The Indo Daily: ‘It's like a sick perversion of Squid Game': Horror in Gaza as tide begins to turn against Netanyahu
It seems as if this escalation has caused a visible collective shift in perspective, with new voices emerging in opposition in recent days.
Emmanuel Macron, for instance, has signalled France's intention to officially recognise a Palestinian state, making it the first G7 country to do so. Keir Starmer has also announced his intentions for the UK to follow suit, unless Israel acts to stop its war.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has directly contradicted Benjamin Netanyahu's assertion that Israel isn't causing extreme hunger in Gaza, labelling the situation in Gaza as 'real starvation stuff' during his televised joint interview with Starmer earlier this week.
On this episode of The Indo Daily, host Kevin Doyle is joined by Gregg Carlstrom, Middle East correspondent with The Economist, and by TRT World presenter Enda Brady, to ask is the world turning on Benjamin Netanyahu? And is there any hope left for those in Gaza?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
4 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Global markets reel from White House's latest tariffs order
Global markets have reeled after US President Donald Trump's latest wave of tariffs against nearly all his country's trading partners as governments face a seven-day deadline before higher duties take effect. Mr Trump announced late Thursday that dozens of economies, including the European Union, will face new tariff rates of between 10 and 41%. However, implementation will be on 7 August rather than Friday as previously announced, the White House said. This gives governments a window to strike deals with Washington setting more favourable conditions. Neighbouring Canada, one of the biggest US trade partners, was hit with 35% levies, up from 25%, effective Friday. But with wide-ranging, current exemptions remain in place. The tariffs are a demonstration of the economic power that Mr Trump believes will put US exporters in a stronger position, while encouraging domestic manufacturing by keeping out foreign imports. But the approach has raised fears of inflation and other economic fallout in the world's biggest economy. Stock markets in Hong Kong, London and New York slumped as they digested the turmoil, while weak US employment data added to worries. Mr Trump ordered the Commissioner of the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics Erika McEntarfer to be fired after the data showed weaker than expected employment growth in July. Mr Trump's actions come as debate rages over how best to steer the US economy, with the Federal Reserve this week deciding to keep interest rates unchanged, despite massive political pressure from the White House to cut. Data yesterday showed US job growth will miss expectations for July, while unemployment ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%. On Wall Street, the S&P 500 dropped 1.6%, while the Nasdaq tumbled 2.2%. Mr Trump raised duties on around 70 economies from a current 10% level imposed in April when he unleashed "reciprocal" tariffs citing unfair trade practices. The new, steeper levels listed in an executive order vary by trading partner. Any goods "transshipped" through other jurisdictions to avoid US duties would be hit with an additional 40% tariff, the order said. But the president's duties have a distinctly political slant, with the president using separate tariffs to pressure Brazil to drop the trial of his far-right ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. He also warned of trade consequences for Canada, which faces a different set of duties, after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. In targeting Canada, the White House cited its failure to "cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs" - although Canada is not a major source of illegal narcotics. By contrast, Mr Trump gave more time to Mexico, delaying for 90 days a threat to increase its tariffs from 25% to 30%. But exemptions remain for a wide range of Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States under an existing North American trade pact. Mr Carney said his government was "disappointed" with the latest rates hike but noted that with exclusions the US average tariff on Canadian goods remains one of the lowest among US trading partners. With questions hanging over the effectiveness of bilateral trade deals struck, including with the EU and Japan, the outcome of Mr Trump's overall plan remains uncertain. "No doubt about it - the executive order and related agreements concluded over the past few months tears up the trade rule book that has governed international trade since World War II," Wendy Cutler, a senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, said. Mr Trump said yesterday that he would consider distributing a tariff "dividend" to Americans. Notably excluded from the latest tariff announcement was China, which is in the midst of negotiations with the United States. Washington and Beijing at one point brought tit-for-tat tariffs to triple-digit levels, but have agreed to temporarily lower these duties and are working to extend their truce. Those who managed to strike deals with the US to avert steeper threatened levies included Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and the European Union.
RTÉ News
5 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Mood shifts on Israel-Gaza, but will it bring change?
