contain China, and closely cooperate in diverse military and security areas. China strongly criticized them.

During Biden's upcoming visit, he plans to form a regional defense alliance at a regional conference in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The coalition will include the United States, Israel and a host of Arab countries, including Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. In this sense, Biden continues Trump's policy of the Abraham Accords.

The new alliance is intended to contain Iran and, in the first stage, will be based on an air defense system against Iranian missiles and attack drones, as well as cyber-security measures. Biden may succeed in upgrading the relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Biden's visit is intended to send two messages: Despite the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States has no intention of leaving the Middle East and will continue to be involved in critical developments in the region. The second message is intended for Iran: there is yet another, last chance to reach a nuclear agreement, and if no deal is reached, the price will be the cultivation and consolidation of the regional defense alliance against it.

The leading player in the planned alliance is Saudi Arabia; it is no coincidence that Biden will visit the kingdom during his Mideast trip in July or that the founding conference will be held there.

Biden has completely reversed his policy toward Saudi Arabia. He and his colleagues in the Democratic Party, especially those who call themselves progressives, lashed out against Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for his involvement in the murder of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The criticism caused a severe crisis between the two countries. The visit to Saudi Arabia aims to achieve reconciliation with Prince Mohammed.

The main reason for the policy reversal is the war in Ukraine and its economic consequences. The sanctions against Russia have caused a steep rise in fuel prices, reaching an all-time high of more than $5 per gallon. Inflation has reached 8.6%, the highest in 40 years. Interest rates and the cost of living are sharply rising. The bleak economic situation enhances the chances of a Republican victory in the midterm elections in November.

Biden decided that the economy and the elections were more important than moral considerations and criticism from the Democrats' progressive wing. He asked Prince Mohammed to increase oil production to reduce the shortages caused by the sanctions against Russia. The Saudi leader refused and demanded a change in Biden's policy, including a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

China also appears in the background of the US alliance building. In March 2021, the foreign ministers of Iran and China signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement in Tehran. China has pledged to invest $400 billion in Iran's energy industry in exchange for sizable oil and gas purchases at discounted prices.

The Chinese investments are intended to discover and develop oil and gas fields and purchase petrochemical products. In recent years, China has circumvented the sanctions Trump imposed on Iran and bought large quantities of oil. The agreement allows China to deploy about 5,000 security personnel in Iran. As far as the United States is concerned, the Middle East alliance could also block China's penetration of Iran.

During Biden's visit to the region, a summit will be held via Zoom, at the level of leaders, connecting Asia's alliances, discussed earlier, with the Middle East's new regional alliance. This alliance is called I2U2, and comprises Israel, India, the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

Tectonic strategic changes are taking place in the Middle East, and Israel has a central place. The White House announced that the visit to Israel would take place even if the coalition of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid falls. In normal times, Biden would have avoided a visit to Israel at such a time because it could have been interpreted as interference in Israeli politics.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

But Biden arrives in Israel at a critical juncture, amid a deadlock in the nuclear talks with Iran, which is producing uranium enriched to near-military grade. The International Atomic Energy Agency condemned Iran for violating agreements. In response, the Iranians shut down surveillance cameras at its nuclear sites, creating increased anxiety among US allies about Biden's Iran policy.

The effects of the war in Ukraine, and the upcoming congressional elections in the United States, cannot wait for the Israeli domestic political situation to settle.

Professor Eytan Gilboa is an expert on US-Israel relations, international communication and public diplomacy. The founding head of both the School of Communication and the Center for International Communication at Bar-Ilan University, he has been a senior fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. He has served as an adviser to the government of Israel and several foreign governments.

The post Connecting strategic dots on Biden's Middle East visit appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

It is baseless because only sovereign states can file complaints to the court, and Palestine is not a sovereign state. Moreover, the ICC can investigate only countries that have signed the Rome Statute, which established the court. Israel, along with the United States and 70 other countries, did not join the ICC precisely because they suspected it would be another highly biased and politicized United Nations body. That is exactly what it turned out to be.

Furthermore, the ICC was founded in 2002 to investigate serious crimes against humanity and war crimes, such as genocide, committed by countries not able to credibly carry out such investigations themselves. Israel is a vibrant democracy with an independent judiciary that investigates violations of the laws of war.

The ICC is a political kangaroo court. It ignores the most serious war crimes and atrocities in the world today, such as the genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Syria by the Assad regime, Russia and Iran. It disregards Russian war crimes in Chechnya and the Crimea and those of the Houthis and the Saudis in Yemen.

