Category News

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion saying that Israel must support United Nations relief efforts in Gaza, including those conducted by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), regarding Israel’s legal responsibilities towards UN agencies and other international organisations operating in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The court found that Israel’s allegations against UNRWA – including that it had been complicit in the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel – were unsubstantiated.

“The court finds that Israel has not substantiated its allegations that a significant part of UNRWA’s employees are ‘ members of Hamas … or other terrorist factions'”, said ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa.

The court also said that Israel, as the occupying power, had to ensure that the “basic needs” of the Palestinian population of Gaza were met, “including the supplies essential for survival”, such as food, water, shelter, fuel, and medicine.

A number of countries had halted funding for UNRWA after Israel’s accusations, jeopardising one of Gaza’s most desperately needed lifelines.

Israel was also able to use the accusation to effectively ban the agency from the enclave – as well as the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem – in January of this year, forcing Gaza’s population to rely even further upon Israel for the food, aid and resources needed to sustain life.

Israel has severely restricted the entry of aid into Gaza, leading to a famine that now affects children, the sick and the vulnerable in the enclave.

What did UNRWA do in Gaza?

Before Israel banned it from bringing in aid into Gaza, UNRWA was Gaza’s main provider of humanitarian and social services. It supported about 1.4 million Palestinian refugees, operating schools serving some 300, 000 children, health clinics offering primary care and vaccinations, and large-scale food and cash assistance programmes.

UNRWA also helped coordinate shelter and relief efforts, run community and mental health initiatives and, under the face of Israeli blockade, served as a de facto public service provider.

The UN agency has however said that it is able to carry on operating in Gaza and elsewhere, although it is heavily restricted.

Does the ICJ ruling mean that UNRWA will fully resume operations?

That is not clear.

According to a statement issued by UNRWA’s Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini in the wake of what he called the ICJ’s “unambiguous” ruling, Israel “is under an obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular UNRWA”.

But the decision issued by the ICJ is an advisory opinion, and the world court has no power to enforce it.

In a statement put out on social media, Israel’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Oren Marmorstein, claimed that Israel categorically rejected the ICJ’s opinion.

In addition to repeating Israel’s prior accusations against UNRWA without adding any corroborating evidence, Marmorstein went on to claim that Israel “fully upholds its obligations under International Law. Israel vehemently rejects international law’s politicization, which seeks to impose laws that would harm the State of Israel.

Does Israel uphold international law?

Not in the opinion of many.

Global legal authorities have repeatedly charged Israel of completely breaking international law in addition to its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant are both facing international warrants for crimes against humanity in addition to widespread allegations of torture, arbitrary execution, collective punishment, and using food as a weapon of war.

None of them address the genocide charge that the ICJ is currently considering and that has been supported by numerous organizations, including Amnesty International and the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

Is this the first time Israel has refuted a UNRWA accusation?

It doesn’t.

Two investigations in 2024, led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna in April and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in August, both found no conclusive evidence to back up Israel’s claims, despite the latter acknowledging that some individual employees may have been involved.

What nations halted or halted UNRWA’s funding as a result of Israel’s accusations?

Major donors for the UN agency, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and the European Union (EU), all halted or suspended funding in response to Israel’s claims.

After Israel was unable to provide evidence to support its claim, the majority of its funding, including Canada, Sweden, Australia, and the EU, resumed.

What kind of harm has been caused?

We might never be aware.

Since Israel’s assault on Gaza began two years ago, it has directly killed more than 68 000 people. More than a hundred others have died from hunger or other chronic conditions that could have been treated with sufficient aid.

An alleged vessel carrying illicit drugs across international waters is the subject of an eighth military strike by the United States.

The boat in question was located in the Pacific Ocean for the first time, not the Caribbean Sea.

Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, confirmed the strike on Wednesday, claiming it had occurred a day earlier.

The Department of War launched a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel carrying narcotics in the Eastern Pacific yesterday, according to Hegseth.

“The vessel was carrying two narco-terrorists during the attack, which took place in international waters. Both terrorists were killed.

A missile strikes a small blue boat that is clipping across the water, which is then caught in flames in a video that comes with Hegseth’s post.

President Donald Trump’s growing military campaign against Latin American cartels now has a new front, which raises questions about the legality and limits of his actions.

The Trump administration has, however, argued that the deadly bombing campaign was necessary to shield Americans from illegal drugs.

Hegseth repeated the theme in his statement on Wednesday, in which he compared the boat’s occupants to the militant group al-Qaeda, in which it has attempted to portray drug traffickers as enemy combatants.

These cartels are fighting on our border and our people, just as Al Qaeda did on our own country. Hegseth wrote on Wednesday that there will be no refuge or forgiveness, just justice.

