Uncategorized
What Does International Law Say About Recognizing a Current State of ‘Palestine’?
The United Nations headquarters building is pictured though a window with the UN logo in the foreground in the Manhattan borough of New York, Aug. 15, 2014. Photo: REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
All state recognitions of “Palestine” to date have failed to meet even a single one of the four Montevideo Convention requirements. Those national governments now expressing their support for the sovereignty for “Palestine” are effectively welcoming a lawless aggressor state into the community of nations. Over time, this terror-state could become an existential hazard for Israel, directly and/or in collaboration with other irredentist states. Ipso facto, it could also undermine international law generally.
Leaders of every ideological stripe of the “nonmember observer state” of Palestine have long displayed and continue to display “criminal intent” (mens rea) toward Israel.
Would this lawless behavior be reduced or better controlled in a Palestinian state? What if the new Arab sovereignty were “demilitarized?”
There is a clear answer to this question: A fully sovereign state of “Palestine” could evade any pre-independence security promises made to Israel, including those made in alleged good faith.
Because treaties are binding only on states, any agreement between a non-state Palestinian authority and a sovereign State of Israel would have no foreseeable effectiveness.
This would be the case even if the “government of Palestine” were willing to consider itself bound by its own pre-state assurances. Even in such circumstances, the government of Palestine could retain legal grounds to terminate the agreement. For example, it could withdraw from the pact on account of a supposed “material breach.” In all likelihood, such withdrawal would stem from a supposed violation by Israel that had “undermined the object and/or purpose of the agreement.”
Multiple opportunities for Palestinian manipulation would arise. Palestinian decision-makers could point toward what international law calls a “fundamental change of circumstances” (rebus sic stantibus). If a Palestinian state were to declare itself vulnerable to previously unforeseen dangers, perhaps even to forces of other Arab armies or jihadist insurgencies, it could lawfully end its original commitment to remain demilitarized. A new state of Palestine could also point to “errors of fact” or “duress” as permissible grounds for agreement termination.
On its face, any treaty or treaty-like agreement is void if, at the time of entry into force, it conflicts with a “peremptory” rule of general international law — a “jus cogens” rule accepted and recognized by the international community of states as one from which “no derogation is permitted.” Because the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces essential to self-defense is precisely such a rule, Palestine could credibly argue its right to abrogate any arrangement that had “forced its demilitarization.”
In the 18th century, US president Thomas Jefferson wrote about obligation and international law. While affirming that “Compacts between nation and nation are obligatory upon them by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts…,” he simultaneously acknowledged that, “There are circumstances which sometimes excuse the nonperformance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation.” Specifically, Jefferson continued, if performance of contractual obligation becomes “self-destructive” to a party, “…the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation to others.”
A presumptive Palestinian state could lawfully abrogate any pre-independence commitments to Israel to demilitarize. Recent declarations of recognition by France, the UK, and other major states have no legal bearing on the creation of such a state. On the contrary, these declarations directly undermine the authority of law-based international relations, both generally and with particular reference to Israel.
In the final analysis, Jerusalem needs to assess the existential threat of Palestinian statehood as part of a much larger strategic whole; that is, in tandem with the continuously intersecting perils of conventional and unconventional war. This points to a comprehensive analytic focus on potential synergies between enemy state aggressions and Israel’s nuclear doctrine. Notwithstanding Israel’s recent victories over Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, Israeli leaders need to calibrate incremental shifts from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.” Though recent declarations of national support for Palestinian statehood can be countered on a legal level, even a non-state “Palestine” would remain intolerable.
International law is not a suicide pact. Israel has no legal obligation to carve a new enemy state aggressor from its own still-living body. Despite being expressed in stirring rhythms of high moral authority, the recent recognitions of “Palestine” by major states avoid larger justice issues altogether.
