Houthis Hint at Undermining Griffiths’ Peace Efforts in Yemen

Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam
Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam
TT

Houthis Hint at Undermining Griffiths’ Peace Efforts in Yemen

Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam
Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam

The Houthi militias have hinted at undermining the efforts of United Nations envoy to Yemen Martin Griffiths following “cautious optimism” expressed by the UN on possible solutions to the country’s war.

Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam has reiterated the group’s conditions on UN-sponsored talks with Yemen's legitimate government.

The insurgents demand halting hostilities, and lifting the ban on Sanaa airport and the monitoring of Houthi-run ports, he said on his Twitter account.

He stressed that this is “the only way to initiate any discussion in safe and quiet conditions.”

Although the Arab Coalition declared a two-week ceasefire that started in Yemen on Thursday, Houthis have continued their escalation of fighting on most fronts.

Abdul-Salam claimed that the Coalition was not serious about the ceasefire.

“The Security Council would have issued a clear resolution to stop the war and lift the unjust siege had this ceasefire decision been serious,” he said.

His tweets were in reference to the statement issued by the Security Council on Friday, in which it welcomed the Arab Coalition’s unilateral ceasefire in Yemen and called on the Houthis to respond similarly.

Griffiths said on Friday he has sent revised proposals to Yemeni rivals as part of his efforts to resolve the country’s crisis amid the threats paused by the COVID-19 disease.

“Today, I shared with the parties revised proposals for agreements on a nationwide ceasefire; economic and humanitarian measures to alleviate Yemenis' suffering, build confidence between parties and help Yemen respond to COVID-19; and resuming the political process urgently,” Griffiths’ office wrote on Twitter.

The UN envoy said the proposed agreements are balanced, reflect the principle interests of all parties, and represent an actual, inclusive package helping Yemen avoid violence and past suffering and take a historical step towards peace.

He urged the parties to accept the proposed agreements without delay, and begin working together through a formal political process to comprehensively end the war.



UN Court Opinion Due on Occupied Palestinian Land

People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)
People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)
TT

UN Court Opinion Due on Occupied Palestinian Land

People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)
People in front of the Peace Palace ahead of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on a request from South Africa for emergency measures for Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, 26 January 2024. (EPA)

The UN's top court will on Friday hand down its view on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967, amid growing international pressure over the war in Gaza.
Any opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would be non-binding, but it comes amid mounting concern over Israel's war against Hamas sparked by the group's brutal October 7 attacks.
A separate high-profile case brought before the court by South Africa alleges that Israel has committed genocidal acts during its Gaza offensive.
Judges will read their findings at 1300 GMT at the opulent Peace Palace in The Hague, the home of the ICJ.
The UN's General Assembly asked the ICJ in late 2022 to give an "advisory opinion" on the "legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem".
The ICJ held a week-long session in February to hear submissions from countries following the request -- supported by most countries within the Assembly.
Most speakers too during the hearings called on Israel to end its 57-year occupation. They warned a prolonged occupation posed an "extreme danger" to stability in the Middle East and beyond.
But the United States said Israel should not be legally obliged to withdraw without taking its "very real security needs" into account.
Israel did not take part in the oral hearings.
Instead, it submitted a written contribution in which it described the questions the court had been asked as "prejudicial" and "tendentious".
'Ongoing violation'
The General Assembly has asked the ICJ to consider two questions.
Firstly, the court should examine the legal consequences of what the UN called "the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".
This relates to the "prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" and "measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem".
In June 1967, Israel crushed some of its Arab neighbors in a six-day war, seizing the West Bank including east Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.
Israel then began to settle the 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) of seized Arab territory.
The UN later declared the occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and Cairo regained Sinai under its 1979 peace deal with Israel.
The ICJ has also been asked to look into the consequences of what it described as Israel's "adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures".
Secondly, the ICJ should advise on how Israel's actions "affect the legal status of the occupation" and what are the consequences for the UN and other countries.
The ICJ rules in disputes between states. Normally, its judgements are binding although it has little means to enforce them.
In this case however, the opinion it issues will be non-binding, although most advisory opinions are in fact acted upon.