There's no doubt the mood has shifted on the Israel-Gaza war. In the past week, three powerful G7 nations - France, the UK and Canada – announced their intention to recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in September. That means four of the five permanent members of the Security Council - the UN's highest decision-making body - will join the more than 140 member states that already recognise Palestine, leaving the United States diplomatically isolated on the issue. With pressure mounting over starvation in Gaza, the United Nations held a major conference this week aimed at reviving the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, a decades-old idea favoured by most of the world, but largely written off as dead in the water - until now. Boycotting the two-day event, the Israeli ambassador called it "a circus" while the US State Department said it was "unproductive and untimely". But even here, in the US, where support for Israel has been an unshakeable article of faith across the political spectrum, but especially in the Republican Party, key allies of President Donald Trump have begun to dissent. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the MAGA congresswoman from Georgia, took to X to voice her opposition to American policy on Israel. "It's the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza," she wrote. That made her the first Republican in Congress to call Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. A handful of Democrats have already used that term. Previously, Ms Taylor Greene introduced an amendment to cut funding for Israel's missile defence system – although that failed to garner any real support in Washington. But outside of Congress, fellow MAGA leaders - including the former White House strategist Steve Bannon and the right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson - have been damning of US policy in the Middle East, seeing it at odds with their "America First" doctrine. Mr Bannon – though still a staunch supporter of Israel – has little time for the current prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he once called a "bald-faced liar". Mr Carlson criticised US aid to Israel, arguing the money would be better spent at home to tackle the opioid epidemic, among other domestic crises. He also slammed the recent Israeli airstrike on a Catholic Church in Gaza City. "They're not allowed to use my tax dollars to bomb churches," he told a US podcast. "I'll put up with a lot of stuff, but I don't understand how any Christian leader in the United States can sit by and not say something about that," he said. Scepticism of American involvement in "forever wars" is certainly a hallmark of the MAGA movement. Indeed, last year, ahead of the election that returned Mr Trump to power, I reported from his rally at New York's iconic Madison Square Gardens. During an Israel-focused speech beamed onto the giant outdoor screen, a man in the crowd shouted, "why are you talking about Israel – what about America?". In another post on X this week, Ms Greene pressed that case. "Most Americans that I know don't hate Israel and we are not antisemitic at all," she wrote. "We are beyond fed up with being told that we have to fix the world's problems, pay for the world's problems, and fight all the world's wars while Americans are struggling to survive even though they work every day". Then there is President Trump himself, who this week made headlines when he contradicted Mr Netanyahu's denial of starvation in Gaza. Asked if he agreed with Mr Netanyahu's assessment, Mr Trump said: "Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry". "They have to get food and safety right now," he added. The following day, a UN-backed report found that the "worst-case" famine scenario was unfolding across Gaza. Mr Trump dispatched his Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee to inspect aid distribution sites run by American contractors under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF sites, set up to replace UN aid distribution networks which the US and Israel said were hijacked by Hamas, have become the scene of near-daily mass killings of starving Palestinians, prompting international outrage. The French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, co-chairing this week's conference, called it a "bloodbath". Last weekend, a group of Democratic senators wrote to the US Secretary of State Marc Rubio urging him to "immediately cease" all US funding for GHF and resume support for UN-led operations, with increased oversight. Adding to the pressure, a former US contractor with GHF gave an interview to the BBC saying that in his entire career, he had "never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate and unnecessary force against a civilian population, an unarmed, starving population". Anthony Aguilar, a United States Army veteran, dismissed by the GHF as a disgruntled ex-employee, continued to speak out on US and international media platforms. Gaza aid today, he said, was like The Hunger Games. 