The ICC's decision is dangerous for Israel because the court is authorized to investigate only individuals, not countries. In the wake of last week's ruling ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda can summon Israeli prime ministers, defense ministers, senior military officers and officials for questioning. If they refuse to appear, as they are likely to do, she can issue warrants for their arrest. Theoretically, all 122 ICC member states would then be obliged to arrest and extradite these individuals. (Issuing arrest warrants requires ICC approval, however. The ruling states that this matter will be discussed separately later on and will require reasoned and well-supported requests from the prosecution.)

Bensouda does not come into this affair with clean hands. She served as Gambia's justice minister and backed a tyrannical regime that systematically violated human rights. According to the testimony of Palestinian Authority officials, including the late chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, she advised them on how to seek admission to the Rome Statute and how to file a lawsuit against Israel. ICC rules require the prosecutor to conduct herself professionally, objectively, and ethically. Bensouda violated these rules, but the court failed to take any disciplinary action against her.

In light of the legal dispute over whether the ICC has jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories, Bensouda asked a pre-trial panel of three judges for authorization to carry out the investigation. She manipulated the panel by asking only whether Palestine is a state or not. The panel's presiding judge, Peter Kovacs of Hungary, wrote a minority opinion rejecting most of Bensouda's arguments and ruling that the court had no authority to investigate Israel. The other two judges, Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin and Marc Perrin de Brichambaut of France, thought otherwise.

In 2020, a different pre-trial panel of ICC judges authorized Bensouda to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the United States in Afghanistan. The Trump administration attacked the decision, denounced the court and the prosecutor, revoked her visa and threatened further sanctions against her and the justices if they dared investigate either the United States or Israel.

The timing of the announcement of the court's ruling provides additional proof that the ICC is a politicized and biased UN institution. The ICC was supposed to publish its decision in mid-July 2020, but postponed it until after the 2020 US presidential election and the expected changing of the guard from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. The court's leaders anticipated that the Biden administration's response would be more moderate than that of Trump. But if Biden does opt to do nothing, the court is likely to launch an investigation of the United States as well.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Prosecutor Bensouda ends her term this June. She may be satisfied with having obtained authorization to carry out an investigation of Israel and will probably not actually begin one. Her successor is about to be selected. The court and the Palestinians would like to appoint someone like Bensouda, but Israel and the United States must act forcefully to ensure that in contrast to that biased figure, the new prosecutor is a professional, unbiased, honest and fair official. If such a person is appointed, he or she is unlikely to investigate either Israel or the United States.

The two allies should mobilize all the countries that prior to the deliberations of the pre-trial panel submitted briefs to the ICC against Bensouda's request to investigate Israel – notably Germany, Hungary, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic and Brazil. These countries should join the United States and Israel in protesting against the court's decision and support the naming of a suitable candidate for the job of prosecutor. Israel should ask the US Congress to condemn the ICC's decision and to warn against any investigation of the United States or Israel. Washington and Jerusalem should also conduct a worldwide public diplomacy campaign to delegitimize and deter the ICC.

Featured on JNS.org, this article was first published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

The post ICC's ruling on Israel is baseless but dangerous appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

He further pointed out that the Palestinians, who filed the original complaint, do not have a sovereign state, "and therefore are not qualified to obtain full membership or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"A court that attempts to exercise its power outside its jurisdiction is a political tool that makes a mockery of the law and due process," said Pompeo. He then warned, "If the ICC continues down its current course, we will exact consequences."

Bensouda's decision to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes is highly suspect on all the grounds cited by Pompeo. Both Israel and the United States refrained from joining the ICC precisely because they suspected, clearly with good reason, that it would be another highly politicized and profoundly biased United Nations body.

Moreover, the ICC was founded in 2002 for the purpose of investigating crimes against humanity and war crimes, such as genocide, committed by countries not capable of investigating such crimes on their own. The Israeli case does not meet any of these fundamental conditions. Bensouda has thus violated the ICC's own rules and procedures for the express purpose of going after Israel, and she is doing so at the behest of the Palestinians.

Because of these criticisms, the chief prosecutor was compelled to ask a pre-trial panel of three judges to authorize her investigation. Those judges, Péter Kovács of Hungary, Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, and Marc Perrin of France, are now deliberating her request.

On a recent visit by Pompeo to Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked him to act forcefully against Bensouda and the court. In issuing the warning to the court, Pompeo not only responded to Netanyahu's request but also followed up on a letter sent to him by 69 senators and 262 representatives from both sides of the aisle asking him to vigorously defend Israel against the ICC's pending investigation.

It is not only for Israel's sake that the United States is stepping into this fray. In November 2017, Bensouda announced that she had enough evidence to investigate alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. As she was later to do in the Israel case, she asked a pre-trial panel of three judges to authorize the investigation.

