The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways [email protected] January 27, 2024 genocide, icj, international court of justice Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways World Court rules on Gaza emergency measures in Israel genocide case, in The Hague (photo) Get a handle on the ICJ ruling, the dissenting judges, the binding nature of the decision, take-aways from several important voices, and reactions from stakeholding parties. Summary of ICJ’s ruling reposted from Al Jazeera The World Court ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against the Hamas group in the Gaza Strip. (15-2) (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above (vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip (vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one month as from the date of this Order. The court stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. Who are the ICJ judges that voted against motions? Julia Sebutinde – voted against all motions In 1996, Sebutinde was appointed as one of the judges of the High Court of Uganda. In 2012, she became the first African woman to be appointed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the world court. She has broken barriers and paved the way for countless other African women in the field of law. Sebutinde got her undergraduate degree in Uganda, and Master’s and Doctorate of Law at the University of Edinburgh. She has contributed immensely to international law jurisprudence through the cases she has heard, often with dissenting opinions. Regarding her voting record in this case, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations stated, Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda ‘s voting pattern at the United Nations. Aharon Barak – voted against most motions Barak is an Israeli lawyer who was appointed to the 15-judge panel of the ICJ ahead of South Africa’s case against Israel. Under the ICJ’s rules, a country that does not have a judge to represent its own on the bench can choose an ad hoc judge. The 87-year-old is a retired judge from the Israeli Supreme Court and a recipient of the Israel Prize for Legal Studies. Barak was born in Lithuania and, studied law in Hebrew University. He was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court in 1978, where he went on to serve for 28 years. The ICJ full panel is led by President Joan E. Donoghue from the US and Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian from Russia. They head a diverse bench with judges from 13 other countries including Slovakia, France, Morocco, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Jamaica, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Brazil. Two ad hoc judges appointed to the panel for this case were from Israel and South Africa. FAQ: Are decisions of the Court binding? reposted from the ICJ website Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter provides that “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”. Judgments are final and without appeal. If there is a dispute about the meaning or scope of a judgment, the only possibility is for one of the parties to make a request to the Court for an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment. As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not, by whichever means they see fit. The ICJ ruling is a repudiation of Israel and its western backers by Kenneth Roth, reposted from the Guardian The international court of justice’s (ICJ) ruling in South Africa’s genocide case was a powerful repudiation of Israel’s denialism. By an overwhelming majority, the court found a “plausible” case that provisional measures were needed to avoid “irreparable prejudice” from further Israeli acts in Gaza that could jeopardize Palestinian rights under the genocide convention. The public posture of various Israeli officials was, in essence: how dare anyone accuse us of genocide. After all, they pointed out, Israel was founded after the Holocaust to protect the Jewish people from genocide, Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, and many of Hamas’s statements seem genocidal in intent. Yet none of that is a defense to the charge of genocide. Regardless of Israel’s history, regardless of its claim of self-defense, the means chosen to fight Hamas can still be genocidal. The court found enough merit in that claim to recognize that Palestinian civilians need the court’s protection. The court’s ruling was also a repudiation of Israel’s western backers. The Biden administration had called the suit “meritless”. The British government said it was “nonsense”. By a vote of 15 to 2, the ICJ judges found otherwise. On the need to allow humanitarian aid to a starving population in Gaza and to prevent and punish the incitement of genocide, even the respected Israeli judge, Aharon Barak, joined the majority, making the vote 16 to 1 – a powerful repudiation of those who try to chalk up challenges to Israel’s conduct in Gaza as an unfair double standard or antisemitism. The current proceedings were not about the ultimate merits of the case. It could take years to determine whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. But the provisional measures ordered by the court could make an enormous difference in curbing the death and suffering of Palestinian civilians now. What now? The key will be enforcement. The ICJ ruling is “binding”, as the court stressed, but the ICJ has no military or police force at its disposal. For coercive measures, it would need a resolution of the UN security council, which requires contending with the US government’s veto, so often deployed to protect Israel. But the political pressure to comply with the ruling will be enormous. Having trusted the court to send its lawyers to The Hague to present its case, Israel would look horrible to reject the court just because it lost. In calling the underlying genocide charges “outrageous” – a finding that, as mentioned, the court did not yet address – the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, notably did not say he would refuse to comply with the court’s provisional measures. Let’s hope he will. Some were disappointed that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, a step that was unlikely because the court addresses only disputes between states, so Hamas was not a party. A ceasefire imposed on only one side to an ongoing armed conflict is not plausible. The court did order Israel to “take all measures within its power” to halt acts that contribute to genocide, to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza to end the suffering among Palestinian civilians, and to prevent and punish the public statements of incitement made by senior Israeli officials. Israel must report back to the court in a month on the steps it has taken. Yet there is a lot of wiggle room in those orders. That’s where Israel’s supporters come in. Will they move past their earlier skepticism toward the case and now urge Israel to comply? Western governments backed the ICJ in similar rulings against Myanmar, Russia and Syria. It would do enormous damage to the “rules-based order” that Western governments claim to uphold if they were to make an exception for Israel. Joe Biden holds the most powerful leverage. The US government provides $3.8bn in annual military aid to Israel and is its principal arms supplier. That support should stop if the Israeli government ignores the court’s ruling. The US president should no longer put his fear of domestic political consequences, or his personal identification with Israel, before the lives of so many Palestinian civilians. Other pressure for compliance could come from the international criminal court. Unlike the ICJ, which resolves disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals for such crimes as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Better behavior now is no defense for crimes already committed, but if Israel were to ignore the ICJ ruling, that would be an added spur for the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to act. Much is still unresolved, but today is a win for the rule of law. South Africa, a nation of the global south, was able to transcend power politics by invoking the world’s leading judicial institution. The court’s ruling shows that even governments with powerful friends can be held to account. That provides hope for the profoundly suffering Palestinian civilians of Gaza. It is also a small but important step toward a more lawful, rights-respecting world. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs Nine take-aways from the ICJ ruling by Huwaida Arraf, reposted from X While many are disappointed that the ICJ did not explicitly order a ceasefire, the ruling was historic and a huge defeat for Israel. Here’s what we need to take away and what we need to do: The Court found that RSA made a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and October 7 is no justification for Israel’s conduct. This is huge. The Court found that immediate protective measures are necessary to protect the Palestinian people from irreparable harm caused by Israel’s genocidal conduct and ordered such measures. In order for Israel to abide by the measures, including the provision of basic services (turning on water, electricity and allowing the entry of fuel) and humanitarian aid, it would need to cease its military assault. Aid organizations have said that one of the main reasons they are unable to deliver aid, besides Israel’s restrictions on entry of aid, is Israel’s military aggression which makes it too dangerous for them to reach many areas. The Court has also instituted a monitoring mechanism and Israel must report on everything it’s doing to abide by the Order of the Court within a month (should have been shorter). ALL countries signatory to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent genocide. This means that, when there is reason to believe that there is a threat of genocide, states MUST act to prevent it. All countries are now on notice that there is a plausible threat of genocide. This means that, continuing to supply Israel with weapons and vetoing UNSC resolutions will amount to violations of that responsibility and also a potential violation of Art III of the Convention, prohibiting complicity in genocide. If Israel does not comply with the ICJ Order, the matter should be brought before the UNSC. If the US vetoes, this will be an indictment of the US, but not the end. States must then use UNGA 377 – Uniting for Peace – to not only bring the matter before the UNGA, but to make sure that the UNGA resolution includes implementation measures (without an agreement on such measures, the resolution will be ineffective). Such measures can include international sanctions on Israel and suspending Israel’s membership in the UN. Alongside all of this, we must continue our work in the streets and in national courts to hold Israel and enablers accountable. This includes: continuing to demand that our governments sanction Israel; demanding Israel’s suspension from international fora such as Eurovision and international sporting arenas; using the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Israeli war criminals in national courts, which is already being pursued. The World Court has found that Israel may be committing genocide — the mother of all crimes. This is an indictment, not only on Israel, but on all who have been enabling Israel and using October 7, as justification. It must also be a wakeup call to all who have been silent. There’s no excuse. Huwaida Arraf is a Palestinian American activist and lawyer who co-founded the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led organization using non-violent protests and international pressure to support Palestinians. ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge A different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented this from happening in the first place. by Trita Parsi, reposted from Responsible Statecraft, January 26, 2024 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) just ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The Court imposes several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law. In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result. On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts. This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimize Israel internationally. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved. Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide. As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the U.S. under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too. The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling. Instead, the matter will go to the United Nations Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.” So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented. The double standards of U.S. foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling. It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7. It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct. Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t. Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide. This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around. As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis. This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation. What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the U.S. and UK’s military action against the Houthis? The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The U.S. is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not. International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm. One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.* Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application. If so, it shows that the Court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done. * EDITOR’S NOTE: Israel appears to have done little, if anything, to moderate its war conduct since South Africa submitted its genocide accusation on December 29th. The numbers of Palestinians killed in Gaza and the West Bank has continued to climb steadily; while there has been a slight improvement in number of humanitarian aid trucks, it is not impressive, and not reaching the north where hundreds of thousands are starving. There is still no electricity, no water, almost no medical services, and no safety. Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Some reactions to ICJ ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel reposted from Al Jazeera Palestinians in Gaza Palestinians in Gaza said they are devastated by the ICJ decision not to order Israel to cease its near-four-month bombardment and ground invasion of the strip. Ahmed al-Naffar, 54, who was intently following the court’s announcement in central Gaza’s Deir el-Balah, told Al Jazeera: “Although I don’t trust the international community, I had a small glimmer of hope that the court would rule on a ceasefire in Gaza,” later adding that “The court is a failure.” Palestinians in the occupied West Bank Lubna Farhat, a member of the Ramallah city council, told Al Jazeera she was somewhat disappointed by the ICJ decision but acknowledged it was a historic moment. “We are very grateful and thankful for South Africa for filing this case, but what Palestinians aspired for was an immediate ceasefire,” Farhat said, adding that it was disheartening that the court did not call for an end to Israel’s military operations so humanitarian aid could be allowed into Gaza. She said the ruling would only “escalate” settler attacks in the occupied West Bank and increase the attackers’ sense of impunity. Palestine Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates welcomed the ICJ’s ruling, saying in a statement it is an “important reminder” that no state is above the law. Foreign Minister Riyadh Maliki noted that Israel failed to persuade the court that it is not violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. In a statement he said: “The ICJ judges saw through Israel’s politicization, deflection, and outright lies. They assessed the facts and the law and ordered provisional measures that recognized the gravity of the situation on the ground and the veracity of South Africa’s application. … Palestine calls on all states to ensure respect for the order of the International Court of Justice, including by Israel.” Israel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the ruling as “outrageous”. In a video message shortly after the court order, he said Israel is fighting a “just war like no other”. He added that Israel will continue to defend itself and its citizens while adhering to international law. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir mocked the ICJ after the court issued its interim ruling. “Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on the social media platform X. South Africa The South African government called the ICJ ruling a “decisive victory” for international law. “How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Pandor asked. “If you read the order, by implication, a ceasefire must happen.” United States The United States said the ruling of the ICJ was consistent with Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated. “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said. European Union “Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must comply with them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation,” the European Commission said in a statement. RELATED READING: The ICJ presentations on Israeli genocide against Palestinians Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers John Mearsheimer: Genocide in Gaza Is the United Nations anti-Israel? – a survey of UN resolutions Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war https://israelpalestinenews.org/synopsis-of-icjs-decision-on-israeli-genocide-reactions-and-take-aways/

Israeli snipers, tanks, drones positioned to fire on any signs of life in Khan Younis – Day 109 [email protected] January 24, 2024 famine, houthi, israeli settlement, israeli soldiers killed, khan younis, starvation, Supreme Court, uscpr, West Bank Israeli snipers, tanks, drones positioned to fire on any signs of life in Khan Younis – Day 109 Attacks in the latest 24-hour reporting period killed at least 195 Palestinians and wounded 354 with thousands more victims believed to be under the rubble and unreachable. (photo) Khan Younis in south the site of intense fighting, peril; info on US teen Tawfiq Ajaq killed by Israel; starvation; Israelis in US to buy weapons; 24 Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza; West Bank death; Israeli settlements in Gaza?; Houthi update; US Supreme Court dismisses case against Palestine advocacy organization By IAK staff, from reports Middle East Eye reports on the dire situation in Khan Younis: With Israeli snipers and tanks positioned to fire on any signs of life, Palestinians across Khan Younis are under siege with nowhere to go… Ambulances have been unable to reach the wounded across Khan Younis, after the headquarters of the Palestinian Red Crescent (PCRS) was surrounded by Israel’s military. Israeli drones shot at anyone moving near al-Amal hospital, the PCRS said on Tuesday… For several days, Palestinians in Khan Younis have raised alarm bells about Israeli tanks closing in on Nasser Hospital – the largest functional medical facility in Gaza. They fear it will suffer the same fate as al-Shifa hospital in the north, which effectively shut down after a sustained Israeli siege in mid-November last year. A doctor at Nasser Hospital described the chaotic scenes in the vicinity of the complex. “We have got news today from the Israeli army to evacuate block number 107. This block actually contains schools, hospitals and houses…People actually were trying to evacuate this block but they couldn’t. All above and around me, explosions and gunshot can be heard, and are being fired over our heads.” Dina, 36, was told to evacuate block 107 with 23 members of her family. “They lie to us. They just change the place where they intend to kill us…We are experiencing hunger, pain, and cold, and the world is just watching. Where should we go?” she said. The New Arab adds: The Israeli army has fired directly at a hospital in the southern city of Khan Younis, where civilians are caught amid heavy fighting…Israeli tanks were “firing heavily on the upper floors of the specialized surgery building and the emergency building of Nasser hospital, dozens expected wounded”, a ministry statement said. From OCHA: In Khan Younis, Israeli forces hit a warehouse, killing 2 and cutting off access to humanitarian supplies and critical water and sanitation equipment; heavy bombardment near a distribution center where families go to receive aid; latest evacuation orders: an area that hosts 500,000 people, mostly already displaced. While most US news media ignored Israel’s killing of American 17-year-old Tawfiq Ajaq, shot dead by Israeli forces on Jan. 19 in the West Bank, News Nation interviewed family members: “Tawfiq Ajaq was a free spirit who enjoyed the outdoors and hanging with friends.” “Bright kid, had a lot of dreams, would joke, laugh make fun of me, his mom, his brothers. He loves the woods, he loves to be out and about. … He just likes to be out with friends and just be free,” his father said. “Ajaq’s relative, Joe Abdel Qaki, said that Ajaq and a friend were having a barbecue in a village field when he was shot by Israeli fire, once in the head and once in the chest.” He said Israeli forces briefly detained him and other Palestinians at the scene, asking for their IDs before the men could get to Ajaq. The boy’s father implored Americans to “see with their own eyes” the ongoing violence in the West Bank. “The American society does not know the true story,” he said. “Come here on the ground and see what’s going on. … How many fathers and mothers have to say goodbye to their children? How many more?” On Monday, he called out the Biden administration for continuing to provide military support to Israel. The medical group Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF) says that several blocks in Khan Younis, including those where Nasser Hospital is located, have received orders to evacuate. “MSF staff members can hear bombs and heavy gunfire close to Nasser,” the group said in a social media post on Tuesday. “They are currently unable to evacuate along with the thousands of people in the hospital, including 850 patients, due to roads to and from the building being either inaccessible or too dangerous.” Hamas reportedly called on the UN, Red Cross and World Health Organization to step in “immediately” and “shoulder their responsibilities” to stop Israel’s attacks on Gaza’s hospitals, saying that the Nasser and El Amal hospitals in Khan Younis are being directly targeted with Israeli drone fire and bombardment, endangering the lives of patients, medics, and thousands of displaced people taking shelter in the medical centers. “The deliberate and ongoing targeting of hospitals is a war crime unfolding in front of the eyes and ears of the entire world, and it comes in the context of Israel’s genocidal war against our people in the Gaza Strip, with the full support of the American administration,” the group said in a statement. Targeting hospitals is a war crime. Palestinian children wait to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen amid shortages of food supplies in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, on January 16, 2024 Palestinian children wait to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen amid shortages of food supplies in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, on January 16, 2024 (photos) Al Jazeera reports: The speed at which “starvation” has been brought about among Gaza’s population is “unprecedented”, according to Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the US. “I’ve been studying this for 40 years and I’ve never seen a population reduced [to this level of hunger] with the same speed and rigor and ruthlessness,” De Waal told Al Jazeera. “An entire population being reduced to this stage is really unprecedented. We haven’t seen it in Ethiopia, in Sudan and Yemen – pretty much anywhere else in the world,” he said. De Waal said that while all famines are political acts, he described the current food crisis in Gaza as a “military act” by Israel that amounts to the “war crime of starvation”. “[The destruction of] food, medicine, water and sanitation is being done on a scale that I don’t think we have witnessed anywhere else in the contemporary world,” he added. More information is here. Middle East Monitor reports: Israel’s Kan TV declared on Monday, “A high-level Israeli security delegation arrived this afternoon [Monday] in the United States to attend meetings with officials in the American army and the American military and defense industries…to push for immediate purchase deals to continue the fighting [in Gaza], and to prevent a shortage of ammunition and weapons.” According to the same source, the Israeli delegation is seeking to reach a major deal that “includes supplying Israel with thousands of ammunitions for warplanes, with missiles and bombs, as well as tank and artillery shells, armored vehicles, and additional military equipment that will allow the Israeli army to continue the war in Gaza, and a possible war in Lebanon.” RECOMMENDED READING: Against every instinct: How doctors in Gaza persevere amid Israel attacks Al Jazeera reports on a speech that Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki gave to the UN Security Council: The faith of the perpetrators is irrelevant. The faith of the victims is irrelevant. What matters only are the countless innocent lives destroyed and the violent shattering of the laws enacted post-World War II to preserve humanity. [Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is driven by] his own political survival at the expense of the survival of millions of Palestinians under Israel’s illegal occupation and peace and security for all. Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik reiterated his country’s support for the two-state solution after meeting with Jordanian officials Tuesday. This is one of a number of recent expressions of support for Palestinian rights and/or a two-state solution. Others include UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Keir Starmer, leader of the UK Labor Party, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell, French Foreign Minister, Stéphane Séjourné, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares, China’s ambassador to the UN Zhang Jun, Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan, and others. Associated Press reports: Palestinian militants carried out the deadliest single attack on Israeli forces in Gaza since the Hamas raid that triggered the war, killing 21 soldiers, the military said Tuesday, a significant setback that could add to mounting calls for a cease-fire. 3 more soldiers were killed in a separate incident. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mourned the Israeli soldiers, who died when the blast from a rocket-propelled grenade triggered explosives they were laying to blow up buildings. But he vowed to press ahead until “absolute victory,” including crushing Hamas and freeing more than 100 Israeli hostages still held by the militants. Israelis are increasingly questioning whether it’s possible to achieve those war aims. WEST BANK: WAFA reports: Israeli forces Tuesday evening shot and killed a young Palestinian man at a checkpoint east of Tulkarm, in the northern occupied West Bank. The Ministry of Health said that the soldiers prevented ambulances from reaching the young man, who was later identified as 21-year-old Kareem Nashaat Ayesh. He died of his critical wounds shortly after. RECOMMENDED READING: Israel’s rising use of drone strikes in the West Bank Al Jazeera reports: Israeli ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan has again railed against calls for a ceasefire, saying that the Middle East is suffering from a “cancer” and that Israel will not accept the continued existence of Hamas. “Shockingly, many here on the Security Council are advocating for a permanent ceasefire, while giving no thought to the implications,” Erdan said. “What do you think will happen if there is a ceasefire? I will tell you what will happen: Hamas will remain in power, they will regroup and rearm, and soon Israelis will face another attempted Holocaust.” In reality, international law supports the efforts of resistance groups against an occupying power, even to the point of armed resistance. Hamas has clearly and. openly stated that its enemy is not the Jewish people, but the racist ideology of Zionism – the ideology under which Israel dispossessed 750,000 Palestinian people and exiled them to Gaza and other locations. A view of the makeshift tent camp where Palestinians displaced by the Israeli ground offensive on the Gaza Strip are staying, in Rafah, January 23, 2024 A view of the makeshift tent camp where Palestinians displaced by the Israeli ground offensive on the Gaza Strip are staying, in Rafah, January 23, 2024 (photo) Times of Israel reports: Two Likud ministers are promoting an upcoming conference that calls for the reestablishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip as a way to boost security for Israel after the war against the people of Gaza ends. The conference, under the heading “Only settlement will bring security,” is organized by a group of movements that want to resettle Gaza, led by Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan and the Nachala Settlement Movement. It is scheduled for Sunday in Jerusalem. In order to settle in Gaza, Israel would have to transfer Palestinians out of the Strip. Israeli settlements and settlers on Palestinian land are a violation of international law. Forced transfer of a people group is a crime against humanity. HOUTHI UPDATE: The US Department of Defense reports: U.S. and partner forces launched additional defensive strikes against military targets in Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen yesterday…the second round of precision strikes to be carried out by the U.S. and United Kingdom with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands in response to a series of attacks launched by the [allegedly] Iran-backed group against commercial ships operating in the Red Sea. “These precision strikes are intended to disrupt and degrade the capabilities that the Houthis use to threaten global trade and the lives of innocent mariners, and are in response to a series of illegal, dangerous and destabilizing Houthi actions since our coalition strikes on January 11, including anti-ship ballistic missile and unmanned aerial system attacks that struck two U.S.-owned merchant vessels,” the partner nations said in a joint statement following the strikes. The reason for the Houthi threat, which the US has yet to address, is Israel’s brutal war against Gaza. Additionally, British prime minister Rishi Sunak has told the House of Commons, “We’re going to use the most effective means at our disposal to cut off the Houthis’ financial resources, where they are used to fund these attacks. We are working closely with the United States on this and plan to announce new sanctions measures in the coming days.” US Central Command also reported: In response to attacks by the Iranian-backed militia group Kataib Hezbollah (KH), including the attack on al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq on Jan. 20, on Jan. 24 at 12:15 a.m., U.S. CENTCOM forces conducted unilateral airstrikes against three facilities used by Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia group and other Iran-affiliated groups in Iraq. Palestine make history sealing their passage to the knockout stages of the AFC Asian Cup for the first time in their history. Palestine make history sealing their passage to the knockout stages of the AFC Asian Cup for the first time in their history. (photo) The Center for Constitutional Rights reports: Today, a U.S.-based Palestinian rights organization prevailed when the Supreme Court refused to take up a lawsuit brought by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and several U.S. citizens who live in Israel. Citing the speech and expressive activities of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), including its support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the lawsuit had argued that the group provided “material support” for terrorism. The dismissal by the district court had been unanimously affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This lawsuit is just one example of a long line of efforts to silence Palestinians for advocating for their freedom – in this case, by wielding the accusation of support for terrorism to discredit and dehumanize Palestinians for their advocacy, including their support for boycotts. In dismissing the suit in March 2021, the lower court said the arguments were, “to say the least, not persuasive.” Advocates say the suit is part of a broader effort to criminalize and silence the political activities of supporters of Palestinian rights, a threat that has only increased as Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza intensifies. “USCPR’s message is justice for all and an end to funding genocide. There’s no lawsuit in the world that can stop us from pushing our demands for human rights,” said Ahmad Abuznaid, Executive Director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. “We will remain focused on opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people and pursuing justice and freedom for the Palestinian people.” RECOMMENDED READING: ‘Negligence’: Columbia University students furious at administration after skunk water doused on protesters More information on Day 109 is here. STATISTICS OCTOBER 7 – JANUARY 23: Palestinian death toll from October 7 – January 23: at least 25,877* (~25,490 in Gaza* (over 11,000 children, 7,500 women), and at least 387 in the West Bank (98 children). This does not include an estimated 7,000 more still buried under rubble (70% women and children). Euro-Med Monitor reports 32,246 Palestinian deaths. About 1.7 million people have been displaced (about 85% of the population). Palestinian injuries from October 7 – January 23: at least 67,702** (including at least 63,354 in Gaza and 4,348 in the West Bank). Israeli forces killed American teen Tawfiq Hafiz Ajjaq from Louisiana in the West Bank on January 19. It remains unknown how many additional Americans are among the casualties. Reported Israeli death toll from October 7 – January 23: ~1,139 (9 killed in West Bank, 219 in Gaza), including 32 Americans, and 8,730 injured, approximately 36 children). NOTE: It is unknown at this time how many of the deaths and injuries in Israel may have been caused by Israeli soldiers; additionally, since Israel has a policy of universal conscription, it is unknown how many of those attending the outdoor rave a few miles from Gaza on stolen Palestinian land were Israeli soldiers. *Previously, IAK did not include 471 Gazans killed in the Al Ahli hospital blast since the source of the projectile was being disputed. However, given that much evidence points to Israel as the culprit, Israel had previously bombed the hospital and has attacked many others, Israel is prohibiting outside experts from investigating the scene, and since the UN and other agencies are including the deaths from the attack in their cumulative totals, if Americans knew is now also doing so. Find previous daily casualty figures and daily news updates here. For more news, go here and here. Broadcast news from the region is here. Hover over each bar for exact numbers. Source: IsraelPalestineTimeline.org 12 Essential Facts for Understanding the Current Israel-Gaza Violence The West’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers Why the Guardian’s ‘Hamas mass rape’ story doesn’t pass the sniff test Israel’s torture and humiliation of female and male Gazan prisoners Coverage of Gaza War in NYTimes & other major papers heavily favored Israel, analysis shows Two reports debunk New York Times ‘investigative report’ of mass rape on October 7th John Mearsheimer: Genocide in Gaza Flashback: Israeli Journalist said Israel is pushing US into war with Iran Israel’s Assault on Gaza Is Unlike Any War in Recent Memory US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war What media reports fail to tell you about October 7 https://israelpalestinenews.org/israeli-snipers-tanks-drones-positioned-fire-life-khan-younis-day-109/

Propaganda Lies that Protect Israel’s Genocidal Maniacs | VT Foreign Policy January 24, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. Let’s straighten out some of the nonsense that’s spread by Israel’s network of stooges to make the apartheid regime’s crimes against humanity seem justified. Chief amongst them is the insistence that Israel has a right of self-defence against Hamas in Gaza. This is designed to bolster the Israeli narrative and give the regime diplomatic ‘cover’ to commit any crime it wishes in Gaza. But UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese warns that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies”. Common sense should tell us that, nevertheless the lie is repeated ad nauseam by Israel’s sympathisers among our MPs and ministers at Westminster. Ask any of them exactly where in international law Israel is given such a fantastic right and you won’t get a proper answer. You might wonder why people at the heart of our democratic system are telling lies in order to promote the interests of a thoroughly nasty foreign power. There’s an elaborate ‘grooming’ programme whereby serving MPs and parliamentary candidates, on the recommendation of their political party’s Friends of Israel group, are taken on propaganda trips to Israel as guests of the Israeli government and come back suitably brainwashed. Never mind that this is a breach of their Code of Conduct and the Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles) which state that “holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work”. Doesn’t such grooming amount to corruption? What we never hear from them is the Palestinians’ cast-iron right of self-defence against Israel. It doesn’t suit their purpose to tell us that UN Resolution 37/43 gives Palestinians an unquestionable right to resist Israeli aggression in their struggle for “liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means including armed struggle”. 37/43 also condemns “the constant and deliberate violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, as well as the expansionist activities of Israel in the Middle East, which constitute an obstacle to the achievement of self-determination and independence by the Palestinian people and a threat to peace and stability in the region”. So when Netanyahu rejects the idea of a Palestinian state and says all territory west of the Jordan River must be under Israeli security control, he collides head-on with international law. Furthermore, UN Resolution 3246 calls for all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence for all peoples subjected to colonial and foreign domination and to assist them in their struggle. 3246 not only reaffirms the Palestinians’ right to use “all available means, including armed struggle”, but also demands full respect for the basic human rights of all individuals detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle. And it requires strict respect for Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under which no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. So where is the UK Government’s concern for the thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including women and children, held hostage in Israel’s jails before 7 October and the 6,000+ more abducted and imprisoned since then? And when did the UK Government ever “recognize the right to self-determination and independence” for Palestinians, who have been left to suffer foreign domination and alien subjugation for over 75 years, or “assist them in their struggle” as required? Palestinians should not have to negotiate their freedom and self-determination – it’s their basic right and doesn’t depend on anyone else, such as Israel or the US, agreeing to it. The UK disrespects that, otherwise we would long ago have recognised Palestinian statehood and been among the vast majority of nations that have already done so. Legal opinion (Wilde) has it that when 138 of the world’s states at the UN General Assembly voted in 2012 to re-designate Palestine’s status from ‘non-member Entity’ to ‘non-member State’, this had the effect of establishing statehood. Britain’s refusal to recognise Palestine is a disgrace. We promised the Palestinian Arabs independence back in 1915 in return for their help in defeating the Turks but reneged in 1917 (in favour of the shameful Balfour Declaration). We should have granted Palestine provisional independence in 1923 in accordance with our responsibilities under the League of Nations Mandate Agreement, but didn’t. In 1947 the UN Partition Plan allocated the Palestinians a measly portion of their own homeland and, without consulting them, handed the lion’s share to incomer Jews with no ancestral connection to it… thanks in large part to the Balfour stitch-up. The following year Britain walked away from its mandate responsibilities leaving Palestinians at the mercy of Israel’s vicious plan for annexing the Holy Land by military force – “from the river to the sea” – which they’ve pursued relentlessly ever since in defiance of international and humanitarian law, bringing terror, misery, wholesale destruction and ruination to the Palestinians. And now genocide. The UK Government recognised Israeli statehood quickly enough in 1949 when Zionist gangs had already carried out several massacres and shown their terrorist hand, trashing 500 Palestinian towns and villages and driving 700,000 civilians out of their homeland. But we have cruelly rejected pleas for Palestinian recognition right up to the present day. Ours is a long history of betrayal. How can we claim to be brokers for peace when we’ve consistently worked against peace? The same goes for the US. It has to be said that Hamas, however we may feel about them, are the chosen and legitimate government in Gaza after winning fair and square the last election in 2006. Their 2017 Charter is reasonably in tune with international law while the Israeli government pursues policies that definitely are not. So, knowing Palestine’s right to assert its freedom and self-determination, and its right to use armed resistance against Israel’s endless military occupation, why did Britain proscribe Hamas’s political wing as a terrorist organisation? And what gives the UK and the US the right to encourage and assist Israel in bringing about coercive regime-change in Gaza and preventing Palestinians choosing their own government? Hamas Gaza Chief Yahya Al-Sinwar (R), Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (L) during a memorial service for Fuqaha, in Gaza City March 27, 2017. R Branding Hamas a terrorist organisation was indeed a propaganda masterstroke. It has allowed the Zionists and other pro-Israel elements within our Government to avoid having to explain Israel’s far greater terror record, and instead focus hatred on Hamas. So stories about atrocities committed by Hamas when they ‘broke out’ and went on the rampage on 7 October were eagerly absorbed and repeated by Western politicians and media even though the Israelis still haven’t been able to substantiate their claims about rape and beheaded babies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed the Israeli army’s “ethics” chief about two major incidents that day – the order by an Israeli commander to a tank to open fire on an Israeli home knowing there were 14 Israeli civilians inside, and Israeli helicopters firing missiles at dozens of cars carrying Israeli hostages, killing them. The official narrative blamed Hamas for these “barbaric” acts which were then used to justify Israel’s frenzied onslaught against Gaza’s civilians. However Jonathan Cook, a prize-winning journalist writing from Nazareth, reports that Haaretz and the army’s ethics chief both ascribe these self-inflicted casualties to Israel’s Hannibal Directive, a classified policy requiring soldiers to prevent Israelis being taken hostage at all costs. Cook concludes that Western media outlets are deliberately hiding the truth about this story “because it directly conflicts with the West’s ideological and strategic agenda” while the Israeli media are full of it. What now? Just to show how ridiculous our Establishment has now become in its eagerness to carry on shielding Israel, a man has appeared in court charged with wearing a green headband with writing on it said to arouse “reasonable suspicion” that he supports Hamas. The writing is the ‘Shahada’, a declaration of faith stating that there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is the messenger of God. Only a lunatic would try to make a criminal case out of it. Sadly, there’s no shortage of lunatics these days among our ruling elite. And according to Reuters US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken says in all seriousness that what’s needed to resolve the situation is a Palestinian state with a government structure “that gives people what they want and works with Israel to be effective”. So the Palestinians must co-operate with a neighbour that has for decades committed horrendous atrocities against the Palestinian people culminating in all-out genocide? And whose stated ambition is to rob the Palestinians of their entire homeland? Of course, Palestinians would be wise to work with a comprehensively reformed Israel, if such a thing is possible, when it has finally convinced the world it is committed to international and humanitarian law and worthy of being called ‘friend’. But not until then. In the meantime we have the depraved sadist, Netanyahu, insisting that when he’s done with committing genocide Israel’s security needs will leave ‘no space’ for a Palestinian state …. as if only Israel is entitled to security. Israel’s supporters have tried to persuade us that all this unpleasantness began when Hamas broke out of Gaza and caused havoc among the Israeli population nearby. But, as everyone and his dog knows, Israelis have been terrorising, slaughtering, ethnically cleansing, land-grabbing, and showing utter contempt for international law and United Nations resolutions ever since (and even before) they declared statehood nearly 76 years ago. For them, committing war crimes is routine. It began with the massacres by Zionist terror gangs at the King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, Lydda and elsewhere; and all are well documented. Yet Israel has been blessed with impunity throughout that time and now ‘escalates’ its savagery to the level of wholesale genocide. Is the international community still not sufficiently sickened to end its protection and instead proscribe the rogue regime as a terrorist state? What can we the public do? That’s where BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) comes in. This non-violent movement has been building over the years. It is now poised to become civil society’s devastating economic weapon for bringing Israel and its supporters to heel if the international community doesn’t do its job. And what happens to politicians who lie? In short, nothing. That is the conclusion of one of the most depressing articles I’ve read in a long time. We hear it said repeatedly that misleading Parliament is a serious matter. But, as Dr Alice Lilley from the Institute of Government says, “The convention has always been that ministers who mislead Parliament are expected to resign, and this is set out in the Ministerial Code. But enforcing this convention is more complicated. “It is ultimately up to the prime minister to decide what happens to ministers judged to have broken the Code. And Parliament has very few powers to punish a minister for misleading it.” So codes of conduct which mention honesty, like the Nolan Principles and the Ministerial Code, are only voluntary, the assumption being that politicians will choose to behave honourably. But in recent years we’ve been cursed with ministers – and even prime ministers – to whom honour, truthfulness and integrity are alien concepts. The sad fact is, there are few sanctions in place for dealing with those who defy the conventions. So self-regulation falls down and Parliament goes to the dogs. Again, it’s up to civil society to take over and name and shame these undesirables. Stuart Littlewood 22 January 2024 Stuart Littlewood After working on jet fighters in the RAF Stuart became an industrial marketing specialist with manufacturing companies and consultancy firms. He also “indulged himself” as a newspaper columnist. In politics, he served as a Cambridgeshire county councilor and member of the Police Authority. Now retired he campaigns on various issues and contributes to several online news & opinion sites. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, he has produced two photo-documentary books – Paperturn-view.com. Also, check out Stuart’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper. It tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation and explains to me why the Zionists who control Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court. Stuart’s Very Latest Articles: 2023 – Present – Archived Articles: 2010-2015 – 2016-2022 ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/propaganda-lies-that-protect-israels-genocidal-maniacs/

Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise Rhoda WilsonJanuary 3, 2024 The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes. Months before a pandemic was declared in 2020, World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and CEO of Moderna Stéphane Bancel told his staff that there was going to be a pandemic and Moderna would need to manufacture a billion doses of vaccine the “next year,” being 2021. How did Bancel know? A recent article written by The Underdog may provide some insight which lays out his/her findings relating to Moderna infiltrating the USA and UK governments as well as academia. The Underdog is a non de plume for someone who self-describes as a citizen journalist and publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘The Daily Beagle’. In the USA, Moderna took control of the FDA and Operation Warp Speed, and influenced NIH and BARDA, The Underdog says. Adding that Moderna controls the UK government through Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. As well as governments, The Underdog surmises that Moderna has compromised academics in universities in the USA and Canada. For previous articles we’ve published that relate to and complement The Underdog’s article, please see ‘Rishi Sunak, Thélème and Moderna’ and various other articles HERE. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Murderous Moderna’s Infiltration of Politics By The Underdog Murder, They Wrote Let us clarify murderous: a peer-reviewed study found that myocarditis in under 40-year-old males was higher in those who had taken all vaccines, and those who had taken a second dose of mRNA-1273, the Moderna covid injection. It was so bad that Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine in young people, as noted in the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”). As previously known, the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and their corrupt cohorts attempted to censor evidence that myocarditis has a fatality rate of 50% within 5 years. So it isn’t unreasonable to assert Moderna has in all likelihood murdered at least 50% of those with myocarditis caused by the Moderna injections; of which will include children. Like in an attempt to discourage people from getting the poisonous shots without declaring that they’re harmful and recalling them, Moderna recently jacked up the price of their injections to $130. A reminder Moderna produced injections that contained stainless steel contaminants. It cost only $2.85 to manufacture and despite this, the US government paid $15 to $26 a dose. Why? Moderna Have Infiltrated the Government Seems pretty incredulous, but no. Moderna Is Part of WEF Stéphane Bancel was “elected” 2009 Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (“WEF”). Bancel was founding chief executive officer for Moderna and joined Flagship Pioneering in 2013. Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna and CEO of Flagship Pioneering, “received a Technology Pioneer 2012 award from the World Economic Forum”. Noubar also “served as Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Chemicals, Advanced Materials and Biotechnology of the World Economic Forum as well as being a member of the Meta-Council on Emerging Technologies.” Moderna Took Control of Operation Warp Speed Moncef Slaoui, owning 82,508 Moderna shares on 21 February 2020, stepped down from Moderna, divested his stake, and went on to lead Operation Warp Speed. As it just so happened, the US government spent over $4 billion on Moderna, twice as much as any other pharmaceutical company: During this time of taking fat wads of government cash, Moderna also received heavy investment from hedge funds in September 2020. Moderna Influenced NIH, BARDA The NIH in December 2020 bragged how they worked with Moderna in a partnership, along with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) Vaccine Research Centre to develop the myocarditis inducing mRNA-1273 injection: Factoring in that the NIH deleted evidence of the myocarditis fatality rate implicating firms such as Moderna and the NIH itself, this shouldn’t be surprising. Moderna ultimately got into a fight with NIH over mRNA patents, with Moderna insisting they did everything. Current NIH director Francis Collins remarked the NIH played “a major role in the development of the vaccine,” in which Moderna received approximately $10 billion in government funding. Moderna paid the NIH their bribe patent money, to the tune of $400 million, just under half a billion, but held dispute over another patent. To try to appease the NIH, Moderna offered co-ownership of the vaccine patent with NIH. Curiously, an NIH employee, Philip Leder, worked on mRNA research decades before NIH’s agreement with Moderna. They conveniently died in 2020. Moderna Took Control of the FDA Stephan Hahn Stephen Hahn, former FDA Commissioner who insisted he’d fast-track the covid-19 injections, left the FDA to go join Flagship Pioneering after approving the injections. He claimed Donald Trump told him “to authorise a covid-19 vaccine or go.” Flagship Pioneering are a venture capital firm that financed and kickstarted Moderna. The CEO of Flagship Pioneering, Noubar Afeyan, also co-founded Moderna. So, they’re essentially one and the same. Moderna LLC was the successor in interest to Moderna Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2009 as Newco LS18, Inc. by Flagship Pioneering. SEC EDGAR filing on Moderna LLCnone One of the founding investors of Moderna, Bob Langer, also previously worked on the FDA’s advisory board according to his own biography, serving as both a member and later the chairman: It is likely Bob retained contacts within the FDA even after leaving. Moderna Control the UK Government This isn’t hyperbole. We wish it were. The UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with Flagship Pioneering: This includes a spin-off company called Quotient Therapeutics: The UK government also formed an unusually aggressive and expansive 10-year contract with Moderna, worth at least £1 billion for a “new vaccine centre” – despite the fact these are genetic modification injections. This was agreed during Rishi Sunak’s tenure as Prime Minister. Moderna de facto Control the Prime Minister The investment will benefit current unelected pharmaceutical bureaucrat Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (read as: Moderna have influence of the UK government). Unelected Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Rishi was also formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (read as: controlled the UK government purse strings) back in 2020, and allocated even more funds to the vaccine industry during that time. He bragged how it was a “success.” For his bank account, we surmise. How will he benefit? Rishi Sunak co-founded a firm called Thélème Partners LLP (aka. Thélème) back in 2009, registered in the Cayman Islands, along with co-founder and former French Navy Patrick Degorce, after they previously met at The Children’s Investment Fund (“TCIF”). TCIF was run by billionaire Chris Hohn. Rishi Sunak appointed Thélème partner John Sheridan as an advisor to government during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thélème started with an initial investment fund of £536m, and were early backers of Moderna. Thélème co-founder Degorce invested in Moderna over a decade ago, meaning their rise was also Rishi Sunak’s rise. Thélème are Moderna’s single largest hedge fund investor, despite Thélème cutting their exposure by 11%. On 30 September 2023, Thélème disclosed ownership of 6,897,612 shares of Moderna, Inc. (US:MRNA) valued at $712,454,343 USD, more than half a billion. The name Thélème is likely based upon the French ‘Abbaye de Thélème’, an idea invented by French monk Rabelais, who gives his vision of an “ideal and utopian abbey.” The “Thelemites of the Abbey” follow “do what thou wilt”. Occultist Aleister Crowley declared a so-called “Theleme religion” whose central belief was “do what thou wilt”, even remarking “There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.” Unsurprisingly, Moderna plant Rishi Sunak did whatever he wanted and declined to say that he did not profit from the Moderna injections. He claims to have left the firm in 2013 and that his finances are in a so-called “blind trust,” along with 10 other ministers. There’s no legal definition of a “blind trust” so this is pure theatre. Given he’s the original founder of Thélème, he no doubt has shares and investments and still stands to profit from Moderna’s success, explaining why he gave Flagship Pioneering favourable treatment and Moderna a 10-year contract on a plate. This is the same Rishi who tried to “break banks” during the 2008 collapse. On another note… Moderna Have Compromised Academia Bear in mind academic institutions are involved in peer-reviewed processes, clinical research and more, so this has wider, damning ramifications. Moderna were formed within the heart of academia. Moderna Have Control In MIT Noubar Afeyan Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Pioneering, studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was recently installed in MIT Corporation’s board of trustees. The purpose of the trust? (Emphasis added): […] to see that the Institute adheres to the purposes for which it was chartered and that its integrity and financial resources are preserved for future generations as well as for current purposes. […] “About the Corporation”, MIT Corporation pagenone Control of the finances. And integrity. During the founding period of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan joined the likes of MIT Bob Langer. Langer, since investing in Moderna, has now become a billionaire as a result. MIT Mandates the Covid-19 Injection, That MIT Based Modern Just Happens to Sell Profitably for MIT-inspired Moderna, during Moderna’s rise, MIT adopted a vaccine mandate, one where MIT reported there were still covid-19 cases anyway and that they weren’t mild: They huffed the copium and tried to argue there were no Omicron-related hospitalisations (Omicron is deemed the mildest of the covid-19 set), but conveniently omitted Alpha, Delta, and the others, implying there were other variant hospitalisations (read as: The injections they mandated for profits, didn’t work). Noubar Afeyan and MIT’s Bob Langer are also joined by investor Derrick Rossi (Harvard), after they learn they can reprogram human cells and reverse them back into pluripotent stem cells based on Harvard Derrick Rossi’s research. Notice it involves using mRNA to change human cells (read as: Modify their DNA). Rossi is head of the Harvard Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Current Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel also studied at Harvard. Rossi approached Harvard faculty member Timothy Springer asking him to invest in Moderna, which he did so. In April 2021, Timothy Springer was declared a billionaire by Cord Magazine. Back patting their own, Timothy Springer went on to receive a Lasker award, and a Robert Koch prize. The Koch brothers also finances MIT Bob Langer’s lab: In a surprise to no-one, Harvard also mandated the injection from which they stand to profit. This included for Harvard staff, flushing out anyone critical of the financial abuses by the vaccine industry. Bearing in mind the majority of Moderna directed Operation Warp Speed financing went to Moderna, the majority of the injections that would have been available would have also been primarily Moderna, guaranteeing their selfish, harmful, murderous profit Remember: Those below the age of 40 are adversely affected by myocarditis, and the majority of students on campus would be below that age; 50% fatality rate within 5 years for myocarditis. University of Toronto, As Well – Maybe Even the Canadian Government? The Academia orgy was apparently not big enough, and the University of Toronto wanted some, giving Derrick Rossi an “honorary degree”. University of Toronto are particularly interesting because they’re one of a handful of “kingmaker universities” in Canada. When investigating Acuitas Therapeutics, The Daily Beagle remarked: The only University with more Canadian Prime Ministers is University of Toronto, with Arthur Meighen, W.L. Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, and Paul Martin. It is very likely a lot of ministers for the Canadian government also come from the University of Toronto. So, the University of Toronto’s corrupt love-in with Moderna implies Moderna also has influence over the Canadian government. And in surprise to no-one, the University of Toronto also anti-competitively mandated the emergency authorisation injections: You know, the same injections Health Canada admitted contained plasmid DNA, the same kind Moderna used in partnership with Aldevron. What is it with academic universities mandating the injections from which they stand to benefit financially? Moderna are in Bed with Multiple Major Pharmaceutical Companies To give you an idea how deep this shell game goes, did you know that AstraZeneca are one of the key initial investors in Moderna and a major shareholder? So it doesn’t matter to them if their AstraZeneca injection becomes the fall guy for mRNA shots – they profit either way! And guess what they focused on? Heart disease and cancer (any time you see the word ‘oncology’, think cancer). Moderna Clearly Expects a Lot of Cancer Moderna went batshit and agreed a lot of partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms and fired up a lot of oncology (cancer) related spin-offs. Even in their own timeline, they spun-off ‘Onkaido Therapeutics’ to research cancer, partnered with Merck to advocate “personalised” cancer vaccines, and then produced mRNA injections, mRNA-4157, for tumours. They also launched ‘Caperna LLC’, again focusing on personalised cancer vaccines. Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed with Pfizer Moderna love-in Flagship Pioneering got into bed with Pfizer to do a $100 million drug discovery jaunt in July 2023. What type of drugs, they mysteriously didn’t say. Pfizer said their breakthroughs would “change patients’ lives”. They didn’t say for the better. This isn’t forgetting that earlier in 2023 Pfizer bought out Seagan for a whopping $43 billion in order to develop cancer drugs. Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed With Novo Nordisk The target? Heart disease and “rare diseases” (it’s only “rare”): Established in 2022, after it was found the Moderna injections cause myocarditis. Convenient. The Daily Beagle Smells a Rat – Merck Again Despite being rightly lambasted for making a harmful, murderous product and taking a beating with stocks and shares, on about 12 December 2023, Moderna started to mysteriously climb, and The Daily Beagle smelled a rat. And a rat it was. On the 14 December Moderna and Merck bragged their little jaunt into personalised cancer vaccines – vaguely worded as “a powerful new cancer therapy” – was “in the works.” We wonder if it’s as “safe and effective” as the myocarditis inducing covid-19 injections. What a great way to profit. Introduce DNA with transfection agents that cause insertational mutagensis (read as: Cause foreign DNA to enter your DNA and cause cancer), then profit from the resulting spike in cancer cases. Cancer, Cancer Everywhere Moderna’s entire theme seems to be primarily cancer focused. Besides the partnerships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Aldevron, NIH and more, it turns out Moderna is even more focused on cancer (somehow). Take former FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn, for example, the man who betrayed the American public for a cushy job at Flagship Pioneering: He specialises in oncology (cancer), having been part of the National Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, and American Society for Radiation Oncology. Conveniently this also means Moderna has influence over cancer research (read as: No investigating any Moderna-related causes of cancer). University of Texas Cancer Corruption In another tangled web of cancer-related corruption, MD Anderson Cancer Centre are owned by the Koch brothers. Koch financed the likes of Moderna’s Bob Langer’s lab and gave Moderna investor Timothy Springer a monetary award. MD Anderson Cancer Centre, were involved in controversy when the President, Ronald DePinho, was found to own stocks in Aveo Oncology, a company whose drugs University of Texas would be assessing in clinical trial, at none other than… the MD Anderson Cancer Centre. We bet it is exciting … for your bank account. Unsurprisingly, the corrupt University of Texas investigated itself and found itself innocent, using the meaningless term “blind trust” with zero transparency on the arrangement. University of Texas wheeled out the usual nonsense that financial conflicts of interest were somehow in the patients’ best interests. Surely they mean the best interests of the investors, University of Texas itself! And what safeguards? You kept the stocks and the clinical trial. Any Cure for The Cancer That Is Corruption? Apparently not. Even now, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is somehow selling off 40,000 shares a pop via automatic sells, without somehow reducing the total number of shares he holds (???): Apparently Moderna can just print itself as many shares for profit as it wants, on account of how many departments and institutions it controls. Oh, and to top it off, Moderna are even in bed with charities. Oxfam America (you know, of Oxfam child rapists fame) filed a SEC complaint that Moderna had committed fraud and misled investors (read as: Oxfam America is an investor in Moderna). Tip of the Iceberg Phew, that’s a lot to go over. No doubt there’s more, however we’ll be cutting it here for now as it is a lot to go over. It is surprising how much influence and control Moderna have consolidated in such a short space of time, and no doubt corruption is rife abounds elsewhere too. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/03/modernas-influence-over-the-us-and-uk

The lies of Lior Haiat, spin doctor for Israel Michael F. Brown Rights and Accountability 16 January 2024 Lior Haiat speaks into microphones Lior Haiat, Israeli foreign affairs ministry spokesperson, addressed a press conference after South Africa made its 11 January genocide case to the International Court of Justice. Robin Utrecht ANP Lior Haiat, spokesperson at the Israeli foreign affairs ministry, has leveled an extraordinary charge against South Africa, claiming that the anti-apartheid state “is functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organization.” This charge is without basis in fact. His effort to undermine Palestinian-South African solidarity and bludgeon a legal team that inspired millions around the world underlines why so many people are disturbed by how Israel operates in the occupied Palestinian territories and on the world stage. Israel, it will be recalled, long maintained close relations with apartheid South Africa and its white leaders. As a country that overcame apartheid rule, South Africa is particularly well placed to bring the genocide case against Israel, a modern-day practitioner of apartheid as documented by credible Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations. Haiat is not a credible figure to lob such charges. Nevertheless, CNN dutifully repeated the allegation at least twice on Thursday last week and did not comment on the lack of any evidence. Haiat’s history Haiat has made numerous false charges on Twitter/X in recent weeks and over the years. He has also amplified the false charges of others by reposting them. The foreign affairs ministry spokesperson has learned there are no repercussions for lies and misrepresentations. Haiat tweeted in rage on 14 October at “those who spoke of ‘proportionality’ when Israeli babies were murdered and burned alive.” That tweet was a suggestion of no limits to Israel’s response, precisely what landed Israel in the dock at The Hague over South African concerns of intent to commit genocide. Later that month, he accused Save the Children of supporting Hamas. “On October 7 there was no violence against children on both sides!” he reportedly claimed. “Only against Israeli children!!” Yet Defense for Children International - Palestine has documented that the Israeli military killed at least 13 children in Gaza on 7 October. Israeli forces killed another Palestinian child that day in the occupied West Bank. Haiat not only had his facts wrong about 7 October and Palestinian children also being killed that day, but by reposting a 28 October tweet from self-described terrorism expert Dani Lerer, he showed a callousness toward the Palestinian children killed in the three weeks following 7 October. DCIP put the figure at 3,195 Palestinian children killed in that period with at least another 1,000 missing under the rubble of Israeli bombardment. The spokesperson also circulated lies and unverified information about 7 October when he reposted this tweet as well as a video from a Twitter/X account run by Israel’s foreign affairs ministry: There were not 40 Israeli babies “killed and burned” on 7 October. This was atrocity propaganda that enraged western politicians against Palestinians and cleared the way for Israel’s overwhelming violence, a reckless approach that may lead the International Court of Justice to determine Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. The Times of Israel noted in early December that two Israeli infants were killed on 7 October along with 12 other children under age 10 – not 40 babies. Agence France-Presse has reported 36 children were killed in those Hamas-led attacks. The Electronic Intifada, however, has helped expose that Israeli tank fire killed 12-year-old Israeli citizen Liel Hatsroni on 7 October in Kibbutz Be’eri. Her twin brother Yanai was likely killed by Israeli tank fire or crossfire. Haiat also reposted similar atrocity propaganda advanced by author J.K. Rowling that Hamas had killed 40 babies. Both Haiat and Rowling irresponsibly helped foment the killing environment that resulted in Israel being brought before the ICJ. The video cited above from the foreign affairs ministry reposted by Haiat also wrongly claimed that there were “1,400 Israelis murdered.” In fact, most US news sources now assert 1,200 Israelis were killed that day in the Hamas-led attack, though these sources don’t generally note that some were killed by Israeli forces. Of these 1,200 killed, a New York Times correction says Hamas “killed 1,200 people, according to Israeli authorities, not 1,200 civilians. More than 300 soldiers and police officers were among those who died.” Agence France-Presse reports, however, that 1,139 people were killed on 7 October in the Hamas-led attack and 695 of them were Israeli civilians. Haiat has not removed or corrected numerous tweets or reposts citing the erroneous figure. An apparent supporter of dispossessing Palestinians of still further land, Haiat reposted this claim from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that Israel includes some or all of the West Bank – or as the governor puts it: “Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.” Haiat also bragged about efforts to block the nonviolent boycott, divestment and sanctions movement for Palestinian freedom and equal rights. When nonviolence as a path to securing rights is closed off, violence becomes more likely. Haiat took satisfaction in that work then and it’s unlikely anything has changed now even with people around the world looking on in horror as Israel pursues what South Africa – and perhaps soon the ICJ – deems to be genocide in Gaza. Far too many civilians on both sides have been killed. South Africa’s case, however, may finally be making clear for people around the world just how far Israel has taken matters – and has for decades with its apartheid and occupation policies. Spinning genocide and apartheid is a losing cause in much of the world. Nonetheless, with many American and European politicians, Haiat continues to find a willing audience. Lior Haiat Israeli foreign ministry CNN Defense for Children International - Palestine Dani Lehrer Ron DeSantis International Court of Justice https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/lies-lior-haiat-spin-doctor-israel

To Save Gaza, Invoke the Genocide Convention The ICC is a "puppet institution". What's needed is a country to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Here's how, with argument, phone numbers, addresses and emails. Sam Husseini [Addendum: RootsAction and World Beyond War have put out the action alert “It’s Time to Invoke the Genocide Convention”. This full piece has been posted on X/Twitter with thread containing handles for various national leaders who can be petitioned.] Some of the greatest successes in recent human history have combined protest movements with strong diplomatic moves. In February 1998, the Clinton administration seemed poised to inflict a massive attack on Iraq, but vocal opposition from the US public, especially at a CNN town hall meeting in Ohio, combined by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan going to Iraq, repelled the US government attack. The following year, in the Battle of Seattle, combined protests in the streets and delegations from the global south finding their backbone resulted in the World Trade Organization’s plans collapsing. This was a major setback for global corporate interests. There is now effectively a global movement, largely based around mass protests, to stop Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Several countries, including South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, Djibouti as well as Colombia and Algeria and Turkey have moved for the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli officials. The problem is that ICC has been dragging its heels for years on prosecuting Israelis. It has been called a “white man’s court” after only going after Africans, and, after letting Israel off the hook during an earlier assault on Gaza, “a hoax”. Some of these nations have called Israel’s war crimes “genocide”. They should act on their words and invoke the relevant treaty. Other nations that have been especially critical of Israel are Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Belize, Jordan, Chad, Honduras, Bahrain, Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba. The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, in contrast has ruled against Israel. But so far these rulings have been advisory opinions. It ruled against Israel in a case regarding its wall in 2004. In another case before it, is expected to rule against Israel’s long term policies. But what can be done now, Prof. Francis Boyle, who successfully represented the Bosnians before the World Court, argues is to use emergency processes to give more teeth to the World Court. This can be done by invoking the Genocide Convention. This is outlined by Boyle, noted by UN whistleblower Craig Mokhiber, backed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire, and written about by myself. And most recently by Craig Murray, now a human rights activist who was the British ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee. Murray just wrote the piece “Activating the Genocide Convention” which states: “There are 149 states party to the Genocide Convention. Every one of them has the right to call out the genocide in progress in Gaza and report it to the United Nations. In the event that another state party disputes the claim of genocide — and Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all states party — then the International Court of Justice [also called the World Court] is required to adjudicate on ‘the responsibility of a State for genocide.'” Murray quotes from the Genocide Convention and cites evidence that Israel is conducting genocide and that the US and British governments are at minimum complicit in that. He then states: “The International Court of Justice is the most respected of international institutions; while the United States has repudiated its compulsory jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has not and the EU positively accepts it. “If the International Court of Justice makes a determination of genocide, then the International Criminal Court does not have to determine that genocide has happened. This is important because unlike the august and independent ICJ, the ICC is very much a western government puppet institution which will wiggle out of action if it can. But a determination of the ICJ of genocide and of complicity in genocide would reduce the ICC’s task to determining which individuals bear the responsibility. That is a prospect which can indeed alter the calculations of politicians. “It is also the fact that a reference for genocide would force the western media to address the issue and use the term, rather than just pump out propaganda about Hamas fighting bases in hospitals. … “I am afraid the question of why Palestine has not invoked the Genocide Convention takes us somewhere very dark. … It is Fatah who occupy the Palestinian seat at the United Nations, and the decision for Palestine to call into play the Genocide Convention lies with Mahmoud Abbas. It is more and more difficult daily to support Abbas. He seems extraordinarily passive, and the suspicion that he is more concerned with refighting the Palestinian civil war than with resisting the genocide is impossible to shake. By invoking the Genocide Convention he could put himself and Fatah back at the centre of the narrative. But he does nothing. I do not want to believe that corruption and a Blinken promise of inheriting Gaza are Mahmoud’s motivators. But at the moment, I cannot grab on to any other explanation to believe in.” Thus speeches from Abbas and allied Palestinians figures should be viewed extremely skeptically. It is also very odd, to say the very least, that Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, and other officials put out a statement “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people” — but make no mention whatever of the Genocide Convention. As Murray writes: “Any one of the 139 states party could invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and its co-conspirators. Those states include Iran, Russia, Libya, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ireland, Iceland, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and Qatar. But not one of these states has called out the genocide [by invoking the Convention]. Why? “It is not because the Genocide Convention is a dead letter. It is not. It was invoked against Serbia by Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ICJ ruled against Serbia with regard to the massacre at Srebrenica.” Murray notes that this helped lead to prosecutions. He adds: “Some states may simply not have thought of it. For Arab states in particular, the fact that Palestine itself has not invoked the Genocide Convention may provide an excuse. EU states can hide behind bloc unanimity. “But I am afraid that the truth is that no state cares sufficiently about the thousands of Palestinian children already killed and thousands more who will shortly be killed, to introduce another factor of hostility in their relationship with the United States. Just as at [the recent] summit in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic countries could not agree [on] an oil and gas boycott of Israel, the truth is that those in power really do not care about a genocide in Gaza. They care about their own interests. “It just needs one state to invoke the Genocide Convention and change the narrative and the international dynamic. That will only happen through the power of the people in pressing the idea on their governments. This is where everybody can do a little something to add to the pressure. Please do what you can.” What can you do? Urge countries which have been critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Get groups and influential people to make this a primary ask. Protests in NYC should include visits and vigils to the missions of those countries. Activists who have been arrested for protesting against Israel’s slaughter can ask UN officials from countries critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention. Palestinians in Ramallah may be able to directly contact the representatives of various countries to Palestine. This can be done anywhere. Protests in London can respectfully appeal to the embassies of various countries critical of Israel. We need to keep pressing directly against the US and Israeli governments, but their hearts are like stone. If we reach other states to invoke the Genocide Convention, it may be a key stop in curtailing the slaughter. Moreover, it could be a turning point in global relations. Should a positive emergency ruling by the International Court of Justice be forthcoming, it would dramatically isolate the US and Israel at the UN. The US would of course try to block anything at the UN Security Council. But with a World Court ruling, Boyle argues, the stage would be set for the General Assembly to assert itself using the Uniting for Peace procedure. Combined with sustained protests, like the WTO and other critical confrontations, the costs of continuing the slaughter could become unsustainable. Moreover, a World Court ruling could facilitate other legal efforts, like universal jurisdiction. For all that to happen, a country needs to step forward and invoke the Genocide Convention. Make no mistake; any nation that does this may well be targeted in insidious ways by the US and by Israel. Any such nation should be afforded every bit of support people of goodwill can muster. Here's a website that seems to list all the embassies and other diplomatic missions around the world. People from anywhere can be emailing, calling and going to these embassies and missions, urging these countries to use every legal mechanism to pressure Israel to stop, including invoking the Genocide Convention: embassy-worldwide.com. A friend extracted emails of missions to the UN: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Emails of embassies to and from Palestine via this page. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] https://open.substack.com/pub/husseini/p/to-save-gaza-invoke-the-genocide?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

To Save Gaza, Invoke the Genocide Convention The ICC is a "puppet institution". What's needed is a country to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Here's how, with argument, phone numbers, addresses and emails. Sam Husseini [Addendum: RootsAction and World Beyond War have put out the action alert “It’s Time to Invoke the Genocide Convention”. This full piece has been posted on X/Twitter with threadcontaining handles for various national leaders who can be petitioned.] Some of the greatest successes in recent human history have combined protest movements with strong diplomatic moves. In February 1998, the Clinton administration seemed poised to inflict a massive attack on Iraq, but vocal opposition from the US public, especially at a CNN town hall meeting in Ohio, combined by UN Secretary General Kofi Annangoing to Iraq, repelled the US government attack. The following year, in the Battle of Seattle, combined protests in the streets and delegations from the global south finding their backbone resulted in the World Trade Organization’s plans collapsing. This was a major setback for global corporate interests. There is now effectively a global movement, largely based around mass protests, to stop Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Several countries, including South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, Djibouti as well as Colombia and Algeria and Turkey have moved for the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli officials. The problem is that ICC has been dragging its heels for years on prosecuting Israelis. It has been called a “white man’s court” after only going after Africans, and, after letting Israel off the hook during an earlier assault on Gaza, “a hoax”. Some of these nations have called Israel’s war crimes “genocide”. They should act on their words and invoke the relevant treaty. Other nations that have been especially critical of Israel are Pakistan, Brazil, Chile, Belize, Jordan, Chad, Honduras, Bahrain, Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba. The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, in contrast has ruled against Israel. But so far these rulings have been advisory opinions. It ruled against Israel in a case regarding its wall in 2004. In another case before it, is expected to rule against Israel’s long term policies. But what can be done now, Prof. Francis Boyle, who successfully represented the Bosnians before the World Court, argues is to use emergency processes to give more teeth to the World Court. This can be done by invoking the Genocide Convention. This is outlined by Boyle, noted by UN whistleblower Craig Mokhiber, backed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire, and written about by myself. And most recently by Craig Murray, now a human rights activist who was the British ambassador to Uzbekistan and Rector of the University of Dundee. Murray just wrote the piece “Activating the Genocide Convention” which states: “There are 149 states party to the Genocide Convention. Every one of them has the right to call out the genocide in progress in Gaza and report it to the United Nations. In the event that another state party disputes the claim of genocide — and Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all states party — then the International Court of Justice [also called the World Court] is required to adjudicate on ‘the responsibility of a State for genocide.'” Murray quotes from the Genocide Convention and cites evidence that Israel is conducting genocide and that the US and British governments are at minimum complicit in that. He then states: “The International Court of Justice is the most respected of international institutions; while the United States has repudiated its compulsory jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has not and the EU positively accepts it. “If the International Court of Justice makes a determination of genocide, then the International Criminal Court does not have to determine that genocide has happened. This is important because unlike the august and independent ICJ, the ICC is very much a western government puppet institution which will wiggle out of action if it can. But a determination of the ICJ of genocide and of complicity in genocide would reduce the ICC’s task to determining which individuals bear the responsibility. That is a prospect which can indeed alter the calculations of politicians. “It is also the fact that a reference for genocide would force the western media to address the issue and use the term, rather than just pump out propaganda about Hamas fighting bases in hospitals. … “I am afraid the question of why Palestine has not invoked the Genocide Convention takes us somewhere very dark. … It is Fatah who occupy the Palestinian seat at the United Nations, and the decision for Palestine to call into play the Genocide Convention lies with Mahmoud Abbas. It is more and more difficult daily to support Abbas. He seems extraordinarily passive, and the suspicion that he is more concerned with refighting the Palestinian civil war than with resisting the genocide is impossible to shake. By invoking the Genocide Convention he could put himself and Fatah back at the centre of the narrative. But he does nothing. I do not want to believe that corruption and a Blinken promise of inheriting Gaza are Mahmoud’s motivators. But at the moment, I cannot grab on to any other explanation to believe in.” Thus speeches from Abbas and allied Palestinians figures should be viewed extremely skeptically. It is also very odd, to say the very least, that Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, and other officials put out a statement “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people” — but make no mention whatever of the Genocide