Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading

RSS

Leftist Internet Personality Confronts Ritchie Torres Over Israel Support, Unleashes Lewd and Antisemitic Tirade

US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) speaks during the House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, DC, Sept. 30, 2021. Photo: Al Drago/Pool via REUTERS

In a viral video which circulated over the weekend, a leftist social media influencer followed US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) on the streets of New York City, hurling antisemitic, sexually explicit, and racially charged rhetoric at the lawmaker over his support for Israel. 

The influencer, who goes by “Crackhead Barney,” confronted and grilled Torres about his stance on the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The provocateur, whose real name has not been revealed to the public, taunted Torres as a “coon” and asked the lawmaker why he supports a so-called “genocide” in Gaza. 

“Why are you sucking Zionist c—k?” Barney asked. 

“You’re a coon. Why do you suck Zionist c—k? Is it the money?” the influencer asked. “Show us the money, Ritchie. Show us the money.”

When asked by Torres if she supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the influencer responded “of course.” She then claimed that Israel “is the biggest terrorist organization.” The social media personality lambasted Torres as a “terrorist” and stated that he “sucks [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s c—k.”

The leftist firebrand accused Torres of accepting “genocidal money” and asked him if he was “going to kill more babies?” She also admitted to interrupting Torres’s event at Temple Emanu-El in Manhattan to protest the war in Gaza. 

The content creator attempted to coax Torres multiple times into saying “Free Palestine,” a phrase which many observers interpret as a call for the destruction of Israel. 

“Say ‘free Palestine’ and I will leave you alone,” Barney said. 

“There is no universe in which I will say that,” Torres responded. 

After finally relenting and allowing Torres to walk away, Barney shouted “free Palestine!” multiple times and said the lawmaker “supports the mass murder of babies.”

The internet personality has gained notoriety for ambushing celebrities and high-profile media figures in public, conducting impromptu interviews and engaging in provocative behavior. In the 16 months following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, slaughter of 1,200 people throughout southern Israel, Barney has started targeting and harassing public figures supportive of the Jewish state. In April 2024, she made headlines after she confronted actor Alec Baldwin and pressed him to say, “Free Palestine.” 

Torres, a self-described progressive, has established himself as a stalwart ally of the Jewish state. Torres has repeatedly defended Israel from unsubstantiated claims of committing “genocide” in Gaza. He has also consistently supported the continued shipment of American arms to help the Jewish state defend itself from Hamas terrorists. The lawmaker has directed sharp criticism toward university administrators for allowing Jewish students to be threatened on campus without consequence.

Warning: The video below contains lewd and explicit language.

The post Leftist Internet Personality Confronts Ritchie Torres Over Israel Support, Unleashes Lewd and Antisemitic Tirade first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Bowdoin College Rejects Divestment From Israel Days After Lifting Suspensions on Anti-Zionist Protesters

Illustrative: Pro-Hamas activists rally at an encampment for Gaza on April 25, 2025. Photo: Allison Bailey via Reuters Connect

Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine has rejected the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, as its Board of Trustees voted to accept the counsel of a committee that recommended maintaining investment practices which safeguard the institution’s financial health and educational mission.

“The endowment exists solely to provide financial support of the college across generations,” said a report submitted to trustees in February and, according to The Bowdoin Orient, ratified by them last week. “It should not be used as a tool for the advocacy of public policy.”

The reported, authored by the college’s Ad Hoc Committee on Investments and Responsibility (ACIR), continued, “Interventions in the management of the endowment that are rooted in moral or political considerations should be exceedingly rare and restricted to those cases where there is near-universal consensus among Bowdoin’s community of stakeholders … if such actions are pursued, they should be taken only where the financial trade-offs are identifiable, measurable, and limited.”

Bowdoin’s review of its investment practices was prompted by a May 2024 “Solidarity Referendum” in which Bowdoin students called for the college to accuse Israel of “scholasticide” in an “institutional statement” and divest from companies supplying Israel with armaments and other services which contribute to its security. Having passed by what the Orient described in May 2024 as a “66 percent supermajority,” the referendum earned a response from Bowdoin president Safa Zaki. However, Zaki, citing an established practice of her administration, declined to issue any such statement and referred the other referendum items to the board of trustees.

