RSS
How Misinterpretations of International Law Fuel False Political Narratives — A Response to King’s College London
Cornwall House at King’s College London. Photo: C. G. P. Grey.
A February 2024 article in the King’s College London student newspaper attempted to utilize South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (IJC) as a basis for criticism against Israel. However, in doing so, the article consistently misrepresents the character and meaning of international law to further political narratives. Of particular concern was the portrayal of “plausibility” — to which the author claimed the “charge of genocide has been considered ‘plausible’ by the court.”
Although the article’s mistake is understandable, given that reputable sources were similarly confused, it is essential to clarify that the plausibility test in the ICJ is not meant to determine whether the claims asserted by South Africa were plausible.
Instead, the test was designed to assess whether the rights claimed by the applicant were plausible. This distinction was clearly articulated during an April 2024 interview on BBC Hardtalk, in which Joan Donoghue, the former head of the ICJ at the time the provisional measures were issued, made the following statement:
The court’s test for deciding whether to impose measures uses the idea of plausibility, but the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant in this case, South Africa.
The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.
It then looked at the facts as well, but it did not decide, and this is something where I’m correcting what is often said in the media: it did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide, but the shorthand that often appears, that there is a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.
The Genocide Convention was established in 1948, following Raphael Lemkin’s 1944 coining of the term to describe Nazi policies during the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. The crime of genocide was unique, differing from other crimes against humanity due to two crucial prerequisites outlined in Article II of the Convention.
Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”
Firstly, to warrant the charge of genocide, the claimant has to prove intent, referred to as dolus specialis.
This highly specific intent differs from the standard mens rea form of intent, and is the most challenging factor to determine in a genocide case. The second prerequisite needed for a group to be protected under the Genocide Convention is their classification as one of four groups: National, Ethnic, Racial, or Religious.
Here, we begin to understand the meaning behind Donoghue’s statement. That being, the Palestinians fell into one of the four protected groups and, therefore, “had a plausible right to be protected from genocide.” This interpretation of plausibility significantly contrasts with the one in the article, thereby altering the narrative regarding the outcomes of provisional measures.
The article then inverts international law for a second time by misleadingly stating that the use of white phosphorus is deemed “illegal by numerous legal scholars.”
This statement implies that the use of the substance is entirely unlawful. However, it fails to provide meaningful context surrounding this assertion.
The international law surrounding incendiary weapons is unambiguous. According to Protocol III, Article 1(b) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), weapons which have “incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems” do not qualify as incendiary weapons.
Military manuals, including those of the United States, consider white phosphorous munitions to be primarily intended for (6.14.1.3) “marking or illuminating a target or masking friendly force movement by creating smoke.” Therefore, such restrictions outlined by the CCW do not apply to the use of white phosphorous.
Similar to its application in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, the munition has been used in Syria by US-led forces, who employed it for “screening, obscuring and marking” while engaging ISIS militants. British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have also used it as “an obscurant and not as an anti-personnel weapon.”
While modern militaries commonly use this type of weapon, the article characterizes Israel’s use of the substance as unique.
In addition to misrepresenting legal arguments, the article makes multiple factual errors, the most egregious being the mischaracterization of Yoav Gallant’s words immediately following the events on October 7th. The article asserted that “Israel’s Defense Minister should be expected to consider his words more carefully” on account of his use of “human animals” referring to the perpetrators of the largest attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust. The author insinuates that Gallant was referring to all Palestinians when he made the comment.
In reality, when looking at the full quote in context, it becomes clear that Gallant was solely referring to the terrorists who undertook the brutal attack:
You fought courageously, and you acted in the spirit of the IDF exactly as it should. You resisted valiantly on the front lines; you hit many terrorists and saved lives. You saw with your own eyes against what we are fighting – against human animals – the Islamic State of Gaza.
The King’s College article illustrates how misrepresentation and selective framing of international law can distort political narratives.
