Israel rejects accusations of genocide in Gaza war at ICJ hearing - Newstrends
Connect with us

International

Israel rejects accusations of genocide in Gaza war at ICJ hearing

Published

on

Israel rejects accusations of genocide in Gaza war at ICJ hearing

Israel has rejected the accusations brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that its actions in Gaza amount to genocide, in a second day of a public hearing at the world body in The Hague.

Israel’s legal representatives on Friday claimed South Africa’s case was “unfounded”, “absurd” and amounting to “libel”, and said Israel sought not to destroy a people but to protect its people.

On Thursday, on the first day of hearings, South Africa argued Israel had committed “systematic” acts of genocide in Gaza, where more than 23,500 Palestinians have been killed amid Israel’s military campaign, with at least 70 percent of whom were women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Israel’s arguments revolved around its “right to self-defence” following the attacks by Hamas on October 7, as well as what it called a lack of evidence of “genocidal intent”.

Christopher Staker, a lawyer representing Israel, said, “The inevitable fatalities and human suffering of any conflict is not of itself a pattern of conduct that plausibly shows genocidal intent.”

Malcolm Shaw, a professor of international law representing Israel, said the case relates only to charges of genocide, which “stands alone among violations of international law as the epitome of evil”. If the charge of genocide is levelled incorrectly, “the essence of this crime would be lost”, he said.

READ ALSO:

Shaw added that such evidence was lacking in the arguments South Africa presented a day earlier.

Detailing its evidence on Thursday, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, a lawyer for South Africa, said, “The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible.”

‘Massive disconnect’

Israel’s legal representatives insisted its army has acted in compliance with international law in Gaza and aimed to mitigate civilian harm by warning of impending military actions, including via telephone calls and leafleting.

Omri Sender, another lawyer, argued that Israel’s efforts to facilitate humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza testified to its objective of protecting the civilian population, rather than destroying it.

However, Thomas MacManus, a senior lecturer in state crime at Queen Mary University of London, told Al Jazeera the ICJ is likely to see a “massive disconnect” between the picture Israel painted of its humanitarian concern for Gaza and “the reality on the ground where UN agencies say people are starving, lacking water, and seeing attacks on hospitals, schools, and universities”.

Speaking before the ICJ hearing, Galit Raguan, acting director of the international justice division at Israel’s Ministry of Justice, refuted the claim that Israel had bombed hospitals. She argued Israel had found evidence of Hamas using “every single hospital in Gaza” for military purposes.

Responding to claims that hospitals were used as military bases, Palestinian foreign ministry official Ammar Hijazi told Al Jazeera outside The Hague that Israel’s arguments were not based in fact or law.

“What Israel has provided today are many of the already debunked lies,” he said.

‘Plausible right to self-defence’

The ICJ is set to rule on nine provisional measures effectively seeking the suspension of military operations in Gaza, but a timeline for when that will happen has not been stated. Israel has argued the provisional measures cannot require a state to refrain from exercising a “plausible right to defend itself”.

READ ALSO:

On the issue of jurisdiction, Israel argued that one of the requirements of the ICJ’s mandate is that the state putting forward the case should try to sort out this problem first. According to Israel, they did not manage to talk to South Africa before they brought this case to the court. In turn, South Africa argued it had reached out to Israel but obtained no response.

The Israeli team did make strong “jurisdictional and procedural arguments”, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara said, but he added that “Israel lost the moral, factual, historical and humanitarian argument because of the way the situation has unravelled in Gaza – with the sheer death and industrial killing there.”

Tal Becker, the legal adviser of Israel’s foreign ministry, told the ICJ hearing that South Africa enjoyed close relations with Hamas and was therefore attempting to put forward a “distorted factual and legal picture”.

South Africa “firmly rejects” that claim, Al Jazeera’s Fahmida Miller said, reporting from South Africa.

“The South African government has said that it doesn’t have bilateral relations with Hamas and that its stance in terms of supporting the Palestinian struggle against occupation does not equate to the support of Hamas,” she said.

In its presentation on Thursday, South Africa’s lawyers also condemned Hamas’s actions on October 7.

ICJ President Joan Donoghue ended the two-day hearing saying the court will announce its decision in the coming days.

Israel rejects accusations of genocide in Gaza war at ICJ hearing

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

Loading

International

Iran to US: No Deal Unless We Keep Enriching Uranium & Controlling Hormuz

Published

on

Iran to US: No Deal Unless We Keep Enriching Uranium & Controlling Hormuz
Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei

Iran to US: No Deal Unless We Keep Enriching Uranium & Controlling Hormuz

TEHRAN / WASHINGTON – Iran has drawn a firm red line under any future agreement with the United States: its right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, and it alone will manage the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The declaration came Friday, directly contradicting assurances U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly gave to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Despite Trump’s claim that a draft deal has been approved at the “highest levels” in Tehran, Iranian state media insist that no final accord will be signed unless it explicitly preserves the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sovereignty and control over the Gulf’s critical oil and gas chokepoint.

