© The Cradle
On 4 January, Israeli reservist Yuval Vagdani and his friends had to abruptly end their "dream vacation" in Brazil and escape to neighboring Argentina under cover of darkness. The local Israeli embassy had been tipped off that the federal court in Brasilia was preparing an arrest warrant against Vagdani for war crimes committed during his tour of duty with the Givati Brigade in the north of Gaza.
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reportedly played a critical role in helping Vagdani escape prosecution, violating Brazilian sovereignty by arranging for him to be smuggled out of Morro de Sao Paulo in the state of Bahia, into Argentina, and from there to Miami before eventually landing back in Israel.
A few days before his late-night escape, Brazilian judicial authorities were presented with a 500-page report that collected Vagdani's own social media posts as evidence of his crimes. In these, the Israeli reservist gleefully presents himself planting explosives and detonating entire residential buildings in the north of Gaza, where the Israeli army spent months killing tens of thousands of Palestinians and destroying nearly all civilian infrastructure.
Although his crimes were not committed in Brazil, which is a state signatory to international treaties such as the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute, the country adhered to its legal responsibility to investigate and take the appropriate judicial action.
The Brazilian court case became a landmark in the global fight against impunity for Israeli soldiers and officials who are responsible for the world's first-ever live-streamed genocide. Over recent months, dozens of similar complaints have been filed in many nations worldwide. From Sri Lanka to Thailand, from Sweden to Ecuador, individual Israeli soldiers find themselves in the bullseye of a global battle being waged inside national courts.
Leading this fight is the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), a Belgium-based NGO launched in September 2024 as an offshoot of the March 30 Movement. Named after six-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, who was gruesomely murdered by Israeli troops in Gaza City a year ago, HRF has sent shockwaves through the Israeli security and political apparatus, forcing its authorities to implement new measures to conceal the identities of troop members of all ranks, and issue official guidelines on how to avoid arrest while traveling abroad.
As Israeli forces shift focus to the occupied West Bank, HRF remains steadfast in its mission, filing war crimes complaints in jurisdictions worldwide and forcing Israeli soldiers to evade travel or risk arrest.
HRF Chairman Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-Belgian international law specialist, recently spoke with The Cradle in an exclusive interview about the foundation's work, the support it has received from around the world, and the threats Israeli authorities have publicly lobbed against him and the foundation.
(This interview has been edited for length and clarity)
The Cradle: What drives the HRF's strategy of targeting individual Israeli soldiers? What is the foundation's ultimate goal?
Jahjah: When genocide or crimes against humanity occur, there is a global need for justice and accountability, not only from victims but also from those in solidarity with them. Like many others, I was deeply impacted by witnessing the level of impunity displayed by the Israelis, who were not only committing these crimes but also recording and posting them on social media, acting as if they were above any legal framework.
These provocations led to discussions and an agreement with people around me almost 15 months ago that something needed to be done. Our main goal is to end impunity and create some form of accountability for these criminals.
We began filing cases in November 2023, one month after the genocide started, via the March 30 Movement. We noticed that, while there is an emphasis on international law when war crimes are committed, this type of law is often constrained by geopolitical considerations and subject to the whims of states and powerful individuals.
Additionally, it tends to be quite slow to work. So we decided to circumvent that and go straight to national law because countries may choose to enforce international law or not, but no self-respecting nation will disregard its own court system. Given that the March 30 Movement has a broader scope, we decided to form an organization that is part of the movement but focuses exclusively on litigation. Thus, the Hind Rajab Foundation was born.
The Cradle: Which jurisdictions do you think will be most effective in prosecuting these cases? Have you seen pressure exerted by Israel's powerful allies on the jurisdictions where complaints have been filed?
Jahjah: There are two kinds of cases we are fighting. You have the cases against dual nationals who have been participating in the genocide in Gaza. And then you have cases against visiting soldiers, of whom we don't know whether they have other nationalities, but we know that they have been committing war crimes, and they travel abroad mostly for tourism.
Our primary strategy is to focus on dual nationals because, unlike traveling soldiers, we have the time to build in-depth cases against them.
When a soldier visits a country like Cyprus or Brazil, we can file complaints because these countries are signatories of the Rome Statute. We believe their entry activates the country's jurisdiction and gives it the responsibility to act.
Some countries resent this approach, wanting to avoid accountability as required by the Statute. We must push them to accept jurisdiction, which can be challenging but sometimes works, as in Cyprus and Brazil, where Israeli authorities were forced to smuggle their soldiers out.
There are always differences between countries. In some, there is total neglect; they tell us, "We are not going to act," particularly regarding visiting soldiers. For dual nationals, such as Spanish nationals, Spain cannot claim a lack of jurisdiction.
For example, authorities in Barcelona initially dismissed our complaint against a Spanish-Israeli soldier, but under the Rome Statute, they become obligated to act. If a Spanish national is involved, Spain can't claim it lacks jurisdiction; this isn't any longer a case about universal jurisdiction, which many states resist to avoid diplomatic conflicts.
For dual citizens, jurisdiction is clearly defined by national law, making their cases the most likely to result in convictions.
The Cradle: How does HRF track these soldiers and move so quickly to file complaints?
Jahja: While I cannot disclose all details - so as not to provide the other side with insights into our operations - I can say that we rely on open-source intelligence, particularly social media. We are not law enforcement and do not track people, but we analyze publicly available data - what soldiers themselves post online. Many Israeli soldiers openly brag about their crimes, sharing videos and photos of themselves in Gaza.
When they post on public platforms, saying, 'Oh, look, I'm in Spain. I'm in Brazil, I'm here, and I'm there,' we see that.
We also use investigative journalism to strengthen our cases. Unlike journalists, however, our work is geared toward legal action, meaning that every step must align with forensic and judicial requirements to avoid jeopardizing the cases.
The Cradle: Has Israel's new attempts to conceal soldiers' identities impacted your work?
Jahja: Not at all. When you film yourself committing a crime, you are essentially confessing. This material has already been collected. It's saved, downloaded, and includes its metadata. It's ready to be presented in court. So now, it's too late for them to start deleting things.
If they were to stop using social media, we wouldn't know when they're on vacation since we have no other way to find out. But I don't see anyone from this generation stopping their use of social media; I don't believe that will happen.
Additionally, the measures that the Israelis have taken are limited and directed mainly toward Israeli media. They really don't address what these soldiers post. This is odd on two fronts. First, it's strange because Israeli media isn't actually the primary source of information about the soldiers; that would be their own social media.
Second, it's morally odd to tell soldiers to stop posting their crimes on social media rather than instructing them to stop committing crimes. Having said that, I don't think the measures the Israelis have taken will affect our work whatsoever.
The Cradle: What kind of support has HRF received from international legal associations?
Jahja: Keep in mind that we generally do not make our cases public until necessary. Why take this approach? Because we want to surprise the suspect.
Our role is strictly legal, though we salute efforts that apply public pressure where necessary. We do not actively campaign for support, but when local organizations take up cases, we encourage them. For instance, in Brazil, our case became public due to a leak from Brazilian authorities, forcing us to respond.
Some cases necessitate a measure of public communication, especially in countries that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, like Thailand or Sri Lanka. In those places, pressure can be created through public opinion.
In Chile, we noted the suspect was moving quickly. Our local lawyers said, "Make this public." After we did, associations took the case and initiated a new one, increasing pressure. Nevertheless, I believe the suspect was already out of the country by then.
It's important to continue the debate and maintain pressure. I encourage any group seeking justice to take action. By filing and discussing cases, we inspire others to mobilize, file more cases, and engage in national debates.
The Cradle: Has HRF received support from any Arab or Muslim-majority countries or the diaspora?
Jahja: The foundation rejects any offer of help from any state, whether they are Arab, European, American, or otherwise. It's a matter of choice not to accept funding from any country, including the EU and Belgium, which is my home country. Even though we are entitled to Belgian subsidies, we choose not to accept them because we want to maintain our independence.
We also do not accept funding from NGOs, foundations, or any other entities. Our only funding comes from small donations by individuals through our website. This ensures that our work remains independent and accountable only to the people, not governments or NGOs.
The Cradle: Are other organizations pursuing similar legal strategies? Have there been cases against companies aiding the genocide?
Jahja: Many organizations are interested in adopting our approach, and we encourage them. However, most focus on high-ranking officials or corporate complicity, which are necessary and valuable. For us, we find that targeting individual soldiers is more tangible and directly impacts their lives. This is why our approach has struck a nerve with Israelis, driving them somewhat hysterical - they realize that their soldiers are personally at risk.
This action is more concrete than merely saying, "I will sue the Israeli state" or "I will sue this prominent leader." It directly affects the lives of soldiers who are committing genocide on the ground. I believe this is why we are being threatened. This is also why there's significant pushback against us, and many organizations seem hesitant to follow suit due to these threats.
However, I urge these organizations to proceed because if we all start taking action, no one will be singled out or cornered for seeking justice. Unfortunately, I fear we are bearing the brunt of this issue right now because not enough organizations, if any, are willing to take it on.
The Cradle: What threats has HRF received from Israeli authorities? How seriously do you take them?
Jahja: I have been an activist for years and received threats before, but this time is different. Even before Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli publicly threatened me, Belgian authorities contacted me with security concerns. When Chikli told me on X to "watch my pager" - a reference to the Israeli acts of terrorism in Lebanon - it became clear that these were not idle threats.
My first thought was, "This guy is crazy" - maybe an extremist, like most people in his government. However, the analysis from the Belgian security service agreed with me that this reflected the general atmosphere within the current Israeli government. It's dangerous when a government minister makes statements like that.
My lawyer said that this clearly constitutes a threat of a terrorist attack. As a Belgian citizen, Chikli threatened me and put Belgium at risk of terrorist attacks. Belgian security services take this very seriously. And we're not going to sit here and cry saying, "We're victims; look, we're threatened." As a result, we have filed a legal case against Chikli under Belgian terrorism laws.
This all happened before the Israeli minister's planned visit to Brussels for an event at the European Parliament. Despite our foundation's discretion, they learned about the case. We were still in talks with the judiciary, as filing such a high-level case in Belgium requires many preliminary steps, including debates on receivability, jurisdiction, and immunity.
Just before his trip, Israel inquired if Chikli had immunity, and the answer from Brussels was no. The judiciary agreed with our arguments, stating, "No, he has no immunity." Based on that, he canceled his visit.
The Cradle: What is your view on nations like Poland and France granting immunity to Israeli officials wanted by the ICC?
Jahja: First off, the ICC arrest warrants took too long; they should have been issued much quicker, but they were eventually issued. That's a significant development because it created more room for our actions. It added substance to our arguments. That was a crucial step.
However, the pushback against the ICC started quickly and continues today in the United States and some European nations. Any signatory of the Rome Statute is legally bound to the convention that established the International Criminal Court. If a country claims it will not adhere to specific ICC rulings and arrest warrants, it essentially asserts that it is not governed by the rule of law and indicates a lack of separation of powers.
Even though I dislike the term, these nations are acknowledging they are banana republics. When you sign an international convention, especially one concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity, and then declare, "Oh, we will not abide by that arrest warrant," you're treating the law a la carte. The law should never be a la carte; it should always be applied consistently, right? If it's applied a la carte, then it's not law; it's a privilege instead.
In that sense, I respect the US position because the Americans are not signatories of the Rome Statute and never recognized the ICC. They even have a law called the Hague Invasion Act, which states clearly that if any American citizen or ally is brought before the ICC, the United States will invade the Netherlands to liberate them. They go that far, but they remain consistent with their stance.
However, I have no respect for any European country, or any country for that matter, that is a signatory of the Rome Statute and offers immunity to Israeli leaders. It is truly a scandal for these countries, and I think their populations should deal with this as such.
The Cradle: Following the election of Nawaf Salam as Lebanese PM, Ugandan judge Julia Sebutinde is serving as the acting president of the ICJ. Sebutinde was the only permanent ICJ judge to vote against any of the measures in South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Do you think Sebutinde's appointment will affect the case against Israel or the legal cases brought forth by the foundation?
Jahja: I'll begin with the last point: it will not affect us. As I mentioned, our strategy is focused on national law. Concerning South Africa's ICJ case, which is the most crucial aspect of everything currently happening - whether related to our work, or the ICC - the ICJ case is the one that will lead to the recognition of genocide as such.
Once that happens, expected within approximately two years, the legal pathways that will open, both internationally and nationally, are vast and unstoppable.
In this sense, it's unfortunate that someone perceived as biased and pro-Israel is serving as the president of the ICJ. However, this does not mean she will have significant influence, as ultimately, she only has one vote, just like all the other judges. The presidency is more of a ceremonial role. I don't believe it offers her enough tools to disrupt the court's work. If she tries to do so, I think that would disqualify her as president.
Therefore, I don't view this as an escape route for Israel. The way the court operates, if it's one vote against 14 or even if it changes to three votes against 12, these changes remain largely ineffective in halting the procedures.
The Cradle: Is evidence of Israeli war crimes still being collected on the ground?
Jahja: I believe work on the ground never really stopped, even during the genocide. Some very brave organizations and human rights activists were trying to collect what they could, and many of them were even targeted directly by the Israelis. I expect that this work will now multiply.
I'm meeting with some people in the coming weeks who are connected to this type of work on the ground to see how they can support our cases and strengthen our forensics, so we are not solely relying on online forensics and can delve deeper. This will help create a complete picture of what happened. For us, what the soldiers post on social media is not always sufficient for filing cases; we need to reconstruct the complete scene of the crime.
We don't view a video as simply a video. It represents a crime to us. We ask, what happened there? What crimes were committed? Then we always have to identify the location. Where did it take place? If it was in a house, where is that house? Who is the owner? What is the timeframe? What happened in that area? Which Israeli units were active there? Brigades, battalions, etc. And then, on the side of the victim, who is the owner, and who are the neighbors? What happened to them? Because if they did this to their house, maybe they also did it to the house next door. Can we find out if the owner of this house is dead? Can we identify the owner of the house next door? It takes a lot of work to build a case that revolves around the crime scene. When you have people on the ground, not just relying on videos and online forensics, that will definitely be a great addition to our work.
Reader Comments
WANTED , DEAD OR BARELY ALIVE .
"Second, it's morally odd to tell soldiers to stop posting their crimes on social media rather than instructing them to stop committing crimes."
despicable zionazis
imo