Hezbollah’s plans, Israel’s threats – is either side ready for war?

Hezbollah says it can and will fight until a ceasefire in Gaza is agreed, here’s a look at the scenarios.

By Justin Salhani

Published On 29 Jun 2024

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/29/hezbollahs-plans-israels-threats-is-either-side-ready-for-war

Beirut, Lebanon – Hezbollah is preparing for different scenarios as the low-level conflict between it and Israel threatens to spin out into something larger.

Feeding the idea of Israel shifting military focus from Gaza to Lebanon have been statements from officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who said on Sunday that Israel is winding down operations in Rafah and will redirect to Lebanon.

Serious Israeli military action on Lebanon would drag in regional and possibly international actors.

Israel’s attacks to date have displaced nearly 100,000 people from their homes in south Lebanon and killed at least 435 people, some 349 of them named by Hezbollah as its members.

Hezbollah appears to be sticking to its guns, matching Israeli rhetoric with its own, and intensifying its cross-border attacks – which have so far killed 15 Israeli soldiers and 10 civilians, according to Israel.

The two have been trading attacks across the border since the day after Israel launched a war on Gaza on October 7, the day a Hamas-led operation in Israel killed 1,139 people, according to the AFP news agency.

Ceasefire or bust

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has repeated in speeches since October that his group will stop its cross-border attacks on Israel only when the latter agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza.

Even if Israel turns the bulk of its military attention to Lebanon, analysts believe Hezbollah will stick to its position.

“I don’t think Hezbollah will accept [negotiations] in absence of a ceasefire [in Gaza],” said Amal Saad, the author of two books on Hezbollah. “The war will be ongoing.

“Nasrallah has said they will keep fighting until Hamas is victorious and if Hamas is weakened and undermined then Hezbollah won’t sit on [its] hands,” she said.

“There’s a strategic objective here … Hezbollah will not leave Hamas on its own.”

The idea of a ceasefire seemed to have hit a snag as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hardline coalition partners demanded a “complete defeat of Hamas” before an end to the war.

However, some Israeli officials have expressed doubts about the idea of a complete defeat of Hamas, underlining that Hamas is an idea and ideas cannot be eradicated.

Military spokesperson Daniel Hagari expressed such doubts on June 19, while National Security Council head Tzachi Hanegbi said the same on Tuesday, less than a week later.

Whether in tacit acceptance of that idea or for other considerations, Israel is now talking about a lower-intensity phase, in which, it claims, its military would continue to target Hamas in Gaza while looking for a political alternative to the group in the enclave.

A lower-intensity war in Gaza would, in theory, allow for a focus on Lebanon – though that would require the Israeli military to execute the challenging prospect of engaging on two fronts.

Projecting strength

For his part, Nasrallah has been displaying his group’s might and standing firm.

On June 19, he said his group has more than 100,000 fighters and that many heads of regional armed groups had offered more fighters to join the fight against Israel, offers he rejected as Hezbollah is “overwhelmed” with cadres already.

A day before his speech, Hezbollah released drone footage taken over the Israeli city of Haifa, an implicit threat that the city could be targeted.

Another recent video by Hezbollah showed what appears to be a series of targets inside Israel and the Mediterranean Sea.

“Hezbollah is displaying and simulating to Israel its options [to widen the] war … [this will make Israel] understand that the repercussions are seriously costly,” Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University, said.

Nasrallah also threatened Cyprus, an island nation that is in the European Union but not NATO, should it support Israel in war.

Cyprus responded that it does not cooperate militarily with Israel in any conflicts.

“Since October 8th, Cyprus has been a key location where Israeli reservists fly into and then go on to Israel,” Seth Krummrich, a former special forces officer who is now at Global Guardian risk management firm, told Al Jazeera.

Israel has used Cypriot territory for training drills in the past.

The threat was Nasrallah’s way of signalling “to the European Union to refrain from supporting Israel in any way, which may implicate [its] member states,” Salamey said.

Contingency plans

While both sides escalate and lay cards on the table, Hezbollah will have a couple of contingency plans.

“Hezbollah most probably have a strategy ready in case of a limited, protracted war in south Lebanon and they have probably prepared a strategy in case there is a wider full-scale war,”  Karim Emile Bitar, professor of international relations at University Saint Joseph in Beirut, said.

