RSS
Why a State of ‘Palestine’ Will Not Remain Demilitarized
On the left: Tzeela Gez, who was shot dead while in a car with her husband in the West Bank, as they were driving to hospital to give birth in May 2025. On the right: Hananel Gez holding his son, Ravid Chaim, who died two weeks after the terrorist attack. Photo: Screenshot
France, Spain, Ireland, and Norway have recently announced plans to recognize “Palestine” as a fully-sovereign state. Though these plans may be well-intentioned, they nonetheless disregard an utterly core expectation of international law. Formally, this treaty-based expectation is “peremptory” — a rule that “permits no derogation.”
According to the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934): “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.”
This binding treaty (aka the “Montevideo Convention”) clarifies that sovereignty always requires (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) a government; and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The above-listed state endorsements of “Palestine” fail to meet every one of these requirements. Whatever their true motives, states that support “Palestine” are effectively urging the acknowledgment of an expansionist state. Over time, this new terror-state could become an existential hazard for Israel, either directly or in collaboration with a still-nuclearizing Iran.
What if the new Arab sovereignty were “demilitarized?” A full and correct response should be easy to identify. For Israel, imposing demilitarization on “Palestine” would never “work.” Inter alia, a new state of “Palestine” could evade any pre-independence promises made to Israel, even ones that had originally been tendered in good-faith.
There is more. Because treaties are binding only on states, any agreement between a non-state Palestinian authority and a sovereign State of Israel would have no foreseeable effectiveness. This is the case even if a “government of Palestine” were willing to consider itself bound by pre-state assurances.
Even in such presumptively favorable circumstances, rulers of Palestine could retain law-based grounds for agreement termination. For example, they could withdraw from the pact on account of a supposed “material breach.” In all likelihood, this withdrawal would stem from an alleged violation by Israel that allegedly undermined the object and/or purpose of the agreement.
The breach won’t be real — just a pretext for the newly formed state of “Palestine” to renege on its commitments.
Further opportunities for Palestinian manipulation would arise. Palestinian decision-makers could point toward what international law calls a “fundamental change of circumstances” (rebus sic stantibus). If a Palestinian state were to declare itself vulnerable to previously unforeseen dangers, perhaps even to forces of other Arab armies or jihadist insurgencies, it could lawfully end its original commitment to remain demilitarized. A new state of Palestine could also point to “errors of fact” or “duress” as permissible grounds for agreement termination.
Prima facie, any treaty or treaty-like agreement is void if, at the time of entry into force, it conflicts with a “peremptory” rule of general international law — a “jus cogens” rule accepted and recognized by the international community of states as one from which “no derogation is permitted.”
Because the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces essential to self-defense is precisely such a rule, Palestine could credibly argue its right to abrogate an arrangement that had “forced its demilitarization.”
In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson, an American president, wrote knowledgeably about obligation and international law. While affirming that “Compacts between nation and nation are obligatory upon them by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts…,” he simultaneously acknowledged that “There are circumstances which sometimes excuse the nonperformance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation.” Specifically, Jefferson continued, if performance of contractual obligation becomes “self-destructive” to a party, “…the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation to others.”
Summing up, a presumptive Palestinian state could lawfully abrogate any pre-independence commitments to Israel to demilitarize. Recent declarations of recognition by France and other major states have no legal bearing on the creation of such a state. On the contrary, these declarations seriously undermine the authority of law-based international relations, generally, and in particular reference to Israel.
In the final analysis, Jerusalem needs to assess the existential threat of Palestinian statehood as part of a larger strategic whole; that is, in tandem with the continuously intersecting perils of conventional and unconventional war. More precisely, this points to a comprehensive analytic focus on potential synergies between enemy state aggressions and Israel’s nuclear doctrine. Already, recent victories over Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah notwithstanding, Israeli leaders need to calibrate incremental shifts from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.” Although recent declarations of national support for Palestinian statehood can be countered on a legal level, even a non-state “Palestine” would remain intolerable.
International law is not a suicide pact. Israel has no legal obligation to carve an enemy state aggressor from its own still-living body. Though expressed in the stirring syntax of high moral authority, recent recognition of “Palestine” by four major states misses larger justice issues altogether.
Assigning formal statehood to violence-centered entities that openly seek an existing state’s elimination violates both justice and logic. In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, such assignment is wrongheaded on several levels and signals an evident contradiction in terms. Now, rather than accept the law-ignoring policy urging of France, Spain, Ireland, or Norway, the community of states should be faithful to law-based treaty expectations.
Prof. Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law, nuclear strategy, nuclear war, and terrorism. In Israel, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018).
The post Why a State of ‘Palestine’ Will Not Remain Demilitarized first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Security Warning to Israelis Vacationing Abroad Ahead of holidays
A passenger arrives to a terminal at Ben Gurion international airport before Israel bans international flights, January 25, 2021. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
i24 News – Ahead of the Jewish High Holidays, Israel’s National Security Council (NSC) published the latest threat assessment to Israelis abroad from terrorist groups to the public on Sunday, in order to increase the Israeli public’s awareness of the existing terrorist threats around the world and encourage individuals to take preventive action accordingly.
The NSC specified that the warning is an up-to-date reflection of the main trends in the activities of terrorist groups around the world and their impact on the level of threat posed to Israelis abroad during these times, but the travel warnings and restrictions themselves are not new.
“As the Gaza war continues and in parallel with the increasing threat of terrorism, the National Security Headquarters stated it has recognized a trend of worsening and increasing violent antisemitic incidents and escalating steps by anti-Israel groups, to the point of physically harming Israelis and Jews abroad. This is in light of, among other things, the anti-Israel narrative and the negative media campaign by pro-Palestinian elements — a trend that may encourage and motivate extremist elements to carry out terrorist activities against Israelis or Jews abroad,” the statement read.
“Therefore, the National Security Bureau is reinforcing its recommendation to the Israeli public to act with responsibility during this time when traveling abroad, to check the status of the National Security Bureau’s travel warnings (before purchasing tickets to the destination,) and to act in accordance with the travel warning recommendations and the level of risk in the country they are visiting,” it listed, adding that, as illustrated in the past year, these warnings are well-founded and reflect a tangible and valid threat potential.
The statement also emphasized the risk of sharing content on social media networks indicating current or past service in the Israeli security forces, as these posts increase the risk of being marked by various parties as a target. “Therefore, the National Security Council recommends that you do not upload to social networks, in any way, content that indicates service in the security forces, operational activity, or similar content, as well as real-time locations.”
RSS
Israel Intensifies Gaza City Bombing as Rubio Arrives
Displaced Palestinians, fleeing northern Gaza due to an Israeli military operation, move southward after Israeli forces ordered residents of Gaza City to evacuate to the south, in the central Gaza Strip September 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
Israeli forces destroyed at least 30 residential buildings in Gaza City and forced thousands of people from their homes, Palestinian officials said, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived on Sunday to discuss the future of the conflict.
Israel has said it plans to seize the city, where about a million Palestinians have been sheltering, as part of its declared aim of eliminating the terrorist group Hamas, and has intensified attacks on what it has called Hamas’ last bastion.
The group’s political leadership, which has engaged in on-and-off negotiations on a possible ceasefire and hostage release deal, was targeted by Israel in an airstrike in Doha on Tuesday in an attack that drew widespread condemnation.
Qatar will host an emergency Arab-Islamic summit on Monday to discuss the next moves. Rubio said Washington wanted to talk about how to free the 48 hostages – of whom 20 are believed to be still alive – still held by Hamas in Gaza and rebuild the coastal strip.
“What’s happened, has happened,” he said. “We’re gonna meet with them (the Israeli leadership). We’re gonna talk about what the future holds,” Rubio said before heading to Israel where he will stay until Tuesday.
ABRAHAM ACCORDS AT RISK
He was expected to visit the Western Wall Jewish prayer site in Jerusalem on Sunday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hold talks with him during the visit.
US officials described Tuesday’s strike on the territory of a close US ally as a unilateral escalation that did not serve American or Israeli interests. Rubio and US President Donald Trump both met Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani on Friday.
Netanyahu signed an agreement on Thursday to push ahead with a settlement expansion plan that would cut across West Bank land that the Palestinians seek for a state – a move the United Arab Emirates warned would undermine the US-brokered Abraham accords that normalized UAE relations with Israel.
Israel, which blocked all food from entering Gaza for 11 weeks earlier this year, has been allowing more aid into the enclave since late July to prevent further food shortages, though the United Nations says far more is needed.
It says it wants civilians to leave Gaza City before it sends more ground forces in. Tens of thousands of people are estimated to have left but hundreds of thousands remain in the area. Hamas has called on people not to leave.
Israeli army forces have been operating inside at least four eastern suburbs for weeks, turning most of at least three of them into wastelands. It is closing in on the center and the western areas of the territory, where most of the displaced people are taking shelter.
Many are reluctant to leave, saying there is not enough space or safety in the south, where Israel has told them to go to what it has designated as a humanitarian zone.
Some say they cannot afford to leave while others say they were hoping the Arab leaders meeting on Monday in Qatar would pressure Israel to scrap its planned offensive.
“The bombardment intensified everywhere and we took down the tents, more than twenty families, we do not know where to go,” said Musbah Al-Kafarna, displaced in Gaza City.
Israel said it had completed five waves of air strikes on Gaza City over the past week, targeting more than 500 sites, including Hamas reconnaissance and sniper sites, buildings containing tunnel openings and weapons depots.
Local officials, who do not distinguish between militant and civilian casualties, say at least 40 people were killed by Israeli fire across the enclave, a least 28 in Gaza City alone.
RSS
Turkey Warns of Escalation as Israel Expands Strikes Beyond Gaza
Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a press conference with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (not seen) at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, May 13, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
i24 News – An Israeli strike targeting Hamas officials in Qatar has sparked unease among several Middle Eastern countries that host leaders of the group, with Turkey among the most alarmed.
Officials in Ankara are increasingly worried about how far Israel might go in pursuing those it holds responsible for the October 7 attacks.
Israel’s prime minister effectively acknowledged that the Qatar operation failed to eliminate the Hamas leadership, while stressing the broader point the strike was meant to make: “They enjoy no immunity,” the government said.
On X, Prime Minister Netanyahu went further, writing that “the elimination of Hamas leaders would put an end to the war.”
A senior Turkish official, speaking on condition of anonymity, summed up Ankara’s reaction: “The attack in Qatar showed that the Israeli government is ready to do anything.”
Legally and diplomatically, Turkey occupies a delicate position. As a NATO member, any military operation or targeted killing on its soil could inflame tensions within the alliance and challenge mutual security commitments.
Analysts caution, however, that Israel could opt for covert measures, operations carried out without public acknowledgement, a prospect that has increased anxiety in governments across the region.
Israeli officials remain defiant. In an interview with Ynet, Minister Ze’ev Elkin said: “As long as we have not stopped them, we will pursue them everywhere in the world and settle our accounts with them.” The episode underscores growing fears that efforts to hunt Hamas figures beyond Gaza could widen regional friction and complicate diplomatic relationships.