However, some claim that the attacks were a blatant violation of international and US law, which typically forbids extrajudicial killings when carried out indefinitely. Additionally, it is unlawful to label someone a “terrorist” in order to justify a deadly attack.

According to Brian Finucane, a researcher for the International Crisis Group nonprofit, “there’s a lot of difference between these (alleged) unspecified narcos and al Qaeda.”

“No armed attack on U. S. like 9/11. No fighting between the armed forces. Just the U.S. government carried out arbitrary killings.

A timeline of airstrikes

The air strike on Wednesday was first reported by CBS News, using espionage from US officials. According to government reports, 34 people have died as a result of Trump’s bombing campaign on Tuesday.

Trump announced on his social media account on September 2 that he had ordered “a kinetic strike” that morning on a small boat traveling through international waters.

In the attack, eleven people were killed, including the one who Trump called “terrorists.” No information about their destinations or cargoes was disclosed, nor was there any documentation of their whereabouts.

Trump pleaded with the passengers of the boat to be unarmed and give notice that this would serve as evidence of a possible link to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, saying, “Please let this serve as notice to anyone even considering bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

Following, more attacks. Three people were killed in a third strike on September 15 in the Caribbean. A third strike then occurred on September 19 that also killed three people.

The month afterward saw a resurgence of the bombing campaign. Hegseth made the announcement that four people had died as a result of a new strike on October 3. On October 14, six more people died.

However, the seventh known strike was a change from the Trump administration’s usual attack announcing process.

Trump and his associates were typically the first to share the attacks, sharing them on social media with grainy aerial footage.

However, on October 16, US media reported that a strike had occurred and that two people had survived, for the first time. A day later, the Trump administration confirmed the attack.

The survivors were quickly transported back to Ecuador and Colombia, where they were originally from. Equador has since released its survivor, claiming that there is no proof that he ever committed a crime.

Trump then went further and said the men were “riding in a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE.” He confirmed that the attack also claimed the lives of two more victims.

On October 17, a seventh strike occurred shortly after. The three people who were killed on the boat were later identified as members of Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN), a rebel group.

Previous strikes on ships had primarily been caused by Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, has long had a hostile relationship with Trump.

Since the attacks began, both Venezuela and the US have increased their military presence along the Caribbean.

fears about the expansion of military operations

The string of attacks marks Trump’s most recent admission that he is willing to aggressively combat the flow of illegal drugs.

He attributes the Maduro administration to his campaign against drug trafficking, accusing the Venezuelan leader of being the mastermind behind the Tren de Aragua gang’s schemes.

However, there isn’t any evidence that Maduro is connected to Tren de Aragua or its illicit drug trade.

Instead, a declassified memo from May revealed that Maduro’s alleged role in the gang’s leadership was disproven by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence, giving the impression that Trump is not at odds with him.

Trump has used the alleged links between Maduro and Tren de Aragua to justify his use of wartime laws, including the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Although courts have largely rejected that justification, Trump has repeatedly argued that the US is facing an “invasion” of Latin American criminals.

However, Latin America has been concerned by Trump’s alleged willingness to engage in military action abroad.

Trump issued an executive order on January 20 that directed his administration to name drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations,” a term that has been used to describe foreign actors who aim to destabilize the US.

Then, according to reports, Trump reportedly reportedly enacted a secret order in August for the US military to begin fighting cartels.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum sparked doubts about a potential strike on her country’s soil when informed of the order. She stated to reporters that month that “the United States is not going to come to Mexico with their military.”

Trump, however, has considered whether or not he might start conducting land-based operations.

He stated to reporters in the Oval Office this month, “Many of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea.” However, we’re also going to stop them on land.

He also confirmed that he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to launch covert operations in Venezuela.

The recent wave of attacks was justified by a memo Trump reportedly sent to Congress that claimed the alleged drug dealers were “unlawful combatants” in a “non-international armed conflict.”

Identity and legality remain in dispute.

However, the strategy behind the attacks has been questioned by the repeated strikes on nautical vessels.

The US government has acknowledged that the majority of illicit drugs travel by land, particularly at Mexican border entry points.

The lack of information about the boat strikes has also fueled rumors that the people aboard were actually engaged in any illegal activity.

One family in Trinidad and Tobago claims that one of the missile strikes resulted in the death of their loved one, a fisherman. President Gustavo Petro in Colombia has also claimed that Alejandro Carranza, a Colombian, was among the dead.

Alejandro Carranza, a fishing angler, had no connections to drug trafficking, and did not do so on social media this month.

He demanded an explanation from the US government, saying that “US government officials have murdered and violated our sovereignty in territorial waters.”

A group of three UN experts called for the bombings to end, citing a UN Charter violation, on Tuesday.

According to the UN experts, “the use of lethal force in international waters amounts to extrajudicial execution” without a sound legal basis.