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
George Washington University Apologizes After Graduation Speaker Attacks Israel
Pro-Hamas George Washington University graduates walk out during President Ellen Granberg’s commencement address on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2025. Photo: Probal Rashid via Reuters Connect.
George Washington University (GW) has apologized to its campus community over an incident in which a student delivering a graduation speech attacked Israel.
During the speech, a student accused Israel of targeting Palestinians “simply for [their] remaining in the country of their ancestors” and said that GW students are passive contributors to the “imperialist system.”
The student, an economics and statistics major, deceived administrators who selected her to address the Columbian College of the Arts and Sciences ceremony, the university said in a statement issued after the remark circulated on social media.
“The student speaker chose to stray from their prepared remarks, which were materially different when previously reviewed by school leadership,” the university said in a statement. “We are also aware that some students unfurled signs brought under their graduation gowns, despite clear guidance to the contrary. The students’ remarks and signs do not reflect the views of the university.”
It continued, “We apologize to the graduates and families in attendance that their time of special celebration was disrupted. We are investigating this matter immediately, including whether event protocols were followed property and whether the students’ actions violated the Code of Conduct.”
“I am ashamed to know my tuition is being used to fund genocide,” the student said during the speech. “Every year, the cost of attending this university increases without a corresponding improvement in the facilities and resources provided to students, staff, and faculty. Instead, our money is put into the pockets of those who unequivocally prove time and time again they do not care about the students and faculty that [sic] create this university’s prestigious university [sic].”
During the remarks, the master of ceremonies, gender and sexuality professor Dr. Kavita Daiya, appeared elated and thanked the student, Cecilia Culver, for “sharing your words and your views.”
GW student Sabrina Soffer, who also walked with her peers on Saturday to celebrate the completion of undergraduate study, told The Algemeiner on Monday that the graduation speaker should be sanctioned by the university for spreading antisemitic viewpoints that were once relegated to the darkest corners of the internet but have since become respectable in higher education.
“She spoke the rhetoric of a true antisemite, warranting the withholding of her degree as happened at [New York University], which unambiguously refused to confer a degree to a student who pulled a similar stunt,” Soffer said during an interview. “She should be forced to make a public apology as a condition of receiver her diploma.”
Soffer, who has spent the last four years leading the pro-Israel movement on GW’s campus, added that she believes the commencement incident is emblematic of a larger issue on campus.
“I’ve personally been trying to help the university address its antisemitism problem since I became a student here, and I’ve received much lip service and kind words that never translated into action. This was an example of that — a complete lack of accountability effectiveness in the enactment of policy.”
End Jew Hatred (EJH), a Jewish civil rights group based in New York City, added: “Culver’s speech devalues the diploma she and her classmates earned, giving the public reason to question whether George Washington’s degrees are worth the paper they are printed on, in light of its abject failure to teach basic facts and correct such blatantly false statements. It’s not just Culver, it’s the people who applauded her performance instead of condemning it. George Washington’s failure to educate, let alone enforce its policies, is enough to give both employers and prospective students pause.”
The conclusion of the 2024-2025 academic year has seen other attempts to place anti-Zionism at the center of the public’s attention.
On Wednesday, a New York University senior delivered a commencement speech teeming with antisemitic tropes after lying to the administration about its content, prompting it to withhold his degree and issue an apology.
“NYU strongly denounces the choice by a student at the Gallatin School’s graduation today — one of over 20 school graduation ceremonies across our campus — to misuse his role as student speaker to express his personal and one-sided political views,” university spokesman John Beckman said in a statement. “He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules. The university is withholding his diploma while we pursue disciplinary actions.”
He continued, “NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”
A group of pro-Hamas students at Yale University recently vowed to starve themselves inside an administrative building until such time as officials agree to their demands that the university’s endowment be divested of any ties to Israel as well as companies that do business with it. However, Yale officials are refusing to meet with the students, who have been told that their demonstration is “in violation of university policy.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post George Washington University Apologizes After Graduation Speaker Attacks Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Total B.S.’: US Lawmaker Brian Mast Rips Rumors of Trump-Netanyahu ‘Rift’
US President Donald Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, US, April 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt
US Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) asserted Monday that there was “no rift” between US President Donald Trump and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Total BS,” Mast said, “There’s no rift. We’re having serious conversations to bring the world to a different place than where it’s been before.”
Mast continued, arguing that the current negotiations to include Syria—a country which Israel has long had negative relations with—in the Abraham accords exemplifies the Trump administration’s commitment to protecting Israel.
Former President Donald Trump has reportedly grown increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the ongoing war in Gaza, adding tension to a once-close relationship. Reports say Trump has privately criticized Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict, expressing concern that the prolonged military campaign is damaging Israel’s global image and endangering the lives of the remaining hostages. .Trump, who has long prided himself on his strong support for Israel, is said to view the war as an unnecessary political liability, and has been privately urginging Netanyahu to cut a ceasefire and hostage deal with the Hamas terrorist group in Gaza.
