RSS
Why a ‘Demilitarized’ Palestinian State Will Not Work and Conflicts with International Law
The signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington, DC, Sept. 13, 1993. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
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
Israel to Raise Defense Spending to Meet Security Challenges
Israeli tanks are positioned near the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, March 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israel will raise defense spending by 42 billion shekels ($12.5 billion) in 2025 and 2026, the finance and defense ministries said on Thursday, citing the country’s security challenges.
The budget agreement will allow the Defense Ministry to “advance urgent and essential procurement deals critical to national security,” the ministries said in a statement.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said the new defense budget “fully covers the intense fighting in Gaza, alongside comprehensive security preparations for all threats — from the south, the north, and more distant arenas.”
Israel‘s military costs have surged since it launched its military offensive on Gaza following the deadly attacks by Hamas terrorists on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Since then, Israel has also fought Hezbollah in Lebanon and waged a 12-day air war with Iran, and carried out airstrikes in Syria this week after vowing to destroy government forces attacking Druze in southern Syria and demanding they withdraw.
Over the past 21 months, Israel‘s missile defense systems have been working almost daily to intercept missiles fired by Hezbollah, Iran, and Houthis in Yemen.
Current annual defense spending is 110 billion shekels – about 9 percent of gross domestic product – out of a total 2025 budget of 756 billion shekels.
The extra budgetary funding “will allow the Defense Ministry to immediately sign procurement deals for the weapons and ammunition required to replenish depleted stocks and support the IDF’s ongoing operations,” said Amir Baram, director general of the Defense Ministry.
It would also enable the defense establishment to initiate development programs to strengthen the Israel Defense Forces’ qualitative edge for future systems, he said.
MULTIPLE SCENARIOS
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the funds would allow Israel to prepare for multiple scenarios since “enemies are openly declaring their intent to destroy us … For this we require complete military, technological, and operational superiority.”
Separately, the Defense Ministry said it had signed a deal with state-run Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to accelerate serial production of Arrow interceptors.
The Arrow, developed and manufactured in cooperation with the US Missile Defense Agency, is a missile defense system designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles.
The Arrow had a high interception rate during the conflicts with Hamas and Iran. As part of the deal, IAI will supply the military with a significant additional amount of Arrow interceptors.
“The numerous interceptions it carried out saved many lives and significantly reduced economic damage,” Baram said.
On Wednesday, the ministry signed a $20 million deal with Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) to supply advanced machine guns aimed at significantly enhancing the IDF ground forces’ firepower capabilities.
($1 = 3.3553 shekels)
The post Israel to Raise Defense Spending to Meet Security Challenges first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
French Court Backs Release of Lebanese Terrorist Jailed for US, Israeli Diplomat Murders
A protester holds a flag with the slogan “Freedom for Georges Abdallah” during a demonstration to demand the immediate and unconditional release of Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, a Lebanese terrorist held in France since 1984, on the eve of a French appeals court ruling on his conditional release, in Paris, France, July 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Abdul Saboor
A French court on Thursday ruled in favor of releasing Lebanese terrorist Georges Ibrahim Abdallah from prison, after he served almost 40 years of a life sentence for attacks on US and Israeli diplomats in France.
The Paris Appeals court agreed to Abdallah’s release on July 25 on the condition he leaves France, a judicial source said. A second source familiar with the case said he would be deported to Lebanon.
Abdallah is the former head of the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Factions. He was jailed in 1987 for his role in the 1982 murders in Paris of US military attache Charles Ray and Israeli diplomat Yacov Barsimantov and for the attempted murder of US Consul General Robert Homme in Strasbourg in 1984.
The US Department of Justice and France’s general prosecutor have for years vigorously opposed his release, and eight previous release requests had been rejected.
Neither Abdallah’s lawyer nor the Lebanese and US embassies were immediately available for comment.
In a hearing in February, the Paris court said Abdallah should make an effort to compensate his victims’ families, according to a person familiar with the matter.
His lawyer said in June that around 16,000 euros ($18,546) had been disbursed into his account, an amount the US Department of Justice and France’s general prosecutor said was insufficient and did not come from Abdallah.
A source familiar with the case said on Thursday that Abdallah will not have to pay compensation to the victims.