'Turning point' With the mood apparently shifting in Washington and across the world, diplomats gathered for the UN's two-state solution conference this week feeling like the momentum was behind them. "It can and must serve as a decisive turning point," the UN Secretary General António Guterres said in his opening remarks. "One that catalyses irreversible progress towards ending the occupation and realising our shared aspiration for a viable two-state solution," he said. The sentiment was echoed over the following two days and the conference's final declaration won more support than diplomats initially expected. The ambitious seven-page document called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, recognition of Palestine by countries that have not yet done so, normalisation of relations with Israel, the disarmament of Hamas, and a commitment to a political solution with the Palestinian Authority, subject to major reforms in control of Gaza and the West Bank. Significantly, it was the first time a UN document, signed by Arab nations, officially condemned the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October, 2023. But two critical players – Israel and the United States – were not there. In their absence, was this a case of the UN shouting into the void? I asked Mary Robinson, former president and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at a news conference on Monday. She said that she felt real pressure in the conference room that the world had to move forward. "I think that can't be ignored, even by a powerful United States supporting Israel, the current Israeli government," she said, adding, "they particularly can't ignore the widespread sense now of an unfolding genocide and the starvation of children, of women, pregnant women". This could be the point of realisation, she said, that the US "is becoming complicit in a genocide". "That could be enough," she said. It is certainly true that Americans' support for Israel's military campaign has waned. A recent Gallup poll showed just a third of US citizens polled backed Israel's actions in Gaza – the lowest since November 2023. It is also worth noting, as an aside, that New York could be on the brink of electing as mayor Zohran Mamdani – an outspoken critic of Israel's military assault on Gaza, who has said he would arrest Mr Netanyahu were he to come to the city. On Monday, the UN conference's co-chair Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, was upbeat about the prospects of finding common ground with the White House. After all, it was Mr Trump who brokered the Abraham Accords during his first term – a deal to normalise relations between Israel and the Arab states of United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. "I think we've all heard President Trump statements on many occasions that he is a man of peace, that he is someone who opposes war, and he is a humanitarian," Mr bin Farhan Al Saud told reporters at the conference. He said he believed US engagement, especially the engagement of President Trump, could be a "catalyst for an end to the immediate crisis in Gaza and potentially a resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict In the long term". Saudi Arabia's eventual sign-up to the accords was always the big prize for Mr Trump. But the Saudi foreign minister made it clear this week that there would be no negotiation on the matter, without an end to the war and the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Saudis certainly have a good deal of leverage in Washington. But then, so does Mr Netanyahu. Some experts remain sceptical that the shift in mood will yield any real change. "I think we've reached a turning point in terms of perceptions of the war, and I think a tipping point in the coverage of the catastrophe," Michael Hanna, US Programme Director at the International Crisis Group, an NGO aimed at conflict prevention. "I'm not yet sure that that is going to fully translate into a change in policy," he added. He said there was always a gulf between public opinion and the political class in the US. "That gap is shrinking in some respects - we see a rise in criticism," he said. "Again, criticism is not the same as policy shift". Ms Greene, for example, was largely alone in Congress on the Republican side, he said. Indeed, while the week started with Mr Trump sympathising with the plight of hungry Palestinians, by Thursday, he was issuing barely veiled threats against Canada over its intention to recognise a Palestinian State. The State Department also announced sanctions against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organisation on Thursday, which means members will be unable to travel to the US for the UN General Assembly in September. As for diplomatic isolation at the UN, that is something the US is prepared to bear, Mr Hanna told RTÉ News. "It is notable when the isolation also encompasses other Western members of the permanent five, UK and France, so maybe it's magnified isolation. "But the US has been willing to endure that isolation for a very long time, so it's not clear that that is particularly uncomfortable," he said. A lot hinges on President Trump's own views of course, and it is anyone's guess what he will decide next. His approach to the Middle East has been "all over the map," Mr Hanna said. There have been moments of tension between Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu, he added. "There were direct contacts with Hamas, which I think shocked the Israelis," he said, "then the U-turn on the Yemen campaign". Mr Trump abruptly declared an end to the bombing of Houthi rebel group positions in May. "And then, of course, then another big shift on intervention in Iran," he said in reference to the US joining Israel's bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear sites in a surprise move in June. The flip-flopping continued this week, when President Trump initially said he had "no view" on the matter, when the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK's intention to recognise the State of Palestine. But within hours, Mr Trump had labelled recognition "a reward for Hamas". Amid all the rhetoric and noise, Mr Hanna said, the point is that there is "still no ceasefire in Gaza".
