RSS
In a Worst-Case Scenario, the Recent ICJ Legal Ruling Could Threaten the Existence of Israel
Judges, including Sarah Cleveland, arrive at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), during a ruling on South Africa’s request to order a halt to Israel’s Rafah offensive in Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, May 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Johanna Geron
Is the Western Wall an “illegal settlement” built on “occupied Palestinian territory”?
Is Israel an “apartheid” state?
Is it possible that terrorism against Israelis simply doesn’t exist at all?
These are some of the extraordinary conclusions that stem from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion last week. (A summary of the opinion can be found here.)
Though much of the ICJ’s analysis flies in the face of international law, logic, and common sense, the body has reached a conclusion and it is not subject to appeal. Therefore, the only relevant question that remains is: what impact will this advisory opinion have, and what will happen next?
The ICJ came to several conclusions in its decision, which I will briefly review.
“Occupation”: The ICJ held that Israeli presence on “Palestinian territory” is an illegal occupation. The Court unilaterally adopted a definition of what constitutes “Palestinian territory,” which includes the eastern part of Jerusalem, that, in turn, includes the entire Old City and its ancient Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount.
This means, in effect, that visiting or praying at the Western Wall would technically constitute a type of war crime, as would living anywhere in the region of Judea and Samaria.
Security Fence: The Court addressed Israel’s “wall” (which is actually a security fence for 95% of its length), declaring it illegal. The court made no mention of the Second Intifada, nor the fact that the fence reduced Israeli deaths from terrorism by 95%, nor that the conditions necessitating such life saving security measures — i.e., official Palestinian support for terrorism — have not changed.
The Oslo Accords: A well-established principle of international law is that mutual agreement of two or more parties supersedes international conventions. Since 1995, Israel’s security measures, settlement activities, humanitarian aid, and physical presence in Judea and Samaria have been performed in strict accordance with the Oslo Accords, by mutual agreement of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The ICJ has ignored or overruled the Oslo Accords so many times, that it effectively dissolved the Accords as a functioning agreement.
Negotiations: The ICJ has effectively required an end to negotiations over peace or co-existence by mandating the results of such negotiations without regard for the input of the parties themselves.
A few notable statistics: In its 80 page opinion, the ICJ used the word “occupation” 121 times, “violating” international law or Palestinian rights 29 times, “apartheid” three times, and alluded to “genocide” twice.
The ICJ did not acknowledge terrorism against Israelis, incitement to terrorism, or the “Martyr’s Fund” (which pays Palestinians to kill Israelis) even once — not even in its passing reference to October 7, which made no mention of the word “terrorism” nor the astonishing death, destruction, and hostage-taking perpetrated upon the Israeli people.
The vote by the ICJ was not unanimous — the vote was either 11-4 or 12-3 on most of the nine issues that were decided.
The Court’s Vice-President, Julie Sebutinde of Uganda, consistently sided with Israel, and wrote an eloquent dissenting opinion which is well worth reading. Judge Sarah Cleveland of the United States (a long-time Biden nominee) voted consistently against Israel.
The President of the Court, who also voted consistently against Israel, is Nawaf Salam of Lebanon — a country controlled by the Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah, which is currently at war with Israel.
In order to understand the possible impact of this decision, one must understand the “diplomatic intifada.”
In 2001, the Palestinians and various allies held a UN-sponsored (but ultimately Palestinian-controlled) conference in Durban, South Africa. Misleadingly entitled a conference “against racism,” the Durban conference was riddled with antisemitism, including Nazi symbology and rhetoric, and early examples of the “Israel apartheid” claims.
This conference also marked the inception of the anti-Israel boycott movement (BDS), as well as what later came to be called the Palestinian “diplomatic intifada,” the stated goals of which include isolating Israel and having Israel removed from the United Nations.
Though merely an advisory opinion, this ICJ decision is a meaningful step in a Palestinian campaign that spans 23 years of work, and billions of dollars of investment, aimed at discrediting, isolating and harming the Jewish State.
In a theoretical worst case scenario, the United Nations Security Council could remove Israel from the United Nations entirely, making Israel effectively a rogue state, as well as order Israel to implement the ICJ recommendations, and then impose sanctions if Israel refuses.
These would not be “BDS-style” sanctions, which are largely rhetoric, but instead what are called “Chapter 7 Sanctions” — the kind that one sees in places like North Korea. Not only would such measures plunge Israel’s economy and civilians into utter poverty, but sanctions would also cut off the IDF from necessary resources and resupply. Within months, Israel would become effectively “army-less” and vulnerable to attacks by any number of neighboring enemies.
