politics

South Africa’s Genocide Presentation Against Israel Called ‘Overwhelming and Devastating’

Spread the love

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola speaks at a press conference outside the International Court of Justice in The Hague on January 11, 2024.  (Photo: Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“Whatever the outcome, we are witnessing an amazing moment of rule of international law history,” said Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard.

Human rights defenders and legal experts on Thursday lauded what many called South Africa’s “compelling” opening presentation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in a case accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in the embattled Gaza Strip.

In a bid to obtain an ICJ emergency order for the suspension of Israel’s relentless 97-day assault on Gaza, South African jurists including Justice Minister Ronald Lamola argued that Israel is violating four articles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly called the Genocide Convention. The landmark 1948 treaty—enacted, ironically, the same year as the modern state of Israel was born, largely through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine’s Arabs—defines genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.”

South African lawyers detailed Israel’s conduct in the war, including the killing and wounding of more than 80,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, forcibly displacing over 85% of the besieged enclave’s 2.3 million people, and inflicting conditions leading to widespread starvation and disease. They also cited at length statements by Israeli officials calling for the destruction and even nuclear annihilation of Gaza in their presentations, which eschewed graphic imagery in favor of arguing “clear legal rights.”

“In its opening argument thus far, South Africa has made a compelling case showing how the genocidal statements by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and other senior officials were interpreted as official orders by Israeli forces in their attacks against Gaza,” U.S. investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill said on social media.

“Beyond the citations of the vast civilian deaths and injuries caused by Israel in Gaza, [South Africa’s] lawyers argued effectively that Israel’s ‘evacuation’ orders were in and of themselves genocidal, demanding the immediate flight of a million people, including patients in hospitals,” Scahill continued.

“What becomes crystal clear listening to the openly genocidal words of Netanyahu and other Israeli officials is that they know exactly what they are saying,” he added. “And they are comfortable saying these things publicly because they know the U.S. will shield them from accountability.”

Left-wing author and activist and former South African parliamentarian Andrew Feinstein said that “South Africa’s presentation to the ICJ thus far has been exceptional, overwhelming, and devastating,” opining that “the only way the ICJ doesn’t impose interim measures is if the judges are open to pressure from ‘the West.'”

“South Africa’s lawyers have done the nonracial, post-apartheid country proud,” he added.

Legal scholar Nimer Sultany, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, called South Africa’s presentation “compellingly argued and powerfully presented.”

“Given the court’s case law, and given the lower threshold required for issuing provisional measures, it will be very surprising if the court does not issue provisional measures against Israel,” Sultany asserted.

“This also should prompt reflection amongst all those governments and media outlets who supported [Israel’s war,] because they have been supporting a genocide,” he added.

Sultany and numerous other observers said the most powerful presentation of the day was made by Irish lawyer and case adviser Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, who delivered South Africa’s closing statement.

https://twitter.com/DurdiyevaSelbi/status/1745412127802667237?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1745412127802667237%7Ctwgr%5E697a6482b9f4e5f3100bac8719576a890bd5584b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fsouth-africa-icj-genocide

Israel—some of whose officials have condemned South Africa’s case as a meritless “blood libel”—is scheduled to present its defense on Friday. Israeli jurists are expected to focus heavily on the atrocities committed by Hamas-led attackers who killed more than 1,100 Israelis and took around 240 others hostage on October 7. They will likely argue that the country has a right to defend itself, and that it is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

While an emergency order from the World Court would not be enforceable, it would represent a major international embarrassment for Israel, which is increasingly isolated on the world stage. A growing number of nations including Brazil, Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Jordan, and Bangladesh are supporting South Africa’s case, as are the Arab League, more than 1,250 international human rights and civil society group, and progressive U.S. Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.).

“Whatever the outcome, we are witnessing an amazing moment of rule of international law history,” said Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard.

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingSouth Africa’s Genocide Presentation Against Israel Called ‘Overwhelming and Devastating’

A Chance to Hold Israel–and the United States–to Account for Genocide

Spread the love

Original article by MEDEA BENJAMIN NICOLAS J.S. DAVIES republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

A protester reacts as demonstrators are confronted by Palestinian Authority security forces during a protest held in Ramallah as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with the Palestinian president in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on January 10, 2024.  (Photo by Marco Longari/AFP via Getty Images)

If the ICJ issues a provisional order for a ceasefire in Gaza, humanity must seize the moment to insist that Israel and the United States must finally end this genocide and accept that the rule of international law applies to all nations.