Irish Examiner
11 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: ICC justice for Netanyahu? Maybe not — but the arrest warrant still changes everything
In school, most of us learned about The Hague the way one learns about algebra or Shakespeare — with begrudging reverence. A solemn Dutch city, home to two of the most formidable-sounding institutions ever cooked up by the sober minds of the post-Second World War West — the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). One for disputes between states. The other for the monsters among us — war criminals, genocidaires, and heads of state with more skeletons than mistresses. But lately, those halls of justice have grown quiet. The problem isn't just that people have stopped listening to the verdicts. It's as if they've stopped pretending to care at all. If all the courts can do is issue warrants nobody will enforce, then what is the point? Last year, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, tied to Israel's genocide in Gaza. We know by now who said what, but it's instructive to go back in time a little, and learn that none of what we heard came as a surprise. In March 2021, the ICC formally launched an investigation into alleged violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, covering actions by Israel and Hamas dating back to 2014. The investigation focused on alleged war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The announcement triggered strong, sharply divided reactions from governments, human rights organisations, and legal observers. Israel, unsurprisingly, strongly condemned the ICC's decision. Netanyahu called it 'the essence of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy', further citing that the ICC had no jurisdiction, as Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute (the founding treaty of the ICC), and that Palestine, in Israel's view, is not a sovereign state capable of delegating jurisdiction. The Israeli government doubled down, vowing to protect its military personnel and refuse co-operation. The Palestinian Authority (the much-maligned Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the Israeli-occupied West Bank) welcomed the decision as a long-awaited step toward justice, calling it 'a historic day for the principle of accountability'. It viewed it as international recognition of its right to seek legal redress for Israeli actions. The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Two decades on, the court has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Picture: AP The US, under the Biden administration at that point, strongly opposed the ICC investigation. Then US secretary of state Antony Blinken said: 'We firmly oppose and are deeply disappointed by the ICC prosecutor's announcement.' Washington took the opportunity to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to 'self-defence' and echoed concerns over jurisdiction. So, although president Biden had lifted Trump-era sanctions on the ICC, the administration remained hostile to this investigation. In Europe, reactions ranged from the technical (Germany and Hungary opposed on jurisdictional grounds) to tentative support (France and Belgium respected the court's independence, even if they had concerns). It is important to note that the 2021 investigation pre-dated October 2023 by over two years, and while no arrest warrants were issued at that point, it marked a turning point in international law regarding how Israel would be treated in its ongoing occupation of Palestine, and its military operations therin. In essence, the reactions in 2021were just an appetiser for those that followed the May 2024 decision that 'there were reasonable grounds' to believe Netanyahu, Gallant, and several Hamas officials had committed international crimes since October 7. On that basis, the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif (later withdrawn after reports of his death). Israel, if it were so inclined to take heed, had been warned by the ICC in 2021. It ploughed on regardless. Today, in August 2025, Netanyahu isn't in a holding cell. Neither is Vladimir Putin, who had his own ICC warrant slapped on his name last year. Sudan's Omar al-Bashir evaded capture for over a decade despite indictments and a passport that read like a serial offender's travel diary. The ICC shouts into the void, and the void responds with billions of dollars of military aid and state dinners. So what went wrong? Or perhaps more honestly, was it ever really right? The roots of these courts are noble, born from the most ignoble chapters of human history. After the unthinkable horrors of the Holocaust, the international community collectively said 'never again'. The Nuremberg Trials in 1945 introduced the novel idea that even heads of state could be held accountable. The precedent gave rise to the ICJ in 1945, the UN's 'principal judicial organ', meant to settle disputes between countries. Think of it as marriage counselling for nations with nuclear weapons. Then, in 2002, came the ICC — a separate body entirely. Born of the Rome Statute, it was designed to prosecute individuals for four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the elusive crime of aggression, which sounds like something out of a philosophy exam paper. The ICC was supposed to be the last line of defence for victims when national courts were unwilling or unable to act. A legal lighthouse amid stormy seas. But there were always caveats. Big ones. The US, China, and Russia never ratified the Rome Statute. Israel signed it but later 'unsigned' it — an act that should be impossible, but like many things in