It is likely (though never 100% certain) that the United States would veto such a resolution. However, short of the “worst case scenario” there are many intermediate scenarios that could result.
For example, individual countries may choose to implement the terms of the ICJ recommendation by cutting off trade with Israel, removing Israel from international events (such as the Olympics or FIFA), or embargoing arms shipments to Israel. In fact, some countries have already implemented such measures. The ICJ opinion would give these measures the legitimacy of international law, making them more widespread and more difficult to combat.
Most critically, a resolution of this nature can impact how voters view Israel in democracies around the world, leading, over time, to decreased support by Israel’s critical allies. We are already seeing signs of this on campuses and in political parties throughout the US and Europe.
This should hardly be surprising.
Israel’s global isolation has been the openly stated goal of the Palestinian Authority for over two decades. While Israel has (understandably) focused its resources on military defense and economic growth, the diplomatic battlefield has been left largely undefended, and the ICJ decision is just the latest result.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post In a Worst-Case Scenario, the Recent ICJ Legal Ruling Could Threaten the Existence of Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Clamps Sanctions on Israel-bashing UN Rights Monitor Albanese
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
The Trump administration has imposed sweeping sanctions against Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, citing the UN official’s lengthy record of singling out Israel for condemnation.
In a post on X, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions under a February executive order targeting those who “prompt International Criminal Court (ICC) action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.” He accused Albanese of waging “political and economic warfare” against both nations and asserted that “such efforts will no longer be tolerated.”
“Today I am imposing sanctions on UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt [International Criminal Court] action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives,” Rubio announced on X/Twitter.
“Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated,” declared the Trump administration’s top foreign affairs official. “We will always stand by our partners in their right to self-defense.”
Rubio concluded: “The United States will continue to take whatever actions we deem necessary to respond to lawfare and protect our sovereignty and that of our allies.”
The decision to impose sanctions on Albanese marks an escalation in the ongoing feud between the White House and the United Nations over Israel. The Trump administration has repeatedly accused the UN and Albanese of unfairly targeting Israel and mischaracterizing the Jewish state’s conduct in Gaza.
Albanese, an Italian lawyer and academic, has held the position of UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories since 2022. The position authorizes her to monitor and report on alleged “human rights violations” by Israel against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Last week, Albanese issued a scathing report accusing companies of helping Israel maintain a so-called “genocide economy.” She called on the companies to cut off economic ties with Israel and warned that they might be guilty of “complicity” in the so-called “genocide” in Gaza.
Critics of Albanese have long accused her of exhibiting an excessive anti-Israel bias, calling into question her fairness and neutrality.
Albanese has an extensive history of using her role at the UN to denigrate Israel and seemingly rationalize Hamas’ attacks on the Jewish state.
In the months following the Palestinian terrorist group’s atrocities across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Albanese accused the Jewish state of perpetrating a “genocide” against the Palestinian people in revenge for the attacks and circulated a widely derided and heavily disputed report alleging that 186,000 people had been killed in the Gaza war as a result of Israeli actions.
The action comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington, where he has received a warm reception from the Trump administration. Netanyahu has been meeting with US officials to discuss next steps in the ongoing Gaza military operation.
Gideon Sa’ar, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Israel, commended the Rubio announcement with his own post on X/Twitter, exclaiming: “A clear message. Time for the UN to pay attention!”
The post US Clamps Sanctions on Israel-bashing UN Rights Monitor Albanese first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hardball: Trump Administration Reports Harvard to Accreditor Over Antisemitism Allegations
US President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, July 8, 2025. Photo: Kevin Lamarque via Reuters Connect.
The Trump administration escalated its showdown against Harvard University on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 massacre across southern Israel.
The US Department of Education (DOE) announced the action on Wednesday. Citing Harvard’s admitted failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated others forms of hatred in the past, the DOE called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
The DOE, McMahon added, “expects the New England Commission of Higher Education to enforce its policies and practices, and to keep the Department fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism has acknowledged that the university administration’s handling of campus antisemitism fell well below its obligations under both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its own nondiscrimination policies.
In a 300-plus-page report, the task force compiled a comprehensive record of antisemitic incidents on Harvard’s campus in recent years — from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee’s endorsement of the Oct. 7 terrorist atrocities to an anti-Zionist faculty group’s sharing an antisemitic cartoon depicting Jews as murderers of people of color. The report identified Harvard’s past refusal to afford Jews the same protections against discrimination enjoyed by other minority groups as a key source of its problem.
Coming several weeks after President Donald Trump ordered the freeze of $2.26 billion in federal research grants and contracts for Harvard, the task force report found it was “clear” that antisemitism and anti-Israel bias have been fomented, practiced, and tolerated not only at Harvard but also within academia more widely.”