Convention. As Murray writes: “Any one of the 139 states party could invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and its co-conspirators. Those states include Iran, Russia, Libya, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ireland, Iceland, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and Qatar. But not one of these states has called out the genocide [by invoking the Convention]. Why? “It is not because the Genocide Convention is a dead letter. It is not. It was invoked against Serbia by Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ICJ ruled against Serbia with regard to the massacre at Srebrenica.” Murray notes that this helped lead to prosecutions. He adds: “Some states may simply not have thought of it. For Arab states in particular, the fact that Palestine itself has not invoked the Genocide Convention may provide an excuse. EU states can hide behind bloc unanimity. “But I am afraid that the truth is that no state cares sufficiently about the thousands of Palestinian children already killed and thousands more who will shortly be killed, to introduce another factor of hostility in their relationship with the United States. Just as at [the recent] summit in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic countries could not agree [on] an oil and gas boycott of Israel, the truth is that those in power really do not care about a genocide in Gaza. They care about their own interests. “It just needs one state to invoke the Genocide Convention and change the narrative and the international dynamic. That will only happen through the power of the people in pressing the idea on their governments. This is where everybody can do a little something to add to the pressure. Please do what you can.” What can you do? Urge countries which have been critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Get groups and influential people to make this a primary ask. Protests in NYC should include visits and vigils to the missions of those countries. Activists who have been arrested for protesting against Israel’s slaughter can ask UN officials from countries critical of Israel to invoke the Genocide Convention. Palestinians in Ramallah may be able to directly contact the representatives of various countries to Palestine. This can be done anywhere. Protests in London can respectfully appeal to the embassies of various countries critical of Israel. We need to keep pressing directly against the US and Israeli governments, but their hearts are like stone. If we reach other states to invoke the Genocide Convention, it may be a key stop in curtailing the slaughter. Moreover, it could be a turning point in global relations. Should a positive emergency ruling by the International Court of Justice be forthcoming, it would dramatically isolate the US and Israel at the UN. The US would of course try to block anything at the UN Security Council. But with a World Court ruling, Boyle argues, the stage would be set for the General Assembly to assert itself using the Uniting for Peace procedure. Combined with sustained protests, like the WTO and other critical confrontations, the costs of continuing the slaughter could become unsustainable. Moreover, a World Court ruling could facilitate other legal efforts, like universal jurisdiction. For all that to happen, a country needs to step forward and invoke the Genocide Convention. Make no mistake; any nation that does this may well be targeted in insidious ways by the US and by Israel. Any such nation should be afforded every bit of support people of goodwill can muster. Here's a website that seems to list all the embassies and other diplomatic missions around the world. People from anywhere can be emailing, calling and going to these embassies and missions, urging these countries to use every legal mechanism to pressure Israel to stop, including invoking the Genocide Convention: embassy-worldwide.com. A friend extracted emails of missions to the UN: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Emails of embassies to and from Palestine via this page. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Urge Governments to Invoke the Genocide Convention to Stop the War on Gaza https://worldbeyondwar.org/gaza-genocide/

Rejecting the Bantustan ‘two-state solution’, Mandla Mandela calls for a single democratic state in Palestine Tim Anderson The popular but fallacious touchstone of a political resolution in Palestine has been a ‘two-state solution’. Washington constantly reverts to this and, more disturbingly, so too do many of Palestine’s international friends. Yet, faced with an apartheid regime, the idea is outdated and irrelevant, South African leader Mandla Mandela pointed out at the 5th Global Convention of Solidarity with Palestine, over 3-5 December in Johannesburg. Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson, head of the Mandela Foundation, clan chief, and an ANC member of Parliament, called for a global anti-apartheid campaign aimed at dismantling the Israeli regime, rejecting the Bantustan-like 'two-state solution', and calling for a single democratic state in Palestine. South Africans know about Bantustans: these were the so-called native ‘homelands’ – small enclaves set up to help enforce apartheid and prevent democracy in South Africa. The most recent ‘two-state’ proposal, put up by the Trump administration in 2020, shares many features with these Bantustans. But few outside South Africa remember this history in detail. The ‘two-state solution’ seems to have support in UNSC resolutions since 1967 (#242 and its successors), but the right “to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries” was conditional on Israeli withdrawal “from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The Israeli regime never met that condition. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s saw the PLO recognizing an "Israeli state", on the basis that the colonization of the West Bank would end and a Palestinian state would emerge. Those conditions were never met. Veteran analyst Rashid Khalidi, a leading US scholar on Palestine, says there was never a serious attempt by the Israelis or Washington to create an Arab state that would be “sovereign, contiguous and viable." Further, the entrenchment of second-class citizenship for Arab Israelis (in ‘1948 Palestine’), the emergence of an open apartheid regime on the West Bank, and the periodic massacres in Gaza have imposed a new reality. Yet, the pretext of ‘two states’ and the myth of a “return to 1967 borders” (a fantasy destroyed by constant Israeli colonization of the occupied territories) is maintained to obscure the reality of a predatory apartheid Israeli regime that can never co-exist with an independent Palestine. Washington and the Israelis understand that the fig leaf of ‘two states’ hides apartheid and prevents the construction of a broad anti-apartheid movement. That path is obscured by the ‘two states’ myth, as two former Israeli prime ministers have pointed out. In 2017, former PM Ehud Barak warned that the regime was “on a slippery slope” toward apartheid. Similarly, former PM Ehud Olmert (2007) said, “If the day comes when the [idea of a] two-state solution collapses and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," then we will face an “apartheid-like struggle … [and] the State of Israel is finished." The Trump ‘peace plan’ of 2020 is the most recent, detailed version of the deceptive 'two-state' idea. It supported the illegal West Bank, Syrian Golan, and eastern part of al-Quds annexations, trying to ‘normalize’ those breaches of earlier international agreements and offering some desert land in ‘compensation’. In recent years these ‘settlements’ have grown so that there are more than 700,000 Israeli colonists on the West Bank. Despite muted international protests, "Tel Aviv’s" backing for this process makes it unlikely that the ‘settlers’ might (as was done in Gaza) simply be persuaded to pack up and go home. Under the Trump ‘peace plan’, total Israeli control over borders, security, and even education would be maintained. That is a close parallel to the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa, as Mandla Mandela observed. The Palestinian struggle can and should draw important lessons from South Africa’s anti-apartheid campaigns and draw on the political capital it built, including in international resolutions. First of all, in 1973, the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity, punishable under the 1988 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Systematic racial discrimination is a crime that should not be aided and abetted, and the Israeli entity has been declared an apartheid regime by six independent reports. As jurists Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley (2017) point out, “States have a collective duty: (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a state in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end.” That duty militates against recognition of or support for the apartheid regime as a ‘state’. Second, while the South African apartheid regime tried to present the Bantustan enclaves as some form of ‘self-determination’, this was rejected both by black South Africans and the United Nations. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said tribal enclaves had nothing to do with the South African reality, “we are thoroughly detribalized, it is the government of South Africa that has sought to exacerbate tribal feelings." The Bantustan policy and practice aimed at reinforcing apartheid by forcing the majority black African population into 13% of the country’s land, with few resources and basic services. Yet collaborating chiefs like Gatsha Buthelezi of KwaZulu were relied on to present a veneer of tribal ‘independence’. This Bantustan policy, including the third class ‘Bantu education’ system which began in the 1950s and catalyzed huge protests, was said to be “the logical territorial extension of apartheid as both a general policy and a way of life for whites as a single preferred tribe over blacks as an inferior collection of tribes." In the 1970s, three UN resolutions were passed, which condemned the Bantustan policy. In 1971, General Assembly Resolution 2775 E (XXVI) on the Establishment of Bantustans condemned the practice as “in pursuance of apartheid," “violating the right to self-determination,” and “prejudicial to territorial integrity." In 1975, General Assembly Resolution 3411 D (XXX) on Apartheid again condemned the Bantustan policy, and in 1976, the General Assembly unanimously (with the USA abstaining) passed Resolution 31/6 which condemned the designation of an “independent” Transkei Bantustan as “sham independence”, calling on all governments to not recognize it and to prohibit dealings with the artificial entity. The UN, thus, authoritatively condemned the creation of small subordinate enclaves in place of national self-determination for black South Africans. Just as Apartheid South Africa tried to force the majority Black population into 13% of the country’s land, so the Israelis have forced Palestinians into increasingly restricted enclaves, all of which are controlled by the Israeli regime. While the Palestinian Arab population today, according to Israeli officials, is about the same as the Jewish, the Israeli population's control of land and resources is massively unequal. The so-called Palestinian Territories comprise about 22% of historic Palestine and, of that, more than half is zoned to be under exclusive Israeli control Anera. Zionist apologists try to justify the steady land theft by saying, first of all, that the Israelis acquired that land by military conquest (in the post-colonial era, UNSC 242 declared such claims null and void) and second, that Palestinians somehow acquired control over land for “the first time” under the Oslo Accords. In fact, Palestinians lost even more land to Israeli "annexation" after the Oslo Accords. The Israeli lobby has relentlessly abused Chief Mandla Mandela. Responding to his accusations that "Israel" had “committed genocide and crimes against humanity," Tali Feinberg claimed that Mandla’s “anti-Israel vitriol contrasts with his grandfather’s legacy.” Indeed, Nelson Mandela met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Ezer Weizman and said, in 1999, “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognise Israel within secure borders." Feinberg blames Mandla’s anti-"Israel" stance on his conversion to Islam. However, Nelson Mandla was responding to the circumstances of the early 1990s, when his friend Yasser Arafat was engaged in the Oslo Accords, and no reports on the Apartheid character of the Israeli colonial regime had yet emerged. After the failure of the Oslo agreements to produce any benefit, and after six independent reports branding "Israel" as apartheid regime, Chief Mandla is justified in adjusting his response. Support for the armed, as well as civil resistance in Palestine, has been a feature of Chief Mandla Mandela’s advocacy. It was his grandfather, after all, who created uMkhonto we Siswe (MK, the spear of the nation), the armed wing of the ANC, when all other avenues had failed. So, at a time when Western regimes try to brand all Palestinian Resistance as ‘terrorism’, Chief Mandela has urged the factions “to come together and have joint operations” to defend their land. He also backed the call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions on the Israeli regime. After the December 2023 conference in Johannesburg, Mandla Mandela stood alongside leaders of various Palestinian Resistance factions at Government House in Pretoria. Recalling his grandfather’s famous quote, “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians," Mandla Mandela recognized that Palestinians had the “absolute right” to the land of their forefathers using all available means, including armed resistance. Chief Mandela made it very clear that the call for a true and meaningful liberation for Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea was one that means a one-state solution for indigenous Palestinians including the inalienable right of return for over seven million refugees and their descendants, displaced since 1948. Mandla Mandela called on South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to abandon the “two-state delusion” in favor of a single democratic state for all indigenous peoples of Palestine, abandoning separate development, racism, and apartheid in occupied Palestine. South African veterans and leaders have a unique experience and moral authority to denounce Bantustan-like proposals that divert the Palestinian struggle from its emancipatory goals. https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/rejecting-the-bantustan--two-state-solution---mandla-mandela

ESG has made significant inroads in the finance and investing community. Environmentalists have long used divestiture campaigns and impact investing to influence companies via finance. Here is a short guide...

