Nazi files found in champagne crates in Argentine court basement
A hoard of World War II-era Nazi propaganda and membership documents has been unearthed in the basement of Argentina's Supreme Court, where it has lain, stashed in champagne crates, since 1941.
Seven crates containing postcards, photographs, Nazi propaganda, notebooks and party membership documents were found by staff in the process of moving non-digitized archive material, the court said Monday of the "discovery of global significance."
A staffer who peeped into one of the crates found material "intended to consolidate and propagate Adolf Hitler's ideology in Argentina," said a court statement.
The rest of the boxes were opened last Friday in the presence of the chief rabbi of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) and officials of the Buenos Aires Holocaust Museum.
Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America, but was also the preferred destination for several top Nazis who fled Germany after the wartime genocide of six million European Jews.
"Given the historical relevance of the find and the potential crucial information it could contain to clarify events related to the Holocaust, the president of the Supreme Court, Horacio Rosatti, ordered an exhaustive survey of all the material found," the court said.
"The main objective is to... determine if the material contains crucial information about the Holocaust and if any clues found can shed light on aspects still unknown, such as the route of Nazi money at a global level," it added.
The crates, sent from the German diplomatic mission in Japan to the embassy in Buenos Aires, arrived in Argentina in June 1941 on a Japanese cargo ship.
German diplomats in Argentina claimed they contained personal effects, but the shipment was held up by customs and became the subject of a probe by a special commission on "anti-Argentine activities."
A judge later ordered the seizure of the materials, and the matter ended up before the Supreme Court, which took possession of the crates.
After World War II, Argentina became a haven for Nazis -- thousands of whom are believed to have fled there, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish rights group.
They included top war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann -- considered a key architect of Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews. He was captured in Buenos Aires in 1960 and sent to Israel where he was tried and executed.
Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, too, hid away in Argentina before fleeing to Paraguay and later Brazil, where he died.
Argentina's Jewish population was the target of a bombing in 1994 of the AMIA center that killed 85 people and injured 300, just two years after the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires claimed 29 lives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
'I've been called worse': Kerridge hits back at 'gullible mayor' jibe in Rising Tide debate
ROSS Kerridge says he's been "called a whole lot worse" after Wagga-based Nationals MLC Wes Fang dubbed him "the gullible mayor of Newcastle" in the midst of a debate around Rising Tide's application to host the 2025 People's Blockade in the city. The Legislative Council called on the City of Newcastle to "refuse any permit applications" from the climate activist group to use council land, including Richardson Park and Foreshore Park, for its planned November event after multiple arrests and a last-minute Supreme Court ruling in 2024. On Wednesday, Mr Fang called out Cr Kerridge for his decision to grant a permit to Rising Tide to camp on Foreshore Park last year. "The Supreme Court prohibited Rising Tide from going into the harbour during the scheduled blockade," Mr Fang said. "However, the gullible mayor of Newcastle, and I suspect Lenin would call him one of the 'useful idiots', believed that Rising Ride would honour its promise and obey police directions. "I observe that the mayor was, I am being generous, deceived last year by Rising Tide. Some would suggest he was aiding and abetting." Mr Fang said the City of Newcastle should "stand firm against those lawbreakers" this year. The 2024 People's Blockade resulted in more than 170 arrests, of whom 133 have pleaded not guilty to serious disruption or obstruction of a major facility. The first four defendants will face trial at Newcastle Local Court in October. The state government attempted to block access to the harbour by imposing an exclusion zone that would have made it off-limits to the public. The Supreme Court found the notice was invalid following an urgent application from Rising Tide in November 2024; however, earlier that month, it ruled in favour of police who moved to have the planned protest deemed an unauthorised assembly. Cr Kerridge drew the ire of his fellow councillors when he used his decision-making powers to grant Rising Tide temporary use of council-owned land for the protestival. This year, Cr Kerridge said he felt it was important for the community to weigh in. "I think we have to recognise that Rising Tide is a complex organisation, and yeah, they don't have a good track record," he said. "Last year, things sort of dragged on, and the decision was made without adequate involvement of the community and then things changed very rapidly at the last minute. "I think we need to have the discussion early and be very clear, very early on, about what's going to happen." Rising Tide recently made an application to the council to use Richardson Park from November 25 to December 25, and Camp Shortland from November 28 to December 1. In response to Mr Fang's remarks about the 2024 event, Cr Kerridge said he feels he made the right decision under the circumstances at the time. "I think it was the right decision, even at the time, I suspected it might end up the way it did, but I was hoping that