A limited war would be what Salamey called a “low-intensity asymmetric warfare of attrition” that bleeds “the enemy through low-cost, efficient, and effective skirmishes” – basically a continuation of the current conflict.

A full-scale war may intensify attacks across Lebanon, including on infrastructure like Beirut’s airport, as Israel did in 2006.

Some analysts believe a limited ground invasion of south Lebanon is possible, though it would lead to heavy casualties on both sides.

For Bitar, Hezbollah likely does not want that option. “Hezbollah, as well as the Iranian regime, realises [an escalation] would be extremely risky and devastating for Lebanon,” he said.

The intensified threats and military actions are running parallel to diplomatic negotiations.

US Special Envoy Amos Hochstein was recently in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where he allegedly passed Hezbollah messages through Lebanese parliament speaker, and Hezbollah ally, Nabih Berri.

According to unnamed Western diplomats who spoke to Axios, Hochstein told Hezbollah it would be mistaken to assume that the US could prevent Israel from starting a wider war.

At the same time, Hezbollah and Israel are passing messages through French diplomats, Bitar said, seeking “a face-saving exit or strategy”.

If these negotiations could result in “assurances to Israel that Hezbollah’s allies would not be present in a 6-10km [4-6 mile] radius [from the border] and that they have no intention of using the [Hezbollah’s elite] Radwan forces to attack Israel” Hochstein’s efforts may bear fruit, Bitar said.

The parallel tracks of diplomacy and military action are interlinked.

Still, there is an oft-repeated fear that a miscalculation could force an escalation with neither side wanting to give their opponents an opportunity to declare a moral victory.

A war might still be prevented, save for said miscalculation or a political decision by Israel to push ahead, based on domestic considerations.

For their part, Hezbollah has stuck to their position of demanding a ceasefire as their sole precondition to stop the fighting.

“We’re in a situation where, on both sides, domestic political considerations take prevalence,” Bitar said.

“Hezbollah is conscious that most Lebanese, including a significant part of their own supporters, do not want a new war,” he added.

“Both parties are taking these factors into consideration however we are in a situation that is extremely volatile and any miscalculation by either side could lead to a new full-fledged [escalated conflict] in the region.”

THE US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, MIGRATION AND ITS IMPACT ON MEXICO

The presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump held on Thursday, June 27, 2024, organized by CNN, raised for Mexico, several important issues in the bilateral relationship.

First, it was very clear that for the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, illegal migration to the United States is the central theme of his campaign, because as he reiterated throughout the debate, the entry of “millions” of illegal migrants causes the main problems of the United States: crimes against American citizens; increased spending on social security, education and health care for illegal immigrants; loss of jobs for the black and Hispanic population, as migrants take away their sources of work; national security risks from the entry of “thousands” of terrorists; increased opioid overdose epidemic, from the entry of fentanyl through the southern border; and the loss of the country’s sovereignty, by not having control over its borders.

Second, President Biden did not have a forceful response to Trump’s lies, exaggerations and biased information on the immigration issue, merely insisting that the bipartisan proposal to reform the U. S. immigration system was boycotted by Trump, who decided to use this issue as the centerpiece of his election campaign.

Third, in view of the clear decline in President Biden’s mental faculties that could be felt during the debate, and the expressions of many members of the Democratic Party about the need to change the presidential candidate, given the mental and physical limitations of the current president, it is almost certain that the anti-immigrant narrative of Trump will gain even more attention and acceptance among the population of the United States, since on the Democratic side they will be more concerned with resolving the possible replacement of President Biden as a presidential candidate, and will pay less attention to the issue of immigration, on which even the Democrats themselves have hardened their position, so as not to lose more ground with the electorate.

Fourth, the new president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, who will have already taken office when the presidential elections are held in the United States, will have to define what will be the migration policy of Mexico in the face of the possible victory of Donald Trump, especially considering that the Republican candidate has threatened a mass deportation of migrants, once he takes office; although he has not been able to articulate a credible plan of how that deportation will do, when the same Republicans speak of a number of illegals between 18 and 20 million people.

Trump is basing this policy on the famous operation known pejoratively as “Wetback”, carried out during the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the summer of 1954, by which 800,000 to one million undocumented workers, mostly Mexicans, were expelled from US territory, working mainly in the agricultural sector.