The US administration criticized her strongly, canceled her entry visa and threatened to prosecute her in a US court, as well as anyone else who might be involved in the case, including her staff and even ICC judges. If the court ever dares to detain an American citizen, senior officials added, the United States will use force to release him or her. President Trump, Pompeo and then-National Security Advisor John Bolton accused the ICC of being political, corrupt, irresponsible, unaccountable and lacking transparency, and therefore illegitimate.

Apparently, the severe threats influenced the pre-trial judges, who did not allow Bensouda to continue her investigation of the United States. However, she appealed the decision and won. The original pre-trial panel's decision has been reversed and she is now authorized to proceed with her investigation. Pompeo's warning on the Israeli case is thus also a message about the court's pending investigation of the United States.

Eight countries from all continents but Asia – Germany, Austria, Hungary, Brazil, Uganda, the Czech Republic, Australia and Canada – delivered a formal objection to Bensouda's plan to prosecute Israel (the Canadian protest was disqualified for technical reasons). Germany's objection is especially important because it is considered one of the strongest supporters of the ICC. Dozens of non-governmental bodies and experts have also filed objections.

In the meantime, testimony about Bensouda's unsavory past has surfaced. Victims have come forward who claim that when she served as justice minister of Gambia, she was an integral part of a cruel and authoritarian regime guilty of oppression and serious human rights violations. Furthermore, news reports recently revealed that Bensouda advised Palestinian officials on how to obtain a decision from the court to investigate and indict Israel, and that she collaborated with Palestinian organizations while preparing her brief for the pre-trial judges. All of this conduct violates ICC rules.

If the pre-trial panel of judges authorizes the prosecutor to open an investigation of Israel, it could have serious legal implications for Israeli politicians, officials and military officers. The prosecutor is likely to summon many of them for questioning. In the event that they ignore these summons, which they are likely to do, the prosecutor could then issue international warrants for their arrest.

On paper, they could then be arrested and extradited to the court if they were to visit any of the 123 countries that are party to the Rome Statute. Obviously, this would not happen in the United States or any of the other states that never joined the Rome Statute, or that joined and later withdrew. Nor is it likely to happen in states that are party to the Rome Statute but that have officially rejected Bensouda's claims. Nevertheless, in view of widespread bias and the excessive politicization of international law, an ICC investigation of alleged Israeli war crimes could severely damage Israel's standing and reputation in the world.

On May 17, 2020, while introducing his new government, Netanyahu made reference to the part of Bensouda's criminal charges that define the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as war crimes. He said: "We will fight the International Criminal Court's attempt to accuse IDF soldiers of war crimes and the State of Israel for the horrendous crime of kindergarten construction. What hypocrisy, what twisting of the truth. These areas of the country are the birthplaces of the Jewish nation. It's time to apply Israeli law over them."

The talks about unilateral application of Israeli law to the Jordan Valley and West Bank Jewish "settlements," as prescribed in Trump's Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, could hinder the international effort to prevent the ICC investigation.

Israel cannot cope on its own with the dangers of an investigation and possible indictment by a biased and corrupt prosecutor and a highly politicized tribunal. The assistance of the United States and other countries is crucial. It is by no means a certainty that Trump will win reelection in November, and we have no idea what the balance in Congress between Republicans and Democrats will be. If the court decides to abandon its plan to investigate the United States, Democrats who in the past decade have moved left and clashed with the Israeli government may not feel any need to adopt a tough policy toward the ICC and vigorously defend Israel.

Pompeo's warning to the ICC is crucial to defeating Bensouda and the Palestinians who have been trying to undermine Israel's standing in the world and right to self-defense. But it isn't enough. Israel should conduct a forceful and relentless campaign against the ICC with all the diplomatic and legal tools at its disposal. Former chief of staff and new Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi may be among the first to be summoned by Bensouda for questioning. He should place the campaign against her and the ICC high on his list of priorities.

This article was first published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

The post The US-Israeli campaign against the ICC appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Bensouda mentioned war crimes committed by Hamas and other Palestinian "armed groups," but merely as a fig leaf to create the impression of neutrality. The object of her case – to target Israel for demonization – is reflected in the enthusiastic praise her announcement received from the PA and Hamas.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Bensouda's opinion is baseless, preposterous, and discriminatory, and most importantly it violates the ICC's own mission and rules. The ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious war crimes. The United States and Israel did not ratify the Rome Treaty that established the court out of concern that it would be used to deliver politicized and biased judgments. That concern has been proven valid.

Bensouda's action is a major threat to Israel. The ICC prosecutes individuals, not states. Therefore, if its pretrial chamber of three judges accepts Bensouda's request and rules that the ICC has jurisdiction over the case, she will be able to subpoena senior Israeli politicians and military officers for interrogation. If they refuse to submit to interrogation, as they are likely to do, she could issue warrants for their arrest.

