[IMPORTANT] Hamas launches foot assault against settlements.

Post Reply New Topic

The Israelis can try and shop around the Palestinians all they want it won't work because

The other countries don't want the Palestinians as much as most Israeli Jews don't want the Palestinians.

Even if somehow another country can be bribed into taking them in general the Palestinians won't accept it. They want from the Jorden River to the Mediterranean Sea back. If a century of resistance against overwhelming brutal force has not made this clear I don't know what will.

Meaning it's not long until they switch to attempting more of a final solution to the Palestinian question.

I wish I was being snarky when I say that but they keep telling us what they intend and it's high time we took them seriously.

uhmm.. kinda looks like the final solution has already come..? just sayin..!
been appearing that the Palstinian side of Gaza , has practical become like the surface of the moon..? just craters .
From ongoing shelling and bomb dropping .

Facing accusations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, Israel is preparing to defend itself this week at the United Nations’ top court in a high-profile legal battle that comes at a decisive time during its military campaign after Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attacks.

The courtroom charge is led by South Africa, a staunch Israel critic, which has filed a case to be heard at the U.N.’s International Court of Justice starting Thursday and Friday.

Its 84-page legal filing accuses Israel of acting since Oct. 7 — killing, injuring and displacing Palestinian civilians, and denying them food, water and other essentials — in a way that’s “intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”

The court, known as the ICJ, is composed of 15 judges, who will hear oral arguments from lawyers representing South Africa and Israel. The hearings will be streamed live on the court’s website, and the room itself has space for around 30 journalists to attend in person.

The ICJ case has huge significance politically, legally and in the court of public opinion. Its rulings are binding under international law, and both Israel and South Africa are party to its decisions — but some countries, including Russia and indeed the United States, have ignored or rejected them in the past.

The court has no power to enforce the rulings, but it can deal a reputational blow.

The case “is also a battle on the historical narrative, which can shape views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict,” said Eliav Lieblich, an international law professor at Tel Aviv University.

Recent comments by some senior right-wing members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government calling for people in Gaza to be moved out of the enclave and effectively replaced by Israeli settlers may play a role in the proceedings.

They see the war as an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” as Itamar Ben-Gvir, the country’s national security minister, put it last week.

These comments have not been reflected in official Israeli proposals that call for neither itself nor Hamas to run Gaza. But nevertheless international law experts say they do not help Israel’s argument in court.

Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy said last week that South Africa was “criminally complicit,” that it had “openly aligned itself with the Hamas rapist regime,” and that it was itself “aiding and abetting that machinery of genocide.” He also dismissed the filing as “an absurd blood libel” — the ancient antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews use non-Jews’ blood for rituals.

A verdict could take years to reach, and “international law is infamous for its lack of strong enforcement mechanisms,” according to Lieblich at Tel Aviv University. But long before any ruling comes out, South Africa has asked the ICJ to call for “Israel immediately to halt all military attacks that constitute or give rise to violations of the Genocide Convention.” This would be binding under international law, but states can and have ignored these directives, as Russia did with a similar ICJ order in 2022 to pause its war in Ukraine.

While South Africa has focused on Palestinian civilians being killed in the war, another subplot has been developing: Ultraconservative and ultrareligious members of the Israeli government have been calling for Palestinians to be relocated out of Gaza into neighboring Arab states.

Supporters of this idea say they only want to move Palestinians who want to leave; critics and legal experts say it’s not a voluntary choice if war has made their home uninhabitable.

Chief among proponents of this view is Ben-Gvir, the country’s national security minister, who told a party meeting last week that the war was an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” according to The Times of Israel and other local media.

He has made similar comments before, and doubled down when challenged.

But Ben-Gvir’s remarks have been denounced by the U.S. and other governments, and condemned by human rights watchers as tantamount to supporting war crimes. The concept of Palestinians being driven from Gaza has been condemned as “forced displacement” and therefore a “crime against humanity” by Francesca Albanese, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, and other international human rights watchers.

Ben-Gvir’s comments, according to Yeini at the University of Haifa, are “irresponsible” and “unhelpful” to Israel’s case and come as the Jewish state is trying to show the world and the U.N. court that it is abiding by international law.

It is “a matter of some dispute” among international law experts whether forced displacement constitutes genocide, according to David J. Simon, director of the genocide studies program at Yale University. But, he said, he wouldn’t be surprised if South Africa uses comments by Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to bolster its case.

“I think that we have to solve the problem of Gaza and to rehabilitate its residents” in other countries, Smotrich told Army Radio last week.

Ben-Gvir added that Jews should move back into Gaza, an area Israel occupied from 1967 to 2005.

“Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement” in Gaza, he said last week, “I believe it is also an important thing.”

Netanyahu has distanced himself from these comments, saying he has no plans to stay in Gaza after the war. The Cabinet is discussing plans for who should run the enclave next, according to an Israeli official. And Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said in an official proposal Thursday that neither Israel nor Hamas but Palestinian “bodies” would run the enclave — without going into detail. The proposal made no reference to displacement.

The political parties headed by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich only received a combined 10% of the vote in elections last year. And while they are not directly involved in steering the war effort in Gaza, they are given outsize influence because Netanyahu enlisted them in his coalition government in a pact to regain power — and, critics say, avoid prosecution in his ongoing trial on allegations of fraud and other charges, which he denies.

But such talk is not confined to these fringes. Senior members of Netanyahu’s own right-wing Likud party, including Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel, have floated similar suggestions in the past.

And although the mass expulsion of Palestinians might be a niche position, the idea of Israel resettling Gaza is not. A poll by the Channel 12 broadcaster in November found 32% of people support re-establishing Israeli communities in the enclave from which they were removed almost 20 years ago.

These politicians say any relocation of Palestinians would be voluntary. But “there is no such thing as ‘voluntary resettlement’ under conditions of duress,” Lieblich and other experts have pointed out. Instead, these are “indeed calls for the commission of international crimes,” he said, and “the Israeli government must unequivocally declare that they do not represent its official policy.”

Asked by NBC News to comment on whether calls to resettle Palestinians would hurt Israel’s case at the ICJ, a spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Ministry said, “This is not the official position or policy of the Israeli government.”

Their comments have also caused added friction with the U.S., Israel’s closest ally that gives it $3 billion a year in military aid but has called for its government and military to do more to reduce civilian deaths.

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said on Jan. 2 that the ministers’ language was “inflammatory and irresponsible,” leading Ben-Gvir to hit back on X that Israel is “not another star on the American flag.”

On the ICJ case, Miller said at a news briefing on Jan. 3 that the U.S. was “not seeing any acts that constitute genocide” from Israel.

That does not diminish the case in terms of its potentially huge impacts.

As well as the potential for the ICJ to order an immediate cease-fire, the case could “cause significant reputational harms,” for Israel, Lieblich said, adding that this “can then translate to political pressure, calls for sanctions, calls for restricting arms transfers and so on.

Think the apropriate think for the UN to do is disallow Israels ability to occupy the rest of Gaza...
more than a referendum.. but with actual Force of arms. !

The Samson Option (Hebrew: ברירת שמשון, b'rerat shimshon) is the name that some military analysts and authors have given to Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.

The name is a reference to the biblical Israelite judge Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had captured him,crying out "Let me die with the Philistines!" (Judges 16:30).

It’s personal. When the war ends the clock will start ticking on Bibi’s premiership and his personal freedom.

So Bibi is just doing what he can to prolong the war so he can stay in power?

Does the Israeli system have any possible way of impeaching him, or equivalent thereof?

So Bibi is just doing what he can to prolong the war so he can stay in power?

Does the Israeli system have any possible way of impeaching him, or equivalent thereof?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday night Israel “has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population,” rebuffing hard-right ministers’ calls to rebuild Israeli settlements in the territory and encourage Palestinian emigration.

The premier’s English-language video posted to social media came on the eve of the International Court of Justice in The Hague hearing a highly charged case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

“I want to make a few points absolutely clear,” Netanyahu said. “Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population, and we are doing so in full compliance with international law.”

“Our goal is to rid Gaza of Hamas terrorists and free our hostages. Once this is achieved, Gaza can be demilitarized and deradicalized, thereby creating a possibility for a better future for Israel and Palestinians alike.”

At the same time, a senior Likud member insisted Wednesday that Netanyahu had previously expressed support for the idea of the voluntary resettlement of Palestinians outside Gaza, but took it off the table in the face of pushback from the US.

The prime minister told me two weeks ago in this room that it’s a good idea,” MK Danny Danon told The Times of Israel, seemingly confirming an earlier report that the prime minister had informed a Likud faction meeting that he was working to facilitate voluntary migration.

“Our problem is [finding] countries that are willing to absorb Gazans, and we are working on it,” Netanyahu was reported as saying in response to a question from Danon during a weekly party gathering in the Knesset.

“We had a faction meeting a few weeks ago when I asked him about voluntary relocation and he said it’s a good idea and not easy to find countries that would accept Gazans,” Danon confirmed, adding that he understood that Netanyahu’s change of heart was due to American pressure.