The conditions in which the Mexicans were detained and deported caused a serious estrangement between the governments of Mexico and the United States, because of the inhumane conditions in which the Mexicans were treated; for example, they were shipped to the holds of cargo ships bound for Tampico and Veracruz, with temperatures ranging from 40 to 50 degrees Celsius (104 to 122 degrees Fahrenheit), which resulted in numerous deaths.

According to Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Alicia Barcena, Mexicans living in the United States contribute $324 billion to the U. S. economy each year; of every 10 agricultural workers in the United States, 7 are of Mexican origin; according to Mexican government estimates, there are about 12 million Mexicans living in the United States, of which half, 6 million have regularized their immigration status, which would leave a total of 6 million Mexicans as undocumented.

Fifth, the narrative that illegal migrants are the source of the main problems in developed economies has been strengthened, as has also been seen in Europe, where right-wing populist parties have based their electoral platforms on a refusal to accept more migrants, legal or illegal, in their countries, which should generate not only concern, but concerted political action by countries expelling or by those where migrants transit, as are Latin American, African and Asian countries.

In this regard, the government of Claudia Sheinbaum will have to assess whether multilateral action to negotiate with the United States on the migration issue will be useful to it; or if not, it prefers to treat it strictly from the bilateral level, where the asymmetry of power between the two countries becomes more present.

Sixth, the big losers in all this political dispute will, as always, be the migrants themselves, who, for the most part, seek to improve their lives, to flee situations of extreme poverty, violence and persecution, and find no solidarity in the world for their dramatic situation.

Israel Pounds South Lebanon Town with White Phosphorous

Attacks escalate as Israel uses incendiaries against civilian targets

by Jason Ditz June 26, 2024

https://news.antiwar.com/2024/06/26/israel-pounds-south-lebanon-town-with-white-phosphorous/

Amid growing fear of a full-scale invasion, Israeli warplanes carried out airstrikes against the southern Lebanon town of Khiam, using incendiary white phosphorous bombs, according to the National News Agency.

Israel has not commented on the use of white phosphorous in a populated civilian area, nor is it likely to. The extent of any casualties is not known at the present.

In recent weeks, the use of phosphorous, even including flinging fireballs into Lebanon with medieval trebuchets, has become a go-to Israeli strategy. At the time, Israel maintained setting fires was a security measure, clearing brush in the agricultural areas of southern Lebanon.

Employing white phosphorous is not actually illegal, but the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons severely regulates its use against civilian targets. Israel is a signatory to the convention, but in its frequent warfare with neighboring countries, does not appear to view the regulation as restricting its use of the substance.

Beyond Khiam, Israel carried out strikes on Shebaa Farms in southern Lebanon, destroying at least three homes, and artillery strikes against Wazzani, Wadi Hamoul and Dhayra.

Israeli jets also attacked what they described as “infrastructure” in southern Lebanon, in places including Kfar Chouba and Ayta ash-Shab. Israel’s military released video footage of the attacks.

 

Will Israel's New Ultra-Extremist Cabinet Spark World War III?

KEVIN BARRETT • JUNE 20, 2024

https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/will-israels-new-ultra-extremist-cabinet-spark-world-war-iii/

Will nuclear World War III happen this summer? The answer, we all hope, pray, and expect, is “no.” But the odds of what would be an unprecedented global disaster are at an all-time high. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Doomsday Clock, stuck at a record-breaking 90 seconds to midnight since last year, should have moved a few ticks closer to Armageddon in late May, after Ukraine and its US backers began striking Russian early-warning radar sites tasked with detecting a US nuclear attack.

Russia announced that it would respond symmetrically by arming US adversaries with long-range weapons. Since then a Russian nuclear-capable fleet has visited Cuba, raising the prospect of another Cuban missile crisis, and Putin has embraced North Korea in such a way as to confirm rumors that Russia has indeed given North Korea Topol M missiles, as claimed by Theodore Postol. More such gifts to various US adversaries are undoubtedly in the pipeline.

The proximate trigger for World War III’s death-spiral of uncontrollable escalation could conceivably happen in Korea, on the Russia-Ukraine front, or in the South China Sea. But it seems likelier that Armageddon will erupt from somewhere in the general vicinity of its namesake, Megiddo Hill, in northern Occupied Palestine.

