RSS
Why a ‘Demilitarized’ Palestinian State Will Not Work and Conflicts with International Law
On May 6, 2025, National Unity leader Benny Gantz reaffirmed the obvious: the establishment of a Palestinian state would seriously undermine Israel’s security. Gantz concluded correctly, “… anyone who talks about a Palestinian state or [Gaza] withdrawal is simply delusional.”
Most importantly, the idea of a “demilitarized” Palestinian state seems absurd given current conditions.
In 1995 and 1998, Zalman Shovel (Israel’s former ambassador to the United States) and I published several law journal articles clarifying the “demilitarization” trap. In essence, we argued that even if an impressive number of states could argue convincingly for recognition of “Palestine,” these arguments would not satisfy the authoritative expectations of international law.
Among other things, the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934) — the treaty that defines legal requirements of statehood — explicitly identifies all pertinent criteria. These binding standards do not include recognition.
In principle, at least, national declarations of support for Palestinian “self-determination” could be reasonable if the Palestinian side were authentically committed to a “Two-State Solution.” Yet the Palestinian Authority (PA), Hamas, and other regional “liberation movements” still insist that there should be only one legitimate state in the area and that this state must be “Palestine.”
Reflecting jihadi underpinnings of their expected state, Palestinian leaders in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), Gaza and elsewhere continue to support the view that Israel represents an irremediable abomination of the Dar al-Islam (the world of Islam).
In this non-negotiable and annihilationist view, all of Israel remains nothing more than “Occupied Palestine.” It follows, inter alia, that anyone still seeking a “Two-State Solution” would be urging the creation of a criminal aggressor state, one for which the barbarism of October 7, 2023, represents a suitable template for future violence against Israeli noncombatants.
Earlier, this manipulative urging had stemmed from a diplomatic framework known as The Road Map for Implementation of a Permanent Solution for Two States in the Israel-Palestinian Dispute. Together with the Palestinian refusal to reject the genocidal “Phased Plan” (Cairo) of June 1974 and the correlative Palestinian jihad to “liberate occupied Palestine” in increments, the Road Map revealed a largely- unforeseen peril. Even certain well-intentioned states favoring Palestinian sovereignty were being misled by contrived promises of “demilitarization.”
On June 14, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to accept another enemy state. but made such agreement contingent on verifiable Palestinian demilitarization. Presently, Netanyahu, once again prime minister, opposes Palestinian statehood in any form, even if accompanied by demilitarization. This is the only correct and rational position because Israel’s survival could not plausibly coincide with any such bestowal of Arab sovereignty given the current reality.
In law, functioning as a presumptively sovereign state, Palestine would not be bound by any pre-independence compacts. Might this be different if the new Arab state were somehow willing to consider itself bound by pertinent pre-state agreements? Not at all. Even in such relatively favorable circumstances, the new government of an irredentist Palestinian terror state would retain grounds to implement lawful treaty terminations.
The relevant particulars are unhidden. Palestine could withdraw from agreements because of a “material breach,” an alleged violation by Israel that credibly undermined the object and/or purpose of the accord. Alternatively, it could point toward what international law calls rebus sic stantibus, a “fundamental change of circumstances.”
Here, if a Palestinian state were simply to declare itself vulnerable to previously unforeseen dangers, even from forces of other Arab or Islamist armies, it could lawfully end its previously “guaranteed” commitments to stay demilitarized.
There is another method by which a treaty-like arrangement obligating a new Palestinian state to accept demilitarization could lawfully be invalidated. Here, the usual grounds that can be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts would apply as well to treaties and treaty-like agreements under international law. This means that a new state of Palestine could point to alleged “errors of fact” or “duress” as appropriate grounds for terminating any negotiated pacts with Israel.
Per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), any treaty or treaty-like agreement is void if, at the time it was entered into, it conflicts with a “peremptory” rule of general international law. This means a rule accepted and recognized by the international community of states as one from which “no derogation is permitted.” Because the right of all sovereign states to maintain military forces essential to “self-defense” is precisely such a rule, Palestine, depending on the particular form of its institutionalized authority, could be within its rights to abrogate any prior arrangements to accept demilitarization.
In crafting a comprehensive post-Gaza war accord, Israel should draw no reassurance from earlier Palestinian promises to demilitarize. Should the government of a new state of Palestine ever choose to invite foreign armies or terrorists onto its territory (possibly after the original government authority were displaced or overthrown by more militantly Islamist forces), it could do so without practical difficulties and without violating international law.
