THE British government faces a backlash for showing a “complete disregard” for Palestinian suffering by abstaining from a key UN vote on ending Israeli occupation.
The UN general assembly resolution passed last night demanded that Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip within a year.
An overwhelming majority of 124 countries voted in favour of the resolution. Britain was one of 43 countries to abstain. Just 14 countries, including the US, voted against it.
Amnesty International’s secretary-general Agnes Callamard said that governments, including Israel’s allies, must ensure that the country complies with the resolution.
Anti-AfD protest in Magdeburg. (Photo: via Standing Up Against Racism)
The German government has defied EU law by imposing border controls, while Green politicians decry “the poison of Islam” in parliament. Meanwhile, the far-right AfD has surged in recent state elections. What’s driving Germany’s sharp shift to the right?
Germany is entering a period of reaction. This is not only evident from the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD), but also from the hardline policies of the governing coalition’s so-called centrist parties. The Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, and Liberal Democrats (FDP) have introduced unprecedented measures against migrants and critics of state policies. In September 2024, Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) imposed border controls, defying European criticism and undermining the EU’s Schengen Agreement. Political scientist Christopher Wratil of the University of Vienna said that Berlin can “no longer claim others are not complying with EU law,” adding that the government is acting “as if the AfD were already in power.” Soon after Faeser’s announcement, Green parliamentary leader Katharina Dröge referred to “the poison of Islam” (das Gift des Islams) during a Bundestag session.
Germany challenged on multiple fronts
To explain this drastic rightward shift, it is necessary to understand the international situation confronting Germany’s ruling class. There are three main fronts on which the German state is currently bogged down.
Firstly, in Ukraine, where NATO’s confrontation with Russia is stalling, if not collapsing entirely. As the second-largest backer of the Zelensky regime, Berlin remains fully committed to winning the war. The government’s July 2024 decision to approve the stationing of US Tomahawk cruise missiles on German soil confirms this. Sanctions on Russia have strained the German economy, especially energy-intensive industries, but the state has absorbed much of the burden through subsidies. The Federation of German Industries, representing 100,000 companies, continues to back the government’s policies. However, popular support for the war is crumbling, as recent EU and state elections show. The two parties most critical of arms deliveries to Ukraine – the AfD and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance for Reason and Justice (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, BSW) – made record gains, while the governing coalition suffered heavy losses.
The second front, not yet erupted into open conflict, is East Asia, in the confrontation with China. German capital faces the same dilemma as its US counterpart: while business with China remains lucrative, Chinese producers are outpacing American and European competitors, challenging Western hegemony. Germany has been more reserved than the US in taking a confrontational stance, but the government’s plan to invest 10 billion euros into a 30-billion-euro Intel chip production project in Germany shows its intent to reduce reliance on China. Meanwhile, the Green foreign minister, who called Xi Jinping a “dictator” in 2023, has led a cross-party effort to instrumentalize Taiwan against Beijing. The Ministry of Defense’s recent decision to send a warship through the Taiwan Strait is the latest move in this confrontational policy.
The third front is West Asia, where Germany remains the most outspoken advocate of Israel’s genocidal offensive in Gaza. Unlike the other fronts, there are no economic concerns holding German capital back from fully supporting Israel. This unified stance on Zionism and opposition to the so-called axis of resistance has allowed the government to swiftly implement policies against the Palestinian solidarity movement. While smearing protesters as antisemitic, basic rights such as freedom of assembly and speech are thrown out of the window. Homes are raided, activists arrested, solidarity organizations banned, and laws tightened—most recently with the liberal FDP calling to strip non-EU citizens of the right to assembly. Yet, the Western-backed offensive in Gaza has also stalled, with Israel unable to eliminate Hamas. Domestically, Germany uses force to suppress dissent, but it cannot do so internationally. States from the Global South are openly challenging Germany’s unconditional support for Israel. Namibia accused Berlin of supporting genocide while shirking responsibility for colonial crimes. Nicaragua has filed a case against Germany in the International Court of Justice, accusing it of violating the 1949 Genocide Convention. Others, like Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, have directly confronted German politicians: “Where have we thrown away our humanity? Why this hypocrisy?”