The ICC is not a genuine court in that it does not follow the basic rules of judicial evidence and procedure. It is yet another highly politicized United Nations body driven by a prejudiced political agenda.

No jurisdiction

The main arguments against Bensouda's decision are straightforward:

• Only sovereign states can file complaints to the ICC. In 2015, the Palestinian Authority joined the Rome Treaty and several countries recognized Palestinian independence. Palestine is not, however, a sovereign state.
• Israel, like the United States and about one-third of the countries in the world, did not join the ICC. The court, therefore, has no jurisdiction over it.
• The ICC was established to deal with war crimes that leaders and countries ignore. Israel is a democracy and has one of the most respected legal systems in the world. Israel investigates cases of war crimes and prosecutes those responsible. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas never investigate charges of war crimes against themselves.
• The ICC was established to investigate and prosecute serious war crimes such as genocide. Crimes of this nature have been committed recently in the Middle East, for instance by the Syrian government, Russia, and Iran during the Syrian civil war. They murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, turned half the population of Syria into refugees and destroyed cities, towns, and villages. Neither the ICC nor any other United Nations body did anything to stop these war crimes, and the ICC does not appear to have any interest in prosecuting anyone for them, either.
• Contrary to Bensouda's claims, the ICC is not an independent body, and her preliminary investigation was neither objective nor neutral. The ICC depends entirely on the UN General Assembly for its funding and operations. In keeping with the strong anti-Israel attitude of the United Nations and its agencies, the court uses and follows the highly distorted and biased resolutions and reports produced on Israel by UN agencies.

Several liberal democracies have severely criticized Bensouda's decision. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated:

"We firmly oppose this [decision] and any other action that seeks to target Israel unfairly. We do not believe the Palestinians qualify as a sovereign state, and they therefore are not qualified to obtain full membership, or participate as a state in international organizations, entities, or conferences, including the ICC. The US also reiterates its longstanding objection to any assertion of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of states that are not parties to the Rome Statute, including the US and Israel, absent a referral from the UN Security Council or the consent of such a state."

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his country does not recognize the "State of Palestine" or its status as a member state of ICC and therefore believes the ICC has no authority on the matter.

Germany, a strong supporter of the ICC, issued a more delicate warning. Its foreign ministry stated that it is "confident that the court will resolve the issues raised. This will also address issues of admissibility that may be doubtful." The subtext is clear: Germany does not believe the ICC has jurisdiction over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Bensouda's action should be placed within the wider context of the Palestinian disinformation, delegitimization, and demonization campaign against Israel. This campaign employs three major instruments: The United Nations and its agencies; NGOs, particularly those claiming to advocate for human rights; and the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement. These instruments are interrelated and reinforce each other.

At the United Nations, the Palestinians enjoy automatic support from Muslim countries, Russia, China, the European Union, and developing countries. As they have failed to defeat Israel through violence and terrorism, they have opted to delegitimize and demonize Israel at the United Nations and its agencies, portraying it as an evil, racist, and apartheid state, the worst violator of human rights in the world – so vile that it is devoid of the right to defend itself or even to exist.

Unfortunately, several international human rights NGOs, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, are staffed by anti-Israeli directors and investigators and demonize Israel via highly biased and misleading reports. Israeli and Palestinian human rights NGOs, too, disseminate distorted and sometimes even fabricated reports, especially on the confrontations in Gaza. These organizations include B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Al-Haq, Al-Dameer, and Al Mezan. They are heavily funded by Western European countries on condition that they frequently challenge the Israeli legal system and provide the ICC and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) with incriminating information against Israel.

Refuting the Israeli war-crimes thesis

While all Bensouda's accusations against Israel should be rejected on the basis of the legal and political arguments discussed above, there is additional overwhelming evidence countering her allegations about Israel's purported "war crimes" during military confrontations with Hamas in Gaza.

Bensouda claims her decision relies on reports on these confrontations submitted to the United Nations, particularly those initiated and approved by the UNHRC. That dysfunctional and corrupt organization is dominated by authoritarian countries, some of which are among the greatest abusers of human rights on earth. The UNHRC is notorious for its anti-Israel bias – Israel is a permanent item on the UNHRC's agenda.

The UNHRC appointed several "independent" commissions to investigate Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza. One investigated 2014's Operation Protective Edge and another the 2018-2019 Gaza "protests." Both relied on questionable information provided by local and international "human rights" organizations. The first chair of the 2014 commission, William Schabas, resigned after Israel found that he had previously worked for the PLO and was biased against Israel.