That prognosis is based on rational calculation, not scriptural prophecy. There is an obvious reason why the Holy Land is the leading candidate for triggering global nuclear war: It is occupied by a doomed, fanatical messianic-millenarian death cult armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Since global nuclear war will make the world so much worse for everyone (except vultures, jackals, rats, and other eaters of carrion) it will inevitably be the product of extreme rashness and recklessness. In Occupied Palestine, the level of maniacal heedlessness in high places is off the charts. Even the crazed neocons running the US seem like rational actors compared to Israel’s leaders.

As my recent podcast guest Oliver Boyd-Barrett wrote this morning:

Netanyahu, following the resignation of Bennie Gantz from the war cabinet a few days ago, has dissolved the cabinet, returning direct control of the war to the full security cabinet. This development, in an already febrile combustible climate, enhances the likelihood that its more fanatical wing will push for an Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon, plans for which have already been confirmed.

There is a reason why the US put the kibosh on Netanyahu’s plans for a major war on Lebanon shortly after the October 7 Al-Aqsa Storm concentration camp breakout. And that reason is all-too-obvious: Israel has no hope of winning such a war without dragging in the US, which would in turn drag in Iran and Russia, ultimately backed by China. Nobody could afford to let their side lose such a war, so it would likely escalate uncontrollably.

But if the American leadership is sometimes minimally rational, the same can’t be said of its Israeli counterpart. Following the resignations of Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot on June 13, the Zionist entity has been in the hands of certifiable lunatics like Smotrich and Ben Gvir. They have made no secret of their determination to avenge Hezbollah’s 2006 humiliation of Israel, at whatever cost. Netanyahu is on board, since the alternative is stepping down and going to prison. Now that the Israeli military has approved operational plans for an invasion of Lebanon, the likely trigger for World War III has been locked and loaded.

But if Israel invades Lebanon against US orders, might the American leadership finally decide to act in its own interests, rather than allowing itself to once again be hijacked by Israeli extremists?

‘Wishful Thinking’ – Does Israel Have All the Cards in Gaza?

by Ramzy Baroud Posted on June 25, 2024

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2024/06/24/wishful-thinking-does-israel-have-all-the-cards-in-gaza/

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is often criticized for failing to produce a vision for the ‘next day’, meaning the day following the end of the Gaza war.

Some of these criticisms emanate from Israel’s traditional western allies, who are wary of Netanyahu’s personal and political agendas, which are fixated on delaying his corruption trials and ensuring that his extremist allies remain committed to the current government coalition.

The criticism however is loudest in Israel itself.

“As long as Hamas retains control over civilian life in Gaza, it may rebuild and strengthen (itself), thus requiring the IDF to return and fight in areas where it has already operated,” Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said last May, demanding a ‘day-after’ plan.

The same sentiment was conveyed by Israeli army chief Herzi Halevi. “As long as there’s no diplomatic process to develop a governing body in the Strip that isn’t Hamas, we’ll have to launch campaigns again and again,” he was quoted in Israel’s Channel 13 as saying.

It is true that Netanyahu has no post-war plan. The lack of such a ‘vision’, however, does not entirely rest on his own failure to produce one, but due to his inability to determine, with any degree of certainly, if the war would yield favorable results for Israel.

Nine months of war have shown that Israel is simply incapable of maintaining its military presence in urban areas, even those that have been ethnically cleansed or are sparsely populated.

This has been proven to be as true in the southern as in the northern parts of Gaza, including border towns that were relatively easy to enter in the first days or weeks of the war.

For a post-war plan that fits Israeli interests to be produced, Gaza would have to be militarily subdued, a goal that seems more distant than ever.

At the start of the war, and many times since then, Netanyahu argued that Israel would have “overall security responsibility” for the Gaza Strip “for an indefinite period”.

That too is unlikely, as Israel tried to establish such security control between 1967 and 2005 – when it was forced, due to the popular resistance during the Second Uprising to redeploy its forces out of the Gaza Strip, imposing a hermetic siege that has been in effect since then.

Recent events proved that even the Israeli blockade itself is unsustainable, as those who were entrusted with keeping Gazans locked in, failed miserably at their main task.

This assessment is that of the Israeli military itself. “On October 7, I failed (in) my life’s mission: to protect the (Gaza) envelope,” the commander of the 143rd Division, Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, said as he tendered his resignation on June 9.