it wouldn't, but I think had we done anything else, the result would have been a whole lot worse," he said. "Mr Fang is one of the more colourful characters of the Legislative Council, and let's face it, I've been called a whole lot worse." In the same debate, Labor MLC Cameron Murphy described Rising Tide as an "excellent protest group" and said anybody who cares about the environment ought to attend a protest. Liberal MLC Rachel Merton called the group "delinquents", while Greens MLC Sue Higginson praised Rising Tide as the "most honest, colourful, strategic, community-based, grassroots activists of our time". Rising Tide spokeswoman Alexa Stuart said Labor doesn't know whether to applaud them or condemn them because it is deeply divided about the transition away from coal. "Hundreds of ordinary citizens engaging in civil disobedience against coal corporations should serve as a demonstration to Premier [Chris] Minns that he is on the wrong side of history," she said. "Irrespective of NSW Labor's confusing statements, Rising Tide's event application is a matter for the Newcastle community and the Newcastle council to decide." Ms Stuart encouraged Newcastle residents to make a submission on the event application because, she said, it will be "very clear" there is overwhelming support for the protest. "Unless the government stops approving new coal projects and starts funding an urgent transition, the 2025 People's Blockade will go ahead," she said. A City of Newcastle spokesman said that in January, Cr Kerridge requested Rising Tide's event licence be determined by the elected council. "The Local Government Act does not allow staff to make a decision that is contradictory to a resolution of the council," he said. Once submissions close, councillors will consider whether to approve the event, which could include camping and activation of Richardson Park and a concert in Camp Shortland. Rising Tide's application includes the erection of temporary structures, amusement rides, live performances and amplified sound at both Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, along with the provision for camping at the Hamilton North site. The community can email their feedback to events@ until 5pm on June 30. ROSS Kerridge says he's been "called a whole lot worse" after Wagga-based Nationals MLC Wes Fang dubbed him "the gullible mayor of Newcastle" in the midst of a debate around Rising Tide's application to host the 2025 People's Blockade in the city. The Legislative Council called on the City of Newcastle to "refuse any permit applications" from the climate activist group to use council land, including Richardson Park and Foreshore Park, for its planned November event after multiple arrests and a last-minute Supreme Court ruling in 2024. On Wednesday, Mr Fang called out Cr Kerridge for his decision to grant a permit to Rising Tide to camp on Foreshore Park last year. "The Supreme Court prohibited Rising Tide from going into the harbour during the scheduled blockade," Mr Fang said. "However, the gullible mayor of Newcastle, and I suspect Lenin would call him one of the 'useful idiots', believed that Rising Ride would honour its promise and obey police directions. "I observe that the mayor was, I am being generous, deceived last year by Rising Tide. Some would suggest he was aiding and abetting." Mr Fang said the City of Newcastle should "stand firm against those lawbreakers" this year. The 2024 People's Blockade resulted in more than 170 arrests, of whom 133 have pleaded not guilty to serious disruption or obstruction of a major facility. The first four defendants will face trial at Newcastle Local Court in October. The state government attempted to block access to the harbour by imposing an exclusion zone that would have made it off-limits to the public. The Supreme Court found the notice was invalid following an urgent application from Rising Tide in November 2024; however, earlier that month, it ruled in favour of police who moved to have the planned protest deemed an unauthorised assembly. Cr Kerridge drew the ire of his fellow councillors when he used his decision-making powers to grant Rising Tide temporary use of council-owned land for the protestival. This year, Cr Kerridge said he felt it was important for the community to weigh in. "I think we have to recognise that Rising Tide is a complex organisation, and yeah, they don't have a good track record," he said. "Last year, things sort of dragged on, and the decision was made without adequate involvement of the community and then things changed very rapidly at the last minute. "I think we need to have the discussion early and be very clear, very early on, about what's going to happen." Rising Tide recently made an application to the council to use Richardson Park from November 25 to December 25, and Camp Shortland from November 28 to December 1. In response to Mr Fang's remarks about the 2024 event, Cr Kerridge said he feels he made the right decision under the circumstances at the time. "I think it was the right decision, even at the time, I suspected it might end up the way it did, but I was hoping that it wouldn't, but I think had we done anything else, the result would have been a whole lot worse," he said. "Mr Fang is one of the more colourful characters of the Legislative Council, and let's face it, I've been called a whole lot worse." In the same debate, Labor MLC Cameron Murphy described Rising Tide as an "excellent protest group" and said anybody who cares about the environment ought to attend a protest. Liberal MLC Rachel Merton called the group "delinquents", while Greens MLC Sue Higginson praised Rising Tide as the "most honest, colourful, strategic, community-based, grassroots activists of our time". Rising Tide spokeswoman Alexa Stuart said Labor doesn't know whether to applaud them or condemn them because it is deeply divided