Useful links re: @Israel’s views on, and compliance with, international law in the current war [updated 7.10.24]: FAQ on international law: ICC submissions: ICJ submission: Humanitarian aid updates: @cogatonline

@SingaporeConv @IsraelMFA @JusticeGov @annajoubinbret #UNCITRAL

@JusticeGov @IsraelMFA

Israel’s withdrawal from the HRC stems from pervasive institutional biases that, for years, the HRC has failed to address. For those of us genuinely committed to international law, this should be a call, an opportunity, to critically examine its methods and practices. @Israel

Amidst ongoing efforts to weaponize international law, this analysis by @tal_mimran is timely. It sheds light on a milestone decision of the European Court on Human Rights, underscoring that while accountability for international law violations remains a core value, there are no exceptions to foreign official immunity from criminal jurisdiction under customary international law.

I recently read "On Settler Colonialism", a thought-provoking book by Adam Kirsch. It delves into the rise of “settler-colonialism” narratives, highlighting how they often oversimplify complex issues. Kirsch notes also how these narratives have been used to justify violence like the Hamas Oct.7 attacks. Two personal take-aways on the problem with these approaches: 1. Factual blind spots: When the world is categorized into “oppressor” and “oppressed”, facts that don’t neatly fit in these categories are dismissed or ignored altogether. Cognitive bias at its worst. 2. Legal blind spots: Framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely through the lens of settler-colonialism ignores – and outright negates – the Jew people's right to self-determination in its ancient homeland. Over the last 30-40 years, critical theories have challenged existing legal constructs, such as third world approaches to international law (TWAIL) and feminist approaches to international law. While I didn’t agree with much of what they promoted, I appreciated their quintessentially “Jewish” spirit of questioning common assumptions. However, Adam Kirsch's book makes a compelling case that settler-colonialist theories have reached a creative dead-end: rather than challenging existing assumptions and empowering us to develop new sensitivities, they now dilute the discourse, leading to absurd results that defy basic human rights principles. In other words, settler-colonialist approaches have themselves become a new dogma. It’s time for a critical reassessment of these approaches.

This is an important piece. Taken together with vitriolic statements by some UN-affiliated officials, it paints a very troubling picture of deep-rooted anti-Israel bias. For the UN to play the constructive role that its mandate requires, this type of bias must be rooted out.

On this Holocaust Remembrance Day, a fitting quote from President @Isaac_Herzog's address at the UN a short while ago: "How is it possible that international institutions, which began as an anti-Nazi alliance, are allowing antisemitic genocidal doctrines to flourish uninterrupted in the wake of the largest massacre of Jews since World War II? How is it possible that the moral compass of so many in the family of nations has become so disoriented, that they no longer recognize the clear truth: that just as terrorists use civilians as human shields, they also weaponize the international institutions, undermining the most basic, fundamental reason for their establishment? How is it possible that the same institutions established in the wake of the greatest genocide in history – the Holocaust - are manipulating the definition of genocide for the sole purpose of attacking Israel and the Jewish people?" See the full speech here:

RT @AmbMeron: Romi Gonen, Doron Steinbrecher, and Emily Damari should return to Israel and to their families today after 469 days in the Ga…

This Shabbat, we read the Torah portion “Exodus,” with Moses’s timeless call to free the Israelites from bondage: “Let my people go!” Reflecting on these words, I can’t help but think of the hostages held by Hamas for 15 months now. The hostage deal brings both hope and apprehension. My thoughts are with the families longing for their loved ones' freedom.

Before his tenure at the ICJ, Judge Salam expressed strongly anti-Israel views, raising serious red flags as to his impartiality. Now, in the blink of an eye, he has taken up a senior political role in Lebanon. In his first speech - even before his departure from the Court was made public - he described Israel as "the enemy". The cat is out of the bag. These actions are unprecedented. And they reveal that the cases against @Israel over which Salam presided were tainted all along with serious substantive and procedural biases. Impartiality is critical to international judicial institutions. One can only hope that the international community, and the ICJ itself, will take action so as to preserve and enhance it.

Thanks to @LawHuji for the opportunity to reflect on the state of international law in 2024. Looking to 2025, I reiterate the need for deeper and more nuanced dialogue between academics and professionals, to counter the oversimplified discourse that has dominated this past year.

In the clip below, the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights claims that “under the cloak of legality”, Israel uses "counter-terrorism rhetoric" and “extreme, exceptional” interpretations of international law. This framing is wrong: the attacks launched by Iran and its proxies - Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other armed groups – against #Israel, for over a year now, are a multi-front armed conflict. To protect its citizens, Israel has been engaged in a complex military campaign involving urban warfare against terrorist organizations that hold its citizens as hostages, exploit the civilian population in the Gaza Strip as human shields and defy international law in every conceivable way. Israel has presented its legal positions clearly since the beginning of the war. They were and remain commonly acknowledged. Read them here: I will concede to him one point, though - Israel indeed has excellent international humanitarian lawyers.

The UNGA vote moments ago is another ill-guided attempt to vilify Israel under the guise of an “advisory opinion”. Note that there’s already a case pending at Israel Supreme Court’s on humanitarian aid - because yes, domestic courts are much better placed to adjudicate these types of issues than the ICJ. Despite the many challenges, #Israel has made considerable efforts to enable humanitarian aid in Gaza, consistent with its international obligations (see @COGAT for actual data). Seizing the ICJ yet again won't advance peace or human rights, nor will it enhance or detract from Israel’s commitments in that regard. These repeated attempts to politicize the advisory role of the ICJ must be condemned. The ICJ was not designed for this.

Links to the memorandums:

"When the cannons roar, the law does not go silent." I said this at the #ICJ about a year ago, and I was challenged on this assertion today, during a panel of the Israeli Association of Public Law. I understand the criticism, but ultimately, it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. In #Israel, numerous cases have been brought to the Supreme Court regarding the government’s actions surrounding the war in Gaza – including a high-profile case on humanitarian aid that is currently pending. Israel's courts are independent and fully capable of judicial oversight. There is also the @IDF_MAG_Corps, as well as an entire civilian legal apparatus. All of these pieces make up a robust legal system anchored in the rule of law. I appreciated the lively discussion with Anne Herzberg, Daniel Reisner, Amihai Cohen and Hala Khoury-Bisharat, in panel moderated by former Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham. @PublicLawIsrael @AnneHerzberg14 @amichaic

#OTD 76 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This seminal text, while not legally binding, is the cornerstone of modern international human rights law. I wrote yesterday about Ren�� Cassin, one of the #UDHR’s architects. Today, I’d like to focus on his support for #Israel. René Cassin didn’t shy from siding with Israel on core matters related to its very existence. As with @BHL and other prominent thinkers today, he supported Israel not “in spite” of his liberal values, but because of them. This clarity of thought, anchored in his human rights philosophy, prompted him to condemn, in a 1967 article in Le Monde, the pernicious phenomenon of “inversion”, where cause and effect are inverted, and where the country fighting for its survival – Israel – is falsely accused of “aggression.” Paraphrasing (consciously or not) the prophet Isaiah, he wrote: “Let us not claim that what is white, is black.” Sound familiar? Today, more than ever, René Cassin’s voice and legacy are an urgent reminder of the need to avoid the pitfalls of a reductive and weaponized discourse in international law.