“In the last few days, because of the pressure coming from a few countries, he stated that it’s not the position of the government and Israel is not promoting it. [US Secretary of State Antony] Blinken said he got assurances,” the lawmaker said.

The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on Danon’s statements.

During a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, Blinken told reporters that Palestinian civilians “must not be pressed to leave Gaza,” adding that Netanyahu “reaffirmed to me today that this is not the policy of Israel’s government.”

Israeli officials have denied reports that Israel is engaged in negotiations with foreign nations to accept thousands of immigrants from Gaza — and government spokesman Eylon Levy has called allegations that Israel is seeking to remove residents from the strip “outrageous and false.”

Danon — who has made “the enabling of voluntary immigration for Gazans who wish to relocate” a key part of his proposed postwar plan — said that a number of foreign envoys had expressed “great concern about the idea of voluntary emigration” on Wednesday during a diplomatic roundtable on postwar Gaza he co-sponsored with Yesh Atid lawmaker Ram Ben-Barak.

Danon said the diplomats had argued that “during wartime when we destroyed so many homes, it is not voluntary” and “I told them we can wait but I think it’s not humanitarian to tell the people of Gaza you will never be allowed to relocate.” He was reiterating an argument he recently made in a joint Wall Street Journal op-ed with Ben-Barak.

Addressing the diplomats on Wednesday, Ben-Barak emphasized that “Gaza rightfully belongs to its residents,” a statement in line with his previous declaration that “residents of Gaza should be allowed… to choose whether they remain in Gaza.”

The former Mossad deputy director has sought to differentiate himself and Danon from National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Both have repeatedly called for “voluntary emigration,” drawing criticism from cabinet ministers and foreign governments alike.

Ben Gvir is a disciple of the late far-right Rabbi Meir Kahane, who advocated legislation to expel all Arabs from Israel and the West Bank. He has called for encouraging “the emigration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza.”

A resettlement policy is necessary, Smotrich recently argued, because “a small country like ours cannot afford a reality where four minutes away from our communities there is a hotbed of hatred and terrorism, where two million people wake up every morning with aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel and with a desire to slaughter and rape and murder Jews wherever they are.”

While there is “great support for [migration] amongst Likud MKs, we also understand the diplomatic ramifications and therefore we’re letting the PM take the lead on this,” explained another Likud lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal party dynamics.

“We live in a global world and even though this is something we think is the right solution we don’t live alone in this world,” the lawmaker said, adding that Danon and Ben-Barak’s proposal was “different from what Smotrich and Ben Gvir mean. I don’t think there is a push in Likud for things that Smotrich is talking about — paying people to leave.”

The Netanyahu government has been reluctant to release a postwar plan for Gaza and a government meeting on the issue last week erupted into a loud and angry dustup between ministers and military brass.

U.S. and British warplanes, ships and submarines struck across Yemen overnight in retaliation against Iran-backed Houthi forces for attacks on Red Sea shipping, a widening of regional conflict triggered by Israel's war in Gaza.

Witnesses confirmed explosions throughout Yemen, saying raids targeted a military base adjacent to Sanaa airport, a military site near Taiz airport, a Houthi naval base in Hodeidah and military sites in Hajjah governorate.

"These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation," U.S. President Joe Biden said.

The Houthis said five of their fighters had been killed in a total of 73 air strikes and said they would retaliate for the strikes and continue their attacks on shipping, which they describe as intended to support Palestinians against Israel.

A U.S. official said more than a dozen locations were targeted in strikes that were not just symbolic but intended to weaken the Houthis' military capabilities.

"We were going after very specific capability in very specific locations with precision munitions," the official said.

Kheloud, a resident of the capital Sanaa who gave just her first name, awoke to loud explosions from the direction of the airport to the north: "We saw a large fire from where the attack took place. It was half an hour of terror."

In a country only just emerging from nearly a decade of war that brought millions of people to the brink of famine, morning brought long queues at petrol stations from people fearing an extended new conflict with the West.

"There is a lot of worry that the fuel shortages will repeat themselves and food supplies will be scarce," said Ali Ahmad, 52. "We are rushing to fuel our car and we bought flour and rice in case of any emergency because we are expecting the Houthis to respond and an escalation to take place."

In Yemen's main Red Sea port Hodeidah, a resident who gave only his first name Mahmoud said troops were spreading through the streets and military vehicles were leaving barracks with security escorts.

Britain's defence ministry said early indications were that "the Houthis' ability to threaten merchant shipping has taken a blow". James Heappey, a junior defence minister no further action was planned for now.

The price of oil rose sharply on concern that supplies could be disrupted. Brent crude rost $2.