In clarifying the ICJ’s use of “plausibility,” the legal status of white phosphorus, and the context of Yoav Gallant’s remarks, it instantly becomes clear how easily misrepresentation can not only skew public perception, but also detract from meaningful engagement with the underlying legal and humanitarian challenges in the Middle East.
Guy Barget is a distinguished politics graduate from King’s College London, and a CAMERA writing fellow. Throughout his academic career, he has cultivated expertise in international relations, global institutions, and international law, with a commitment to examining complex geopolitical issues through a nuanced lens.
The post How Misinterpretations of International Law Fuel False Political Narratives — A Response to King’s College London first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Immigration Judge Rules Palestinian Columbia Student Khalil Can Be Deported
Mahmoud Khalil speaks to members of media about the Revolt for Rafah encampment at Columbia University during the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza, in New York City, US, June 1, 2024. Photo: Jeenah Moon via Reuters Connect
A US immigration judge ruled on Friday that Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, allowing President Donald Trump’s administration to proceed with its effort to remove the Columbia University student from the United States a month after his arrest in New York City.
The ruling by Judge Jamee Comans of the LaSalle Immigration Court in Louisiana was not a final determination of Khalil’s fate. But it represented a significant victory for the Republican president in his efforts to deport foreign pro-Palestinian students who are in the United States legally and, like Khalil, have not been charged with any crime.
Citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Trump-appointed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined last month that Khalil could harm American foreign policy interests and should be deported for his “otherwise lawful” speech and activism.
Comans said that she did not have the authority to overrule a secretary of state. The judge denied a motion by Khalil’s lawyers to subpoena Rubio and question him about the “reasonable grounds” he had for his determination under the 1952 law.
The judge’s decision came after a combative 90-minute hearing held in a court located inside a jail complex for immigrants surrounded by double-fenced razor wire run by private government contractors in rural Louisiana.
Khalil, a prominent figure in the anti-Israel student protest movement that has roiled Columbia’s New York City campus, was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, holds Algerian citizenship and became a US lawful permanent resident last year. Khalil’s wife is a US citizen.
For now, Khalil remains in the Louisiana jail where federal authorities transferred him after his March 8 arrest at his Columbia University apartment building some 1,200 miles (1,930 km) away. Comans gave Khalil’s lawyers until April 23 to apply for relief before she considers whether to issue a deportation order. An immigration judge can rule that a migrant cannot be deported because of possible persecution in a home country, among other limited grounds.
In a separate case in New Jersey, US District Judge Michael Farbiarz has blocked deportation while he considers Khalil’s claim that his arrest was made in violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for freedom of speech.
KHALIL ADDRESSES THE JUDGE
As Comans adjourned, Khalil leaned forward, asking to address the court. Comans hesitated, then agreed.
Khalil quoted her remarks at his hearing on Tuesday that nothing was more important to the court than “due process rights and fundamental fairness.”
“Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process,” Khalil said. “This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, a thousand miles away from my family.”
The judge said her ruling turned on an undated, two-page letter signed by Rubio and submitted to the court and to Khalil’s counsel.
Khalil’s lawyers, appearing via a video link, complained they were given less than 48 hours to review Rubio’s letter and evidence submitted by the Trump administration to Comans this week. Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil’s lead immigration attorney, repeatedly asked for the hearing to be delayed. Comans reprimanded him for what the judge said was straying from the hearing’s purpose, twice saying he had “an agenda.”
Comans said that the 1952 immigration law gave the secretary of state “unilateral judgment” to make his determination about Khalil.
Khalil should be removed, Rubio wrote, for his role in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
Rubio’s letter did not accuse Khalil of breaking any laws, but said the State Department can revoke the legal status of immigrants who could harm US foreign policy interests even when their beliefs, associations or statements are “otherwise lawful.”
After Comans ended the hearing, several of Khalil’s supporters wept as they left the courtroom. Khalil stood and smiled at them, making a heart shape with his hands.