about the transition away from coal. "Hundreds of ordinary citizens engaging in civil disobedience against coal corporations should serve as a demonstration to Premier [Chris] Minns that he is on the wrong side of history," she said. "Irrespective of NSW Labor's confusing statements, Rising Tide's event application is a matter for the Newcastle community and the Newcastle council to decide." Ms Stuart encouraged Newcastle residents to make a submission on the event application because, she said, it will be "very clear" there is overwhelming support for the protest. "Unless the government stops approving new coal projects and starts funding an urgent transition, the 2025 People's Blockade will go ahead," she said. A City of Newcastle spokesman said that in January, Cr Kerridge requested Rising Tide's event licence be determined by the elected council. "The Local Government Act does not allow staff to make a decision that is contradictory to a resolution of the council," he said. Once submissions close, councillors will consider whether to approve the event, which could include camping and activation of Richardson Park and a concert in Camp Shortland. Rising Tide's application includes the erection of temporary structures, amusement rides, live performances and amplified sound at both Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, along with the provision for camping at the Hamilton North site. The community can email their feedback to events@ until 5pm on June 30. ROSS Kerridge says he's been "called a whole lot worse" after Wagga-based Nationals MLC Wes Fang dubbed him "the gullible mayor of Newcastle" in the midst of a debate around Rising Tide's application to host the 2025 People's Blockade in the city. The Legislative Council called on the City of Newcastle to "refuse any permit applications" from the climate activist group to use council land, including Richardson Park and Foreshore Park, for its planned November event after multiple arrests and a last-minute Supreme Court ruling in 2024. On Wednesday, Mr Fang called out Cr Kerridge for his decision to grant a permit to Rising Tide to camp on Foreshore Park last year. "The Supreme Court prohibited Rising Tide from going into the harbour during the scheduled blockade," Mr Fang said. "However, the gullible mayor of Newcastle, and I suspect Lenin would call him one of the 'useful idiots', believed that Rising Ride would honour its promise and obey police directions. "I observe that the mayor was, I am being generous, deceived last year by Rising Tide. Some would suggest he was aiding and abetting." Mr Fang said the City of Newcastle should "stand firm against those lawbreakers" this year. The 2024 People's Blockade resulted in more than 170 arrests, of whom 133 have pleaded not guilty to serious disruption or obstruction of a major facility. The first four defendants will face trial at Newcastle Local Court in October. The state government attempted to block access to the harbour by imposing an exclusion zone that would have made it off-limits to the public. The Supreme Court found the notice was invalid following an urgent application from Rising Tide in November 2024; however, earlier that month, it ruled in favour of police who moved to have the planned protest deemed an unauthorised assembly. Cr Kerridge drew the ire of his fellow councillors when he used his decision-making powers to grant Rising Tide temporary use of council-owned land for the protestival. This year, Cr Kerridge said he felt it was important for the community to weigh in. "I think we have to recognise that Rising Tide is a complex organisation, and yeah, they don't have a good track record," he said. "Last year, things sort of dragged on, and the decision was made without adequate involvement of the community and then things changed very rapidly at the last minute. "I think we need to have the discussion early and be very clear, very early on, about what's going to happen." Rising Tide recently made an application to the council to use Richardson Park from November 25 to December 25, and Camp Shortland from November 28 to December 1. In response to Mr Fang's remarks about the 2024 event, Cr Kerridge said he feels he made the right decision under the circumstances at the time. "I think it was the right decision, even at the time, I suspected it might end up the way it did, but I was hoping that it wouldn't, but I think had we done anything else, the result would have been a whole lot worse," he said. "Mr Fang is one of the more colourful characters of the Legislative Council, and let's face it, I've been called a whole lot worse." In the same debate, Labor MLC Cameron Murphy described Rising Tide as an "excellent protest group" and said anybody who cares about the environment ought to attend a protest. Liberal MLC Rachel Merton called the group "delinquents", while Greens MLC Sue Higginson praised Rising Tide as the "most honest, colourful, strategic, community-based, grassroots activists of our time". Rising Tide spokeswoman Alexa Stuart said Labor doesn't know whether to applaud them or condemn them because it is deeply divided about the transition away from coal. "Hundreds of ordinary citizens engaging in civil disobedience against coal corporations should serve as a demonstration to Premier [Chris] Minns that he is on the wrong side of history," she said. "Irrespective of NSW Labor's confusing statements, Rising Tide's event application is a matter for the Newcastle community and the Newcastle council to decide." Ms Stuart encouraged Newcastle residents to make a submission on the event application because, she said, it will be "very clear" there is overwhelming support for the protest. "Unless the government stops approving new coal projects and starts funding an urgent transition, the 2025 People's Blockade will go ahead," she said. A City of Newcastle