geopolitics, defies logic. Without these major players on board, the ICC became a court with jurisdiction over everyone except the people most likely to ignore it. So, how is the ICC doing two decades on? It has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Critics have long accused the court of selective justice, a phrase that sounds like something from a dystopian menu: 'Would you like your international law with or without hypocrisy?' Emergency services personnel work to extinguish a fire following a Russian attack in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Picture: Ukrainian Emergency Service via AP Meanwhile, the ICJ, for its part, has presided over more than 180 disputes, many of them relating to maritime boundaries. It has done admirable work in the dry, academic realm of state-to-state conflict resolution. But unlike the ICC, the ICJ can't issue arrest warrants or hold individuals responsible. It depends on voluntary compliance. That's a bit like having a referee at a boxing match who can only politely ask you to stop punching. Despite their apparent impotence, there is an argument that if neither court existed, you'd invent them both tomorrow. 'Both the ICJ and ICC have major political impact, that perhaps supersedes any ability it lacks to follow through on arrest warrants,' argues Maryam Jamshidi, an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School. 'The legal arguments the ICJ and ICC are making remain the most effective way to shut down any discussion that what Israel is doing is anything other than war crimes.' There is huge symbolism, too, in those who are bringing the cases to the courts, and those who are rejecting them. 'The construct of contemporary international law is, in and of itself, very much a product of the West and Western interests. But over time, especially since decolonisation after the Second World War, the Global South has asserted its role and place in holding actors accountable. 'This moment — with Israel's crimes in Palestine front and centre — is a moment that the Global South is shaping. It is holding a mirror to the West. How we think about genocide, how we think about occupation and colonisation. That is incredibly important. If international law is to have a future, the Global South needs to continue to lead the way, because the Global South understands better than anyone.' Last year, ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Picture: AP So here we are. Two international courts, plenty of legal muscle on paper, but little in the way of teeth when it comes to the powerful. They can indict. They can admonish. But increasingly, they cannot compel. 'Yes,' Jamshidi agrees, 'but the courts are a critical weapon in a wider ideological war. They use sound legal arguments to shape the narrative and apply political pressure. The most significant aspect of the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant was that they were the first issued for 'Western' leaders. That's not nothing.' Power has shifted. The UN Security Council, still stuck in 1945 with its five permanent members, can't agree on lunch, never mind accountability. Multipolarity has returned, and with it, a jostling of narratives. Everyone's got a skeleton to show, and no one wants to open the closet. And yet, the need for justice hasn't disappeared. If anything, it's more acute. In Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine, in Myanmar, real people continue to pay the price for the hubris and avarice of their leaders. The legal frameworks exist. The moral arguments are clear. But the enforcement mechanisms are laughably absent. What's next? So what comes next? Some argue for regional courts — African, Asian, or European criminal tribunals, more culturally and politically embedded, less burdened by the Global North-South mistrust. Others speak of truth and reconciliation commissions, like those pioneered in South Africa, which trade prosecution for collective healing. There's also the tech-utopian fantasy: AI-driven evidence collection, blockchain-protected war crime registries, crowdsourced justice via global citizen tribunals. But these ideas, while shiny, are fraught with their own dangers and easily co-opted. Realistically, what we may see is a shift toward informal legitimacy over formal legality. Sanctions, visa bans, public shaming, asset freezes — none of these are justice in the Nuremberg sense, but they may be the closest we get in a world where power trumps process. Perhaps, too, we must rethink what justice looks like. Less about punishment, more about prevention. Less about dragging leaders to The Hague, more about making it politically impossible for them to commit atrocities in the first place. That's a long road. It involves education, diplomacy, and strengthening domestic institutions. But then, so did the building of these courts. What, then, will we teach our children? There's a bench in The Hague. It sits silently beneath a row of flags and beside the empty dock where tyrants are supposed to face their reckoning. Today, it feels like theatre — well-meaning theatre, perhaps, but theatre all the same. A performance of justice rather than its practice. And yet, something nags at the conscience. That small, stubborn belief that laws matter. That truth has weight. That even in an age of polarisation and propaganda, the idea of accountability shouldn't die so easily. Maybe the ICC is failing. Maybe the ICJ is ignored. But the alternative isn't attractive, and perhaps, as Jamshidi argues, the symbolism of its rulings and the discomfort those rulings impart outweigh the futility of its warrants.