The following semester, Zaki created ACIR, appointing it to study the issue and recommend policies for any “future specific requests regarding the endowment.”

The committee’s mission was always “broader” than addressing divestment from Israel, as it was being asked to rule on matters which involve binding agreements with “generations of alumni, family, and friends who created endowed funds for Bowdoin College underpinned by a contractual guarantee that their gifts would be managed and invested prudently to further the educational mission,” ACIR said in last month’s report.

“Among the hundreds of signed endowment terms in the college’s files, there are no explicit donor instructions that the gift be invested using practices that would advance a position on social or political questions,” the committee explained. “Each of these transactions involved entrusting the college to manage the money in a way that maximizes the benefit for both current and future students. Another important aspect of the educational mission of the college is to create and maintain an environment in which all topics can be discussed openly and respectfully, where ideas can be challenged and analyzed, and where differing viewpoints can coexist and be understood and appreciated … using the endowment as an advocacy tool for a specific political position may run counter to maintaining this atmosphere.”

Zaki endorsed ACIR’s report on Friday, saying that “using our endowment to make political statements on world affairs introduces the risk of losing access to the best investment managers.” Meanwhile, the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine told the Orient that “it’s really impossible to argue that this committee structure was anywhere near as effective as the referendum was in engaging the community and gathering perspectives.”

Bowdoin College is not the first higher education institution to cite its fiduciary obligations as cause for eschewing divestment from Israel.

Boston University did so last month, with its president, Melissa Gilliam saying, “the endowment is no longer the vehicle for political debate; nevertheless, I will continue to seek ways that members of our community can engage with each other on political issues of our day including the conflict in the Middle East.”

Trinity College turned away BDS advocates in November, citing its “fiduciary responsibilities” and “primary objective of maintaining the endowment’s intergeneration equity.” It also noted that acceding to demands for divestment for the sake of “utilizing the endowment to exert political influence” would injure the college financially, stressing that doing so would “compromise our access to fund managers, in turn undermining the board’s ability to perform its fiduciary obligation.”

The University of Minnesota in August pointed to the same reason for spurning divestment while stressing the extent to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict polarizes its campus community. It coupled its pronouncement with a new investment policy, a so-called “position of neutrality” which, it says, will be a guardrail protecting university business from the caprices of political opinion.

Colleges and universities will lose tens of billions of dollars collectively from their endowments if they capitulate to demands to divest from Israel, according to a report published in September by JLens, a Jewish investor network that is part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Titled “The Impact of Israel Divestment on Equity Portfolios: Forecasting BDS’s Financial Toll on University Endowments,” the report presented the potential financial impact of universities adopting the BDS movement, which is widely condemned for being antisemitic.

The losses JLens forecasted are catastrophic. Adopting BDS, it said, would incinerate $33.21 billion of future returns for the 100 largest university endowments over the next 10 years, with Harvard University losing $2.5 billion and the University of Texas losing $2.2 billion. Other schools would forfeit over $1 billion, including the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Princeton University. For others, such as the University of Michigan and Dartmouth College, the damages would total in the hundreds of millions.

“This groundbreaking report approached the morally problematic BDS movement from an entirely new direction — its negative impact on portfolio returns,” New York University adjunct professor Michael Lustig said in a statement extolling the report. “JLens has done a great job in quantifying the financial effects of implementing the suggestions of this pernicious movement, and importantly, they ‘show their work’ by providing full transparency into their methodology and properly caveat the points where assumptions must necessarily be made. This report will prove to be an important tool in helping to fight noxious BDS advocacy.”

As for Bowdoin, college officials there recently withstood an attempt to secure compliance with BDS by force.

Lasst month, members of SJP stormed Smith Union and installed an encampment there in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposing that the US “take over” the Gaza Strip and transform it into a hub for tourism and economic dynamism. The roughly 50 students residing inside the building had vowed not to leave until Bowdoin agreed to boycott Israel and accede to other demands.