Rumors of faltering relations between Israel and the US intensified after the White House declined to visit the Jewish state during Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East. Furthernore,, the Trump administration brokered an agreement with the Houthi terrorist group, bypassing Israel entirely. The move, aimed at de-escalating regional tensions and protecting Red Sea shipping lanes, has raised eyebrows among U.S. allies, with some viewing it as a sign of Trump’s growing impatience with Israeli leadership amid the ongoing war in Gaza.
Mast also dismissed notions that Israel has experienced a significant amount of support among conservatives, gesturing to the successful passage of an International Criminal Court (ICC) sanctions bill through the House of Representatives, touting “unanimous” support among Republicans. The bill ultimately failed on the Senate floor due to a lack of support from Democratic lawmakers.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), one of the most strident supporters of Israel in Congress, also praised Trump’s support of Israel while in office.
“I don’t know if there’s a more pro-Israel president ever,” Scott said.
However, Scott expressed frustration over the president’s seeming embrace of Qatar—a Gulf state with an extensive history of supporting Jihadist terrorism.
“I think it’s despicable that they host Hamas leaders,” Scott said of Qatar.
The Congressman said that he believes Middle Eastern countries will eventually normalize relations with Israel, arguing that the benefits of enhanced economic ties with the United States will outweigh historical grievances.
“I think [Middle Eastern countries] are going to trade with us, and they’re going to be partners with Israel,” Scott said.
However, Scott cautioned supporters of Israel that growing isolationist sentiments within the Republican Party could weaken the bond between the US and the Jewish state. Scott urged Israel advocates to be much more clear with how the America-Israel relationship benefits America.
“Clearly we have to support Israel,” but it is “incumbent upon all of us” to be “clear about what we are doing. If you want to support Israel, be very vocal about why and how it benefits America.”
The post ‘Total B.S.’: US Lawmaker Brian Mast Rips Rumors of Trump-Netanyahu ‘Rift’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Rejects Uranium Enrichment in Iran Deal as Tehran Vows to Continue Nuclear Activities
USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, Sept. 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
The United States insists it will not accept any deal with Tehran that allows uranium enrichment, while Iran asserts it will continue its enrichment activities under the country’s civilian nuclear program, with or without an agreement with Washington.
On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are “crystal clear,” adding that “there is no scenario in which Iranians will allow any deviation from that.”
“Mastering enrichment technology is a hard-earned and homegrown scientific achievement; an outcome of great sacrifice of both blood and treasure,” the Iranian top diplomat said in a post on X, as nuclear negotiations between the two countries continue.
“If the US is interested in ensuring that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, a deal is within reach, and we are ready for a serious conversation to achieve a solution that will forever ensure that outcome. Enrichment in Iran, however, will continue with or without a deal,” Araghchi continued.
In addressing the talks regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, our U.S. interlocutors are naturally free to publicly state whatever they deem fit to ward off Special Interest groups; malign actors which set the agendas of at least previous Administrations.
Iran can only…
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) May 18, 2025
His comments came after US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, affirmed that Washington will not accept uranium enrichment under any agreement with the Islamic regime.
“We have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment. We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability,” Witkoff said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.
He emphasized that, from US President Donald Trump’s perspective, this condition is essential for any deal with Iran, warning that “enrichment enables weaponization.”
Araghchi dismissed Witkoff’s latest remarks, accusing Washington of contradictory actions amid their ongoing nuclear negotiations.
“Iran can only control what we Iranians do, and that is to avoid negotiating in public — particularly given the current dissonance we are seeing between what our US interlocutors say in public and in private, and from one week to the other,” the Iranian top diplomat said.
After concluding their fourth round of nuclear talks in Oman last weekend, US and Iranian officials will resume negotiations this week in Europe.
On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, described negotiations with the White House as “difficult,” accusing Washington of not adhering to any “conventional diplomatic norms.”
“Imposing sanctions while claiming to pursue a diplomatic path with the Islamic Republic of Iran is itself evidence of their lack of seriousness and goodwill,” the Iranian diplomat said in a statement.
“This reality proves that American policymakers maintain a hostile attitude toward the Iranian people, and their claims of commitment to dialogue and diplomacy should not be taken seriously,” Baghaei continued.
As part of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran — which aims to cut the country’s crude exports to zero and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon — Washington has been targeting Tehran’s oil industry with mounting sanctions.
In April, Tehran and Washington held their first official nuclear negotiation since the US withdrew from a now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal that had imposed temporary limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanction relief.
On Sunday, US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said that even if Iran agrees to a nuclear deal, it cannot be trusted to uphold it, claiming the regime hasn’t kept its word on anything since coming to power more than four decades ago.
Despite Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes rather than weapons development, Western states have said there is no “credible civilian justification” for the country’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
The post US Rejects Uranium Enrichment in Iran Deal as Tehran Vows to Continue Nuclear Activities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.