Is the international community finally speaking up about Israel?
In the last few weeks, Israeli government ministers have been sanctioned by several Western countries, with the United Kingdom, France and Canada issuing a joint statement condemning the 'intolerable' level of 'human suffering' in Gaza.
Earlier this week, a number of countries from the Global South, 'The Hague Group', collectively agreed on a number of measures that they say will 'restrain Israel's assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories'.
Across the world, and in increasing numbers, the public, politicians and, following an Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza, religious leaders are speaking out against Israel's killings in Gaza.
So, are world powers getting any closer to putting enough pressure on Israel for it to stop?
Here's what we know.
According to its website, the Hague Group is a global bloc of states committed to 'coordinated legal and diplomatic measures' in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Made up of eight nations; South Africa, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal, the group has set itself the mission of upholding international law, and safeguarding the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, principally 'the responsibility of all nations to uphold the inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, that it enshrines for all peoples'.
Earlier this week, the Hague Group hosted a meeting of some 30 nations, including China, Spain and Qatar, in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Also attending the meeting was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who characterised the meeting as 'the most significant political development in the past 20 months'.
Albanese was recently sanctioned by the United States for her criticism of its ally, Israel.
At the end of the two-day meeting, 12 of the countries in attendance agreed to six measures to limit Israel's actions in Gaza. Included in those measures were blocks on supplying arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting weapons and a review of public contracts for any possible links to companies benefiting from Israel's occupation of Palestine.
More and more.
On Wednesday, Slovenia barred far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from entering its territory after the wider European Union failed to agree on measures to address charges of widespread human rights abuses against Israel.
Slovenia's ban on the two government ministers builds upon earlier sanctions imposed upon Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in June by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and Norway over their 'incitement to violence'. The two men have been among the most vocal Israeli ministers in rejecting any compromise in negotiations with Palestinians, and pushing for the Jewish settlement of Gaza, as well as the increased building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
In May, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement describing Israel's escalation of its campaign against Gaza as 'wholly disproportionate' and promising 'concrete actions' against Israel if it did not halt its offensive.
Later that month, the UK followed through on its warning, announcing sanctions on a handful of settler organisations and announcing a 'pause' in free trade negotiations with Israel.
Also in May, Turkiye announced that it would block all trade with Israel until the humanitarian situation in Gaza was resolved.
South Africa first launched a case for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late December 2023, and has since been supported by other countries, including Colombia, Chile, Spain, Ireland, and Turkiye.
In January of 2024, the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, finding what it termed a 'plausible' case for genocide and instructing Israel to undertake emergency measures, including the provision of the aid that its government has effectively blocked since March of this year.
Israel's bombing on Thursday of the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, killing three people, drew a rare rebuke from Israel's most stalwart ally, the United States.
Following what was reported to be an 'angry' phone call from US President Trump after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a statement expressing its 'deep regret' over the attack.
To date, Israel has killed more than 58,000 people in Gaza, the majority women and children.
Mass public protests against Israel's war on Gaza have continued around the world throughout its duration.
And there are clear signs of growing anger over the brutality of the war and the toll it is taking on Palestinians in Gaza.
In Western Europe, a survey carried out by the polling company YouGov in June found that net favourability towards Israel had reached its lowest ebb since tracking began.
A similar poll produced by CNN this week found similar results among the American public, with only 23 percent of respondents agreeing Israel's actions in Gaza were fully justified, down from 50 percent in October 2023.
Public anger has also found voice at high-profile public events, including music festivals such as Germany's Fusion Festival, Poland's Open'er Festival and the UK's Glastonbury festival, where both artists and their supporters used their platforms to denounce the war on Gaza.
Protests against the war remain small but are growing, with organisations, such as Standing Together, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian activists to protest the war.
There has also been a growing number of reservists refusing to show up for duty. In April, the Israeli magazine +972 reported that more than 100,000 reservists had refused to show up for duty, with open letters from within the military protesting the war growing in number since.
Netanyahu's hard-right coalition has been pursuing its war on Gaza despite its domestic and international unpopularity for some time.
The government's most recent proposal, that all of Gaza's population be confined into what it calls a 'humanitarian city', but has been likened to a concentration camp and has been taken by many of its critics as evidence that it no longer cares about either international law or global opinion.
Internationally, despite its recent criticism of Israel for its bombing of Gaza's one Catholic church, US support for Israel remains resolute. For many in Israel, the continued support of the US, and President Donald Trump in particular, remains the one diplomatic absolute they can rely upon to weather whatever diplomatic storms their actions in Gaza may provoke.
In addition to that support, which includes diplomatic guarantees through the use of the US veto in the United Nations Security Council and military support via its extensive arsenal, is the US use of sanctions against Israel's critics, such as the International Criminal Court, whose members were sanctioned in June after it issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on war crimes charges.
That means, in the short term, Israel ultimately feels protected as long as it has US support. But as it becomes more of an international pariah, economic and diplomatic isolation may become more difficult to handle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Why are so many Palestinian religious sites under attack by Israel?