In concept, any plan for Palestinian statehood would still be built on the long-moribund Oslo Accords, ill-founded agreements destroyed by persistent Arab violations. For the Palestinians, Oslo-mandated expectations were never anything more than a cost-effective method of dismantling Israel. For the Israelis, these expectations were taken as a more-or-less unavoidable way of averting future terror crimes and war-level aggressions.
What does all of this ultimately mean for any Palestinian demilitarization “remedy” and Israel’s national security? Prima facie, the Arab world and Iran still have only a “One-State Solution” for the Middle East. This “solution” eliminates Israel altogether. Unassailably, it is a “final solution.” Even today, official maps of “Palestine” show a new state comprising all of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), all of Gaza, and all of the State of Israel.
Back on September 1, 1993, Yasser Arafat affirmed that the Oslo Accords would remain an integral part of the PLO’s 1974 Phased Plan for Israel’s destruction: “The agreement will be a basis for an independent Palestinian State, in accordance with the Palestinian National Council Resolution issued in 1974.” This PNC Resolution calls for “the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or is liberated.”
Later, on May 29, 1994, Rashid Abu Shbak, then senior PA security official, remarked straightforwardly: “The light which has shone over Gaza and Jericho will also reach the Negev and the Galilee.”
Since these early declarations, nothing has changed in authoritative Palestinian definitions of Israel and “Palestine.” This is true for the leaderships of both Hamas and the PA. It makes no tangible difference whether one jihadi terror group or another is in power. Both would intend a State of Palestine that is irredentist and violence-centered. To be sure, the egregious crimes of October 7, 2023, would remain a proud symbol of Palestinian “self-determination.”
Those who would still consider accepting Palestinian statehood in some form should recall the following: The Islamic world contains 50 states with more than one billion people. Islamic states comprise an area 672 times the size of Israel. Israel, together with Judea/Samaria, is less than half the size of San Bernardino County in California. The Sinai Desert, transferred by Israel to Egypt in the 1979 Treaty, is three times larger than the State of Israel. Israel is less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan.
There is one last noteworthy point. The many-sided threat of Palestinian statehood is part of a much larger and more portentous enemy threat. This suggests, ipso facto, that any crime-based jihadi state would become a significant “force-multiplier” for Israel’s adversaries, both state and sub-state. In a worst-case but fully realistic scenario, the creation of “Palestine” would heighten the probability of a catastrophic war in the region. At some foreseeable point, such a war could become unconventional.
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 ‘Demilitarized’ Palestinian State Will Not Work and Conflicts with International Law first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Brooklyn Nets Select Israeli Basketball Players Ben Saraf, Danny Wolf in NBA Draft

The opening tip between the Brooklyn Nets and Washington Wizards, at Barclays Center, in Brooklyn, New York, Dec. 13, 2020. Photo: Wendell Cruz-USA TODAY Sports via Reuters Connect
In a landmark night for Israeli basketball, Ben Saraf and Danny Wolf were selected in the first round of the 2025 NBA Draft by the Brooklyn Nets, marking the first time two Israeli players have been drafted in the same year.
Saraf, a 19-year-old guard known for his explosive athleticism and creative playmaking, was taken with the 26th pick. A standout with Maccabi Rishon LeZion and a rising star on Israel’s youth national teams, Saraf gained international attention with his electrifying scoring and commanding court presence.
With the 27th pick, the Nets selected 7-foot center Danny Wolf out of the University of Michigan. Wolf, who holds dual US-Israeli citizenship and represented Israel at the U-20 level, brings a versatile skill set, including sharp passing, perimeter shooting, and a strong feel for the game. After his name was called, Wolf grew emotional in an on-air interview, crediting his family for helping him reach the moment.
“I have the two greatest brothers in the world; I have an unbelievable sister who I love,” Wolf said. “They all helped me get to where I am today, and they’re going to help me get to where I am going to go in this league.”
The historic double-pick adds to the growing wave of Israeli presence on the NBA stage, led by Portland Trail Blazers forward Deni Avdija, who just completed a breakout 2024–25 season. After being traded to Portland last summer, Avdija thrived as a starter, averaging 16.9 points, 7.2 rebounds, and 3.8 assists. In March alone, he posted 23.4 points, 9.8 rebounds, and 5.2 assists per game, including two triple-doubles.