In this video from his appearance at MIT, Derrick Broze dives into the importance of questioning our relationships with digital technology, the philosophy of Technocracy, the growth of the Surveillance “Smart” Grid, and much more.

https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/columbia-student-groups-form-coalition-to-counter-crackdown-on-palestine-activism-demand-divestment-from-israel/

BDS is the most effective way to put our solidarity into action – here’s how to win Olivia KatbiNovember 13, 2023 (Image: Palestinian BDS National Committee) (Image: Palestinian BDS National Committee) As Israel continues to escalate its ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, a new wave of solidarity with Palestine is emerging. Many people are learning for the first time about the Palestinian call to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel until it complies with international law. As a coordinator for the BDS Movement in North America for several years, I have worked on a number of BDS campaigns, and would like to lay out the basics, best practices, and some helpful tips and ideas for BDS campaigning. BDS 101 First, some quick background: The BDS movement was founded by Palestinian civil society in 2005 as a way to exert pressure on Israel to comply with international law until it meets three key demands: 1. An end to Israel’s occupation of all Arab lands and dismantling the illegal apartheid Wall; 2. Full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel; and 3. The right of return for Palestinian refugees. You can learn more about the history of the BDS Movement, the organizations that make up the Palestinian BDS National Committee, and past and current campaigns at the BDS Movement website. BDS is the most effective way for us to put our solidarity with Palestinian liberation into action as residents of the United States, which gives Israel an annual $3.8 billion in military funding, shields Israel from international accountability, and has countless corporations and institutions that maintain some level of complicity in Israel’s violence. BDS is inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, during which international boycotts and sanctions played a major role in bringing about the eventual fall of apartheid, and the U.S. Civil Rights movement and its inspiring boycotts, including the Rosa Parks-led Montgomery bus boycott. A movement for collective action Many people are personally boycotting brands that have stated support for Israel, and that’s great – but I want to stress that consumer boycotts are most effective when taken as a collective action, and BDS isn’t just about consumer boycotts. More important than our own personal investments and purchases, which are symbolic gestures but not impactful alone, is working within an organization, union, or coalition to organize effective, strategic campaigns and build power globally to support the Palestinian struggle. So when you see massive lists of dozens and dozens of companies to boycott going around on social media – please keep in mind that the goal isn’t to boycott as many companies as possible, as very few people can feasibly sustain such extensive boycotts. The goal is to strategically pick a few targets and exert enough collective pressure to win a campaign – meaning, a specific company stops doing business with Israel, a specific institution divests its investments from complicit Israeli or international companies, or a specific city ends its relationship with the Israeli government or adopts a human rights procurement and investment policy. There are many different kinds of BDS campaigns to choose from, and you can choose the most strategic and achievable targets in your own local context. Consider these examples: Municipal boycott: a city ends contracts with HP or Caterpillar. Academic boycott: a university (or department) or academic association ends institutional collaboration with Israeli academic institutions. Sports boycott: US teams refuse to play against official Israeli teams, or Israel gets suspended from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Consumer boycott: a co-op grocery store stops selling Sabra hummus. Cultural boycott: a celebrity cancels a performance in Israel, or a US event by Israeli cultural ambassadors or sponsored by Israel (or anti-Palestinian lobby groups) is canceled. Divestment: A city, university, church, trade union, or pension fund withdraws its investments in corporations and banks complicit in Israeli apartheid. As the BDS movement continues to grow at a fast pace, many activists around the world, including in Palestine, often wonder what institution or corporation to most effectively target and how. Given our limited human capacity, we want to be strategic with the targets we select. The BDS movement does not actually launch a boycott campaign against every boycottable event, product or institution, because that would make it pretty impossible to achieve concrete results. To be strategic, we carefully select our targets and how we intervene in each case. To read about current BDS targets and strategic campaigning, including why some targets are “pressure” targets instead of full-on boycott targets, please take a look at this recent statement from the BDS Movement. When selecting a BDS target we generally recommend considering the following four criteria:
 1. The level of complicity involved: The deeper the complicity, the easier it is to mobilize support for BDS action against any given target. There are hundreds of international companies and banks that are in some way complicit. Rather than targeting any international athletic footwear company that sells athletic shoes and apparel in Israel, for example, we recommend joining the campaign against PUMA, which sponsors the Israel Football Association. The IFA governs teams in Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. 2. The potential for forming a broad, cross-movement coalition against the target: A divestment campaign targeting Chevron, for example, makes much more sense than a divestment campaign targeting a company that only infringes on Palestinian rights, because Chevron is a target of climate activists worldwide. Intersectional coalitions are especially crucial to maximize the potential of winning against large, nasty complicit corporations. 3. Media appeal: If two companies are equally complicit, and we must choose, it is more effective to go after the more publicly recognized brand, as that usually attracts more media attention and allows us to educate and reach out to a much larger audience. 4. Possibility of success: Even if the above three conditions are met, we don’t launch a campaign against a target unless we have a reasonable chance of success. And success can sometimes just mean reaching a wide mainstream audience and winning their support, rather than actually succeeding in canceling an event, or canceling a contract, but symbolic victories alone are not sufficient. We do BDS because we want to win, build power to affect policy change, and to achieve Palestinian rights ultimately, and not to merely score points and feel good about symbolic gestures. Only through sustained, cumulative, growing and mainstreaming successes can BDS achieve its objectives— which are freedom, justice and equality. Campaigning to win Once you and your group or organization (because you absolutely should not be doing this alone!) have carefully researched and chosen a target that makes strategic sense for your local context, don’t just jump out with a public campaign right away. Starting with a soft ask (due diligence) is an often overlooked step that can sometimes deliver us a win right away – and the goal is winning! For example, meeting with your union’s investment committee to see if they are willing to implement a human rights investment screening policy; privately writing a letter to your school’s procurement manager to see if there is another supplier of computers they could go with rather than HP; or getting grocery store workers to collectively request that the store no longer shelve an Israeli product. You might be surprised by how far good faith engagement, based on sharing accurate information and compelling moral appeals, can in some cases take you, particularly in smaller communities, before escalating to a larger public pressure campaign. In most cases, however, strategic pressure is the only effective way. For example, when we ran a campaign in Portland asking the Portland Trail Blazers to end their sponsorship with IDF sniper scope supplier Leupold and Stevens, we first sent private letters to the Blazers organization explaining our concerns and requesting a meeting to talk further about the partnership. This tactic did not work, and we then escalated to a public, year-long pressure campaign, which we won! But we had to make sure to do our due diligence first, as that in itself shows good faith and win over many bystanders. You should also begin reaching out to other organizations for endorsement and support. Coalition building is a must in most BDS work. Organizations in your area might be interested in campaigning together on the issue, and organizations in the U.S. can offer support for your campaign. For example, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has talented researchers with years of BDS campaigning under their belts and a great database which can help you find reliable information on companies and investment funds. Palestine Legal can help you ensure that your campaign is as legally sound as possible and may be able to help you face legal challenges that you may run into regardless. IMEU can provide resources on connecting with the media and tips on how best to integrate communications into your campaign strategy, not as an afterthought. Power mapping is an important part of your campaign as well – who are the decision makers, who is best placed to pressure them, and how can we most effectively do so? Do you have any allies on the inside? What kind of opposition do you think you’ll be up against, and how can you prepare for that ahead of time? Other important parts of campaigning include creating a media strategy, a public education strategy (for example, hosting informational events like teach-ins), a timeline for escalation of your campaign, and picking strategic dates for certain actions – such as delivering a petition during a board meeting of the company you’re targeting. Is peacefully disruptive direct action (sit-in, peaceful occupation, flashmob, collective supermarket action, etc.) a useful tactic to consider, at the right time, in your strategy? Historically, some of the biggest and most successful BDS campaigns have taken years of strategic planning, organizing, and network building to pull off – so don’t be discouraged if it doesn’t happen for you right away. It’s worth it to be intentional in your planning and outreach. But at this unprecedented time of crisis with genocide unfolding before our eyes, there’s also no reason why a BDS campaign needs to take years. There is great urgency in the work we’re doing right now, and there’s no reason why a city council or your union leadership can’t make a decision to end its complicity right now if the political will exists. If not now, when? The South African anti-apartheid movement organized for decades to gain broad international support leading up to the fall of apartheid; and apartheid did fall. Freedom is inevitable. The time is now to take action to join the movement for freedom, justice, and equality in Palestine. Before you go – we need your support At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/bds-is-the-most-effective-way-to-put-our-solidarity-into-action-heres-how-to-win/

Beautiful Escapes: Discover the Top International Tours Take a trip of a lifetime with one of our carefully chosen foreign excursions departing from India. Explore the most intriguing places on earth, from Southeast Asia's compelling cultural treasures to Europe's breathtaking scenery. Our carefully planned itineraries and the greatest travel experiences provide a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Our best international tours from India will satisfy your curiosity and provide lifelong memories, whether your goal is to explore the stunning beaches of the Maldives or the ancient beauty of Istanbul. Savor the excitement of traveling the world by exploring our varied selection of places. Click here to know more: https://indtravels.com/holiday-packages/international-holiday-tour-packages/ Social Media Links > https://www.facebook.com/IndTravels/ > https://www.instagram.com/indtraveltours/ > https://twitter.com/travels_ind > https://in.pinterest.com/indtraveltours/ #internationaltourpackage #bestinternationaltour #internationaltourfromindia #foreigntourpackage #internationaltours #baliholidaypackage

Come to #Maldives for Unique #Holidays!!!Come to #Maldives for Unique #Holidays!!! ----------- REFERENT URL --------------- https://somee.social/search/hashtag/Maldives https://somee.social/search/hashtag/Holidays