Latest news with #IsraeliSupremeCourt
Russia Today
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Netanyahu ordered security service to spy on protestors
The head of Israel's Shin Bet, its domestic intelligence agency, has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of firing him for his refusal to carry out a number of illegal operations, including spying on domestic protestors. Ronen Bar was formally sacked last month, with the official reason cited as a lack of trust and the spy chief's alleged failure to prevent the October 2023 Hamas attack. It marked the first time in Israeli history that a domestic security chief was fired by the government. However, the Israeli Supreme Court has issued an injunction freezing the dismissal. In a 31-page affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on Monday, Bar dismissed the official reason, stating that it 'does not lie in the professional realm but in a demand for personal loyalty' to Netanyahu. He claimed that the Israeli prime minister wanted 'to see the Shin Bet act against citizens involved in protest activity and demonstrations against the government,' with a special focus on monitoring 'protest funders.' According to Bar, he was also told to ignore court rulings in the event of a constitutional crisis and to obey the prime minister. On top on that, Bar claimed he was pressured to help Netanyahu, who faces corruption charges, avoid testifying in the case. At the same time, the Shin Bet head acknowledged the agency's failings ahead of the Israel-Hamas war and indicated he would resign before the end of his term. Netanyahu is on trial in three graft cases, in which he is accused of taking bribes and luxury gifts from media personalities in exchange for furthering their financial interests. The prime minister has denied any wrongdoing. Responding to the affidavit, Netanyahu's office said it was 'full of lies,' adding that Bar had 'failed miserably' in his response to the Hamas attack. Since the Hamas surprise assault, Netanyahu has faced widespread and persistent protests across the country. Many Israelis have accused his government of failing to prevent the deadly incursion and criticized his handling of the Gaza war. Demonstrators, including families of hostages held by Hamas, have demanded Netanyahu's resignation and early elections.
Middle East Eye
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Israeli Supreme Court sets aside law to allow for prosecution of war
At the end of March, the Israeli Supreme Court voted unanimously to dismiss a petition filed by several human rights organisations demanding the resumption of the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. 'I do not believe the petitioners have been able to show, even approximately, a violation of the prohibitions on starvation of the population as a method of warfare and as collective punishment,' the court's president, Yitzhak Amit, who wrote the verdict, ruled. This dismissal has ignited a debate about the role the Supreme Court and the wider pro-judiciary, anti-government movement in Israel is playing in the war on Gaza, with international law and the lives of Palestinians seemingly ignored in favour of the interests of the military and state. Responding to Amit's verdict, the petitioners issued a statement calling the ruling 'a song of praise for the State of Israel and its army during the darkest period in their history. "The Supreme Court refrained from conducting judicial review and fully adopted the state's position, while ignoring the situation and the consequences of the state's actions in the Gaza Strip." New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The ruling came more than a year after the petition was filed. Michael Sfard, a leading Israeli human rights lawyer, told Middle East Eye that given the gravity of the allegations - starving the people of Gaza - the petition should have been decided much earlier. 'The verdict is based on a reality that does not exist' - Michael Sfard, Israeli human rights lawyer "The court was concerned about the accusations that would be levelled against it," Sfard said, referring to instances in which the Israeli government has said the court is obstructing military actions. Israel's decision in early March to block completely the entry of humanitarian aid, to stop providing electricity to Gaza and to renew the war, was ignored by the court. 'The verdict is based on a reality that does not exist,' Sfard said. 'The court rules that Israel must provide humanitarian aid but ignores the lively political discourse around the cessation of humanitarian aid and the reports provided by international organisations.' Right-wing government, liberal Supreme Court? Since the formation of the government in December 2022, Yitzhak Amit, who is considered a liberal judge, has become a target of political attacks from the ruling right-wing coalition as it has gone about trying to overhaul the judicial system. Yariv Levin, the justice minister, refused to recognise Amit's appointment as chief justice, although it was done according to the usual legal process. Last February, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his senior ministers refused to attend Amit's swearing-in ceremony. 'The court's agenda is liberal, but not for the working class or for Palestinians,' Yael Berda, a professor of sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told Middle East Eye. 