Among other things, he said before his appointment that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be indicted for "war crimes" committed during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. (Shabas revealed just how much he really knows about Israel and the Middle East with this charge; the prime minister of Israel during the 2006 war was Ehud Olmert, not Netanyahu.)

The ICC's investigators did not include anyone with any military background or experience. However, several high-level officers and officials with substantial military experience from several countries investigated the cases cited in Bensouda's opinion and reached definitive conclusions that are completely at odds with her claims.

In November 2014, following a fact-finding mission to Israel, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said that "in the 2014 Gaza conflict, Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties." In June 2015, the independent High-Level Military Group led by Gen. Klaus Naumann, former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr and chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and 10 other former chiefs of staff, generals, senior officers, and officials from seven countries investigated the 2014 Gaza operation. They unanimously stated:

"Each of our own armies is of course committed to protecting civilian life during combat. But none of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the IDF last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population in such circumstances. … During Operation Protective Edge, in the air, on the ground and at sea, Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard."

Similarly, Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, blasted and systematically refuted the war crimes allegations and reports submitted to the UNHRC on the 2014 Gaza operation and the 2018-2019 Gaza "protests." He submitted detailed reports based on research and observations on the ground. He blamed Hamas for the violence and accused it of war crimes, arguing that Israel exercised great restraint. Unlike Hamas, he said, Israel took exceptional measures to adhere to the laws of armed conflict and to minimize civilian casualties. He accused the UNHRC of endemic bias against Israel and rejected the reports it had approved as totally wrong and baseless.

Both the UNHCR and Bensouda ignored all this diverse military expert evidence as it did not fit their agenda.

The US approach

In November 2017, Bensouda asked the ICC's pretrial judges for authorization to open an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed by the United States in Afghanistan. In September 2018, US National Security Adviser John Bolton called the ICC "unaccountable" and "outright dangerous" to the United States, Israel, and other allies. He threatened the ICC with sanctions: "We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the US We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and we will prosecute them in the US criminal system."

In March 2019, Pompeo warned that the United States would revoke the visas of ICC officials who pursued allegations against US forces in Afghanistan or against Israel. On April 5, 2019, the United States revoked Bensouda's visa.

A few days later, the ICC's pretrial judges rejected Bensouda's request to open an investigation against the United States by arguing that such an investigation was likely to fail due to lack of cooperation from the parties involved, and budgetary constraints.

The judges were more concerned about losing their entry visas to the United States and about other American sanctions than about the case itself. US President Donald Trump called the judges' decision "a major international victory" and denounced the ICC for its "broad, unaccountable, prosecutorial powers," as well as for what he considered to be its threat to American sovereignty. He said, "Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response."

What should Israel do?

Israel must fight the ICC through aggressive political means. Bensouda joined those who delegitimize and demonize Israel. The best response would be to delegitimize and penalize her and the ICC via an alliance of countries under US leadership, along the lines adopted by the Trump administration. If the pretrial judges approve Bensouda's request, Israel should ask the United States to fulfill its commitment, cancel the visas of Bensouda, the ICC judges and its investigators, and apply other severe sanctions against them.

Like the United States and other countries, Israel should ban ICC investigators from entering Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza; pass laws that protect Israeli officials and officers from ICC directives and potential indictments; and sign bilateral agreements with states refusing to comply with ICC orders and arrest warrants. Israel should also consider sanctions against the Palestinian Authority, which, with Bensouda's help, started the ICC preliminary investigation. These steps can help to expose the ICC's complete lack of credibility or legitimacy.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Fighting Israel's demonization at the ICC appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Military and strategic experts argue that an Iranian military attack on Israel is just a matter of time, in part due to American strategic weakness, as reflected in its failure to respond to a series of Iranian provocations in the Gulf. The main purpose of such an attack would be to deter Israel from continuing its relentless strikes on the military infrastructure Iran is attempting to build in Syria and more recently in Iraq.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Iran has attacked oil tankers and Saudi oil facilities and shot down an expensive American intelligence drone over international waters. It is building facilities to convert Lebanese Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah's huge arsenal of rockets into more accurate and deadly weapons. It is trying to add a third military front against Israel in Syria and Iraq (the other two being Lebanon and the Gaza Strip) and is using the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip to attack Israeli towns and villages, with the aim of sabotaging the Egyptian effort to achieve calm there.

Iran is also systematically violating the 2015 nuclear agreement, which was signed by European powers as well as the United States.

On Nov. 6, 2019, Iran began to fuel over 1,044 centrifuges with uranium gas at the Fordow nuclear facility. The purpose is to enrich uranium at 20%. For peaceful purposes, uranium only needs to be enriched to between 3-5%, and indeed the nuclear deal allows Iran to enrich only up to 3.67%. Any enrichment beyond that level could indicate a plan to build nuclear weapons, which require 85-90% enrichment. Once the 20 % level is reached, enrichment can be boosted to 90% quite rapidly.