The escalations on these fronts, along with rising domestic discontent, are fueling insecurity among Germany’s ruling class. A shift to the right is seen as necessary to capture broad sections of the population, keep them integrated into the system, and conjure scapegoats. The consistent messaging around the “Russian threat” and “Islamic terrorism” is used to justify massive military spending, cuts to social programs, and sweeping surveillance laws, including the right to secretly invade private homes. Meanwhile, migrants are blamed for housing shortages and the collapse of the healthcare system.
The collapse of the governing parties in eastern Germany
Elections for two state governments in eastern Germany made international headlines in August 2024 after the far-right AfD made massive gains, even becoming the strongest political force in Thuringia, where it led by almost 10%. There are several reasons for the far-right’s success.
Firstly, there is the historical trajectory of the post-1989 era. Over 30 years have passed since the socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR) was incorporated into the Federal Republic, yet West German promises of “blossoming landscapes” remain unfulfilled. The privatization of the East German economy was the largest wealth transfer in European history: millions lost their jobs and were deprived of their rightful shares in the public property they had built. This left East Germans with little to pass to their children. Almost all key positions in the state and economy were taken by West Germans. Deindustrialization led to higher unemployment, lower incomes, and longer working hours compared to the West. The result was a mass exodus, with nearly 4 million people moving westward since 1989 to escape the bleakness.
The East German population has essentially been relegated to second-class citizens in the Federal Republic. This has fostered a general distrust of Western political parties, whose approach has often been to “educate” rather than represent the East: “Your system lost, you have lost, so we will show you how it’s done.” The natural rejection of this condescending, paternalistic attitude has long been reflected in voter support for anti-establishment parties like The Left (Die Linke) and, more recently, the far-right AfD.
While The Left enjoyed broad support in the early 2000s for opposing the neoliberalization of the labor market, it gradually fell out of favor after joining regional and city governments, where it helped implement the same neoliberal policies it once opposed (such as the privatization of public housing in Berlin). This created a political vacuum in which the AfD was able to present itself as the only oppositional force, despite being a neoliberal party. The AfD taps into the economic and social challenges people face, blaming migrants or incompetent politicians in Berlin rather than the economic system itself. It has been especially successful among skilled laborers and small business owners—those most threatened by, or fearful of, social degradation.
This dynamic, which had already been unfolding for several years – was accelerated by the escalation of the Ukraine war in 2022. The question of arms deliveries to Kiev now played a central role in political debates.
The EU elections in June 2024 – in which the whole country participated – showed that Germans are dissatisfied with the governing coalition (SPD, Greens, and liberal FDP). Voters are now turning to the conservative CDU and far-right AfD, both of which call for tougher social cuts in response to current crises. The AfD gained nearly 5%, becoming the second-largest German party in the EU parliament, surpassing even the SPD. While the AfD has criticized further arms deliveries to Ukraine, it does not oppose NATO or the ongoing militarization in Germany. Many likely voted for the AfD due to its demagoguery on Ukraine, particularly calls to end the war with Russia. Polls from September 2024 show more Germans now oppose further arms deliveries to Ukraine (51%) than support them (38%), and 52% believe diplomatic efforts for peace have been insufficient. The BSW, a new party that split from The Left in 2023, centered this issue in its campaign and secured 6% of the national vote in the EU elections.
The two state elections in August 2024 further revealed that consensus around the Ukraine war effort is breaking down, especially in eastern Germany. All three governing parties lost votes, while the AfD and BSW made record gains. The Left, which had been the strongest party in Thuringia and supported arms deliveries to Ukraine, lost nearly 18% and was overtaken by the BSW. The AfD is now the largest party in Thuringia, winning almost a third of the vote. In Saxony, the AfD came close, with 30.6% compared to the CDU’s 31.9%. Notably, the CDU leader in Saxony has broken from the party’s line, calling for an end to arms deliveries and diplomatic negotiations with Russia.
