Here are 4 ways Western countries can actually pressure Israel
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.
These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:
There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don't move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.
Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world's revulsion to the Netanyahu government's actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.
So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?
Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.
Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.
Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.
In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article "on respect for human rights and democratic principles".
Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.
Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.
The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.
Given Netanyahu's long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.
This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America's support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.
Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.
An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.
Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan's SOCAR.
Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.
Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.
The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.
It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.
It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter's mediation, in 1978.
Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons - among them Israel's refusal to make concessions on key issues - much to Carter's fury.
Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights, which it later annexed.
A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel's steadfast ally, the US, as a member.
Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly's resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.
In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa's membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa's expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.
These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu's leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.
Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said recently the Israeli cabinet has "lost its reason and humanity" in Gaza, reflecting a widespread view around the world.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.
These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:
There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don't move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.
Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world's revulsion to the Netanyahu government's actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.
So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?
Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.
Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.
Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.
In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article "on respect for human rights and democratic principles".
Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.
Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.
The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.
Given Netanyahu's long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.
This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America's support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.
Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.
An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.
Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan's SOCAR.
Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.
Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.
The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.
It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.
It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter's mediation, in 1978.
Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons - among them Israel's refusal to make concessions on key issues - much to Carter's fury.
Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights, which it later annexed.
A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel's steadfast ally, the US, as a member.
Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly's resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.
In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa's membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa's expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.
These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu's leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.
Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said recently the Israeli cabinet has "lost its reason and humanity" in Gaza, reflecting a widespread view around the world.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.
These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:
There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don't move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.
Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world's revulsion to the Netanyahu government's actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.
So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?
Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.
Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.
Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.
In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article "on respect for human rights and democratic principles".
Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.
Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.
The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.
Given Netanyahu's long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.
This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America's support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.
Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.
An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.
Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan's SOCAR.
Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.
Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.
The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.
It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.
It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter's mediation, in 1978.
Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons - among them Israel's refusal to make concessions on key issues - much to Carter's fury.
Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights, which it later annexed.
A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel's steadfast ally, the US, as a member.
Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly's resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.
In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa's membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa's expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.
These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu's leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.
Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said recently the Israeli cabinet has "lost its reason and humanity" in Gaza, reflecting a widespread view around the world.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.
These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:
There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don't move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.
Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world's revulsion to the Netanyahu government's actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.
So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?
Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.
Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.
Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.
In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article "on respect for human rights and democratic principles".
Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.
Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.
The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.
Given Netanyahu's long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.
This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America's support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.
Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.
An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.
Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan's SOCAR.
Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.
Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.
The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.
It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.
It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter's mediation, in 1978.
Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons - among them Israel's refusal to make concessions on key issues - much to Carter's fury.
Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights, which it later annexed.
A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel's steadfast ally, the US, as a member.
Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly's resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.
In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa's membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa's expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.
These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu's leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump rules out US troops on the ground in any Ukraine peace deal
London: US President Donald Trump has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine in a potential peace deal with Russia, placing a strict limit on America's role and putting the onus on European nations to enforce any truce. Trump offered US Air Force support to the peace plan but assured American voters he would not put 'boots on the ground' in Ukraine – a key issue for those in his MAGA movement who oppose a bigger commitment to the European war. The comment came a day after Trump left the option open when asked twice if he would send ground troops, signalling the caution in the White House about how to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin honours any peace deal. European leaders are preparing to impose more sanctions on Russia to encourage Putin to end the war, while they step up plans for a 'coalition of the willing' to offer security to Ukraine, which was backed with a message of support from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Tuesday night. Trump has promised to 'coordinate' the security guarantees that European countries will offer to Ukraine to support any peace deal, given their concerns Putin would breach a deal and trigger future conflict, but his assurance about troops puts another limit on the US role. In an interview on Fox News, the president also revealed that he hoped his efforts to see peace in Ukraine would help him after he died. 'I want to try and get to heaven, if possible,' Trump said. 'I'm hearing I'm not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.'
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Public spat marks lowest point in Israel-Australia ties
Australia's ties with Israel are strained like never before but the nation's global standing could be boosted after Benjamin Netanyahu's latest lashing. The Israeli prime minister labelled Australian counterpart Anthony Albanese a "weak politician" in a social media post and claimed he abandoned the nation's Jewish community. The Australian leader shrugged off the comments while his lieutenants fired back, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke declaring "strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry". The fracas followed the federal government denying a visa to a far-right Israeli politician set to undertake a speaking tour of Australia at the invitation of a fringe Jewish group. Israel retaliated by cancelling the visas of three Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority and ordering embassy staff to apply extra scrutiny to Australian applications to enter Israel. The tit-for-tat marked an all-time low in diplomatic relations but the impact remains to be seen, Australian National University politics and international relations senior lecturer Charles Miller said. "Australia's championing of the rules-based global order looks hypocritical ... to the extent it is combined with close relations with Israel," he told AAP. "By distancing itself from Israel, Australia gains credibility in many parts of the world, especially the Islamic world." Israel has been accused of committing war crimes in its military action in Gaza, with the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu. The warrant, which includes allegations of using starvation as a method of warfare and directing attacks against civilians, are not findings of guilt and Israel has denied the claims. Australia could feel ramifications of the diplomatic low through a lack of intelligence communication with Israel, along with flow-on effects to its relationship with America, Dr Miller said. But the latter factor should not be exaggerated because it ought not be assumed America "will always remain as pro-Israel" as it currently is. "Even if it does, the US maintains a good relationship with Australia because it is in its own interests to do so," Dr Miller said. Mr Albanese continued to ramp up his rhetoric surrounding Israel's Gaza offensive, stating "too many innocent lives have been lost" and insisting the international community agreed. "(Australians) look at increased settler violence in the West Bank, they look at the decision Israel has made in March to restrict the access of aid, food and water people in Gaza needed, and they think that something needs to change," he said. Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Daniel Aghion wrote to both leaders to warn the deterioration in diplomatic relations brought pain and anguish, suggesting both men should have opted for silence. "The Australian Jewish community will not be left to deal with the fallout of a spat between two leaders who are playing to their respective domestic audiences," he said.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Kneecap band appears at UK court on terrorism charge
Hundreds of fans have turned out to support a member of Irish rap group Kneecap at a London court as he sought to throw out a terrorism charge for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Lebanese militia Hezbollah. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who was initially charged under the Anglicised name Liam O'Hanna and whose stage name is Mo Chara, is alleged to have waved the yellow flag of Hezbollah during a Kneecap gig in London on November 21, 2024. Ó hAnnaidh is accused of holding up the flag on stage while saying "Up Hamas, up Hezbollah". Kneecap have said the flag was thrown on stage during their performance. The 27-year-old was charged in May under the Terrorism Act, which makes it a criminal offence to display an article in a way which arouses reasonable suspicion that someone is a supporter of a proscribed organisation. Ó hAnnaidh appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday wearing the keffiyeh scarf associated with the Palestinian cause and had to fight his way through a scrum of photographers to get inside the building. He sat alongside an Irish language interpreter during the hearing and his bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin, stage name Móglaí Bap, and JJ Ó Dochartaigh, who goes by DJ Próvaí, were also in court, with supporters filling the public gallery. Irish music was played outside the court throughout the hearing, with many supporters waving Irish and Palestinian flags while others held placards reading "Free Mo Chara". Ó hAnnaidh's lawyers say the charge was brought too late and the prosecution case should be thrown out as Ó hAnnaidh was formally charged on May 22 this year, one day after the six-month limit for such charges. Prosecutor Michael Bisgrove, however, argued that Ó hAnnaidh was charged on May 21, within the time limit. Judge Paul Goldspring said he would give a decision on September 26. Ó hAnnaidh left the court to cheers from supporters, telling the crowd the charge against him was "a distraction from the real story" of Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories. Belfast-based Kneecap, who rap in Irish and English and regularly display pro-Palestinian messages during their gigs, previously said the charge was an attempt to silence them. The group – who rap about Irish identity and support the republican cause of uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland – have been increasingly vocal about the war in the Gaza Strip since Ó hAnnaidh was charged. Kneecap led a 30,000-strong crowd at the Glastonbury Festival in June in chants against Prime Minister Keir Starmer and accused Israel of committing war crimes in its conflict with Hamas, an accusation Israel denies. Hundreds of fans have turned out to support a member of Irish rap group Kneecap at a London court as he sought to throw out a terrorism charge for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Lebanese militia Hezbollah. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who was initially charged under the Anglicised name Liam O'Hanna and whose stage name is Mo Chara, is alleged to have waved the yellow flag of Hezbollah during a Kneecap gig in London on November 21, 2024. Ó hAnnaidh is accused of holding up the flag on stage while saying "Up Hamas, up Hezbollah". Kneecap have said the flag was thrown on stage during their performance. The 27-year-old was charged in May under the Terrorism Act, which makes it a criminal offence to display an article in a way which arouses reasonable suspicion that someone is a supporter of a proscribed organisation. Ó hAnnaidh appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday wearing the keffiyeh scarf associated with the Palestinian cause and had to fight his way through a scrum of photographers to get inside the building. He sat alongside an Irish language interpreter during the hearing and his bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin, stage name Móglaí Bap, and JJ Ó Dochartaigh, who goes by DJ Próvaí, were also in court, with supporters filling the public gallery. Irish music was played outside the court throughout the hearing, with many supporters waving Irish and Palestinian flags while others held placards reading "Free Mo Chara". Ó hAnnaidh's lawyers say the charge was brought too late and the prosecution case should be thrown out as Ó hAnnaidh was formally charged on May 22 this year, one day after the six-month limit for such charges. Prosecutor Michael Bisgrove, however, argued that Ó hAnnaidh was charged on May 21, within the time limit. Judge Paul Goldspring said he would give a decision on September 26. Ó hAnnaidh left the court to cheers from supporters, telling the crowd the charge against him was "a distraction from the real story" of Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories. Belfast-based Kneecap, who rap in Irish and English and regularly display pro-Palestinian messages during their gigs, previously said the charge was an attempt to silence them. The group – who rap about Irish identity and support the republican cause of uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland – have been increasingly vocal about the war in the Gaza Strip since Ó hAnnaidh was charged. Kneecap led a 30,000-strong crowd at the Glastonbury Festival in June in chants against Prime Minister Keir Starmer and accused Israel of committing war crimes in its conflict with Hamas, an accusation Israel denies. Hundreds of fans have turned out to support a member of Irish rap group Kneecap at a London court as he sought to throw out a terrorism charge for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Lebanese militia Hezbollah. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who was initially charged under the Anglicised name Liam O'Hanna and whose stage name is Mo Chara, is alleged to have waved the yellow flag of Hezbollah during a Kneecap gig in London on November 21, 2024. Ó hAnnaidh is accused of holding up the flag on stage while saying "Up Hamas, up Hezbollah". Kneecap have said the flag was thrown on stage during their performance. The 27-year-old was charged in May under the Terrorism Act, which makes it a criminal offence to display an article in a way which arouses reasonable suspicion that someone is a supporter of a proscribed organisation. Ó hAnnaidh appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday wearing the keffiyeh scarf associated with the Palestinian cause and had to fight his way through a scrum of photographers to get inside the building. He sat alongside an Irish language interpreter during the hearing and his bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin, stage name Móglaí Bap, and JJ Ó Dochartaigh, who goes by DJ Próvaí, were also in court, with supporters filling the public gallery. Irish music was played outside the court throughout the hearing, with many supporters waving Irish and Palestinian flags while others held placards reading "Free Mo Chara". Ó hAnnaidh's lawyers say the charge was brought too late and the prosecution case should be thrown out as Ó hAnnaidh was formally charged on May 22 this year, one day after the six-month limit for such charges. Prosecutor Michael Bisgrove, however, argued that Ó hAnnaidh was charged on May 21, within the time limit. Judge Paul Goldspring said he would give a decision on September 26. Ó hAnnaidh left the court to cheers from supporters, telling the crowd the charge against him was "a distraction from the real story" of Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories. Belfast-based Kneecap, who rap in Irish and English and regularly display pro-Palestinian messages during their gigs, previously said the charge was an attempt to silence them. The group – who rap about Irish identity and support the republican cause of uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland – have been increasingly vocal about the war in the Gaza Strip since Ó hAnnaidh was charged. Kneecap led a 30,000-strong crowd at the Glastonbury Festival in June in chants against Prime Minister Keir Starmer and accused Israel of committing war crimes in its conflict with Hamas, an accusation Israel denies. Hundreds of fans have turned out to support a member of Irish rap group Kneecap at a London court as he sought to throw out a terrorism charge for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Lebanese militia Hezbollah. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who was initially charged under the Anglicised name Liam O'Hanna and whose stage name is Mo Chara, is alleged to have waved the yellow flag of Hezbollah during a Kneecap gig in London on November 21, 2024. Ó hAnnaidh is accused of holding up the flag on stage while saying "Up Hamas, up Hezbollah". Kneecap have said the flag was thrown on stage during their performance. The 27-year-old was charged in May under the Terrorism Act, which makes it a criminal offence to display an article in a way which arouses reasonable suspicion that someone is a supporter of a proscribed organisation. Ó hAnnaidh appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday wearing the keffiyeh scarf associated with the Palestinian cause and had to fight his way through a scrum of photographers to get inside the building. He sat alongside an Irish language interpreter during the hearing and his bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin, stage name Móglaí Bap, and JJ Ó Dochartaigh, who goes by DJ Próvaí, were also in court, with supporters filling the public gallery. Irish music was played outside the court throughout the hearing, with many supporters waving Irish and Palestinian flags while others held placards reading "Free Mo Chara". Ó hAnnaidh's lawyers say the charge was brought too late and the prosecution case should be thrown out as Ó hAnnaidh was formally charged on May 22 this year, one day after the six-month limit for such charges. Prosecutor Michael Bisgrove, however, argued that Ó hAnnaidh was charged on May 21, within the time limit. Judge Paul Goldspring said he would give a decision on September 26. Ó hAnnaidh left the court to cheers from supporters, telling the crowd the charge against him was "a distraction from the real story" of Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories. Belfast-based Kneecap, who rap in Irish and English and regularly display pro-Palestinian messages during their gigs, previously said the charge was an attempt to silence them. The group – who rap about Irish identity and support the republican cause of uniting Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland – have been increasingly vocal about the war in the Gaza Strip since Ó hAnnaidh was charged. Kneecap led a 30,000-strong crowd at the Glastonbury Festival in June in chants against Prime Minister Keir Starmer and accused Israel of committing war crimes in its conflict with Hamas, an accusation Israel denies.