This means that returning to the post-1967 war status is not a rational option, nor is the reactivation of the post-2005 so-called ‘disengagement plan.’

While Washington is busy hoping to devise an alternative that ensures long-term security for Israel – with no regard to Palestinian rights, freedom or security, of course – Netanyahu refuses to play along.

The problem with the American ideas, as far as the Israeli government is concerned, is that such language as ‘returning to negotiations’ and the like is completely taboo in Israel’s mainstream politics.

Additionally, Netanyahu rejects any involvement of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. This position, which was even advocated by other Israeli officials, seems to puzzle many, as the PA is already incorporated into Israel’s security arrangements in the West Bank.

Netanyahu’s real fear is that a return of the PA to Gaza would come at a political price, as it would give greater credibility to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is keenly invested in the US-championed ‘peace process’.

Not only does the current Israeli leadership reject the return to the old political discourse, but it has also fundamentally moved on, passing that language into that of military annexation of the West Bank, and even the recolonization of Gaza.

To re-colonize Gaza, per the expectations of Israeli Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, two consecutive events would have to take place: First, the pacification of the Gaza Resistance, then, a partial or total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population there into Egypt.

While the Israeli army is failing at its first task, the second also seems unfeasible, especially since the recent Israeli operation in Rafah has pushed hundreds of thousands of displaced Gazans back, from the Gaza-Egypt border to the center of the Strip.

Netanyahu does not seem to have an actual plan for Gaza, neither for now nor after the war. So, he prolongs the war despite the fact that his army is exhausted, depleted and is being forced to fight on multiple fronts.

Blaming Netanyahu for failing to produce a ‘next day’ vision for Gaza, however, is also wishful thinking as it assumes that Israel has all the cards. It has none.

Of course, there is an alternative to the neverending war scenario, namely permanently lifting the siege on Gaza, ending the military occupation, and dismantling the apartheid regime. This would grant Palestinians their freedom and rights as enshrined, in fact, guaranteed in international and humanitarian laws.

If the international community mustered the courage to force such a ‘next day’ reality on Tel Aviv, there would be no need for war, or resistance in the first place.

Regreso al Gran Poder

Héctor Aguilar Camín

Ciudad de México / 24.06.2024 

https://www.milenio.com/opinion/hector-aguilar-camin/dia-con-dia/regreso-al-gran-poder

Una costumbre favorita de la historia de México ha sido tener en su cúspide a un dirigente monumental, con grandes poderes. Un Gran poder.

 

Azteca, novohispana, decimonónica o revolucionaria, la organización política de México siempre construyó en su cúpula la similar versión de un hombre fuerte, encarnación institucional o espuria del poder absoluto, dispensador de bienes y males: padre, árbitro, verdugo.

 

Es el caso de los tlatoanis aztecas, tanto como de los virreyes novohispanos, de los caudillos providenciales del siglo XIX y de los presidentes posrevolucionarios del XX.

 

Por la vía democrática, el 2 de junio México regresó a esta costumbre autoritaria patriarcal, aunque haya sido electa una mujer.

 

La mayoría escogió inequívocamente un gobierno fuerte, con poderes grandes, sin contrapesos, una Presidencia tan indesafiable como ella quiera ser, tan autoritaria o magnánima como se lo proponga. La elección puso a la sociedad en manos del gobierno.

 

Hizo algo más: puso tras la presidenta ganadora la sombra de un mentor caudillista con poder transexenal.

 

La costumbre mexicana del Gran Poder es vieja. Para efectos de su ejercicio no importa gran cosa si mandará el mentor o mandará la presidenta ganadora. Los mexicanos estarán mal armados frente a sus decisiones bajo cualquiera de las variantes.

 

La historia de la costumbre del Gran Poder nos enseña, sin embargo, que los poderes duales conducen tarde o temprano a la discordia y el poder unipersonal ejercido a trasmano, también.

 

Si alguna virtud tuvo el Gran Poder de los presidentes de México en el siglo XX fue que tenía fecha fija de terminación.

 

La de López Obrador no la tiene todavía.

 

La historia de la costumbre del Gran Poder nos enseña también que no se ha tratado nunca de un poder absoluto, a la Stalin, o a la Fidel Castro.