The successes of the AfD and BSW have left the two eastern German states without a clear path forward. All parties currently refuse to form coalitions with the far-right AfD. While mainstream parties have derided the BSW as the “long arm of the Kremlin,” they also acknowledge the need to contend with this new party. Wagenknecht has stated that the BSW will only join coalitions with parties that oppose the stationing of US Tomahawk cruise missiles in Germany—a largely symbolic stance, as state governments have no control over this decision. More concerning for centrist parties is the disintegration of the political landscape, which could allow the opposition to block decisions requiring a two-thirds majority, including the election of constitutional judges. There is a palpable angst that minority parties in federal and state parliaments could “shut down” Germany’s constitutional courts.
Dark prospects
The upsets in eastern Germany are driven, at least in part, by dissent over NATO’s war effort against Russia. Both the AfD and BSW, from different perspectives, argue that supplying more weapons to Ukraine is not in Germany’s “national interest.” This domestic dissent, coupled with military setbacks in Donbass, is clearly causing doubts within the governing coalition. Just days after the elections in Thuringia and Saxony, Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) expressed support for diplomatic negotiations with Moscow to “discuss how we can move from this war situation towards peace more quickly.”
While the German ruling class grapples with the Ukraine dilemma, its commitment to militarizing society remains strong. In this endeavor, the AfD does not stand in its way. Although the far-right party differs on issues like the war against Russia, relations with the USA, and the future of the EU, it poses no threat to German capital. On the contrary, centrist parties can mask themselves as an anti-fascist bulwark, rallying much of the population (including many on the left) around the slogan of “stopping the AfD,” while simultaneously enacting similarly racist and inflammatory policies toward migrants.
Asylum seekers are once again being deported back to Afghanistan, in flagrant disregard of the EU’s own human rights convention. Even “liking” certain social media posts warrants deportation, according to Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD). At the same time, the German government is ramping up its “brain drain” strategy against the Global South. Just a few days after ordering controls on all of Germany’s borders, Faeser signed an agreement with the Kenyan government to make it easier for Germany to poach Kenyan professionals. A similar agreement with Uzbekistan followed a week later.
Germany’s increasingly aggressive neo-colonial policies abroad and its ever-more repressive policies at home are thus two sides of the same coin.
Tensions in the Middle East have reached a new high after thousands of pagers and radios used by members of Hezbollah exploded across various cities in Lebanon and Syria over September 17 and 18. The attacks – which have widely been attributed to Israel, which has not commented – have resulted in at least 30 people killed and more than 3,000 wounded.
Many analysts and politicians are now speculating that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which has been simmering during the 11-month conflict in Gaza, will spiral into open warfare.
Far from taking place in a legal vacuum, the attacks are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL). This is the international legal regime that regulates the conduct of hostilities in situations of armed conflict.
Since the Hamas attacks on October 7 provoked Israel’s ferocious response in Gaza, Israel and Hezbollah have been involved in a series of cross-border hostilities. These qualify as what is called a “non-international armed conflict”, to which IHL applies. This includes the rules set out in, among other instruments, the Geneva conventions.
In pursuing the objective of protecting civilians in wartime, the Geneva conventions rely on the fundamental principles of “distinction” and “proportionality”.
What international law says
The principle of distinction essentially requires belligerents to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants.
Combatants are lawful targets and can be attacked at all times. But intentionally attacking civilians is prohibited and constitutes a war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. To this end, military commanders are under an obligation to do everything feasible to verify that the target of an attack is not a civilian.
Even assuming that only Hezbollah members were using the radios and pagers at the moment of the attacks, that does not mean that they shall be presumed to be combatants (and, therefore, lawful targets). Under IHL, a combatant is a “member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict”. This comprises “all organized forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates”.
By contrast, whoever is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict is a civilian and subject to the protection of IHL.
There is no doubt that members of the military wings of Hezbollah are “members of the armed forces”, so they qualify as combatants. But those members of Hezbollah’s political wing who are not combatants should be considered as civilians and accordingly, are protected from attack.
