Brazil to join South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at ICJ
South Africa filed a case in 2023 asking the ICJ to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The case argues that in its war against Hamas militants Israel's military actions go beyond targeting Hamas alone by attacking civilians, with strikes on schools, hospitals, camps, and shelters.
Other countries – including Spain, Turkey, and Colombia – have also sought to join the case against Israel.
In its statement, the Brazilian government accused Israel of violations of international law "such as the annexation of territories by force" and expressed "deep indignation" at violence suffered by the civilian population.
Israel denies deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians, saying its sole interest is to annihilate Hamas. Lawyers for Israel have dismissed South Africa's case as an abuse of the genocide convention.
The Israeli embassy in Brasilia did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Brazil's National Israeli association CONIB said in a statement in response to Wednesday's decision that "the breaking of Brazil's long-standing friendship and partnership with Israel is a misguided move that proves the extremism of our foreign policy."
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has long been an outspoken critic of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Wednesday's decision carries added significance amid heightened tensions between Brazil and Israel's ally the United States. The Trump administration announced 50% tariffs on all Brazilian goods this month.
A diplomat familiar with the thinking of the Lula administration told Reuters that Brazil does not believe its decision to join South Africa's case will impact its relationship with Washington, however.
The United States has opposed South Africa's genocide case under both former President Joe Biden and Trump. In February, Trump signed an executive order to cut U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing in part its ICJ case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View on ICJ verdict on climate obligations: A welcome nudge
Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that countries are 'obliged' to 'prevent harm from climate change'. The Court was responding to a UN General Assembly request, triggered by a resolution backed by small island states, for an 'advisory' to 'ensure protection of the environment' from GHG emissions. In a process that stretched over two years, the ICJ consulted experts, including those from the IPCC, as well as representatives of nations and blocs such as the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, to affirm that 'limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C should be considered the primary temperature goal for nations' and that they are obliged to make 'adequate contributions' to achieve this target. The advisory is not binding on governments, but it could breathe new life into the flailing global climate change negotiations. It could also have significant implications for environmental jurisprudence, enabling vulnerable groups and nations to push for stronger climate action. Ten years after the Paris Pact set the roadmap for climate action, numerous inclement weather events all over the world have shone unflattering light on the absence of a collective resolve to decarbonise the world economy. The UN's annual climate meet has taken important decisions to compensate countries for loss and damages due to global warming-induced disasters. Yet, these meetings continue to be held hostage by decades-long differences over who should contribute how much to the mitigation efforts. Last year's UNFCCC meet at Baku, billed as the finance CoP, was a particular disappointment. Leaders of most major economies failed to turn up, and less than two months after the summit, the US President pulled his country out of the Paris Climate Pact for the second time in less than 10 years. The US did not face any legal challenge for pulling out of the treaty, and developed countries have, by and large, got away with not meeting their financial obligations. The ICJ advisory has not spelt out any consequences for defaulters. However, its strong endorsement of compensation to countries that suffer climate damage could trigger a wave of litigation for damages. In recent years, developed nations have reluctantly acknowledged that vulnerable countries require assistance to deal with climate disasters, but they have rejected any suggestion for reparations. The ICJ's opinion could move the needle forward. The top UN court has also affirmed the salience of the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. As rich countries increasingly put pressure on emerging economies, such as India, to assume more global warming mitigation responsibilities, this founding tenet of climate negotiations has come under increasing strain. The ICJ advisory should jolt the historically high emitters and nudge them to fulfil their climate commitments.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Macron, Erdogan Close Ranks On Gaza: Anti-Israel ‘Alliance' Brewing After Palestine Move?
