An extraordinary congress of Georgia's ruling Georgian Dream party on Thursday formally agreed the nomination of Irakli Kobakhidze to the post of prime minister. He is expected to be endorsed by parliament tomorrow. After the Party Congress, which lasted about 16 minutes, Kobakhidze told journalists that all ministers would remain in office except for Defense Minister Junasher Burchuladze who is to be replaced by the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Irakli Chikovani.  Irakli Garibashvili, the former Prime Minister of Georgia, resigned from his post on January 29, and today replaced Kobakhidze as the Chairman of the “Georgian Dream".  The swap is seen as another expression of the power wielded by Bidzina Ivanishvili who just before new year made a dramatic return to front-line Georgian politics. In a commentary which was first published on the electronic newsletter, Caucasus Concise on 1 February, commonspace.eu research team discusses the role of Ivanishvili as the "supreme leader" of Georgia. They argue that  "in democracies political leaders are accountable not only to the voters in elections, but also subject to scrutiny by parliament, the media and civil society. Bidzina Ivanishvili needs to be accessible to all these parts of the Georgian body politics. He needs to be able to explain policies, answer questions and accept the responsibility for decisions taken not only by him but also by his subordinates, for the Georgian Dream's government is Ivanishvili's government, and there is little doubt left about that."

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 1994 ceasefire agreement that put fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces over the Soviet-era mainly ethnic Armenian Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) on hold – or at least until it escalated into war in 2016 and more devastatingly in 2020. Despite the involvement of international mediators, peace remained elusive despite occasional claims to the contrary. The sides were said to have gotten close, but never enough to prevent tens of thousands dying in over three decades of conflict.

Israeli accusations that staff of the UN Humanitarian agency UNRWA which works in Gaza, were involved in the 7 October attacks on Israel need to be taken seriously, and the UN leadership must flash out any bad apples amongst the many, and restore the reputation of the organisation for professionalism. But the knee-jerk reaction of several Western governments in suspending funding to UNRWA is unacceptable, especially given the dire situation of millions of Palestinians, made much worse by the recent war in Gaza. Stopping the work of UNRWA will make an already significant humanitarian disaster much worse. In this regard, countries like Norway and Spain are to be commended. They kept a cool head and reiterated their commitment and support to UNRWA, whilst others were more hasty in halting or suspending support for the agency. There are two problems here: financial and political. The financial aspect is solvable. Gulf states need to step in and compensate for any shortfall in UNRWA’s budget. Other countries need also to step up. But the bigger problem is political. The support of Western countries for UNRWA gives it the necessary prestige that allows its leadership to negotiate the stormy waters of the Middle East. This should not be lost. Countries like UK, Netherlands, Germany and Italy, need to quickly reconsider their position and restore the funding to UNRWA. UNRWA was established in 1948 as a temporary measure to provide relief to the Palestinian people. That seventy-five years later it is still needed more than ever is a testimony of the failure of the international community to do justice to the Palestinians. From the tragedy and suffering of the last five months a new reality must emerge that must necessarily include the creation of a viable Palestinian state. It is time for the EU and European countries in particular, but also the US, to think strategically and act firmly.

On Friday (26 January) the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague ruled on whether emergency measures are required until a final decision is taken on the South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The judges ruled that Israel must act to stop genocide in Gaza and allow the flow of humanitarian aid and basic services. Although this verdict is legally binding on the parties involved and a step in the right direction, the ICJ lacks enforcement power. The Court needs the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) to enforce its decision through mechanisms such as sanctions or even military intervention, however, the UNSC is unlikely to do so given the United States’ traditional shielding of Israel through the veto power. Moreover, the Court did not demand a ceasefire that would require Israel to stop its operation in the Gaza Strip. This disappointed many who consider an immediate ceasefire by all parties as being essential in order to end the suffering on civilians.