Assigning formal statehood to a violence-based entity that openly seeks the total destruction of an existing state violates both justice and logic. In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, such assignment is wrongheaded on several levels and signals an evident contradiction in terms. Instead of accepting ad hoc policy prescriptions drawn from non-legal sources, the community of states will need to display good faith (a basic expectation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) by upholding law-based rules.
Under the British Mandate, in confirmation of decisions made at the San Remo peace conference of April 1920, all of Palestine was reserved for the establishment of a “Jewish national home.” In 1922, though no part of mandatory Palestine had ever been designated for the creation of another Arab state, Britain illegally carved Transjordan out of 78% of its mandatory territory. Transjordan became Jordan in 1949, one year after the declaration of the State of Israel. On May 15, 1948, one day after the State of Israel was declared by David Ben-Gurion in Tel-Aviv, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, forecast the war being planned by combined Arab forces: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre.”
The later UN partition resolution (1947) included only 22% of the lands originally pledged to establish a Jewish national home. In the interests of a peaceful start, Jewish national authorities accepted the illegally reduced land mass (essentially half of the residual one-fifth) in exchange for establishing a Jewish state. From the beginning, this immediately beleaguered state, less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan, had to endure with virtually no strategic depth.
There is one last critical observation. In view of continuing misinformation suggesting Israel’s alleged displacement of a pre-existing Arab state, current issues concerning Palestinian statehood and the disposition of Gaza should be understood in an accurate historical context. At absolutely no time in history has there been a Palestinian state.
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). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
Uncategorized
France, Spain Signal Support to Blacklist Iran’s IRGC as EU Moves Closer Toward Terrorist Designation
Commanders and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps meet with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran, Iran, Aug. 17, 2023. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The European Union could soon label Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, after France and Spain signaled a shift in support amid mounting international outrage over the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on anti-government protests and shocking reports of widespread civilian deaths.
As two of the largest EU member states previously to oppose blacklisting the IRGC, France and Spain could tip the balance and pave the way for the designation, as the regime’s brutal suppression of dissent at home and support for terrorist operations abroad continues.
On Wednesday, a day before EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss the issue, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced that France will back the move to blacklist the IRGC, saying the repression of peaceful protesters must not go unanswered and praising their courage in the face of what he described as “blind violence.”
“France will support the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations,” he posted on X.
After reversing its long-standing opposition to the move, France also urged Iran to free detained protesters, halt executions, restore digital access, and permit the UN Human Rights Council to investigate alleged abuses.
Multiple media outlets also reported that the Spanish government is expected to back the EU’s move to blacklist the IRGC, aligning with France in breaking its previous opposition.
The United States, Canada, and Australia have already designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, while Germany and the Netherlands have repeatedly called on the EU to do the same.
Some European countries, however, have been more cautious, fearing such a move could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, which could impact negotiations to release citizens held in Iranian prisons.
The EU has already sanctioned the IRGC for human rights abuses but not terrorism.
Labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization would not only extend existing EU sanctions, including asset freezes, funding bans, and travel restrictions on its members, but also activate additional legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would severely limit its operations across Europe.
Earlier this week, Italy also reversed its earlier hesitation and signaled support for the measure after new reports exposed the scale of Iran’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protests — a move that sparked diplomatic tensions, with the Iranian Foreign Ministry summoning the Italian ambassador.
According to local media, Iranian authorities warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the IRGC, calling upon Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran.”
Tajani said the Iranian regime’s bloody crackdown on anti-government protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X. “I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
As international scrutiny over the regime grows, new estimates show that thousands have been killed by Iranian security forces during an unprecedented crackdown on nationwide protests earlier this month, far surpassing previous death tolls.
Two senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
The Iranian regime has previously reported an official death toll of 3,117. But new evidence suggests the true number is far higher, raising fears among activists and world leaders of crimes against humanity.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,858 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
Established after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC wields significant power in the country, controlling large sectors of the economy and armed forces, overseeing Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs, and coordinating closely with the regime’s terrorist proxies in the region.
Unlike the regular armed forces, the IRGC is a parallel military body charged with protecting Iran’s authoritarian regime, ensuring its so-called Islamist revolution is protected within the country and can be exported abroad.
Uncategorized
Petition Calls for US Investigation Into Immigration Status of Daughter of Former Iranian President
Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, right, and his daughter, Leila Khatami. Photo: Screenshot
A petition circulating online that has garnered tens of thousands of signatures is calling on US authorities to investigate the immigration status of Leila Khatami, the daughter of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, arguing that relatives of senior figures tied to Iran’s ruling establishment should not benefit from life in the United States while Iranians at home face repression.
The petition, launched by an anonymous activist identifying as an “Iranian Patriot,” urges the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review Khatami’s residency or visa status and to consider revocation and deportation if any legal grounds exist.
“This is not personal revenge. This is justice,” states the petition, which as of this writing has 84,919 verified signatures. “You cannot chant ‘Death to America’ through your political system while your own family enjoys safety, stability, and prosperity in America.”
Mohammad Khatami served as Iran’s president from 1997 to 2005 and has been described as a reformist figure within the Islamic Republic’s political system. Despite his reformist reputation, however, critics note that the Iranian state remained responsible for widespread human rights abuses at home and support for terrorist proxies abroad during his time in office.
Under Iran’s authoritarian, Islamist system, the Guardian Council, a 12-member body composed of clerics and jurists appointed either directly or indirectly by the supreme leader, bars any candidate from running for office not considered acceptable by the regime.
According to publicly available information cited in the petition, Leila Khatami, born in 1976, has pursued an academic career in the United States and has reportedly worked as a mathematics professor at Union College in New York. The petition argues that her presence in the US exemplifies a broader pattern of children of senior Iranian officials living in Western democracies while ordinary Iranians face repression at home.
Human rights activists have long documented abuses by the Islamic Republic, including the use of torture, suppression of protests, and severe restrictions on political freedoms.
Over the past few weeks, however, the Iranian regime has gone to unprecedented lengths to crush nationwide anti-government protests with a bloody crackdown. More than 30,000 people may have been killed by security forces earlier this month, according to new estimates that far exceed earlier death tolls.
Senior Iranian Ministry of Health officials told TIME that the scale of the killings and executions has overwhelmed the state’s capacity to dispose of the dead, saying that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone.
Aligned with the Ministry of Health’s new figures, Iran International reported that security forces killed over 36,500 Iranians during the Jan. 8–9 nationwide crackdown, marking the deadliest two-day massacre of protesters in modern history. The news outlet cited newly obtained classified documents, field reports, and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks deaths by name and location, has confirmed 5,858 deaths, including 214 security personnel. Nearly 20,000 potential deaths are still under investigation, and tens of thousands of additional Iranians have been arrested amid the crackdown.
The Iranian regime has reported an official death toll of 3,117.
The nationwide protests, which began with a shopkeepers’ strike in Tehran on Dec. 28, initially reflected public anger over the soaring cost of living, a deepening economic crisis, and the rial — Iran’s currency — plummeting to record lows amid renewed economic sanctions, with annual inflation only getting worse.
However, the demonstrations quickly swelled into a broader anti-government movement calling for the fall of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and even a broader collapse of the country’s Islamist, authoritarian system.
The online petition does not allege that Leila Khatami herself has committed crimes in the United States. Instead, it argues that allowing family members of senior Iranian political figures to live in the US undermines accountability and sends the wrong message amid ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran.
The campaign reflects growing anger within segments of the Iranian diaspora, particularly after the latest protests in Iran were met with deadly force. Activists argue that pressure should extend beyond sanctions on Iranian officials to include scrutiny of their family members living abroad.
The petition also comes on the heels of Emory University terminating Dr. Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, the daughter of Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The termination came after US Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) argued that her presence posed national security and patient trust concerns.
