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
Israeli Cruise Ship Targeted Again as Pro-Palestinian Protests Escalate in Greece
Greek riot police clash with pro-Palestinian protesters near the port of Rhodes during a demonstration targeting an Israeli cruise ship. Photo: Screenshot
Pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with Greek riot police on Monday on the island of Rhodes as they attempted to block an Israeli cruise ship from docking at the island’s main port.
The MS Crown Iris — operated by Israeli cruise line Mano Maritime — was once again targeted by anti-Israel activists this week.
Demonstrations against the war in Gaza took place during the ship’s scheduled stop on the island, where more than 600 passengers were set to disembark.
According to videos circulating on social media, riot police can be seen confronting a group of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered near the dock, who shouted antisemitic slogans like “Freedom for Palestine.”
As authorities worked to control the crowd, tensions escalated and brief clashes broke out.
Ένταση στο λιμάνι της Ροδου με την άφιξη Ισραηλινών τουριστών, πολλες προσαγωγές.
Συνελήφθη υποψήφια βουλευτής της Πλεύσης ελευθερίας. pic.twitter.com/gAPnUnxu1A
— Ακροκεντρώος (@akrokentrwos_2) July 28, 2025
However, unlike a previous incident, passengers were able to disembark from the cruise ship without any major interruptions.
Last week, approximately 1,600 Israeli passengers expecting a peaceful stop on their cruise were unable to disembark from a ship docked on the island of Syros after a pro-Palestinian protest erupted at the port, raising safety concerns.
Around 300 protesters had gathered at the dock to protest against the war in Gaza, while Syros Port Authority police guarded the area and intervened to prevent violence until the ship departed.
Amid the large anti-Israel protest, the cruise company chose to divert the ship to Limassol, Cyprus.
In videos circulating on social media, protesters were seen waving Palestinian flags and holding banners with slogans such as “Stop the Genocide” and “No AC [Air Conditioning] in Hell,” while chanting antisemitic slogans.
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents have surged to alarming levels across Europe. This recent incident appears to be just one of the latest in a wave of anti-Jewish hate crimes that Greece and other countries have witnessed in recent months.
Earlier this month in Athens, a group of pro-Palestinian activists vandalized an Israeli restaurant, shouting antisemitic slurs and spray-painting graffiti with slogans such as “No Zionist is safe here.”
The attackers also posted a sign on one of the restaurant’s windows that read, “All IDF soldiers are war criminals — we don’t want you here,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
Last month, an Israeli tourist was attacked by a group of pro-Palestinian activists after they overheard him using Google Maps in Hebrew while navigating through Athens.
When the attackers realized the victim was speaking Hebrew, they began physically assaulting him while shouting antisemitic slurs.
The post Israeli Cruise Ship Targeted Again as Pro-Palestinian Protests Escalate in Greece first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Ritchie Torres Says Netanyahu Has Done ‘Irreparable’ Harm to Democratic Party Relationship With Israel
US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) standing at the US Capitol in February of 2023. Photo: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), one of Israel’s most vocal supporters in Congress, delivered pointed criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, saying the longtime leader has “done harm” to Israel’s relationship with the Democratic Party and called for an end to the war in Gaza.
“If you’re a Democrat, and if you’re a Democrat of color and if you’re a Black Democrat, you take immense pride in Barack Obama. He represents one of the greatest achievements in politics. We take great pride in his presidency,” Torres said in an interview with . “To see a foreign leader visibly disrespect him in the manner that Bibi Netanyahu did, I feel did irreparable damage to the relationship with the Democratic Party.”
Torres offered a gloomy assessment of Netanyahu’s relationship with the Democratic party, arguing that “the damage may be irreparable.” He also cautioned that support for the Jewish state is rapidly “eroding” according to various polls.
Furthermore, Torres stated that despite his strident support for Israel, he does not “consider myself having a good relationship with the Israeli government.”
Torres said that Netanyahu “made a terrible mistake” in establishing a cozy relationship with President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, arguing that the Israeli premier politicized the US-Israel relationship. The progressive lawmaker said that there is a “legitimate perception that the present Israeli government is just aligned with the Republican Party.”
The remarks represent a notable shift from Torres, a New York Democrat who has historically defended Israel amid bipartisan divisions over the war. While maintaining his commitment to Israel’s security, Torres said Netanyahu’s government has failed to articulate a clear endgame in Gaza and warned that the ongoing military campaign is undermining both humanitarian values and strategic interests.
“There’s a real need to end the war, secure the release of the hostages, bring humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in distress.”
Torres cited prominent Israeli journalists and media figures that have warned that Gaza has approached “catastrophic” levels of hunger and that famine might be looming without a rapid policy shift.
Torres’s comments come amid growing pressure from the Democratic base on centrist and progressive Democrats alike to take a firmer stance on Israel’s military operations, which have resulted in the deaths of more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. Israel launched its campaign following the October 7 Hamas attack that killed approximately 1,200 people and took over 200 hostages, according to Israeli officials.
Torres’s comments underscore a growing divide within the Democratic Party over the U.S.-Israel relationship. While the party remains broadly supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself, a significant faction ,including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) condemned the war in Gaza and called for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
The post Ritchie Torres Says Netanyahu Has Done ‘Irreparable’ Harm to Democratic Party Relationship With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israeli Defense Firm Lands Huge Deal With Germany
An Elbit Systems Ltd. Hermes 900 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is seen at Elbit’s drone factory in Rehovot, Israel, June 28, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Orel Cohen
On Monday, Elbit Systems Ltd., a military contractor based in Israel, announced it had received a $260 million government contract from Germany to spend six years installing Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) self-protection systems for defending Germany’s A400M aircraft fleet.
The contract is just the latest in a string of blockbuster deals between Israeli defense firms and international militaries. Israeli defense exports to Europe jumped to 54% of overall defense exports last year, up from just over 33% in 2023, according to the Israeli media outlet Globes.
Elbit’s defense system works to counter infrared-guided missiles, with a focus on mobile anti-aircraft weapons. It offers the ability to track missile threats as they happen and also provides automatic protection without needed human action.
Other countries which have deployed the system include Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Brazil. In February, Morocco announced plans to purchase 36 Atmos 2000 self-propelled artillery systems from Elbit, making Israel the country’s third largest weapons supplier.
“This contract further strengthens Elbit Systems’ position as a leading global provider of DIRCM solutions,” Elbit president and CEO Bezhalel Machlis said. “Our systems are already trusted by numerous air forces and defense organizations around the world, and we are proud to support Germany in enhancing the protection of their strategic air assets. Our successful collaboration with Airbus DS on this important program is highly valued, and we are pleased that our advanced self-protection systems will contribute to the safety and operational readiness of the German A400M fleet.”
The announcement prompted Elbit’s share price to jump 1 percent on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE).
Since Israel’s 12-day war against Iran, Israel’s financial markets have been buoyed by significant foreign investment and renewed investor confidence. Over the past year, the TASE has repeatedly broken past its all-time highs, despite Israel’s multi-front wars.
On Friday, Germany announced that it would not join France in recognizing a Palestinian state. A government spokesperson said “Israel’s security is of paramount importance to the German government” and that “the German government therefore has no plans to recognize a Palestinian state in the short term.”
On Monday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the country had no plans to sanction Israel and that “for now, we want to await the foreign minister’s trip and the talks that will be held with the Israeli government in the coming days.”
The post Israeli Defense Firm Lands Huge Deal With Germany first appeared on Algemeiner.com.