It was not clear if there could be further appeals.
Abdallah, 74, has remained a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause.
The Paris court has described his behavior in prison as irreproachable and said in November that he posed “no serious risk in terms of committing new terrorism acts.”
However, the US Department of Justice has asserted that his release would pose a threat to the safety of US diplomats.
Washington has also used Abdallah’s previous comments that he would return to his hometown Qobayyat on the Lebanese-Syrian border as a reason not to release him, given the recent conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters.
($1 = 0.8627 euros)
The post French Court Backs Release of Lebanese Terrorist Jailed for US, Israeli Diplomat Murders first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Independent Schools Need More Tools to Fight Antisemitism in Their Classrooms
New York City Mayor Eric Adams announcing the formation of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism at a press conference at City Hall on May 13, 2025. Photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office.
Too many American schools fail Jewish students by not addressing antisemitism head-on.
Thankfully, more of them now realize these shortcomings and want to make meaningful changes.
As the last school year drew to a close in May, 160 leaders from 32 of New York City’s leading independent schools gathered for a single, urgent purpose: to better support Jewish students and build educational communities that have the knowledge, tools, and moral clarity to respond to antisemitism in all its manifestations and regardless of its source.
Convened by American Jewish Committee’s (AJC) Center for Education Advocacy and the New York University Center for the Study of Antisemitism, this first-of-its-kind gathering was a recognition that this an urgent issue for schools to tackle.
AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report found that 96% of American Jews aged 18-29 believe antisemitism is a problem in the US, and 93% believe it has increased in the last five years. But among their peers in the general US adult population, those numbers dropped to 59% and 43% respectively.
We have seen the consequences of these disparate beliefs — when the peers of younger Jews don’t think antisemitism is as serious a problem, Jewish youth experience gaslighting, othering, and exclusion.
The polarization, exclusion, and breakdown of civil discourse that fuel antisemitism also threaten the functioning of our society as a whole. Addressing these issues must begin in kindergarten and continue through high school graduation.
For this meaningful and challenging work to take place, trusted relationships with school leaders need to be cultivated. That is our shared responsibility as educators, and why there is no time to waste.
Educational institutions are the lynchpin to ensuring that today’s students are equipped with the knowledge, empathy, and skills to engage in dialogue, which are indispensable to a functioning democracy. They are well-equipped to foster empathy in their students while providing a strong civic education.
As we’ve heard from college leaders, we cannot fix campus culture if we neglect the K–12 pipeline that feeds it. Issues like identity politics, deepening divisions, and “us vs. them” mindsets begin early — and schools must confront them right away.
The educators at the summit came away with a deeper understanding of how they can live up to their schools’ missions by ensuring the safety and belonging of the Jewish members of their school community, including faculty, staff, students, and their parents.
To aid those efforts, AJC has published an action plan for independent school administrators, so that we can provide a roadmap for those looking to make meaningful change.
Among its recommendations:
- Implement mandatory educational programs about Jewish identity and antisemitism for administrators and staff responsible for a culture of belonging. Understanding Jews and antisemitism is vital to effectively address these issues in classrooms.
- Organize education programs about antisemitism for students and parents. Most Americans only have a passing familiarity with Jewish culture and identity. Providing more education fosters can foster an environment where there is zero tolerance for anti-Jewish hate.
- Establish and publicize clear goals for promptly responding to antisemitic incidents and provide guidance on how incidents should be reported and how they will be addressed.
- Provide professional development for faculty on how to teach about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, whose best practices include classrooms promoting viewpoint diversity, fact-based inquiry and the use of primary sources to promote and open and respectful dialogue.
The summit laid the foundation for this serious, positive change — but it is one of only many steps that must be taken to make much-needed progress. The students sitting in today’s classrooms will inherit a democracy already strained by division and mistrust.
If we cannot teach them to engage across differences respectfully, to recognize hatred in its many forms, and to build bridges across ideological divides, we will have failed them — and ourselves — in the most consequential way possible.
Ira Glasser is Director of K-12 Education, New York, at the American Jewish Committee’s Center for Education Advocacy.
The post Independent Schools Need More Tools to Fight Antisemitism in Their Classrooms first appeared on Algemeiner.com.