Civilians may lose protection from attack for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. This includes conduct like the intentional killing of civilians and carrying out acts which adversely affect the military capacity of a party to an armed conflict – for example, the planning of attacks against Israel.
The pagers were detonated at 3:30, on September 17 in hundreds of locations in Beirut and other Lebanese cities. Abaca Press / Alamy Stock Photo
What about the attacks against members of Hezbollah’s military wing?
In this case, complying with the principle of distinction does not suffice, since the attack must also respect the principle of proportionality. This requires that the expected “collateral damage” (that is, the incidental killing or wounding of civilians) should not be excessive to the “concreted and direct military advantage” anticipated from the attacks.
Launching an attack with the knowledge that it would cause excessive collateral damage also constitutes a war crime.
Collateral damage
In this case, the attacks killed several civilians. These included the nine-year-old daughter of a Hezbollah member, an 11-year-old boy and at least two health workers. Moreover, the attacks injured thousands more, including Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon.
Although we do not know how many of those killed or injured were civilians, it seems logical that the level of collateral damage to be expected from the attacks would be substantial. After all, the pagers and radios were remotely detonated at the same time, exploding in crowded places such as markets and funerals. In these situations, the likelihood of killing and wounding civilians is extremely high.
These elements suggest that the expected incidental damage is excessive to the military advantage anticipated from the pager attacks – which, at the time of writing, remains unclear.
But it’s important to note that what amounts to “excessive” incidental damage is subject to disagreement. On the one hand there are those who, like the International Committee of the Red Cross, believe that extensive incidental damage is always excessive. Others – including the Israeli government – consider that even extensive incidental damage is allowed if the attack results in a high amount of military advantage.
In my opinion, Israel’s interpretation should be rejected. It turns IHL’s aims of protecting the civilian population on its head and allows for unrestricted warfare.
My conclusion, based on the available information, appears to be that the pager and walkie-talkie attacks purportedly carried out by Israel against Hezbollah members appear to violate the principles of distinction and proportionality. In other words, they could well amount to war crimes.
The U.N. General Assembly approves a resolution calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories on September 18, 2024. (Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“The vast majority of countries have made it clear: Israel’s occupation of Palestine must end, and all countries have a definite duty not to aid or assist its continuation.”
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday passed a resolution demanding that the Israeli government end its occupation of Palestinian territories within 12 months, affirming a recent International Court of Justice opinion that deemed the decadeslong occupation unlawful.
The Palestine-led resolution, co-sponsored by dozens of nations, calls on Israel to swiftly withdraw “all its military forces” from Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The final vote tally was 124 member states in favor and 14 against, with 43 nations abstaining.
Unsurprisingly, Israel and the United States—Israel’s top ally and arms supplier—were among the 14 countries that opposed the resolution, which is not legally binding. The United Kingdom, which recently suspended some arms export licenses for Israel, abstained from Wednesday’s vote, a decision that the advocacy group Global Justice Now (GJN) said shows “complete disregard for the ongoing suffering of Palestinians forced to live under military-enforced racial discrimination.”
“The vast majority of countries have made it clear: Israel’s occupation of Palestine must end, and all countries have a definite duty not to aid or assist its continuation,” said GJN’s Tim Bierley. “To stay on the right side of international law, the U.K.’s dealings with Israel must drastically change, including closing all loopholes in its partial arms ban and revoking any trade or investment relations that might assist the occupation.”
The Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement welcomed passage of the resolution, noting that the U.N. General Assembly voted “for the first time in 42 years” in favor of “imposing sanctions on Israel.”
The resolution specifically calls on all U.N. member states to “implement sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against natural and legal persons engaged in the maintenance of Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in relation to settler violence.”
NEWS: UN General Assembly adopts resolution demanding that Israel brings to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory without delay and within the next 12 months.https://t.co/Vj0Ve1lLBipic.twitter.com/2rKKvDNDqd
The resolution’s passage came nearly two months after the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.’s highest legal body, handed down an advisory opinion concluding that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and must end “as rapidly as possible.”