Iran also plans to increase its enriched uranium production tenfold at the Natanz nuclear facility. On Nov. 4, it claimed to be developing advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium faster.

President Donald Trump's decision to refrain from retaliation against Iranian provocations in the Gulf, his eagerness to meet Iran's President Hassan Rouhani at the recent United Nations General Assembly, his reported willingness to lift the heavy sanctions he imposed on Iran in return for the meeting and possible negotiations over a new nuclear agreement, and his decision to pull out from Kurdish-controlled areas near the Turkish-Syrian border encourage Iran to believe the United States is weak and unprepared to use force against either military provocations or the new efforts to accelerate the quest for nuclear weapons.

The regime's leaders may also have concluded that the United States is now an unreliable ally that will not retaliate strongly against either violation of the nuclear agreement or an attack on Israel.

On Sept. 14, 2019, Iran attacked the Saudi oil facility in Abqaiq, one of the world's most important oil production facilities. The surprise attack was launched from Iran and carried out by sophisticated and accurate cruise missiles and attack drones. Tehran claims the attack was carried out from Yemen by rebel Houthis, but the evidence clearly shows the attack came from Iranian territory.

It is obvious that Iran would not attack Israel directly from its own territory. It is much more likely to use its proxies in the region. Fortunately, Iran lost some of the element of surprise against Israel as it already used precision-guided cruise missiles against Saudi Arabia.

Israel is preparing defensive and offensive answers to the prospect of an Iranian cruise missile and drone strike. An Israeli strategy should include several key components. First it should reveal Iran's plan. Then it should threaten direct and massive retaliation and make clear that Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Gaza will pay a heavy price if attacks on Israel originate on their soil.

In the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Israel distinguished between Lebanon and Hezbollah. This distinction did not really apply then, and certainly does not apply now. If Israel comes under attack from Lebanese territory, it will attack all of Lebanon in response – the Lebanese army as well as Hezbollah. The same is true for Syria. Israel is trying to persuade Syrian President Basher Assad and Russia that if Israel comes under attack from Syria, Assad will pay the price and his regime will be endangered.

Coordination with the United States and consultation with Russia are critically important. Despite the US failure to respond to the Iranian provocations, the recent decision to withdraw from northern Syria, the forthcoming impeachment process against Trump and the 2020 presidential election, Israel should consult the US administration on alternative responses to an Iranian attack. Jerusalem should also attempt to persuade Trump to issue a warning that attacks on Israel of the kind launched against Saudi Arabia would trigger a severe American reaction.

Similarly, Israel should inform Russia of potential Israeli action after any attack by Iran, especially from Syrian territory. Russia hasn't been happy about exchanges of fire between Israel and Iranian forces attempting to build a base in Syria. Russia has not protested Israeli military actions in Syria and is concerned about the survival of the Assad regime should an Iranian attack originate from there.

All these strategic components could create some level of deterrence or at least limit the damage of any potential Iranian attack. Yet given the changing circumstances in the region, even a limited attack could trigger a major war that nobody wants, at least right now.

Iran's military leaders often threaten to annihilate Israel or at least destroy Tel Aviv. In view of the growing probability of a direct military confrontation between the two states, Israelis would do well to remember Elie Wiesel's words: "Better to believe the threats of our enemies than the promises of our friends."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post The road to an Iranian attack on Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Two of the three, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, belong to the radical branch of the party. They are battling two other contenders: former Vice President Joe Biden, who represents the moderate, mainstream branch of the party; and Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who falls between the two ideological poles. Warren and Sanders hold radical views about many political, economic and social issues, and are isolationists with regard to US foreign policy.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

On Oct. 19, 2019, Warren said at an event in Iowa that military aid to Israel could be conditional on halting settlement expansion in the West Bank. "Right now, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu says he is going to take Israel in a direction of increasing settlements. That does not move us toward a two-state solution," she said. "It is the official policy of the United States of America to support a two-state solution, and if Israel is moving in the opposite direction then everything is on the table."

Warren was merely echoing Sanders, who said in June that he would "absolutely" consider dangling cuts to American military aid to Israel to put pressure on Jerusalem. He added, however, that he would not make decisions that render Israel militarily vulnerable.

A month later, Sanders said on the Pod Save America podcast that Israelis "absolutely have the right to live in peace, independence, and security," but added that under Netanyahu, Israel had an "an extreme right-wing government with many racist tendencies" and he would consider using American military aid as leverage against it.