'The court's agenda is liberal, but not for the working class or for Palestinians' - Yael Berda, Israeli sociologist According to Berda, in its last verdict and similar rulings, the Supreme Court has tried 'to strike a balance between Israel's internal democracy and the undemocratic regime in the Palestinian territories." "The Supreme Court and the attorney general are the ones who try to preserve the Green Line and prevent de jure annexation, but they are not doing it for the sake of Palestinians," Berda said, referring to that 1949 armistice line that separates the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip from Israel. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who have taken to the streets since the beginning of 2023 to "protect Israeli democracy" from the government's judicial overhaul see the Supreme Court and the attorney general as the guardians of democracy. Following another recent attack by Netanyahu on the court, leading anti-government protest organisers appealed to the justices: "Do not bow your head and do not be afraid. The overwhelming majority of Israel's citizens are behind you. If we need to, we will protect you with our own bodies." No room for Palestinians Before the Gaza war, the Supreme Court was even described as a "bulletproof vest" for Israeli army soldiers, protecting them from international investigations by bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. "There is growing opposition in the protest movement to the war in Gaza, but not because they care for Palestinian suffering," said Berda. Gaza genocide: How the hell did this happen, asks Pankaj Mishra Read More » She believes the protesters defending the judiciary want to end the war because it 'does not achieve its goals'. 'It is not important enough for the demonstrators to fight for the protection of Palestinians' lives,' the sociologist told MEE. In the case of the Supreme Court ruling concerning humanitarian aid, "the judges, like many Israelis, live in denial," Berda said. "They tell themselves a story that Israel is abiding by international laws, when it never has.' Sfard notes that the court's ruling fits well with the liberal anti-government protests. 'This is a ruling that ignores the immoral and criminal acts conducted by Israel, while claiming it adheres to democratic values, upholds international law, and integrates into the world order.' The court accepted arguments deployed by the Israeli state, including that Hamas hides among the civilian population of Gaza and uses hospitals as 'terrorism bases', and that the Israeli military does its best not to harm ordinary Palestinians. 'It is customary in the court to give priority to the state's position even when there are contradictions between it and the reports of international organisations,' Sfard said. But in this case, 'there is a contradiction between the state's position and the statements of politicians regarding the blocking of humanitarian aid. The court seems to see its role more as a defender of Israel than as an impartial judge,' Sfard told MEE. A court under pressure According to Berda, the court is in the middle of an internal struggle: 'On the one hand, the government is undermining the credibility of the military bureaucracy, and on the other hand, human rights organisations are doing the same.' Far-right government ministers like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have put pressure on the Israeli military to be even more aggressive. During Israel's war on Gaza, international organisations have warned again and again of the dire humanitarian conditions in the enclave. They have warned of the spread of famine and malnutrition due to a lack of food supplies, the destruction of health infrastructure and the deadly attacks regularly carried out on aid workers and medical personnel. Israel's war on Gaza: What are crimes against humanity? Read More » The Israeli Supreme Court does not deny that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is grave. But, according to Amit, the chief justice, 'the suffering of the civilian population does not in itself attest to a breach of duty on the part of the State of Israel'. Justice Noam Sohlberg, a settler from Alon Shvut in the occupied West Bank, wrote that "humanitarian aid that comes to Hamas as a ripe fruit is an oxymoron. The human becomes animalistic. The fighting cannot come to an end." The third justice on the panel, David Mintz, is also a settler. He agreed with his colleagues' assertions, adding that "according to Jewish law it is customary to distinguish between a war of mitzvah (commandment) and a war of will". In a mitzvah war, "the king does not need to get permission from the court to go to war". "The State of Israel is in the midst of a mitzvah war in the full sense of the word," Mintz wrote. Viewed like this, there is no obligation to "allow the provision of extensive and unlimited aid' into Gaza. Sfard told MEE that Sohlberg and Mintz's assertions "introduce a world of religious terms into a modern legal domain, which is based on moral theory and humanistic ideas". Israel has now killed more than 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza, destroying most of the coastal enclave in the process. Reflecting on the moral theory and humanist ideas underpinning modern law, Sfard said: "International law is intended to prevent the atrocities of antiquity."
Times of Oman
06-04-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Which countries require military service for women?
Copenhagen: Denmark is the latest country to introduce military conscription for women. On March 25, Copenhagen announced that young women who turn 18 after July 1 of this year could be drafted by national lottery starting in January 2026 if the military does not attract enough volunteers. The measure is being put into place two years earlier than planned amid rising geopolitical tensions in Europe. Around 25% of voluntary recruits are currently women, according to the Danish Armed Forces. Compulsory military service, which was already in place for men, lasts between four and 12 months, depending on what recruits decide to do after their three-month basic training. Pioneers of military equality Women are also required to serve in the armed forces in Norway and Sweden. Norway has had universal conscription since January 2015, while in Sweden, conscription was abolished in 2010 and then reactivated in January 2018 to include both men and women aged 18 and over. The duration of military service is between six and 15 months. Around 20% of all military personnel are female. In the Netherlands, conscription also applies to women, although compulsory military service as a whole has been suspended since 1997. Conscription laws in Israel have required women to serve in the armed forces since 1949, though only for two years, while men serve for three. In June 2024, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that ultra-Orthodox Jews, who were previously exempt from this obligation, will now also serve in the military, though this ruling only applies to men. More women recruits in Africa and Asia A significant number of African countries conscript women too. In the East African state of Eritrea, the duration of compulsory military service is 16 months for both men and women. Women are also required to serve in Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mozambique, Cape Verde and Niger. There is also conscription for women in Ivory Coast, though it is not enforced. In Mozambique, the government declared in 2024 that selective compulsory service could be increased from two to up to five years. The Asian countries of Burma, China, East Timor and North Korea also have conscription. In North Korea, women have been required to perform military service since 2015, and the minimum age is 17. Depending on their level of education, this can last several years. In East Timor, compulsory military service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 30 was decided in 2020, with a service period of 18 months. However, it is not clear how the obligation will be implemented. In China, women aged 18 to 19 who have completed school and meet the requirements for certain military professions are subject to compulsory military service.
Al Arabiya
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Oscar-winning Palestinian director speaks at UN on Israeli settlements
Palestinian director Basel Adra, who won an Oscar this year for co-directing a documentary on Israeli violence in the West Bank, sounded the alarm at the UN on Thursday, saying the situation was worsening despite the film's success. Adra was invited to speak by the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at a screening of his film, 'No Other Land.' The documentary chronicles the forced displacement of Palestinians by Israeli troops and settlers in Masafer Yatta, an area Israel declared a restricted military zone in the 1980s. 'I wanted the world to know that we live in this land, that we exist, and to see what we face on daily basis, this brutal occupation,' Adra told the UN. The film depicts events like bulldozers demolishing houses and a school, as well as the provocations by Israeli settlers on Palestinian residents, including those which escalate to violence. After a prolonged legal battle, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2022 in favor of the Israeli army, allowing the expulsion of residents from eight villages in the region. 'Even after winning the Oscar, we went back to the same reality,' Adra said, adding that the situation was 'only changing from worse to worse.' 'Almost every day, there is settlers attacks on Masafer Yatta and all over communities across the West Bank,' Adra continued. Last week, Adra's co-director and fellow Palestinian Hamdan Ballal reported he was attacked by Israeli settlers for winning the Oscar, saying he was detained by Israeli police for 'hurling rocks' at which point he suffered a beating and 'brutality.' Rights groups have said that since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza -- a separate Palestinian territory -- there has been a spike in attacks by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Occupied by Israel since 1967, the West Bank is home to around three million Palestinians, as well as nearly half a million Israelis who live in settlements that are illegal under international law. 'No Other Land,' despite winning a prestigious Oscar, has struggled to find distribution in the United States, screening at only a handful of cinemas.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oscar-winning Palestinian director speaks at UN on Israeli settlements
Palestinian director Basel Adra, who won an Oscar this year for co-directing a documentary on Israeli violence in the West Bank, sounded the alarm at the UN on Thursday, saying the situation was worsening despite the film's success. Adra was invited to speak by the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at a screening of his film, "No Other Land." The documentary chronicles the forced displacement of Palestinians by Israeli troops and settlers in Masafer Yatta -- an area Israel declared a restricted military zone in the 1980s. "I wanted the world to know that we live in this land, that we exist, and to see what we face on daily basis, this brutal occupation," Adra told the UN. The film depicts events like bulldozers demolishing houses and a school, as well as the provocations by Israeli settlers on Palestinian residents -- including those which escalate to violence. After a prolonged legal battle, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2022 in favor of the Israeli army, allowing the expulsion of residents from eight villages in the region. "Even after winning the Oscar, we went back to the same reality," Adra said, adding that the situation was "only changing from worse to worse." "Almost every day, there is settlers attacks on Masafer Yatta and all over communities across the West Bank," Adra continued. Last week, Adra's co-director and fellow Palestinian Hamdan Ballal reported he was attacked by Israeli settlers for winning the Oscar, saying he was detained by Israeli police for "hurling rocks" at which point he suffered a beating and "brutality." Rights groups have said that since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza -- a separate Palestinian territory -- there has been a spike in attacks by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Occupied by Israel since 1967, the West Bank is home to around three million Palestinians, as well as nearly half a million Israelis who live in settlements that are illegal under international law. "No Other Land," despite winning a prestigious Oscar, has struggled to find distribution in the United States, screening at only a handful of cinemas. arb/abd/jgc/st
