Israel will close its embassy in Ireland due to the Irish government’s “extreme anti-Israel policy,” including its support of the South African lawsuit against Israel at the ICJ. This decision follows Ireland’s unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state and its recent participation in the ICJ case accusing Israel of genocide. Conversely, Israel will open an embassy in Moldova, reflecting a shift in diplomatic priorities based on countries’ stances towards Israel. The closure of the Irish embassy represents a more assertive response than previously employed by Israel’s foreign ministry.
Read More
The Irish government has passed a non-binding motion acknowledging that “genocide is being perpetrated before our eyes by Israel in Gaza,” and will intervene in South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide by the end of the year. This intervention will be based on a strict interpretation of the Genocide Convention, which Ireland believes will ensure the highest level of protection for civilians caught in armed conflict. While the Irish government has expressed concern about the conduct of both Israel and Hamas, it will not impose unilateral sanctions on Israel, instead relying on EU and UN Security Council sanctions. The government also asserted that Ireland does not export military goods to Israel and has strict regulations in place for dual-use item exports and overflights of sovereign airspace.
Read More
The recent accusations levied by Nawaf Salam, the President of the International Court of Justice, against Israel for ‘ethnic cleansing by terror and organized massacres’ have ignited a firestorm of controversy and debate. This ruling, which declares Gaza as occupied without a physical presence and the West Bank as de facto annexed, has deep implications for the future of the region. The fuel it has added to the fire of right-wing Israelis advocating for actual annexation of the West Bank raises serious concerns about the escalating tensions in the area.
As a casual observer of international affairs, it is difficult to ignore the glaring biases and political motivations that seem to underline such a monumental decision.… Continue reading
The recent news of the UN ordering Israel to immediately halt the Rafah offensive has left me bewildered. It seems peculiar that the focus is solely on Rafah when other cities have faced higher casualty tolls. This selective targeting of Israel feels overtly political, rather than rooted in a genuine concern for civilian lives. With the ICJ also instructing Israel to open the Rafah border crossing for humanitarian aid, the situation grows even more convoluted.
The fact that the head judge, Nawaf Salam, has openly displayed animosity towards Israel in the past casts doubt on the impartiality of this ruling. It’s hard to take a decision seriously when the person making it has a documented bias.… Continue reading
The recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the genocide case against Israel has sparked considerable controversy and debate. As a concerned individual, I have closely followed the developments surrounding this case, and I believe it is crucial to reflect on the implications of the preliminary ruling.
To begin, it is essential to clarify what the ICJ ruling does and does not mean. Contrary to some misleading headlines, the court did not declare that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Rather, it acknowledged that some actions and omissions alleged by South Africa could potentially fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker