标签： Asia

In a bold statement on Thursday, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich dismissed the possibility of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia if it were contingent on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Speaking at a conference hosted by the Tzomet Institute, Smotrich declared, “If Saudi Arabia tells us that normalization is in exchange for a Palestinian state, then no thank you, my friends.” He further added, “Keep riding your camels in the Saudi desert. We’ll continue to develop our economy, society, and state with all the great things we know how to do.” This statement comes amid heightened tensions in the region, as Israel’s parliament passed a preliminary reading of a bill to annex the occupied West Bank. The move has drawn criticism from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, which labeled it as an attempt to embarrass the government during US Vice President JD Vance’s visit. The bill, introduced by Avi Maoz of the far-right Noam party, requires three additional Knesset votes to become law. Israel’s repeated threats to annex the West Bank have alarmed Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which view such actions as a “red line.” UAE’s assistant minister for political affairs, Lana Nusseibeh, warned that annexation would undermine the Abraham Accords and regional integration efforts. Saudi Arabia has also conveyed its concerns, with reports indicating that any annexation would have “major implications in all fields.” Despite US efforts to bring Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords, the kingdom has consistently maintained that normalization with Israel is contingent on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Last year, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, further complicating diplomatic relations.

In a concerted effort to undermine Russia’s financial capacity to sustain its war in Ukraine, the United States and the European Union have unveiled a new wave of sanctions targeting Moscow’s oil and gas sectors. The measures, announced on Thursday, aim to disrupt the revenue streams of Russia’s largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, which account for roughly half of the nation’s oil exports. These exports, alongside natural gas, have historically contributed 30% to 50% of Russia’s state revenues over the past decade. The sanctions also threaten secondary repercussions for major customers in India and China, potentially exposing their refineries and banks to U.S. penalties if they continue dealings with the sanctioned entities. Maria Perrotta Berlin, a sanctions expert at the Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, likened the impact of U.S. sanctions to a ‘death penalty’ for the private sector. Meanwhile, the EU is phasing out shipments of Russian liquefied natural gas by the end of next year and targeting cryptocurrency platforms used by Moscow to circumvent financial restrictions. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that the sanctions are designed to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into agreeing to an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. However, Putin has shown no signs of relenting, dismissing the sanctions as an ‘unfriendly act.’ The measures, which take effect on November 21, provide a grace period for traders to wind down operations but also allow Russia to capitalize on short-term oil sales. Analysts warn that while the sanctions may not immediately halt the war, they could significantly degrade Russia’s economy over time. The EU has also sanctioned 117 additional tankers believed to be part of Russia’s ‘shadow fleet,’ bringing the total to 557. Despite the sanctions, Russia’s economy remains resilient, bolstered by prewar oil and gas earnings stored in a national wealth fund. The U.S. and EU, wary of spiking energy prices, have implemented these measures cautiously, giving Russia time to adapt. Nevertheless, experts argue that continued targeting of Russia’s fossil fuel exports is crucial to maintaining pressure on the Kremlin.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has granted Israel a second extension to submit its evidence in response to South Africa’s allegations of genocide in Gaza. In an order dated 20 October and published recently, the ICJ accepted Israel’s request to extend its deadline by two months to 12 March 2026, following an earlier extension to 12 January. The original deadlines for South Africa and Israel to file their written arguments were 28 October 2024 and 28 July 2025, respectively. While South Africa adhered to its deadline, Israel sought a six-month extension in April, which South Africa opposed. The ICJ compromised by granting a five-and-a-half-month extension to 12 January 2026. Israel then requested a second extension of at least five months on 14 October, citing unresolved evidentiary issues related to South Africa’s submission and its focus on the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Israel’s humanitarian obligations. South Africa urged the court to reject the request, arguing it contradicted the case’s urgency and the principle of equality between the parties. Gerhard Kemp, a professor of international criminal law, criticized the ICJ’s decision as ‘disappointing,’ emphasizing that Israel had ample time to prepare its response and that the alleged genocide’s structure remains unchanged. The ICJ has previously issued provisional measures against Israel on three occasions, and a recent UN report found Israel responsible for genocide in Gaza. The case, which began with South Africa’s accusation in December 2023, is expected to conclude by early 2028.