Last weekend, at a J Street event in Washington, DC, Sanders said in response to a question about aid to Israel: "$3.8 billion [a year] is a lot of money, and we cannot give it, carte blanche, to the Israeli government. If you want military aid, you're going to have to fundamentally change your relationship [to Gaza]." He added that if elected, he would tell the Israeli government that some of the aid money "should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza."

Buttigieg, a former US naval officer, has said: "I think that the aid is leverage to guide Israel in the right direction … If, for example, there is a follow-through on these threats of annexation, I'm committed to ensuring that the US is not footing the bill for that."

To see the hypocrisy and double standards clearly, we need only compare these statements about cutting military aid to Israel and the response to cuts authorized by US President Donald Trump in aid to the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).

In September 2019, in a letter to Trump, Sanders and Warren joined 32 democratic senators in condemning those cuts. Sanders and Warren ignored the Palestinians' repeated rejection of peace negotiations and peace proposals offered by President Bill Clinton and Vice President Biden, as well as by Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. They also ignored the unrelenting Palestinian campaign of delegitimization against Israel and the PA's monthly payments to terrorists convicted of murdering Israelis.

Warren and Sanders further ignored UNRWA's absurd mission, abuses of authority and corruption.

Unlike the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees agency (UNHCR), which helps to settle refugees around the world, UNRWA perpetuates the refugee status of millions of Palestinians. UNRWA schools use books filled with hatred toward Israel and opposition to any peace process. In Gaza, Hamas uses UNRWA schools as cover for the hiding and launching of missiles.

UNRWA should have been dismantled decades ago and its functions transferred to the U.N. Refugee Agency.

Then there's the fact that the very use of the term "aid" in the context of US-Israeli defense relations is itself misleading. A more accurate and appropriate term would be "investment."

First, the aid is all military. Second, most of the funds are reinvested back into the US economy, as Israel is required to spend 76% of the money with American defense manufacturers.

Third, US military aid to Israel has historically been viewed as an investment in peace and security. Successive American administrations have viewed the aid package as key to helping Israel maintain its qualitative military edge over potential threats in the region, especially those emanating from Iran and its proxies Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

Fourth, in return for aid, Israel provides the US military and defense industries with valuable data, develops innovative military technology like missile defense systems and border surveillance technology which the United States benefits from, and shares intelligence and battle-proven military doctrines.

Despite serious disagreements between President Barack Obama and Netanyahu, in Sept. 2016 they signed a memorandum of understanding committing $3.8 billion annually in US military aid for the next 10 years. Unlike three of the current Democratic presidential candidates, Obama and Biden recognized the value of a long-term investment in US -Israel defense collaboration.

It should be noted that while the memorandum of understanding lasts for 10 years, Congress must approve it annually. The threats made by the three candidates should therefore be taken seriously.

It is also important to note that the candidates' threats didn't appear in their initial statements, but rather in responses to questions posed by activists. Buttigieg, for example, was responding to a student activist from IfNotNow, an extreme anti-Zionist Jewish group that rejects Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The activist had asked the mayor during an election event at the University of Chicago on Oct. 18 whether he "would make aid to Israel contingent upon ending the occupation." Two days later, another IfNotNow activist asked Warren her position on making aid conditional on stopping settlement expansion.

IfNotNow has adopted a strategy of using Q&A sessions to obtain on-camera statements from leading candidates linking military aid to Israeli policy in the West Bank. The desirable answer is embedded in the question. The candidates, Israel, and US supporters of Israel should be aware of this strategy and be prepared to expose and combat the racist and anti-Semitic positions of IfNotNow and similar extreme movements such as Jewish Voices for Peace.

It could be that the threats made by the leading Democratic presidential candidates (excluding Biden) were mere campaign maneuvers. They were vague, and they all referred to statements made by Netanyahu during his own election campaign in September 2019 regarding the possible annexation of land in the West Bank.

However, election promises in the United States are different from those in Israel. Netanyahu is known for walking back promises made during election campaigns over the past decade but is regularly reelected regardless. In the US, voters take election commitments seriously and punish presidents who fail to implement them. In 1992, for example, voters punished President George Bush, Sr. for his failure to keep his 1988 campaign promise not to raise taxes. This is why Trump has put so much effort into carrying out his campaign promises, including the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

That the Democratic presidential candidates would find it objectionable to push the Palestinians and UNRWA to change their corrupt behavior while at the same time being adamant that military aid to America's closest ally in the Middle East be used as leverage against it is an indication of how prevalent anti-Israel sentiment has become within the Democratic Party. Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg apparently feel they must voice severe criticism of Israel to satisfy the radical branch of the party.

Even if the Democratic Party fails to defeat Trump in 2020, a Democrat will eventually be president, and the Democrats may win control of both the House and the Senate. The anti-Israel trend in the party is deep, and is expanding and intensifying. It is visible not only in the threats of the leading Democratic presidential candidates but in other areas as well.