On January 11th, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is holding its first hearing in South Africa’s case against Israel under the Genocide Convention. The first provisional measure South Africa has asked of the court is to order an immediate end to this carnage, which has already killed more than 23,000 people, most of them women and children. Israel is trying to bomb Gaza into oblivion and scatter the terrorized survivors across the Earth, meeting the Convention’s definition of genocide to the letter.

Since countries engaged in genocide do not publicly declare their real goal, the greatest legal hurdle for any genocide prosecution is to prove the intention of genocide. But in the extraordinary case of Israel, whose cult of biblically ordained entitlement is backed to the hilt by unconditional U.S. complicity, its leaders have been uniquely brazen about their goal of destroying Gaza as a haven of Palestinian life, culture and resistance.

South Africa’s 84-page application to the ICJ includes ten pages (starting on page 59) of statements by Israeli civilian and military officials that document their genocidal intentions in Gaza. They include statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Herzog, Defense Minister Gallant, five other cabinet ministers, senior military officers, and members of parliament. Reading these statements, it is hard to see how a fair and impartial court could fail to recognize the genocidal intent behind the death and devastation Israeli forces and American weapons are wreaking in Gaza.

The Palestinians understand perfectly well who is bombing them—and who is supplying the bombs.

The Israeli magazine +972 talked to seven current and former Israeli intelligence officials involved in previous assaults on Gaza. They explained the systematic nature of Israel’s targeting practices and how the range of civilian infrastructure that Israel is targeting has been vastly expanded in the current onslaught. In particular, it has expanded the bombing of civilian infrastructure, or what it euphemistically defines as “power targets,” which have comprised half of its targets from the outset of this war.

Israel’s “power targets” in Gaza include public buildings like hospitals, schools, banks, government offices, and high-rise apartment blocks. The public pretext for destroying Gaza’s civilian infrastructure is that civilians will blame Hamas for its destruction, and that this will undermine its civilian base of support. This kind of brutal logic has been proved wrong in U.S.-backed conflicts all over the world. In Gaza, it is no more than a grotesque fantasy. The Palestinians understand perfectly well who is bombing them—and who is supplying the bombs.

Intelligence officials told +972 that Israel maintains extensive occupancy figures for every building in Gaza, and has precise estimates of how many civilians will be killed in each building it bombs. While Israeli and U.S. officials publicly disparage Palestinian casualty figures, intelligence sources told +972 that the Palestinian death counts are remarkably consistent with Israel’s own estimates of how many civilians it is killing. To make matters worse, Israel has started using artificial intelligence to generate targets with minimal human scrutiny, and is doing so faster than its forces can bomb them.

Israeli officials claim that each of the high-rise apartment buildings it bombs contains some kind of Hamas presence, but an intelligence official explained, “Hamas is everywhere in Gaza; there is no building that does not have something of Hamas in it, so if you want to find a way to turn a high-rise into a target, you will be able to do so.” As Yuval Abraham of +972 summarized, “The sources understood, some explicitly and some implicitly, that damage to civilians is the real purpose of these attacks.”

Two days after South Africa submitted its Genocide Convention application to the ICJ, Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich declared on New Year’s Eve that Israel should substantially empty the Gaza Strip of Palestinians and bring in Israeli settlers. “If we act in a strategically correct way and encourage emigration,” Smotrich said, “if there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza, and not two million, the whole discourse on ‘the day after’ will be completely different.”

When reporters confronted U.S. State Department spokesman Matt Miller about Smotrich’s statement, and similar ones by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Miller replied that Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have reassured the United States that those statements don’t reflect Israeli government policy.

We should have learned from America’s lost wars that mass murder and ethnic cleansing rarely lead to political victory or success.

But Smotrich and Ben-Gvir’s statements followed a meeting of Likud Party leaders on Christmas Day where Netanyahu himself said that his plan was to continue the massacre until the people of Gaza have no choice but to leave or to die. “Regarding voluntary emigration, I have no problem with that,” he told former Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon. “Our problem is not allowing the exit, but a lack of countries that are ready to take Palestinians in. And we are working on it. This is the direction we are going in.”