Ultimately, the college imposed light disciplinary sanctions on eight students — who were later given the sobriquet “Bowdoin Eight” by their collaborators — it identified as ringleaders of the unauthorized demonstration, sentencing them to probation.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Bowdoin College Rejects Divestment From Israel Days After Lifting Suspensions on Anti-Zionist Protesters first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Canadian Receives 5 Years in Prison for Online Antisemitism, 3D Printing Guns

3D-printed gun parts seized in an investigation into Pascal Tribout, 38. Photo: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

A man who pleaded guilty in December to manufacturing 3D-printed firearms and to posting antisemitic comments on the internet will spend years incarcerated for his crimes.

On Wednesday, at a courthouse just north of Montreal in St-Jérôme, Quebec, Judge Sylvain Lepine sentenced Pascal Tribout, 38, to four years for the gun charge and one year for the hate speech, each to be served consecutively. He is the first person in Canada convicted under a December 2023 law criminalizing the creation of 3D-printed guns.

Canada’s Security Intelligence Service had identified Tribout as a participant in a “GDL Chat 2.0” Telegram channel associated with the Goyim Defense League, a neo-Nazi group known for its antisemitic flier distributions and public provocations. The Anti-Defamation League says the organization wants “to expel Jews from America. To that end, their propaganda casts aspersions on Jews and spreads antisemitic myths and conspiracy theories in hopes of turning Americans against Jewish people.”

According to documents submitted to the court, “between March 14, 2024, and April 2, 2024, 66 messages of an antisemitic, racist, anti-government, and alarmist nature were attributed to the accused.” In his online postings, Tribout claimed that Jews created the COVID-19 virus in order to use the vaccine — which he called a “Jew Jab” — to target the broader population.

Following a visit to Tribout’s condo in February 2024 for a tripped burglar alarm, police found blocked windows, multiple 3D printers, and a home “strewn with debris and tools.” Tribout called himself an entrepreneur, telling the officers he modified paintball guns and participated in military-style simulations.

Tribout later spoke with an undercover officer, sharing conspiracy theories and his anti-vaccine views before transferring computer files to create the FGC-9 firearm with a 3D printer. (FGC-9 stands for “F—k gun control” and the 9 refers to a 9-millimeter barrel.) He reportedly told the officer that Jews needed “to be crushed all around the world” and turned into “ashes.” Tribout also said that 3D guns enabled the “perfect crime” because “you can melt the gun and there will be no evidence.”

In a search of Tribout’s home, investigators found more than two dozen gun frames for use in pistols and semi-automatic rifles with a prohibited magazine and Nazi propaganda. They found a document stating, “Every Single Aspect of the COVID Agenda is Jewish.” Tribout also created 3D-printed bladed weapons. Arrested in June, the St-Joseph-du-Lac resident has remained in detention since then with a judge denying him bail.

“This verdict is a welcome sign for all Canadians,” Henry Topas, who attended the sentencing and serves as B’nai Brith Canada’s regional director for Quebec and Atlantic Canada, said in a statement. “This case shows that antisemitism is not only a threat to Jews but also can be a matter of national security.”

Topas said that he chose to appear at the sentencing “because I believed that it was important that all people present in the courtroom, from the prosecutor to the representatives of the RCMP, to the judge, defense attorney, to the convicted felon and his family, that there was a visibly Jewish person in courtroom.” He explained that “this is not the nonsense going on in the streets every night. It’s a very different kettle of fish.”

B’nai Brith said in a community impact statement in December that “for the Jewish community of Montreal, which after the Holocaust in Europe became a haven for survivors to rebuild their lives, this dual threat of hatred and the potential for violent action raises horrific fears. Montreal is still home to some elderly survivors and their descendants who bear the scars of their parents and grandparents.”

The group said that “these scars, combined with the violence we now see on our streets and campuses, make it all the more necessary for the justice system, the last bastion of hope for the community, to stand up and act in the face of these threats.”

Prosecutor Gabriel Lapierre said, “We are very satisfied with the sentence,” and noted that the weapons “were not functional.”

Canada’s Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs stated that “as we said last year, this case reminds us that antisemitism can take many forms, including among neo-Nazi and anti-vaccine conspiracies. We welcome this sentence. From arrest to conviction, authorities acted decisively against Tribout and the threat he posed to society. We need the same level of commitment to fighting all cases of antisemitism.”

Pascal Tribout. Photo: LinkedIn via Montreal Gazette

The post Canadian Receives 5 Years in Prison for Online Antisemitism, 3D Printing Guns first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News