 

El poderoso mexicano no ha dejado nunca de tener rivales que reducen en la práctica lo que en teoría no podría siquiera regateársele.

 

Y esto también hay que anotarlo respecto de la costumbre de que hablamos...

 

A partir de mañana algunos apuntes históricos sobre el Gran Poder mexicano, empezando con los virreyes novohispanos. 

Israeli war criminals: can the ICC lock them up?

The ICC’s bold pursuit of arrest warrants for western-allied Israeli leaders could redefine international justice. Even if Netanyahu and Co aren’t tossed behind bars, ‘their world will suddenly become a lot smaller.’

Stasa Salacanin

JUN 21, 2024

https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-war-criminals-can-the-icc-lock-them-up

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor’s announcement on 20 May of arrest warrants for five Israeli and Hamas leaders immediately triggered a torrent of comments and opinions worldwide. 

The legal initiative represents an unprecedented milestone in international relations, marking the first time leaders of a western-allied state have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

According to ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, there are reasonable arguments that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are criminally responsible for starvation, murder, intentional attacks against civilians, extermination, and persecution, among other crimes. As Khan explained it: 

[These crimes] were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to state policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.

Khan has also requested arrest warrants for Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’ leader in Gaza, Mohammed Deif, leader of Hamas’ military wing, and Ismail Haniyeh, the group’s political leader.

Main effects of ICC sanctions

The ICC, established in 2002 as the permanent court of last resort to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression, comprises 124 state parties. However, the court relies on its member states’ cooperation for enforcement, a collaboration not forthcoming from influential states such as the US, Russia, China, and Israel that do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

Issuing arrest warrants for top Israeli leaders is, therefore, likely to involve an unprecedented degree of political and logistical complexity – with many obstacles erected by Tel Aviv’s western allies. 

Speaking to The Cradle, Boston University School of Law’s International Human Rights Clinic Director Susan Akram points out that the ICC prosecutor must first address numerous legal questions to provide supporting evidence to the pre-trial judges. The timeline for their deliberations and decisions on the warrant requests remain uncertain.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, highlights the main effect of the ICC arrest warrants, should they be issued as requested. Netanyahu and Gallant would be unable to travel to any of the 124 ICC member states, as they risk arrest and surrender to The Hague for trial. 

“Their world will suddenly become a lot smaller,” he tells The Cradle, adding that he hopes “governments think twice about sending them more arms, given that they will have been formally accused of using them to commit war crimes and will presumably try to avoid answering these charges in court.” 

Gentian Zyberi, professor of international law and human rights at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo, notes that the ICC could impose other sanctions, such as seizing funds and property abroad to use as reparations to victims. 

“The most important political consequence would be to their legitimacy as political leaders once the ICC confirms the charges,” he warns.

Realistically, though, some states may refuse to surrender Netanyahu, citing his status as head of government and thus immunity while in their territory, argues Professor John Quigley from Ohio State University. Though the ICC does not honor this immunity itself, international law has not conclusively resolved the matter. He adds:

As for a penalty, there would be no question of any penalty before a conviction. The typical penalty is imprisonment. A fine can also be imposed. If the person had assets in a state party to the Rome Statute, it could be asked by the ICC to seize them.

ICC under threat from the US and Israel

The potential issuance of these warrants has prompted mixed reactions globally. While several EU states, including France, Belgium, Slovenia, Ireland, and Spain, have responded positively, the US and Israel have predictably responded furiously.

US President Joe Biden, for example, expressed outrage over the court jointly seeking warrants for both Israel and Hamas leaders that accuse them of similar crimes: “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.” Biden also denied outright the existence of a genocide in Gaza: “What’s happening is not genocide. We reject that,” he said during a speech at the White House. 

In turn, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the court has no jurisdiction over Israel’s action into question the “legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.” But the ICC pre-trial chamber has already rejected that argument, based on the UN General Assembly’s overwhelming vote granting Palestine the status of a “non-member observer state.  

Washington further claims that the ICC prosecutor should have deferred to Israeli self-investigations under what is known as the principle of complementarity. But Roth fully debunks the notion that Israel is capable of investigating itself objectively over war crimes: “Israel has announced 70 investigations but none into the starvation strategy that is at the heart of the ICC’s current case.” 

Moreover, Roth points out that “Israel has no history of prosecuting senior officials for war crimes” and is unlikely to do so anytime soon, based on Netanyahu’s contemptuous response to the ICC request in which he labeled Khan an “antisemite.”

Sanctioning justice 

In the meantime, the US House of Representatives passed legislation to sanction the court for seeking arrest warrants for senior Israeli leaders, which now awaits its approval in the US Senate. The legislation seeks to sanction individuals who have “directly engaged in or otherwise aided” the ICC in prosecuting Americans or citizens of US allies that do not recognize the ICC, including Israel. 

Washington’s primary interest in restricting the ICC’s reach is concern that the court might turn its attention and legal clout toward American troops and officials engaged in unlawful military aggressions and operations across the globe. 

This is not the first time Washington and Tel Aviv have threatened the ICC and the Special Prosecutor’s Office. Professor Akram recalls that former President Donald Trump issued an executive order freezing the US accounts of former special prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her staff members and denying them visas to enter the US to report to United Nations HQ in New York. 

A recent investigative report in the Guardian has revealed that Israel ran a campaign of harassment and threats against Bensouda and her family for 10 years, in which its intelligence agencies were deployed “to surveil, hack, pressure, smear and allegedly threaten senior ICC staff in an effort to derail the court’s inquiries.”

But, as Zyberi argues, sanctioning the ICC or its staff for investigating the Palestine situation violates the ICC Statute, interfering with justice administration, and thus – itself – warrants sanctions under Article 70. 

Quigley contends that Washington’s reaction signals a disregard for the rule of law: it supports the ICC against adversaries but denounces it when allies are targeted. This duality was underscored by Prosecutor Khan in an interview with CNN when he revealed an astonishing admission by a senior leader: “This court [the ICC] is built for Africa and for thugs like Putin.”

For Akram, the ICC’s past focus on African and Balkan perpetrators effectively ignores the crimes of western powers, for example, by the US and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan. The case against Netanyahu and Gallant, she believes, tests the court’s credibility today - while Roth sees the potential warrants as proof that even powerful leaders can be held accountable under the law. 

If the process Khan initiated is seen through to fruition, the ICC will be uniquely positioned to reshape the boundaries of international justice and hold war criminals – irrespective of nationality, race, or religion – accountable. That moves us one step closer to international law and another step away from the western-led era of impunity.

When US Officials Show You Who They Are, Believe Them

by Norman Solomon Posted on June 21, 2024

https://original.antiwar.com/solomon/2024/06/20/2012352801/

“When someone shows you who they are,” Maya Angelou said, “believe them the first time.”

That should apply to foreign-policy elites who show you who they are, time after time.

Officials running the Pentagon and State Department have been in overdrive for more than 250 days in support of Israel’s ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Supposedly dedicated to defense and diplomacy, those officials have worked to implement and disguise Washington’s war policies, which have taken more lives than any other government in this century.

Among the weapons of war, cluster munitions are especially horrific. That’s why 67 Democrats and an equal number of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to prevent the U.S. government from continuing to send those weapons to armies overseas.

But more than twice as many House members voted the other way. They defeated a Pentagon funding  amendment that would have prohibited the transfer of cluster munitions to other countries. The lawmakers ensured that the U.S. can keep supplying those weapons to the military forces of Ukraine and Israel.

As of now, 124 nations have signed onto a treaty banning cluster munitions, which often wreck the bodies of civilians. The “bomblets” from cluster munitions “are particularly attractive to children because they resemble a bell with a loop of ribbon at the end,” the Just Security organization explains.

But no member of Congress need worry that one of their own children might pick up such a bomblet someday, perhaps mistaking it for a toy, only to be instantly killed or maimed with shrapnel.

The Biden administration correctly responded to indications (later proven accurate) that Russia was using cluster munitions in Ukraine. On Feb. 28, 2022, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told journalists that if the reports of Russian use of those weapons turned out to be true, “it would potentially be a war crime.”

Back then, the front page of the New York Times described “internationally banned cluster munitions” as “a variety of weapons – rockets, bombs, missiles and artillery projectiles – that disperse lethal bomblets in midair over a wide area, hitting military targets and civilians alike.”

Days later, the Times reported that NATO officials “accused Russia of using cluster bombs in its invasion,” and the newspaper added that “anti-personnel cluster bombs… kill so indiscriminately they are banned under international law.”