The US Department of the Treasury this month sanctioned her father for his role in coordinating the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protests throughout the country. According to the Treasury, Larijani publicly called on security forces to use force against demonstrators demanding basic rights, and his actions are tied to thousands of deaths and injuries.
The Algemeiner has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment for this story.
Uncategorized
Federal building with murals by Jewish artists at risk of sale, demolition
(JTA) — A federal building in Washington D.C. known for its murals crafted by important Jewish artists is at risk of demolition.
Now, activists are calling on New York City’s Jewish Museum for support to prevent the sale — and possible destruction — of the Wilbur J. Cohen Building.
The Jewish Museum recently concluded a retrospective of one artist whose work appears in the building, Ben Shahn.
In a letter to Jewish Museum leadership, artist-activists asked for support, citing President Donald Trump’s previous destruction of artistic landmarks as a real estate developer in New York City and a broader, nationwide record of preservation failures in the past.
“The United States has a woeful record of respecting, preserving, and restoring its public art, especially compared with older and less wealthy countries,” the letter said. It added, “We’d like to ask you to join in calling for a halt to the sale and destruction of this landmark building and its inspirational art.”
The letter was spearheaded by a trio of Jewish artists — Elise Engler, Joyce Kozloff and Martha Rosler — and currently has more than 300 signatures. Another petition aiming to preserve the building was launched in November, led by a group called the Living New Deal.
The Jewish Museum has expressed sympathy to the cause but not said whether or how it might heed the activists’ calls.
“The Jewish Museum, like all other collecting museums, is deeply committed to the stewardship of art and architecture as part of our shared cultural legacies,” director James Snyder said in a statement.
He added, “We have been attentive to this issue since it emerged, and we stand with other art world leaders, artists, and preservationists in advocating for the protection and preservation of these historic murals, while we also work to advance further strategies to ensure their safekeeping.”
The Cohen Building, which houses staffers from multiple government agencies, is sometimes referred to as the “Sistine Chapel of the New Deal” due to the style and content of the frescoes painted directly onto the walls. Completed in 1940, the building was a project of President Franklin Roosevelt’s economic and social plan known as the New Deal. Artwork for New Deal projects celebrated the working class in a new American style and were made to be accessible to the public.
Jewish artists including Shahn, Philip Guston, and Seymour Fogel contributed murals to the Cohen Building. Sculptures by archaeologist/sculptor Emma Lu Davis, German-American sculptor Henry Kreis and Richmond Barthé, a fixture of the Harlem Renaissance, can also be found throughout the building, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007. It is extremely difficult to remove frescoes from the walls they are painted on.
The agency that oversees the U.S. government’s real estate, called the General Services Administration, began selling other federal buildings on its list late last year in a process called “accelerated disposition.” This would permit a quick sale with limited public input.
The Trump administration is in the process of moving staff out of the Cohen building, a requirement for its sale. Should the Cohen building ultimately be sold to a private buyer, there is no guarantee that the artworks will be preserved, the activists say. But the GSA says otherwise.
“As designated by Congress, the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building is required to be sold within two years of the building being vacated,” Marianne Copenhaver, a spokeswoman, said in a statement to JTA. “The building is still occupied. GSA has engaged art conservation professionals to evaluate the current condition of the New Deal art and identify any necessary conservation measures.”
The building’s namesake helped write the 1935 Social Security Act and later served as the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The provision that permits the sale was tacked onto a water bill passed in January 2025. The sale reflects the GSA’s sweeping mandate to cut costs under the Trump administration. One of the officials playing a leading role in that effort is Josh Gruenbaum, a Jewish attorney who was appointed commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, the GSA office that makes purchases on behalf of the government. Gruenbaum has been named a senior advisor to Trump’s Board of Peace, and has said he is using his FAS role to counter antisemitism.
The post Federal building with murals by Jewish artists at risk of sale, demolition appeared first on The Forward.