Following weeks of indirect negotiations in Oman aimed at ending the war triggered by U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, a ceasefire took effect in April. However, sporadic violence has continued to threaten a return to all-out conflict. Now, as both sides finalize a 60-day negotiation window, Iran’s official IRNA news agency has outlined the country’s unyielding stance.

On the nuclear front, Iran insists its right to enrich uranium and retain existing stockpiles of enriched material will be “emphasised with a view to their inclusion in the final agreement.” This directly rebuts Israel’s claim that Trump promised to strip Iran of all enriched nuclear matter. Regarding maritime security, Tehran demands to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, including the right to grant or deny vessels passage. Since the war began, Iran has blockaded the waterway, allowing only a trickle of ships through after they obtain permission from Iranian armed forces. According to the Mehr News Agency, which published what it said was a draft memorandum of understanding (MoU), Iran assumes “no new nuclear obligations” and will not cede management of the strait or restore conditions that existed prior to the U.S.-Israeli military aggression.

READ ALSO:

While Trump told reporters a draft deal had been “brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved,” the text circulating in Tehran includes demands that Washington has yet to publicly endorse. The draft MoU reportedly includes several key provisions. First, it calls for a “decisive end” to the conflict across all fronts, including Lebanon, rather than a simple extension of the fragile ceasefire. Second, it demands the release of **$24 billion** in Iranian assets held abroad, with half of that sum ($12 billion) required to be released before final negotiations can even begin. Third, it seeks a suspension of U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical sales, alongside a complete lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports that has been in place since April 13. Fourth, it includes a demand that the U.S. and its allies pay war reparations and present a $300 billion reconstruction plan for Iran. Finally, regarding the strait, the draft specifies that the waterway would be managed via a mechanism between Iran and Oman, with no role for the United States.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office quickly pushed back against the Iranian narrative. After speaking with Trump, Netanyahu reiterated that the U.S. president had vowed any agreement would include the removal of all enriched nuclear material from Iran and the dismantling of its missile infrastructure. “As long as I am the Prime Minister of Israel, Iran will not have nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said Friday.

On the streets of Tehran, the prospect of a deal has been met with wary skepticism. “I am not sure how I feel,” a 29-year-old cafe worker in the Iranian capital told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “The main purpose of this war was for the US to remove the system, and this did not happen. So what does a deal do?”

Despite Trump’s optimism—which has briefly boosted stock markets and lowered oil prices—Iran’s uncompromising stance on uranium enrichment and Hormuz control suggests that a final agreement is far from guaranteed. The next 60 days of indirect talks will determine whether the U.S. can accept Tehran’s conditions or if the region will slide back toward military confrontation.

Iran to US: No Deal Unless We Keep Enriching Uranium & Controlling Hormuz

Loading

Continue Reading

International

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Hints at Breakthrough in Iran Negotiations

Published

on

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Hints at Breakthrough in Iran Negotiations

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Hints at Breakthrough in Iran Negotiations

Global oil prices fell sharply on Friday after U.S. President Donald Trump indicated that negotiations with Iran were nearing a breakthrough, easing fears of a prolonged disruption to global energy supplies and boosting hopes of stability in the Middle East.

The decline saw Brent crude oil fall to about $87 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) traded around $84.50 per barrel. The drop came after several days of gains driven by escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran, which had pushed oil prices above the $90-per-barrel mark earlier in the week.

Speaking at the White House, Trump expressed confidence that diplomatic efforts were yielding results and suggested that a formal agreement with Iran could be reached in the coming days.

“We have essentially ended the war with Iran,” Trump said, adding that discussions were progressing toward a settlement that could significantly reduce tensions across the region.

The remarks marked a dramatic shift from previous statements by the U.S. president, who had earlier threatened military action against Iran and suggested possible strikes on key oil export infrastructure, including Kharg Island, the terminal responsible for handling most of Iran’s crude shipments.

The prospect of a diplomatic resolution immediately calmed energy markets, with traders reducing the geopolitical risk premium that had been built into oil prices since the crisis intensified.

READ ALSO:

A major factor behind the market reaction was renewed optimism over the future of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important shipping lanes. The waterway serves as a critical route for nearly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports.