This is a serious problem, and the next Israeli government will have to find effective ways to cope with it.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post Double standards tainting US military aid to Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In 2003, a Belgian lawmaker used the same law to file a criminal complaint against Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the United States forces in Iraq, claiming that he was responsible for numerous civilian casualties. Following this example, various groups threatened to indict then-U.S. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The American response was swift and tough. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld threatened Belgium: NATO headquarters would be moved from Brussels if it did not rescind the law and stop the criminal complaints. The Belgian government surrendered, changed the law, and dropped the proceedings against both the American officials and Ariel Sharon. In that instance, American might stopped the abuse of international law by Belgium and by enemies of the United States and Israel, and in the process saved Belgium from itself.

A similar story erupted around the International Criminal Court. The court was established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for international crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United States and Israel did not ratify the Rome Treaty that established the court out of concern about politicized and biased judgments. Those concerns turn out to have been justified.

In November 2017, ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked the court for authorization to open an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed against detainees by the United States military and the CIA in Afghanistan. The United States strongly protested and warned the court of possible stiff retaliatory measures.

The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly demanded that the ICC investigate Israel's "war crimes" in the West Bank and Gaza. In July 2018, in an unusual move for the court, three ICC judges ordered the court's registry, a neutral organ of the court, to provide administrative support "to establish, as soon as practicable, a system of public information and outreach activities for the benefit of the victims and affected communities in the situation in Palestine." Moreover, the judges instructed the registry to open an "informative page on the Court's website" geared exclusively to Palestinians and to report on progress every three months. This proactive procedure has never been adopted against any other state or person.

These appeals to the ICC angered National Security Adviser and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. In September 2018, he called the court "unaccountable" and "outright dangerous" to the United States, Israel and other allies. "For all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us," he told the conservative Federalist Society in Washington. "If the court comes after us, Israel, or other U.S. allies, we will not sit quietly." Bolton threatened the ICC with sanctions as follows: "We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the U.S. We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system." The ICC's officials arrogantly rebuffed Bolton's threats.

In March 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States would revoke the visas of ICC officials who attacked America's rule of law by investigating allegations against American forces in Afghanistan or allegations against Israel. "We are determined to protect American and allied military and civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation," he said. Pompeo referred to the argument that democratic countries like the United States and Israel have the capability to investigate war crimes and often attempt to punish those who break the law, while authoritarian countries like Russia, Syria, and Iran, which don't respect the rule of law, are never investigated for war crimes. See, for example, Russia in Chechnya and the Ukraine, and Iran in Syria.

On April 5, 2019, the United States revoked ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda's visa. A few days later, court judges rejected her request to open an investigation against the United States by arguing that it was likely to fail due to budgetary constraints and lack of cooperation from the parties involved. It is almost certain that if the prosecutor had asked for authorization to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes, the judges would have had no problem approving the request. It appears, then, that when the United States is involved, there is another critical consideration: The judges were more concerned with losing their American entry visas and with financial sanctions than with the case itself.

U.S. President Donald Trump called the decision "a major international victory" and denounced the international court for its "broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers," as well as for what he considers to be the threat it represents to American sovereignty.

"Any attempt to target American, Israeli or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response," Trump said.

The specific mention of Israel is important because the Palestinians have been using "lawfare," the abuse of international law for political purposes, as a critical instrument of their delegitimization and dehumanization campaign against Israel. The American strategy could undermine the Palestinian effort because the court will now be subjected to similar punitive actions if it decides to proceed with investigations of Israel.

The revoking of the prosecutor's U.S. visa has other important implications. A few days ago, the United States canceled the visa of Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and prohibited his entry to the country. Barghouti created an anti-Semitic movement that isn't interested in Palestinian-Israeli peace or in Palestinian human rights. He has denied Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, called for the establishment of a Palestinian state from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), and demanded the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel. The United States justly revoked his visa because he is also avidly anti-American and encourages provocative and violent activity against Jewish students and pro-Israeli speakers in American universities.

Recently, Israel attempted to bar entry of BDS activists who describe themselves as defenders of human rights, but in practice participate in and sometimes inspire provocative and even violent activities against Israel. The activists and their few supporters in Israel claim that this action violates freedom of speech, but this is an empty and baseless argument. A state has a legitimate right to prevent the entry of those who call for its destruction and take action, such as BDS activists do, to achieve that goal.

"Might makes right" isn't a good rule for international relations, because it implies discrimination and double standards. However, when international courts and United Nations agencies are themselves guilty of applying double standards and discrimination, perhaps might is the only remedy.

This article is reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Saving international organizations from themselves appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.