“I don’t think I’ve played like this before … I knew I had it in me. But I’m not really thinking about it. I’m just playing. I’m just free,” Avdija told reporters in March
With Saraf and Wolf joining Avdija, Israel’s basketball pipeline has reached unprecedented visibility. Israeli President Isaac Herzog called the moment “a national celebration for sports and youth,” and Israeli sports commentators widely hailed the night as “historic.”
Both Saraf and Wolf are expected to suit up for the Nets’ Summer League team in July. As the two rookies begin their NBA journey, they join a growing generation of Israeli athletes proving that their game belongs on basketball’s biggest stage.
The post Brooklyn Nets Select Israeli Basketball Players Ben Saraf, Danny Wolf in NBA Draft first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Denies Any Meeting With US Next Week, Foreign Minister Says

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS
Iran currently has no plan to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday in an interview on state TV, contradicting US President Donald Trump’s statement that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week.
The Iranian foreign minister said Tehran was assessing whether talks with the US were in its interest, following five previous rounds of negotiations that were cut short by Israel and the US attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The US and Israel said the strikes were meant to curb Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear program is solely geared toward civilian use.
Araqchi said the damages to nuclear sites “were not little” and that relevant authorities were figuring out the new realities of Iran’s nuclear program, which he said would inform Iran’s future diplomatic stance.
The post Iran Denies Any Meeting With US Next Week, Foreign Minister Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Ireland Becomes First European Nation to Advance Ban on Trade With Israeli Settlements

A pro-Hamas demonstration in Ireland led by nationalist party Sinn Fein. Photo: Reuters/Clodagh Kilcoyne
Ireland has become the first European nation to push forward legislation banning trade with Israeli communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — an effort officials say is meant “to address the horrifying situation” in the Gaza Strip.
On Wednesday, Irish Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Simon Harris announced that the legislation has already been approved by the government and will now move to the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade for pre-legislative scrutiny.
“Ireland is speaking up and speaking out against the genocidal activity in Gaza,” Harris said during a press conference.
The Irish diplomat also told reporters he hopes the “real benefit” of the legislation will be to encourage other countries to follow suit, “because it is important that every country uses every lever at its disposal.”
Today Ireland becomes the first country in Europe to bring forward legislation to ban trade with the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Ireland is speaking up and speaking out against the genocidal activity in Gaza.
Every country must pull every lever at its disposal. pic.twitter.com/Z4RTjqntEY— Simon Harris TD (@SimonHarrisTD) June 24, 2025
Joining a growing number of EU member states aiming to curb Israel’s defensive campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Ireland’s decision comes after a 2024 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal.
The ICJ ruled that third countries must avoid trade or investment that supports “the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Once implemented, the law will criminalize the importation of goods from Israeli settlements into Ireland, empowering customs officials to inspect, seize, and confiscate any such shipments.
“The situation in Palestine remains a matter of deep public concern,” Harris said. “I have made it consistently clear that this government will use all levers at its disposal to address the horrifying situation on the ground and to contribute to long-term efforts to achieve a sustainable peace on the basis of the two-state solution.”
“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are illegal and threaten the viability of the two-state solution,” the Irish diplomat continued. “This is the longstanding position of the European Union and our international partners. Furthermore, this is the clear position under international law.”
Harris also urged the EU to comply with the ICJ’s ruling by taking a more decisive and “adequate response” regarding imports from Israeli settlements.
“This is an issue that I will continue to press at EU level, and I reiterated my call for concrete proposals from the European Commission at the Foreign Affairs Council this week,” he said.
Last week, Ireland and eight other EU member states — Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden — called on the European Commission to draft proposals for how EU countries can halt trade and imports with Israeli settlements, in line with obligations set out by the ICJ.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned the latest move by European countries, calling it “shameful” and a misguided attempt to undermine Israel while it faces “existential” threats from Iran and its proxies, including Hamas.
“It is regrettable that even when Israel is fighting an existential threat which is in Europe’s vital interest — there are those who can’t resist their anti-Israeli obsession,” the top Israeli diplomat said in a post on X.
It is regrettable that even when Israel fighting an existential threat which is in Europe vital interest – there are those who can’t resist their anti-Israeli obsession.
Shameful! https://t.co/lxm9qm8sM1— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) June 19, 2025
The post Ireland Becomes First European Nation to Advance Ban on Trade With Israeli Settlements first appeared on Algemeiner.com.