We should have learned from America’s lost wars that mass murder and ethnic cleansing rarely lead to political victory or success. More often they only feed deep resentment and desires for justice or revenge that make peace more elusive and conflict endemic.

Although most of the martyrs in Gaza are women and children, Israel and the United States politically justify the massacre as a campaign to destroy Hamas by killing its senior leaders. Andrew Cockburn described in his book Kill Chain: the Rise of the High-Tech Assassins how, in 200 cases studied by U.S. military intelligence, the U.S. campaign to assassinate Iraqi resistance leaders in 2007 led in every single case to increased attacks on U.S. occupation forces. Every resistance leader they killed was replaced within 48 hours, invariably by new, more aggressive leaders determined to prove themselves by killing even more U.S. troops.

But that is just another unlearned lesson, as Israel and the United States kill Islamic Resistance leaders in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Iran, risking a regional war and leaving themselves more isolated than ever.

If the ICJ issues a provisional order for a ceasefire in Gaza, humanity must seize the moment to insist that Israel and the United States must finally end this genocide and accept that the rule of international law applies to all nations, including themselves.

Original article by MEDEA BENJAMIN NICOLAS J.S. DAVIES republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingA Chance to Hold Israel–and the United States–to Account for Genocide

In 41 US States, Richest 1% Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Everyone Else

Spread the love

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Protesters are pictured spelling out #TaxTheRich at Times Square on March 4, 2021. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

“Almost nobody says we should have the richest pay the least. And yet when we look around the country, the vast majority of states have tax systems that do just that.”

Nearly every state and local tax system in the U.S. is fueling the nation’s inequality crisis by forcing lower- and middle-class families to contribute a larger share of their incomes than their rich counterparts, according to a new study published Tuesday.

Titled Who Pays?, the analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) examines in detail the tax systems of all 50 U.S. states, including the rates paid by different income segments.

In 41 states, ITEP found, the richest 1% are taxed at a lower rate than any other income group. Forty-six states tax the top 1% at a lower rate than middle-income families.

“When you ask people what they think a fair tax code looks like, almost nobody says we should have the richest pay the least,” said ITEP research director Carl Davis. “And yet when we look around the country, the vast majority of states have tax systems that do just that.”

“There’s an alarming gap here between what the public wants and what state lawmakers have delivered,” Davis added.

In recent years, dozens of states across the U.S. have launched what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently called a “tax-cutting spree,” permanently slashing tax rates for corporations and the wealthy during a pandemic that saw billionaire wealth skyrocket and company profits soar.

A report released last week, as Common Dreamsreported, showed ultra-rich Americans are currently sitting on $8.5 trillion in untaxed assets.

According to ITEP’s new study, tax systems in just six states—California, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont—and the District of Columbia are progressive, helping to reduce the chasm between rich taxpayers and other residents.

Massachusetts, which has one of the more equitable tax systems in the nation, collected $1.5 billion in revenue last year thanks to its recently enacted millionaires tax, a measure that improved the state’s ranking by 10 spots in ITEP’s Tax Inequality Index. Minnesota has also ramped up its taxes on the rich over the past several years while expanding benefits for lower-income families, ITEP’s study observes.

“The regressive state tax laws we see today are a policy choice, and it’s clear there are better choices available to lawmakers.”

But the full picture of U.S. state and local systems is grim. In 44 states, tax laws “worsen income inequality by making incomes more unequal after collecting state and local taxes,” ITEP found.

Florida has the most regressive tax code in the U.S., with the richest 1% paying a mere 2.7% tax rate while the poorest 20% pay 13.2%.

Florida is among the U.S. states that don’t have personal income taxes, which forces them to rely on consumption and property taxes that are “nearly always regressive,” ITEP notes in the new analysis.

“Eight of the 10 most regressive tax systems—Florida, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana—rely heavily on regressive sales and excise taxes,” the study says. “As a group, these eight states derive 52% of their tax revenue from these taxes, compared to the national average of 34%.”

Aidan Davis, ITEP’s state policy director, said that “we’ve seen a lot of states shift their tax systems to become even more regressive in recent years by enacting deep tax cuts for the wealthiest.”

The report points to Kentucky’s adoption of a flat tax and repeated corporate tax cuts, which “delivered the largest windfall to families in the upper part of the income scale and have been paid for in part through new or higher sales and excise taxes on a long list of items such as car repairs, parking, moving services, bowling, gym memberships, tobacco, vaping, pet care, and ride-share rides.”

Davis said that “we know it doesn’t have to be like this,” arguing there is a “clear path forward for flipping upside-down tax systems and we’ve seen a handful of states come pretty close to pulling it off.”

“The regressive state tax laws we see today are a policy choice,” said Davis, “and it’s clear there are better choices available to lawmakers.”

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

New Massachusetts ‘Tax the Rich’ Law Raises $1.5 Billion for Free School Lunch and More

1.4 Million Wealthy Americans Are Evading Nearly $66 Billion in Federal Taxes

With Funds Opposed by GOP, IRS to Target Ultrawealthy Tax Delinquents

The Lost Art (and Joy) of Taxing the Rich

300+ Economists, Millionaires, and Elected Officials to G20: ‘Tax Extreme Wealth’

Continue ReadingIn 41 US States, Richest 1% Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Everyone Else

Norway ‘Failed the World’ With Vote in Favor of Deep-Sea Mining

Spread the love

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Activists gathered outside the Norwegian parliament in Oslo during a vote to approve deep-sea mining on January 9, 2024.  (Photo: Will Rose/Greenpeace)

“This decision is an irrevocable black mark on Norway’s reputation as a responsible ocean state,” said one critic, warning of environmental impacts.

The Norwegian government came under fire from environmentalists and scientists worldwide on Tuesday after moving to become the first country to enable destructive commercial deep-sea mining.

Stortinget, Norway’s parliament, overwhelmingly voted in favor of allowing exploration of the seabed under the country’s Arctic waters for minerals—an outcome widely expected after center-left parties that control the government struck a deal with right-wing parties last month.

“This decision is an irrevocable black mark on Norway’s reputation as a responsible ocean state,” declared Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the U.K.-based Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), in a statement Tuesday. “Deep-sea mining is a pursuit of minerals we don’t need, with environmental damage that we can’t afford.”

“We can upgrade our economies and get to zero carbon without wrecking the deep ocean in the process.”

“We know so little about the deep ocean, but we know enough to be sure that mining it will wipe out unique wildlife, disturb the world’s largest carbon store, and do nothing to speed the transition to clean economies,” he stressed. “Recent scientific studies in Norwegian waters demonstrate that there will be severe impacts on ocean wildlife if this mining goes ahead.”

Trent continued:

Instead of being the answer to boosting renewable energy, deep-sea mining would be just another form of harmful resource extraction, with steep and needless costs we cannot and should not pay. As the Norwegian government decides to push forward with deep-sea mining, EJF’s latest report reveals that we can upgrade our economies and get to zero carbon without wrecking the deep ocean in the process. New battery technologies are taking off, and there is a ready supply of minerals available now if we improve existing recycling rates. The argument for destroying the deep sea for cobalt and nickel does not withstand scrutiny and Norwegian lawmakers must recognize this.

Chloé Mikolajczak of Europe’s Fossil Free Politics campaign said on social media that “exploration, while different from exploitation, already comes with significant environmental damage. Today, Norway failed the world and failed to protect our future. But the fight can not stop and we’re mobilizing a community of thousands to #StopDeepSeaMining.”

Amanda Louise Helle, who was among the Greenpeace Norway activists protesting outside Stortinget on Tuesday, was similarly determined to continue the battle against deep-sea mining.

“Today our parliament is getting ready to vote in favor of a criminal fate for one of the last safe havens for Arctic marine life,” Helle said ahead of the vote. “Promising to protect the oceans one day and proposing deep-sea mining the next, is next-level hypocrisy. Not only does it risk vulnerable ecosystems in the Arctic, but also Norway’s international reputation.”

“If our politicians are ready to give the Arctic away to greedy companies, then we are more than ready to chase them wherever they plan to deploy their destructive machines,” the campaigner pledged.

Norway’s plan applies to 108,000 square miles of its national waters—”an area bigger than the size of the U.K.,” as the BBC reported Tuesday. “The Norwegian government will not immediately allow companies to start drilling. They will have to submit proposals, including environmental assessments, for a licence which will then be approved on a case-by-case basis by parliament.”

Hundreds of scientists, countries including the U.K., and the European Union have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining due to environmental concerns. The United Nations-affiliated International Seabed Authority is set to meet later this year to try to finalize global rules about the controversial practice.

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingNorway ‘Failed the World’ With Vote in Favor of Deep-Sea Mining

Top US Newspapers Show ‘Consistent Bias’ Against Palestinians: Analysis

Spread the love

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Palestinians mourn loved ones killed by an Israeli airstrike on December 24, 2023 in Khan Younis, Gaza. (Photo: Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty Images)

The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times have regularly “used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians.”

An analysis published Tuesday shows that three of the most influential newspapers in the United States—The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times—have reliably shown a bias against Palestinians in their coverage of Israel’s assault on Gaza and its reverberating consequences.

Writer Adam Johnson and researcher Othman Ali examined the three outlets’ coverage of Israel-Gaza between October 7—the day of the deadly Hamas-led attack on southern Israel—and November 24, which marked the start of a negotiated pause that ended just a week later. The Israeli bombardment has continued relentlessly since.

The pair’s analysis, published in The Intercept, found that across more than 1,000 articles, the three newspapers showed a “consistent bias” against Palestinians. Specifically, the outlets “disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7.”

As the Gaza death toll surged during the first month and a half of Israel’s assault, the three newspapers’ mentions of Palestinians in their coverage declined, Johnson and Ali found.

In the period between October 7 and November 24, the outlets used the words “slaughter” and “massacre” a combined 180 times when describing the toll of the Hamas-led attack on Israel. The newspapers used those terms just five times when describing Gazans killed by the Israeli military.

“The Washington Post employed ‘massacre‘ several times in its reporting to describe October 7,” Johnson and Ali wrote. “‘President Biden faces growing pressure from lawmakers in both parties to punish Iran after Hamas’ massacre,’ one report from the Post says. A November 13 story from the paper about how Israel’s siege and bombing had killed 1 in 200 Palestinians does not use the word ‘massacre’ or ‘slaughter’ once. The Palestinian dead have simply been ‘killed’ or ‘died’—often in the passive voice.”

Johnson and Ali previously found similar bias against Palestinians in the coverage of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

The analysis also shows that the newspapers’ coverage of the Israeli assault’s impact on children and journalists has been relatively sparse given the unparalleled impact the war has had on kids and members of the media.

In the three weeks after October 7, Israeli forces killed more children in Gaza than were killed in all of the world’s armed conflict zones since 2019, according to Save the Children. The Committee to Protect Journalists said last month that more reporters were killed during the first 10 weeks of the war “than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year.”

Johnson and Ali wrote Tuesday that “the lack of coverage for the unprecedented killing of children and journalists, groups that typically elicit sympathy from Western media, is conspicuous.”

“By way of comparison, more Palestinian children died in the first week of the Gaza bombing than during the first year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, yet The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Timesran multiple personal, sympathetic stories highlighting the plight of children during the first six weeks of the Ukraine war.”

The analysis comes days after The Intercept highlighted a longstanding CNN policy under which the outlet runs its Israel-Palestine coverage through its Jerusalem bureau, which must abide by the rules of the Israeli military’s censor.

The few journalists who have been allowed to enter Gaza as embeds with Israeli forces are required to submit their materials and footage to the Israeli government for review.

The Western media’s slanted coverage of Israel’s devastating war on Gaza has drawn outrage from individual journalists, including some who work at The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.

“We are renewing the call for journalists to tell the full truth without fear or favor,” reads an open letter signed by hundreds of journalists in November. “To use precise terms that are well-defined by international human rights organizations, including ‘apartheid,’ ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and ‘genocide.’ To recognize that contorting our words to hide evidence of war crimes or Israel’s oppression of Palestinians is journalistic malpractice and an abdication of moral clarity.”

After the letter was released, dozens of signatories—including journalists from The Associated Press and Washington Post—asked that their signatures be removed, fearing retaliation from their employers.

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingTop US Newspapers Show ‘Consistent Bias’ Against Palestinians: Analysis