spokesman said that in January, Cr Kerridge requested Rising Tide's event licence be determined by the elected council. "The Local Government Act does not allow staff to make a decision that is contradictory to a resolution of the council," he said. Once submissions close, councillors will consider whether to approve the event, which could include camping and activation of Richardson Park and a concert in Camp Shortland. Rising Tide's application includes the erection of temporary structures, amusement rides, live performances and amplified sound at both Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, along with the provision for camping at the Hamilton North site. The community can email their feedback to events@ until 5pm on June 30. ROSS Kerridge says he's been "called a whole lot worse" after Wagga-based Nationals MLC Wes Fang dubbed him "the gullible mayor of Newcastle" in the midst of a debate around Rising Tide's application to host the 2025 People's Blockade in the city. The Legislative Council called on the City of Newcastle to "refuse any permit applications" from the climate activist group to use council land, including Richardson Park and Foreshore Park, for its planned November event after multiple arrests and a last-minute Supreme Court ruling in 2024. On Wednesday, Mr Fang called out Cr Kerridge for his decision to grant a permit to Rising Tide to camp on Foreshore Park last year. "The Supreme Court prohibited Rising Tide from going into the harbour during the scheduled blockade," Mr Fang said. "However, the gullible mayor of Newcastle, and I suspect Lenin would call him one of the 'useful idiots', believed that Rising Ride would honour its promise and obey police directions. "I observe that the mayor was, I am being generous, deceived last year by Rising Tide. Some would suggest he was aiding and abetting." Mr Fang said the City of Newcastle should "stand firm against those lawbreakers" this year. The 2024 People's Blockade resulted in more than 170 arrests, of whom 133 have pleaded not guilty to serious disruption or obstruction of a major facility. The first four defendants will face trial at Newcastle Local Court in October. The state government attempted to block access to the harbour by imposing an exclusion zone that would have made it off-limits to the public. The Supreme Court found the notice was invalid following an urgent application from Rising Tide in November 2024; however, earlier that month, it ruled in favour of police who moved to have the planned protest deemed an unauthorised assembly. Cr Kerridge drew the ire of his fellow councillors when he used his decision-making powers to grant Rising Tide temporary use of council-owned land for the protestival. This year, Cr Kerridge said he felt it was important for the community to weigh in. "I think we have to recognise that Rising Tide is a complex organisation, and yeah, they don't have a good track record," he said. "Last year, things sort of dragged on, and the decision was made without adequate involvement of the community and then things changed very rapidly at the last minute. "I think we need to have the discussion early and be very clear, very early on, about what's going to happen." Rising Tide recently made an application to the council to use Richardson Park from November 25 to December 25, and Camp Shortland from November 28 to December 1. In response to Mr Fang's remarks about the 2024 event, Cr Kerridge said he feels he made the right decision under the circumstances at the time. "I think it was the right decision, even at the time, I suspected it might end up the way it did, but I was hoping that it wouldn't, but I think had we done anything else, the result would have been a whole lot worse," he said. "Mr Fang is one of the more colourful characters of the Legislative Council, and let's face it, I've been called a whole lot worse." In the same debate, Labor MLC Cameron Murphy described Rising Tide as an "excellent protest group" and said anybody who cares about the environment ought to attend a protest. Liberal MLC Rachel Merton called the group "delinquents", while Greens MLC Sue Higginson praised Rising Tide as the "most honest, colourful, strategic, community-based, grassroots activists of our time". Rising Tide spokeswoman Alexa Stuart said Labor doesn't know whether to applaud them or condemn them because it is deeply divided about the transition away from coal. "Hundreds of ordinary citizens engaging in civil disobedience against coal corporations should serve as a demonstration to Premier [Chris] Minns that he is on the wrong side of history," she said. "Irrespective of NSW Labor's confusing statements, Rising Tide's event application is a matter for the Newcastle community and the Newcastle council to decide." Ms Stuart encouraged Newcastle residents to make a submission on the event application because, she said, it will be "very clear" there is overwhelming support for the protest. "Unless the government stops approving new coal projects and starts funding an urgent transition, the 2025 People's Blockade will go ahead," she said. A City of Newcastle spokesman said that in January, Cr Kerridge requested Rising Tide's event licence be determined by the elected council. "The Local Government Act does not allow staff to make a decision that is contradictory to a resolution of the council," he said. Once submissions close, councillors will consider whether to approve the event, which could include camping and activation of Richardson Park and a concert in Camp Shortland. Rising Tide's application includes the erection of temporary structures, amusement rides, live performances and amplified sound at both Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, along with the provision for camping at the Hamilton North site. The community can email their feedback to events@ until 5pm on June 30.
News.com.au
6 hours ago
- News.com.au
Global Rights Index report shows working standards, wealth dropping at ‘alarming pace'
If you're a multi-millionaire in 2025, things are going great. If you're anyone else, particularly someone who works for a living, the picture isn't so peachy. That's the main takeaway from the International Trade Union Confederation's latest Global Rights Index report, which aims to deliver an annual, broad-strokes analysis on the current issues facing millions of workers across the globe. The report includes 151 countries and declares workers' rights are in 'freefall' across every continent, with Europe and the Americas clocking their worst scores in the index's 11-year history. 'The five richest people in the world more than doubled their wealth over the last five years, while 60 per cent of the population of the world got poorer,' ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle said. 'We are investing nearly US$3 trillion as a world into arms and into weapons and there is unfair taxation.' The Index calls out what it describes as a global trend, where elected leaders (and their backers) are turning on the democratic systems that got them into office. In its crosshairs are names like Elon Musk, Argentine leader Javier Milei, and America's favourite TV star-turned-commander-in-chief Donald Trump. Milei and Trump built strong populist followings as part of the global pushback against the left wing establishment. Their appeal largely came from a rejection of political correctness, an issue both classical left-wingers and rusted-on conservatives were both fed-up by. By effectively capturing the centre at the polls, the 'new right' has solidified its influence on the global stage, promising regular people a prosperous future free from overreach and wasteful bureaucracy. Early reports from the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) painted a picture of endemic corruption to the tune of billions. But there are fears the modern right wing's pursuit to cull back government bloat has tipped the scales against those who voted for them. In the United States, the Trump administration has been accused of dismantling federal labour protections, stripping union rights from 47,000 TSA workers, revoking civil service protections, firing a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and gutting the staff of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Triangle says the damage has only accelerated since March 2025, which was the cut-off point for the data for the latest Global Rights Index report. 'In more and more countries, we have elected leaders that once they are elected democratically, they are taking action against democratic values,' Triangle warned. 'The first target of those leaders in many countries is they attack trade human rights and workers' rights.' While the modern right rallies against authoritarianism in terms of state control, Triangle views their response as its own form of authoritarianism, perpetuated by a cabal of 'unelected billionaire backers'. 'Whether it's Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the US or Javier Milei and Eduardo Eurnekian in Argentina, we see the same playbook of unfairness and authoritarianism in action around the world.' In the ITUC seven of the 151 countries studied earned a top-tier ranking for workers' rights. Three of five global regions saw conditions deteriorate, and 87 per cent of nations violated the right to strike. Access to justice was restricted in 72 per cent of countries surveyed. The ten worst countries for workers were listed as Bangladesh, Belarus, Ecuador, Egypt, Eswatini, Myanmar, Nigeria, the Philippines, Tunisia and Turkey. Australia in rare territory despite struggles Only three countries improved their scores: Australia, Mexico, and Oman. While plagued by rampant cost of living pressures and wage stagnation and an impossible housing market for people just beginning their careers, Australia has some standout policies embedded into our system that guarantee rights that less developed nations can only dream about. Data collated by YCharts shows just how far the average Aussie's disposable income has dropped since the pandemic. But while we haven't got as much cash to throw around, at least we can tell our boss to stick it if they text us on the weekend. The Fair Work Act 2009 established the National Employment Standards (NES), which include 11 minimum entitlements such as maximum weekly hours, annual leave, and parental leave. These standards provide a solid foundation for employee rights in Australia. Australia has also ratified all 10 fundamental International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, becoming the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to do so. And just last year, we introduced the 'right to disconnect', allowing employees to refuse work-related communications outside of normal working hours, provided their refusal is not unreasonable. It's not all doom and gloom The report paints a grim picture of the state of work, but it's not entirely one-sided. The ITUC Index leans heavily on data from more developed and industrialised economies where workers' protections have historically been stronger. In countries with atrocious human rights records, the narrative if shifting, albeit slowly. According to a 2023 World Bank report, global poverty has continued to decline over the past decade, especially in lower-income nations. Living standards have risen in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, largely thanks to targeted development, aid programs and general advancement of technology across the board.
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here's what the law says
On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza?