The university is now suing the federal government over the funding halt.
President Trump has spoken scathingly of Harvard, calling it, for example, an “Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institute … with students being accepted from all over the world that want to rip our Country apart” in an April post to his Truth Social platform.
In recent weeks, however, both Trump and McMahon had commended Harvard’s constructive response in negotiations over reforms the administration has asked it to implement as a precondition for restoring federal funds. The requested reforms include hiring more conservative faculty, shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI] programs, and slashing the size of administrative offices tangential to the university’s central educational mission.
The administration has since changed its tone in the wake of a report by The Harvard Crimson that interim Harvard President Alan Garber has said “behind closed doors” that he has no intention of doing anything that would make Harvard more palatable to conservatives.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism issued Harvard a formal “notice of violation” of civil rights law. Charging that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a flood of racist and antisemitic abuse both in and outside of the classroom, it threatened to strip whatever remains of Harvard’s federal funding.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
In Wednesday’s announcement, US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Harvard’s conduct “forfeits the legitimacy that accreditation is designed to uphold.”
“HHS and Department of Education will actively hold Harvard accountable through sustained oversight until it restores public trust and ensures a campus free of discrimination,” he said.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Hardball: Trump Administration Reports Harvard to Accreditor Over Antisemitism Allegations first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IDF Strikes Hezbollah Sites in South Lebanon as Terror Group Pushes to Rebuild Amid US Disarmament Talks
IDF operating in southern Lebanon. Photo: IDF Spokesperson
Israeli forces uncovered and destroyed Hezbollah weapons caches in southern Lebanon on Wednesday, as a new report indicated that despite ongoing U.S.-led efforts to secure a disarmament deal, the Iran-backed group is making repeated, largely concealed attempts to rebuild its military presence in the area.
Troops carried out several operations targeting Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon on Wednesday morning, destroying weapons depots, explosives and multibarrel launchers concealed in forested terrain, the IDF said, in violation of the November ceasefire, which requires Hezbollah to withdraw its forces 20 miles from the Israeli border.
A new report released this week by the Alma Research and Education Center found that Hezbollah is focused on rebuilding in three areas: operational deployment, weapons acquisition, and financial recovery.
“Hezbollah didn’t give up its resistance narrative and motivation,” Alma’s director, Lt. Col. (Res.) Sarit Zehavi, told The Algemeiner.
“It wants to rebuild its capabilities and infrastructures, whether it’s the villages that will be used as human shields or the military infrastructure in South Lebanon and in Lebanon in general.”
According to Zehavi, Hezbollah is attempting to return Radwan fighters to positions south of the Litani River as part of a wider plan to restore its elite forces to operational readiness. The IDF on Monday killed Radwan commander Ali Abd al-Hassan Haidar in a targeted strike. The action came hours after US Special Envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack met with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in Beirut to discuss a long-term deal that would include an Israeli withdrawal and complete disarmament of Hezbollah.
Barrack described the Lebanese response to the proposal as positive. Later, he issued a blunt warning to Hezbollah in response to a vow by the terror group’s leader, Naim Qassem, not to lay down its arms. “If they mess with us anywhere in the world, they will have a serious problem with us,” Barrack said in an interview with Lebanese news network LBCI. “They don’t want that.”
Zehavi said it was premature to predict the outcome of the diplomatic efforts. She warned that the challenge of disarming Hezbollah remains enormous and emphasized that the Lebanese Armed Forces have not demonstrated the capability or willingness to confront the group.
“It’s too soon to be optimistic or pessimistic,” she said, noting that no firm commitments have emerged from the Beirut talks.
Hezbollah’s efforts to smuggle and manufacture weapons have been complicated by both Israeli strikes and the regional realignment over recent months. While Israeli strikes have disrupted many supply routes, according to Zehavi, Syrian authorities have intercepted far more Hezbollah-bound weapons than the Lebanese Army, which claims to have uncovered 500 arms caches but has provided no evidence.
The financial front marks the third aspect of Hezbollah’s rebuilding effort. Last week, the group halted cash payments to Shiite civilians whose homes were damaged in the war, citing liquidity problems. Zehavi attributed the shortfall to disruptions in Iran’s funding networks — an outcome of the 12-day war against the regime in Tehran — and said the constraints would likely hamper Hezbollah’s ability to compensate its base and sustain operations.
“I hope they will continue to have problems with the cash flow, that way it will be very difficult for them to recover,” she said.
The post IDF Strikes Hezbollah Sites in South Lebanon as Terror Group Pushes to Rebuild Amid US Disarmament Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.