But when the Ukrainian military forces ran low on ammunition last year, the U.S. administration decided to start shipping cluster munitions to them.

“All countries should condemn the use of these weapons under any circumstances,” Human Rights Watch has declared.

BBC correspondent John Simpson summed up a quarter-century ago: “Used against human beings, cluster bombs are some of the most savage weapons of modern warfare.”

As the Congressional Research Service reported this spring, cluster munitions “disperse large numbers of submunitions imprecisely over an extended area.” They “frequently fail to detonate and are difficult to detect,” and “can remain explosive hazards for decades.”

The CRS report added: “Civilian casualties are primarily caused by munitions being fired into areas where soldiers and civilians are intermixed, inaccurate cluster munitions landing in populated areas, or civilians traversing areas where cluster munitions have been employed but failed to explode.”

The horrible immediate effects are just the beginning. “It’s been over five decades since the U.S. dropped cluster bombs on Laos, the most bombed country in the world per capita,” Human Rights Watch points out. “The contamination from cluster munitions remnants and other unexploded ordnance is so vast that fewer than 10 percent of affected areas have been cleared. An estimated 80 million submunitions still pose a danger, especially to curious children.”

The members of Congress who just greenlighted more cluster munitions are dodging grisly realities. The basic approach is to proceed as though such human realities don’t matter if an ally is using those weapons (or if the United States uses them, as happened in Southeast Asia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen).

Overall, with carnage persisting in Gaza, it’s easy enough to say that Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown us who he is. But so has Presidente Biden, and so have the most powerful Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

While the U.S. has been supplying a large majority of the weapons and ammunition imported by Israel, a similar approach from official Washington (with ineffectual grumbling) has enabled Israel to lethally constrict food going into Gaza.

During his State of the Union address in early March, Biden announced plans for the U.S. to build a port on the Gaza coast to bring in food and other vital aid. But his speech didn’t mention the Pentagon’s expectation that such a seaport could take 60 days to become operational.

At the time, a Common Dreams headline summed up the hollowness of the gambit: “Biden Aid Port Plan Rebuked as ‘Pathetic’ PR Effort as Israel Starves Gazans.” Even at full tilt, the envisioned port would not come anywhere near compensating for Israel’s methodical blockage of aid trucks – by far the best way to get food to 2.2 million people facing starvation. “We are talking about a population that is starving now,” said Ziad Issa, the head of humanitarian policy for ActionAid. “We have already seen children dying of hunger.”

An official at Save the Children offered a reality check: “Children in Gaza cannot wait to eat. They are already dying from malnutrition, and saving their lives is a matter of hours or days – not weeks.” The Nation described “the tragic absurdity of Biden’s Gaza policies: the U.S. government is making elaborate plans to ameliorate a humanitarian catastrophe that would not exist without its own bombs.”

And this week – more than three months after the ballyhooed drumroll about plans for a port on the Gaza coast – news broke that the whole thing is a colossal failure even on its own terms.

“The $230 million temporary pier that the U.S. military built on short notice to rush humanitarian aid to Gaza has largely failed in its mission, aid organizations say, and will probably end operations weeks earlier than originally expected,” the New York Times reported on June 18. “In the month since it was attached to the shoreline, the pier has been in service only about 10 days. The rest of the time, it was being repaired after rough seas broke it apart, detached to avoid further damage or paused because of security concerns.”

As Israel’s crucial military patron, the U.S. government could insist on an end to the continual massacre of civilians in Gaza and demand a complete halt to interference with aid deliveries. Instead, Israel continues to inflict “unconscionable death and suffering” while mass starvation is closing in.

Maya Angelou’s advice certainly applies. When the president and a big congressional majority show that they are willing accomplices to mass murder, believe them.

It’s fitting that Angelou, a renowned poet and writer, gave her voice to words from Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death one day in 2003 while standing in front of an Israeli army bulldozer as it moved to demolish a Palestinian family’s home in Gaza.

A few years after Corrie died, Angelou recorded a video while reading from an email that the young activist sent: “We are all born and someday we’ll all die. Most likely to some degree alone. What if our aloneness isn’t a tragedy? What if our aloneness is what allows us to speak the truth without being afraid? What if our aloneness is what allows us to adventure – to experience the world as a dynamic presence – as a changeable, interactive thing?”