The newly approved resolution states that “respect for the International Court of Justice and its functions… is essential to international law and justice and to an international order based on the rule of law.”
The Biden administration, which is heavily arming the Israeli military as it assails Gaza and the West Bank, criticized the ICJ’s opinion as overly broad.
Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a statement Wednesday that “the Biden administration should join the overwhelming majority of nations around the world in condemning these crimes against the Palestinian people, demanding an end to the occupation, and exerting serious pressure on the Israeli government to comply.”
“We welcome this U.N. resolution demanding an end to one of the worst and ongoing crimes against humanity of the past century,” said Awad.
Ahead of Wednesday’s vote, a group of U.N. experts said in a statement that many countries “appear unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps to meet their obligations” in the wake of the ICJ’s opinion.
“Devastating attacks on Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territory show that by continuing to turn a blind eye to the horrific plight of the Palestinian people, the international community is furthering genocidal violence,” the experts said. “States must act now. They must listen to voices calling on them to take action to stop Israel’s attacks against the Palestinians and end its unlawful occupation. All states have a legal obligation to comply with the ICJ’s ruling and must promote adherence to norms that protect civilians.”
A person is carried on a stretcher outside the American University of Beirut Medical Center following the pager blasts on Tuesday, September 17, 2024. Photo: Al Manar
Facing no consequences from the international community on its first series of cyber terrorist attacks in Lebanon, Israel launched a new wave of similar attacks within less than 24 hours
At least nine people were killed and more than 300 others injured when thousands of wireless devices including walkie-talkies were detonated in different parts of Lebanon on Wednesday, September 18. The new blasts took place, while the information regarding the first day’s cyber terrorist attacks through pagers remained largely unknown and subject to speculation.
Preliminary media reports stated that the trademark of Taiwan pager manufacturer Gold Apollo was identified on the remains of the pagers, which detonated on Tuesday and that they were model AR-924. In response to the reports, Gold Apollo issued a statement on Wednesday denying that it had manufactured the pagers used by Hezbollah members, clarifying that its logo was only labelled on the devices, which were manufactured by a Hungarian company called BAC through a licensing agreement with the Taiwanese company.
“According to the cooperation agreement, we authorize BAC to use our brand trademark for product sales in designated regions, but the design and manufacturing of the products are solely the responsibility of BAC,” Gold Apollo said in a statement, while the Hungarian partner BAC has not commented on the incident so far.
Meanwhile, some of the walkie-talkie devices that exploded on Wednesday, were reportedly identified as Icom model V82s, according to media sources. Nonetheless, Icom has not commented on the tragic blasts yet.
Although the United States said on Tuesday that it was not aware of the cyber terrorist attacks on Lebanon in advance, CNN published a report on Wednesday unveiling that Israeli officials informed the US about an Israeli plan to carry out an operation in Lebanon on Tuesday without providing it with further details about the planned operation.
While media outlets have been relying on information provided by anonymous or special sources, as well as analysts to demystify the terrorist attacks that rocked Lebanon on Tuesday and Wednesday, no official statement has been issued on the circumstances of the attacks by Hezbollah yet. However, Hezbollah-run Al Manar news network announced that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah will deliver a speech via Al-Manar television at 17:00 (Beirut time) on Thursday to respond to the new development.
The United Nations Security Council also announced on Wednesday that it will hold an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss the recent mass explosions of communication devices across Lebanon. The meeting was scheduled after Algeria submitted a request to the Security Council on Wednesday, amidst the near complete silence of the international community, which was slammed by the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister Petra de Sutter. “Silence is not an option. An international investigation is called for. The bloodshed must end,” Sutter wrote on her platform on X, strongly condemning the “massive attack”, which she described as a “brutal escalation of violence.”
Izzat al-Rishq, a senior official in the Palestinian Islamic Resistance movement Hamas, also urged the international community to abide by its legal obligations to put an end to Israel’s actions. Al-Rishq described Israel’s cyber terrorist attacks on Lebanon as an assault that violated Lebanon’s land, its leadership, and its people.