/ Jul 28, 2025, 07:31AM IST Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and French President Emmanuel Macron held a phone call to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Erdogan expressed deep concern and urged international intervention while reiterating the need for a long-term resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Macron recently announced plans to formally recognize Palestine, a move that has drawn criticism from the U.S. and Israel.#Macron #Erdogan #GazaCrisis #Palestine #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastPeace #TwoStateSolution #HumanitarianCrisis #Turkey #France #InternationalRelations #DonaldTrump #USPolitics
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US and EU avert trade war with 15% tariff deal
The US struck a framework trade agreement with the European Union on Sunday, imposing a 15% import tariff on most EU goods - half the threatened rate - and averting a bigger trade war between the two allies that account for almost a third of global trade. US President Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (L) following their meeting, in Turnberry south west Scotland on July 27, 2025.(AFP) US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal at Trump's luxury golf course in western Scotland after an hour-long meeting that pushed the hard-fought deal over the line, following months of negotiations. "I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reporters, lauding EU plans to invest some $600 billion in the United States and dramatically increase its purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment. Trump said the deal, which tops a $550 billion deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of U.S. exporters. Also Read | Explained: Donald Trump's landmark $1.35 trillion trade deal with EU before tariff deadline Von der Leyen, describing Trump as a tough negotiator, said the 15% tariff applied "across the board", later telling reporters it was "the best we could get." "We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said. The agreement mirrors key parts of the framework accord reached by the U.S. with Japan, but like that deal, it leaves many questions open, including tariff rates on spirits, a highly charged topic for many on both sides of the Atlantic. The deal, which Trump said calls for $750 billion of EU purchases of U.S. energy in coming years and "hundreds of billions of dollars" of arms purchases, likely spells good news for a host of EU companies, including Airbus, Mercedes-Benz and Novo Nordisk, if all the details hold. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. German carmakers, VW, Mercedes and BMW were some of the hardest hit by the 27.5% U.S. tariff on car and parts imports now in place. The baseline 15% tariff will still be seen by many in Europe as too high, compared with Europe's initial hopes to secure a zero-for-zero tariff deal. Bernd Lange, the German Social Democrat who heads the European Parliament's trade committee, said the tariffs were imbalanced and the hefty EU investment earmarked for the U.S. would likely come at the bloc's own expense. Trump retains the ability to increase the tariffs in the future if European countries do not live up to their investment commitments, a senior U.S. administration official told reporters on Sunday evening. The euro rose around 0.2% against the dollar, sterling and yen within an hour of the deal's being announced. MIRROR OF JAPAN DEAL Carsten Nickel, deputy director of research at Teneo, said Sunday's accord was "merely a high-level, political agreement" that could not replace a carefully hammered out trade deal: "This, in turn, creates the risk of different interpretations along the way, as seen immediately after the conclusion of the U.S.-Japan deal." While the tariff applies to most goods, including semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, there are exceptions. The U.S. will keep in place a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum. Von der Leyen suggested the tariff could be replaced with a quota system; a senior administration official said EU leaders had asked that the two sides continue to talk about the issue. Von der Leyen said there would be no tariffs from either side on aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment, some agricultural products, natural resources and critical raw materials. "We will keep working to add more products to this list," von der Leyen said, adding that spirits were still under discussion. A U.S. official said the tariff rate on commercial aircraft would remain at zero for now, and the parties would decide together what to do after a U.S. review is completed, adding there is a "reasonably good chance" they could agree to a lower tariff than 15%. No timing was given for when that probe would be completed. The deal will be sold as a triumph for Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, and has already reached similar framework accords with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has not hit its goal of "90 deals in 90 days." U.S. officials said the EU had agreed to lower non-tariff barriers for automobiles and some agricultural products, though EU officials suggested the details of those standards were still under discussion. "Remember, their economy is $20 trillion ... they are five times bigger than Japan," a senior U.S. official told reporters during a briefing. "So the opportunity of opening their market is enormous for our farmers, our fishermen, our ranchers, all our industrial products, all our businesses." Trump has periodically railed against the EU, saying it was "formed to screw the United States" on trade. He has fumed for years about the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump has argued that his tariffs are bringing in "hundreds of billions of dollars" in revenues for the U.S. while dismissing warnings from economists about the risk of inflation. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event a deal to avoid the tariffs could not be struck.