Gaza's only Catholic church has been hit and Muslim cemeteries have been desecrated. Israel has bombed Gaza's only Catholic church – the latest religious site hit in the war. Hundreds of mosques were also damaged or destroyed, and cemeteries were obliterated, too. In the occupied West Bank, attacks on Christians and Muslims are increasing. Why is this happening? Presenter: James Bays Guests: Reverend Mitri Raheb – Lutheran pastor and president of Dar al-Kalima University Moataz El Fegiery – Vice president of EuroMed Rights Michael Lynk – Professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at Western University
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Do Africa's leaders have a ‘game plan' to deal with Trump?
Former African Union diplomat Arikana Chihombori argues that Trump's Africa policy is 'a step in the right direction'. Africa's leaders have no one to blame but themselves if they cannot reach equitable trade deals with the United States, argues the former representative of the African Union to the US, Arikana Chihombori-Quao. Chihombori-Quao tells host Steve Clemons that US President Donald Trump's 'trade, not aid' policy opens up 'an opportunity that African leaders were not awarded by the colonisers, the European nations, when they set out to exploit the continent of Africa'. She adds that African leaders should not allow themselves to be bullied by Trump, 'because he has what you need, you also have what he wants'.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran in the Israeli Calculus: What Comes Next?
At the end of its 12-day campaign against Iran in June 2025, Israel revised its strategic calculations based on key national security objectives: eliminating the Iranian nuclear project, undermining Iran's regional influence and destroying its missile power, and bringing down the Iranian regime or at least hastening its collapse. Estimates of the damage sustained by Iran's nuclear programme vary widely, but the consensus is that it was not irrevocably incapacitated. After the ceasefire, the Iranian leadership pledged to continue uranium enrichment and suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which it accused of failing to honour its obligations. The departure of IAEA staff from Iran and the suspension of its periodic reports compromises the ability of Tel Aviv and Washington to monitor the status of Iran's nuclear programme. In response, the Israeli leadership will likely exaggerate the threat to lay the groundwork for a new attack. Both Israel and the United States will also likely attempt to build a UN consensus for severe sanctions on Iran to force renewed IAEA inspections, though Russia and China could thwart their attempts to secure a resolution in the UN Security Council. In terms of the conventional military balance between the two countries, the war revealed Israel's military edge. Israel carried out sophisticated intelligence operations that allowed it to act freely within Iranian territory and gave it near-total air supremacy in Iranian skies. The Axis of Resistance was shown to be severely fragmented and largely ineffective, while Israel's own defence system proved highly effective, intercepting 60–90 percent of Iranian missiles. Despite this disparity, Iran's missile strikes inflicted heavy losses on Israel, with estimates indicating that 77 of the 550 missiles hit their targets, and Israel's air defences lost effectiveness with time. Though presently weakened, the Axis of Resistance remains capable of inflicting harm on US and Israeli interests in the region. As for Israel's goal of regime change, the war exposed the unreality of its expectations. Despite Israeli appeals urging Iranians to liberate themselves, there were no anti-regime protests, and, in fact, most Iranians rallied in defence of their country, seeing the attack on nuclear facilities as unprovoked aggression. Given that Israel was unable to completely eliminate perceived Iranian threats to its national security, it is expected to continue pursuing its goals. New assaults are unlikely in the near future because it needs to assess the impact of its attacks on nuclear facilities, replenish its stock of interceptor missiles, and coordinate with the US, all of which will take time, especially considering the depletion of the US's own stock of THAAD interceptors. These obstacles may spur Israel to focus on intelligence and cyber operations, which have proven effective against the nuclear programme in the past. It may also act to weaken pro-Iranian armed factions, especially Hezbollah, to prevent their resurgence. In parallel, it may seek to isolate Iran regionally by expanding normalisation agreements in the region, betting on its successful deterrence of Iran to bring Arab states on board. But the outcome of the war makes this unlikely. Israel needed direct US intervention to defend itself, and it is unclear whether Israel was capable of continuing or ending the war on its own. Iranian missiles also proved increasingly effective in penetrating advanced Israeli defence systems. If Iran found itself without better options, it might shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would harm everyone. In the medium term, Israel will adapt to Iranian behaviour. If Iran proceeds with uranium enrichment with the goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, Israel will again attempt to thwart it with further attacks on nuclear facilities. The cost for Israel, however, will be steeper because Iran will have corrected its own shortcomings exposed by the war and will certainly continue to develop its ballistic missiles. It will also move its nuclear facilities to highly fortified mountainous areas inaccessible to Israeli or US warplanes. If Israel cannot disrupt the nuclear programme, it will prioritise the overthrow of the Iranian regime, which would entail more assassinations of political, military and security leaders, and the sabotage of communications, electricity and water networks with the aim of fomenting chaos and thereby weakening the regime's ability to control the street. In the final analysis, the 12-day war brought the confrontation between Israel and Iran out of the shadows and into the open. Unless both sides radically change their perceptions of the nature of external threats, the most recent confrontation will be a prelude to future rounds or a long-term war.