Khalil has said criticism of the US government’s support of Israel is being wrongly conflated with antisemitism. His lawyers told the court they were submitting into evidence Khalil’s interviews last year with CNN and other news outlets in which he denounces antisemitism and other prejudice.
His lawyers have said the Trump administration was targeting him for protected speech including the right to criticize American foreign policy.
“Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent,” Van Der Hout said in a statement after the hearing.
The American immigration court system is run and its judges are appointed by the US Justice Department, separate from the government’s judicial branch.
The post US Immigration Judge Rules Palestinian Columbia Student Khalil Can Be Deported first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Releases Video of Israeli-American Hostage Held in Gaza
FILE PHOTO: Yael, Adi and Mika Alexander, the family of Edan Alexander, the American-Israeli and Israel Defense Forces soldier taken hostage during the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, pose for a photograph during an interview with Reuters at the Alexander’s home in Tenafly, New Jersey, U.S., December 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephani Spindel/File Photo
Hamas on Saturday released a video purportedly of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, who has been held in Gaza since he was captured by Palestinian terrorists on October 7, 2023.
In the undated video, the man who introduces himself as Edan Alexander states he has been held in Gaza for 551 days. The man questions why he is still being held and pleads for his release.
Alexander is a soldier serving in the Israeli military.
The edited video was released as Jews began to mark Passover, a weeklong holiday that celebrates freedom. Alexander’s family released a statement acknowledging the video that said the holiday would not be one of freedom as long as Edan and the 58 other hostages in Gaza remained in captivity.
Hamas has released several videos over the course of the war of hostages begging to be released. Israeli officials have dismissed past videos as propaganda that is designed to put pressure on the government. The war is in its eighteenth month.
Hamas released 38 hostages under a ceasefire that began on January 19. In March, Israel’s military resumed its ground and aerial campaign on Gaza, abandoning the ceasefire after Hamas rejected proposals to extend the truce without ending the war.
Israeli officials say that campaign will continue until the remaining 59 hostages are freed and Gaza is demilitarized. Hamas insists it will free hostages only as part of a deal to end the war and has rejected demands to lay down its arms.
The US, Qatar and Egypt are mediating between Hamas and Israel.
The post Hamas Releases Video of Israeli-American Hostage Held in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS
Demonstrators hold signs and pictures of hostages, as relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas protest demanding the release of all hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Itai Ron
i24 News – A source familiar with the ongoing negotiations for a hostage deal confirmed to i24NEWS on Friday that some progress has been made in talks, currently taking place with Egypt, including the exchange of draft proposals. However, it remains unclear whether Hamas will ultimately accept the emerging framework. According to the source, discussions are presently focused on reaching a cohesive outline with Cairo.
A delegation of senior Hamas officials is expected to arrive in Cairo tomorrow. While there is still no finalized draft, even Arab sources acknowledge revisions to Egypt’s original proposal, reportedly including a degree of flexibility in the number of hostages Hamas is willing to release.
The source noted that Hamas’ latest proposal to release five living hostages is unacceptable to Israel, which continues to adhere to the “Witkoff framework.” At the core of this framework is the release of a significant number of hostages, alongside a prolonged ceasefire period—Israel insists on 40 days, while Hamas is demanding more. The plan avoids intermittent pauses or distractions, aiming instead for uninterrupted discussions on post-war arrangements.
As previously reported, Israel is also demanding comprehensive medical and nutritional reports on all living hostages as an early condition of the deal.
“For now,” the source told i24NEWS, “Hamas is still putting up obstacles. We are not at the point of a done deal.” Israeli officials emphasize that sustained military and logistical pressure on Hamas is yielding results, pointing to Hamas’ shift from offering one hostage to five in its most recent agreement.
Negotiators also assert that Israel’s demands are fully backed by the United States. Ultimately, Israeli officials are adamant: no negotiations on the “day after” will take place until the hostage issue is resolved—a message directed not only at Hamas, but also at mediators.
The post Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.