Concerns that conflict could disrupt shipping through the strait had fuelled fears of supply shortages and triggered a surge in crude prices over the past week. Trump’s latest comments, including suggestions that the passage could soon reopen fully to normal traffic, helped reverse those gains.

Despite the pullback, analysts caution that oil prices remain significantly above pre-crisis levels. Before tensions escalated, crude traded within the $70–$72 per barrel range. Market experts say prices are unlikely to return to those levels unless a comprehensive agreement is reached and normal oil flows through the Gulf are restored.

Iranian officials have also urged caution, noting that negotiations are still ongoing and that no final deal has been signed. The uncertainty means markets could remain volatile until concrete details emerge from the talks.

Energy analysts warn that any setback in negotiations or renewed threat to shipping in the Gulf could quickly push crude oil prices higher again. Conversely, a successful agreement could boost global supply, ease inflationary pressures, and provide relief for energy-importing countries struggling with high fuel costs.

Investors worldwide are now closely monitoring developments between Washington and Tehran, with the outcome expected to have significant implications for global oil markets, energy security, and the broader world economy.

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Hints at Breakthrough in Iran Negotiations

Loading

Continue Reading

International

Trump Defends Rising Inflation, Says Prices Will Fall After Iran Conflict

Published

on

Trump Defends Rising Inflation, Says Prices Will Fall After Iran Conflict
US President Donald Trump

Trump Defends Rising Inflation, Says Prices Will Fall After Iran Conflict

United States President Donald Trump has sparked fresh debate over the state of the American economy after declaring that he “loves” the latest inflation figures, even as US inflation climbed to its highest level in three years.

New data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed that annual inflation rose to 4.2 per cent in May 2026, up from 3.8 per cent in April, marking the third straight monthly increase and the highest rate recorded since 2023.

The increase was driven largely by rising energy prices, with gasoline, electricity and other fuel-related costs surging amid ongoing geopolitical tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran.

Reacting to the figures at the White House, Trump appeared unconcerned about the inflation spike.

“I love it. The numbers were great. You know what I really love? I love the inflation,” the president told reporters.

The remark quickly drew attention across political and economic circles, with critics arguing that millions of Americans continue to struggle with higher living costs. However, Trump later clarified that he was not celebrating rising prices but rather expressing confidence that inflation remained lower than many analysts had predicted despite global instability.

Speaking to the New York Post, Trump said the latest figures demonstrated the resilience of the US economy during a period of international conflict.

READ ALSO:

“I love the inflation numbers because of what I’m talking about. The numbers are going to be phenomenal because what’s showing is that despite the fact that we’re in a war, the numbers are much lower than anticipated, and when we’re out of that war, the numbers will be at lower numbers than they were even before it started,” he said.

Trump maintained that inflationary pressures would ease significantly once tensions in the Middle East subside. According to him, oil prices are expected to decline sharply after the conflict ends, helping to reduce transportation, manufacturing and household energy costs.

“When this conflict is over, you will see oil drop to where it was before,” he told reporters.

The latest inflation report showed that energy costs accounted for a significant share of the increase in consumer prices. Government data indicated that fuel-related expenses contributed heavily to the overall rise, with gasoline prices recording one of the sharpest increases.

Data from the American Automobile Association (AAA) showed that the national average price of regular gasoline rose to approximately $4.15 per gallon, compared with about $2.98 per gallon in late February.

Analysts have linked the increase in fuel prices to disruptions in global oil markets and concerns surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes. Any threat to oil exports through the waterway typically drives up crude oil prices and increases inflationary pressures across major economies.

Beyond energy, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported higher costs for airline tickets, healthcare services, communication services, recreation and other consumer goods and services.

The inflation increase presents a fresh challenge for the US Federal Reserve, which has a long-term inflation target of 2 per cent. Rising inflation often raises expectations that the central bank could maintain higher interest rates or introduce additional measures aimed at slowing price growth.

Financial markets are now closely watching upcoming policy decisions from the Federal Reserve as officials assess whether current inflation pressures are temporary or likely to persist.

The issue is also expected to become a major political talking point ahead of the upcoming US midterm elections, with inflation, fuel costs and affordability remaining among the top concerns for American voters.

Although current inflation remains well below the 9.1 per cent peak recorded in 2022, economists remain divided over the outlook for the coming months. While some believe easing geopolitical tensions could bring prices down, others warn that continued disruptions in global energy markets may keep inflation elevated for longer than expected.

For now, the latest data underscores the continued influence of energy prices on the US economy and sets the stage for a renewed debate over inflation, interest rates and economic policy in the months ahead.

Trump Defends Rising Inflation, Says Prices Will Fall After Iran Conflict

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending