The Assault on Jewish Resilience
Resilience is more than the ability to withstand adversity. It is the enduring capacity of the Jewish people – in Israel and throughout the Diaspora – to secure physical safety, ensure material prosperity, and uphold a shared sense of collective destiny. That resilience is being tested today as never before.
The threats facing the Jewish people in 2025 are neither abstract nor distant. They are present, coordinated, and intensifying. They strike at both poles of Jewish existence. On one hand, Jews around the world face a resurgence of antisemitism that is deeper, ideologically driven, and more socially acceptable than at any time since the Holocaust. On the other, the State of Israel – the central pillar of Jewish sovereignty and security – finds itself the target of an escalating campaign of legal delegitimization in the international arena. These two developments may appear separate, but in reality they are intertwined as mutually reinforcing assaults on the very idea that the Jewish people deserve to live securely, visibly, and with dignity in the world.
This chapter explores these twin threats to Jewish resilience. The first section examines the global spike in antisemitism. a phenomenon that has moved from the margins of society into its mainstream institutions. JPPI’s 2025 Antisemitism Index documents the erosion of liberal democratic norms that once protected Jewish life, the dramatic rise in antisemitic violence and harassment, and the recasting of Jewish identity as a moral stain rather than a historical victimhood. The second section analyzes how international legal institutions – including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) – are being weaponized in an unprecedented campaign to criminalize Israel’s defensive war against Hamas and to strip its legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Both phenomena share a common pattern: the inversion of Jewish identity from vulnerable to villainous, from endangered to endangering. The October 7 massacre by Hamas – the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust – did not produce the global solidarity it should have. Instead, it triggered a wave of moral inversion, particularly in elite Western discourse. On campuses and cultural institutions, Jews were told they could not grieve unless they condemned Israel. Across political arenas, Israel was reframed not as the victim of terror, but as the perpetrator of genocide. Today’s trope replaces the “Christ killer” with the “Palestinian child killer.”
In both cases, the Jew is seen as the obstacle to redemption.
This is not simply rhetoric. In the Diaspora, the consequences are deeply personal: Jewish students harassed or excluded on campuses; synagogues vandalized; individuals assaulted or even killed in ideologically motivated attacks. Visibility itself has become a liability, with many Jews in Europe and North America hiding symbols of Jewish identity or contemplating emigration. What was once unthinkable – the fading permanence of Jewish life in the West – is now openly discussed.
In Israel, the assault is juridical but no less existential. International legal mechanisms are being marshaled against it in a way previously reserved for rogue states and genocidal regimes. The ICC’s 2024 decision to issue arrest warrants against Israel’s elected leaders for alleged war crimes marks a profound rupture in the post-Holocaust legal order. So too does the ICJ’s willingness to entertain charges of genocide brought by South Africa, a nation that has adopted the rhetoric of Hamas and Iran.
These proceedings do more than put Israeli leaders at risk of arrest. They erode Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state with the right to self-defense. They embolden its enemies, undermine its alliances, and constrain its ability to operate militarily in the face of terror threats. They also sap the internal cohesion and moral confidence of Israeli society, which has long prided itself on balancing military necessity with legal and ethical accountability.
What connects the assault on Diaspora Jews and the legal assault on Israel is not only their ideological content, but their ultimate objective: to sever the link between Jewish peoplehood and legitimacy. Whether through antisemitic exclusion or international criminal prosecution, the underlying message is the same – that Jews, alone among the nations, do not have the right to defend themselves, to govern themselves, or to exist on their own terms.
To defend their resilience, the Jewish people must recognize that the battle is not confined to physical threats, but extends into the moral and legal imagination of the world. We must fight not only for safety, but also for legal legitimacy.
This chapter offers a framework for doing so. The first section presents new data and analysis on the global antisemitism crisis, highlighting the ideological shifts, institutional failures, and generational divides that are transforming the landscape of Jewish life in the West. The second section analyzes Israel’s mounting legal challenges, explaining how lawfare operates, what its consequences are, and how Israel and its allies can respond. Together, these two sections illuminate the evolving threat to Jewish resilience – and the imperative for a unified, strategic response.
2025 Integrated Three-Dimensional Antisemitism Index
Antisemitism continues to rise, year after year, despite sustained efforts to stop it. At the same time, emerging responses suggest the need – and the opportunity – for a sharper, more coordinated strategy.
The ongoing war in Gaza has transmuted perceptions of Israel globally and, by extension, of Jews. Israel is increasingly perceived as a symbol of oppression and colonial power. Consequently, Jews who express support for Israel are often characterized as morally complicit in perceived injustices. Across the public discourse, particularly among younger people, the equation “Jew = Zionist = oppressor” has gained widespread traction.
This ideological shift has normalized antisemitic expression in spaces once considered off-limits – including universities, cultural institutions, and parts of the political establishment – where Jewish identity is increasingly linked to collective guilt for Israeli actions. As anti-Zionist rhetoric intensifies, Jews face growing harassment, intimidation, and exclusion, particularly in academic settings where this pattern is well documented. Although anti-Zionist activists may not explicitly endorse hostility toward Jews, data from 14,000 students across more than 140 campuses suggests otherwise: when BDS-style activism swells, Jewish students report increased fear, identity concealment, and disengagement from campus life.¹ In the United States, historically regarded as a secure and hospitable society for Jews, Jewish institutions now operate under unprecedented pressure. The liberal democratic framework that once guaranteed a stable Jewish presence is showing signs of erosion. For the first time in decades, maintaining a visible Jewish identity in democratic societies has begun to carry tangible personal and social risk.
In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor, has openly endorsed the BDS movement and has refused to condemn inflammatory slogans such as “globalize the intifada.” Political positions once considered fringe now occupy space within mainstream discourse, signaling a fundamental shift in the boundaries of political rhetoric regarding Jews and Israel.
These dynamics have been playing out in Europe for more than two decades. The resurgence of antisemitism there has emerged from a convergence of far-left postcolonial narratives, rising far-right populism, and mass immigration from regions where anti-Israel hostility is deeply entrenched. Even Jews who explicitly distance themselves from Israel are often regarded with suspicion or hostility. Twenty-eight Western Nations issued a joint, unprecedentedly harsh statement on July 21, decrying Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
A majority of Western European Jews have experienced antisemitism directly and avoid public displays of Jewish identity. Many are seriously considering emigration. In the United States, younger Jews face increasing social exclusion and ideological polarization. Some respond by drawing closer to Jewish life and community, while others feel isolated or progressively decenter Israel in their Jewish identity – sometimes becoming vocal critics of the Jewish state.
This report highlights developments that threaten to undermine the long-term vitality of Jewish life worldwide. Accusations of genocide leveled against Israel are increasingly heard without meaningful pushback, and portrayals of Jews as enemies of humanity are gaining traction. In Europe, individuals with documented antisemitic records are ascending to positions of political power, while Jewish visibility retreats under sustained pressure. In the United States, Jewish representation in elite academic institutions has diminished as a result of the collapse of meritocratic admissions and the rise of diversity frameworks that effectively penalize high-achieving groups labeled as privileged, including.² Identification with Israel among young Americans – particularly but not exclusively within the Democratic Party – is also declining precipitously. These converging trends reflect a shifting social and political landscape that requires a fundamental reassessment of the strategies employed to confront contemporary antisemitism.

Notable Developments
The golden age of American Jewry may be drawing to a close.³ Antisemitism now emanates from both political extremes: conspiracy-driven narratives on the right and accusations of privilege and oppression on the left. Although ideologically distinct, these two forms increasingly converge in casting Jews as corrupt actors undermining society – whether through global manipulation or systemic injustice. The result is a shared delegitimization of Jewish identity, especially when linked to Israel. For decades, Jews flourished in liberal democratic frameworks anchored in pluralism, meritocracy, and human rights. That foundation is now under pressure from two opposing yet increasingly convergent forces that challenge Jewish belonging in American society:
The nationalist right repurposes classic antisemitic tropes to fit contemporary frameworks: globalist conspiracies, allegations of media and financial control, portrayal of immigration as a Jewish-orchestrated demographic replacement strategy and claims of systematic cultural subversion.
The progressive intersectional left recasts Jews as privileged White actors who are inherently complicit in systems of oppression – with their perceived connection to Israel serving as evidence of this complicity.
Critically, antisemitic discourse has become significantly more permissible in mainstream politics across the spectrum. It operates through layers of moral relativism and ideological posturing that largely immunize it from mainstream accountability. On university campuses, in the media, and even within Congress, anti-Israel rhetoric increasingly draws upon centuries-old antisemitic motifs.
Jewish individuals across the country are now navigating a widening gulf between themselves and the cultural and intellectual spaces they once inhabited with confidence. The antisemitic impulse, long constrained by the norms and taboos of postwar liberalism, has reignited.
The Collapse of Moral Legitimacy.
In the United States, this shift is especially stark. Support for Israel is collapsing among Democrats, particularly the young. According to Gallup, 2023 marked the first year in which more Democrats sympathized with Palestinians than with Israelis. This shift is most pronounced among younger age cohorts, creating a generational divide that continues to widen. Within progressive institutions and on university campuses, Zionism is increasingly viewed not as a legitimate national movement, but as an embodiment of Western colonialism and oppression.
This ideological reframing has softened the social and political guardrails that once contained antisemitic expression, reducing the social cost of targeting Jews verbally, institutionally, and potentially physically.
Jews Recast as Enemies of Humanity.
The October 7 Hamas massacre – the deadliest anti-Jewish attack since World War II – failed to generate the expected wave of solidarity. Instead, it triggered a mimetic explosion of antisemitic rhetoric across Western societies. In far-left and intersectional spaces, Israel has been tarred as genocidal, and Jews are considered morally complicit until proven otherwise.
At protests from London to Berlin, from Los Angeles to New York, Jewish voices were systematically excluded, shouted down, or worse. Jewish students were told they could not grieve their losses without simultaneously condemning Israel.
The Dangerous Equation.
A reductive and dangerous formula has entered mainstream discourse: Zionism = Genocide. The Zionist narrative – that Jewish sovereignty represents a legitimate response to historical vulnerability – is not merely challenged, it is rejected as morally illegitimate.
This shift has been intensified by the ongoing Gaza conflict, where devastating images of Palestinian civilian casualties have flooded the global consciousness. As these images accumulate, the very existence of the Jewish state is increasingly framed as an unacceptable moral cost. If the price of a Jewish homeland is endless war, then, according to this logic, the world is better off without it.
The slogan “From the river to the sea” – often whitewashed as a call for liberation – implies the excision of Jewish sovereignty from the region. In a narrative where Jews are increasingly seen as obstacles to peace and morality, this rhetoric becomes redemptive: violence against them is not merely justified – it is virtuous.
From Rhetoric to Violence: A Predictable Escalation.
Once a group is defined as morally toxic, the progression from symbolic exclusion to physical violence becomes predictable. Moral accusation creates a moral permission structure that eventually transforms into moral obligation.
Early warning signs of this escalation have been discernable in the U.S. for the better part of a decade: from almost weekly reports of vandalism, arson, and assault to the targeted killings in Pittsburg, Los Angeles, and, most recently, Boulder, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. Though not yet systematic, they demonstrate how ideological hostility can turn lethal.
In Europe, warnings of future pogroms – against Jewish schools, shops, or communal institutions – are no longer confined to fiction. In political discourse and media coverage, such scenarios are now evoked openly, and in some cases, matter-of-factly. The unimaginable is becoming thinkable.
The Loss of Generational Support.
What makes this danger particularly acute is the rapid erosion of social solidarity with Jews, especially among the young. Israel has fundamentally lost the support an entire generation. Young people globally, particularly in academic and activist environments, increasingly align with radical pro-Palestinian positions.
Case Study: France as Microcosm
The Paradox of Vitality Under Siege. French Jewry presents a striking paradox: Jewish life has never been more vibrant, yet it exists under unprecedented threat. Synagogues are full, study halls multiply, kosher restaurants thrive, and Jewish schools expand. But this vitality operates under siege conditions.⁴
The Statistical Reality. The numbers tell a sobering story:
- Since 2019, one in five French Jews reports having been being physically assaulted for being Jewish⁵
- 91% of Jewish students have experienced antisemitism since October 7, 20236
- Muslims now outnumber Jews by a factor of 20, dramatically reshaping the political landscape⁷
- 21.5% of newborns in 2023 were given Muslim-Arabic names⁸
- 67% of French Muslims believe Jews treat Palestinians like Nazis treated Jews⁹
- 37% express support for the Muslim Brotherhood¹⁰
Institutional Abandonment. One after another, French cities are freezing sister-city relationships with Israeli municipalities while establishing new partnerships with Palestinian towns. Antisemitic crime remains under-prosecuted and under-sentenced,¹¹ police acknowledge their limitations, and politicians increasingly adopt pro-Palestinian narratives to preserve electoral viability.¹²
The Electoral Calculation. As the 2027 presidential election approaches, the danger intensifies. Whether far-right or far-left forces prevail, many fear the next government will seek accommodation with Islamist actors to maintain social peace – with Jews serving as the likely concession. For growing numbers of French Jews, emigration is no longer a question of if, but when.
The Broader European Pattern. Similar dynamics are unfolding across Europe. In Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and even the United Kingdom, Jews face mounting hostility, political isolation, and a creeping sense of exclusion from national life. The pattern is consistent: initial ideological delegitimization followed by social ostracism, institutional abandonment, and the gradual normalization of anti-Jewish sentiment.
The Silent Boycott
A silent, informal boycott is spreading across academia, business, and finance – targeting Israeli institutions and, increasingly, Jewish-linked individuals and networks. Unlike traditional antisemitic acts, this trend often operates through institutional ambiguity, social pressure, and external funding leverage.
Israel’s Academic Sector
- A 66% increase of academic boycott incidents since October 2023.¹³
- A 21% decrease in international research partnerships; a 50% decrease in foreign student enrollment.¹⁴
- In Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland: multiple universities have frozen institutional cooperation.¹⁵
Business and Financial Sector
- Reports of Israeli and Jewish founders being quietly excluded from deals, shortlists, or funding rounds – especially in tech, venture capital, and media.
- Advertising agencies and sponsors have withdrawn from collaborations with Jewish public figures after pro-Israel statements.
- Gulf influence: conditional donations, notably from Qatar, shape institutional decisions.¹⁶
Cyber, AI, and Military – The Exceptions
Israeli cyber and AI firms maintain strong international demand.
Military cooperation with Israel has expanded post-October 7, especially among NATO countries and defense-tech sectors.
These sectors remain insulated from boycott dynamics due to strategic prioritization.
Notable Positive Prospects
Amid rising global antisemitism, 2024–2025 witnessed a series of responses – some symbolic, others enforceable – marking a transition from moral outrage to policy implementation.
Possible Backlash Against Progressive Ideologies. A convergent backlash against progressive ideologies has emerged among populist-conservatives and intellectual-liberals, demonstrating a measurable political and academic realignment. On the electoral front, far-right parties secured approximately 25% of votes in the 2024 EU elections,¹⁷ with Austria’s Freedom Party topping polls for the first time and Germany’s AfD winning almost a third in Thuringia – the first far-right state victory since WWII.¹⁸ These movements explicitly promote a return to traditional European norms and values associated with conservative-populist currents, including those championed during the Trump administration – with institutional responses including Germany’s classification of BDS as a “proven extremist endeavor hostile to the constitution.”¹⁹
Simultaneously, academic research has generated intellectual criticism of progressive frameworks within liberal institutions. A 2024 study by Ontario academic David Haskell found that DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) training often exacerbates workplace tensions, and produces minimal effects in academia, which decrease as academic rigor increases.²⁰ Corporate America, responding in part to pressure from the Trump administration, has demonstrated measurable retreat: Google, Boeing, Disney, and Walmart scaled back or ended DEI programs in 2024-2025,²¹ while Iowa banned DEI offices at public colleges effective July 2025.
Stronger Legal Accountability. In the U.S., the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter received the death penalty, and a New York attacker was sentenced to 5.5 years in prison. In Australia, the perpetrator of the Melbourne synagogue arson faces up to 25 years behind bars, and a separate hate speech case led to charges under new laws (maximum three years imprisonment). By contrast, comparable penalties remain rare in Europe, where such crimes often go under-prosecuted or under-sentenced.
U.S. Budget Cuts to Universities Tolerating Antisemitism. In 2025, the Trump administration imposed federal funding cuts on universities, such as Harvard ($700 million in research funding lost, $3.2 billion in federal contracts frozen) and Columbia ($400 million in grants revoked) for failing to address antisemitic harassment, particularly involving anti-Israel extremism.²² The University of Virginia also faced pressure that led to its president’s resignation.²³
These actions followed Title VI civil rights investigations into campus environments deemed hostile to Jewish students. The result was swift: new protest regulations, disciplinary reforms, and oversight mechanisms. The policy demonstrates how budgetary leverage can produce concrete institutional change when antisemitism is treated as a governance and compliance issue.
United Nations Action Plan
The United Nations’ January 2025 Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism is a meaningful symbolic step in the international recognition of antisemitism as a unique and enduring form of hatred. By promoting staff training, Holocaust education, cooperation with Jewish organizations, and digital hate monitoring, it sends a strong normative message and includes a call for “zero tolerance” of antisemitism across all member states.²⁴
Nonetheless, four key criticisms have emerged.²⁵ First, the plan does not adopt the IHRA working definition, weakening its clarity on anti-Israel rhetoric. Second, it avoids naming Islamist or radical anti-Zionist antisemitism, despite their central role in recent global incidents. Third, the plan’s credibility is undermined by ongoing institutional bias against Israel in UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. Fourth, the plan is non-binding and lacks mechanisms for enforcement or accountability.²⁶ Overall, while the plan plays a valuable symbolic role, its impact will depend on whether these gaps are addressed in future implementation.
It is worth noting that in her most recent report (A/HRC/59/63), the special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance called on the United Nations to take concrete action, urging that: “The United Nations should implement effectively its Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism.” (§ 109).
European Union Strategy
The EU’s antisemitism strategy includes over 90 actions across its ²⁷ member states–ranging from Holocaust education and site protection to national action plans.27 It offers a rare example of regional coordination with timelines and benchmarks. However, critics point to uneven implementation and the absence of binding mechanisms or sanctions, which limit its capacity to ensure compliance. Still, its structural scope and integration within broader democratic frameworks make it a promising institutional model.
Israel’s “Voice of the People” Initiative.
Launched by President Isaac Herzog, this consultative forum brings together 150 Jewish leaders from six continents to define shared priorities. Its first declaration named antisemitism as the central concern. Though non-binding, the initiative marks a breakthrough – Israeli decision-makers now recognize that Israel’s foreign policy profoundly impacts Jewish communities worldwide, requiring attention to their voice in decision-making processes. While largely symbolic, it establishes an important foundation for future development.²⁸
Ontario’s Holocaust Curriculum Reform.
In 2024, Ontario became the first Canadian province to mandate Holocaust education from Grade 6, supported by NGOs such as Liberation75. What makes the program unique is its comprehensive approach – integrating curriculum development, educator training, and community partnerships to foster early awareness and civic responsibility. It provides a replicable model for education-based prevention.²⁹
JPPI’s integrated Antisemitism Index encompasses three interconnected dimensions: attitudes toward Jews, antisemitic incidents, and perceptions among Jews. Examining these complementary indicators offers a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and assists in identifying effective intervention strategies.


PART 2 – Unresolved Questions in Shaping the Jewish Response
In interpreting the findings outlined above, several strategic dilemmas emerge that are critical to shaping effective responses. These dilemmas reflect the complex ideological landscape within which antisemitism now operates – and the equally complex perceptual environment facing Jewish communities, their allies, and their adversaries.
1. The Trump Paradox and Liberal Jewish Alienation
A striking paradox shapes American Jewish discourse: while the Trump administration took unprecedented steps to combat antisemitism in academia and international forums, many American Jews – especially liberals – remain deeply alienated from the political and cultural values associated with his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. This disconnect has resulted in the rejection of initiatives that may objectively advance Jewish safety and legitimacy. Any recommendation framework must account for this tension and build bridges that allow liberal Jews to support antisemitism measures without compromising their ethical and political convictions.
2. Engaging the Silent Majority
Most Americans – and Western citizens – are not antisemitic. Yet the discourse is increasingly dominated by vocal extremes. Jewish communities must develop strategies that speak to the moral instincts of the silent majority: emphasizing that antisemitism is not merely a Jewish issue, but a threat to the foundation of liberal democratic society. Framing antisemitism as a litmus test for democratic health – akin to racism, misogyny, or authoritarianism – can help activate latent support.
3. Preserving the Moral Gravity of the Antisemitism Accusation
Israeli officials and representatives of leading Jewish institutions argue that anti-Zionism – the denial of the Jewish people’s right to national sovereignty – constitutes a form of antisemitism. They maintain that accepting the right of all peoples to self-determination while denying that same right to Jews in their ancestral homeland reflects a discriminatory double standard rooted in anti-Jewish bias. This view, reflected in the IHRA working definition, rests on the understanding that Jewish identity is not merely a private religious affiliation but a multidimensional peoplehood – grounded in shared ancestry, collective memory, language, law, and historical connection to the Land of Israel. Reducing Judaism to a theological identity erases these ethnic and national dimensions and misrepresents the empirical basis of Jewish continuity.
While this framework responds to real threats, it does not enjoy universal consensus, particularly among younger and progressive audiences. In the United States, 27% of Jewish Democratic voters supported candidates who advocate for a civic, non-Zionist vision of Israel – a state defined not as Jewish, but as neutral and universally inclusive. Many in this group view the rejection of Jewish nationhood not as antisemitism, but as a commitment to civic equality and post-national ideals. This shift presents a strategic dilemma: labeling all forms of anti-Zionism as antisemitic risks alienating potential allies and diminishing the normative force of the accusation. Preserving its moral gravity requires careful distinction between expressions of Jew-hatred and legitimate ideological dissent. A credible antisemitism strategy must defend Jewish dignity without conflating political critique with prejudice.
4. Fighting Antisemitism in Anti-Israel Environments
This conceptual dilemma becomes especially acute in elite, academic, and activist environments – particularly in North America and Western Europe – where the State of Israel is increasingly framed as a symbol of oppression. Within such spaces, Jewish individuals are often pressured to repudiate Israel as a precondition for social legitimacy. Antisemitism policy must therefore include a practical toolkit for advocacy in ideologically hostile ecosystems. This includes developing language frameworks that defend Jewish dignity, pluralism, and identity without relying on the legitimacy of Israeli policies. To build bridges with these communities, it is essential to distinguish between antisemitism and political critique of Israel, while ensuring that this distinction does not excuse or normalize hatred targeting Jews under moral or political pretexts.
5. Avoiding the Victimhood Trap
While it is essential to document and respond forcefully to rising antisemitism, Jewish institutions must also avoid projecting a constant narrative of victimhood. Overemphasizing Jewish vulnerability – particularly in democratic societies – can backfire by reinforcing perceptions of separateness, disempowerment, or exceptional pleading.
Strategically, a victim-only posture limits coalition-building and may alienate younger Jews who seek agency, resilience, and universal moral alignment. Instead, the Jewish response should combine clear-eyed threat assessment with confidence, civic contribution, and moral leadership. Antisemitism must be confronted not through fear alone, but through a proactive vision of Jewish life as integral to the democratic and pluralistic future of society.
PART 3 – Policy Recommendations – Diaspora Communities:
After several decades of relative quiet following the Holocaust, antisemitism has alarmingly returned and been normalized. Sadly, it appears there is no sanctuary on Earth where Jews can truly feel secure. Facing this harsh reality, Jewish communities must recognize that animosity toward them will not simply disappear. It is essential to take responsibility for the personal security of Jews and actively strive to safeguard their well-being.
This involves pressing governments to develop strategic plans and pass legislation to combat antisemitism, advocating for robust anti-hate laws and their effective enforcement, exerting influence on online platforms to crack down on hate speech, actively combating Holocaust denial, and promoting education to foster acceptance by others. All these efforts should be prioritized and coordinated.
Coordinate Donor Advocacy against Foreign Influence in Academia: Mobilize pro-democracy and pro-Israel donors to investigate Qatari and other sources of anti-Israel funding in academia. Coordinate efforts to pressure educational institutions for transparency. Launch awareness campaigns about foreign influence. Lobby for government investigations into international funding sources and their impacts. Leverage alumni networks to amplify the call for accountability in higher education. Through these actions, combat anti-Zionist bias and preserve academic integrity.
Ensure Safe Learning Environments – Establishing National Centers to Combat Antisemitism in Educational Institutions: Establish in each country, a national center that collaborates closely with university and K-12 administrators. These centers should promote a culture of zero tolerance for antisemitism while fostering environments grounded in civic education, democratic values, and evidence-based inquiry. They should serve as a hub for collecting complaints and intervening proactively with administrators. Additionally, these centers would empower Jewish students by equipping them with necessary skills and support networks to advocate effectively on campus and in the wider society.
Enhance Security in Vulnerable Jewish Communities: Implement a comprehensive strategy to protect ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods and other conspicuously Jewish communities by augmenting physical security measures, engaging with Jewish leaders to build political support, taking antisemitic attack complaints seriously, imposing severe punishments on perpetrators, establishing clear goals to combat such attacks, and improving policing and education in high-risk areas.
Combat Online Antisemitism: Exert pressure on online platforms to commit to inhibiting the spread of antisemitism. Support steps to ban China/Russia/Iran ownership of media and social media as enacted in the 2024 TikTok legislation, which withstood Supreme Court scrutiny but has so far been ignored by the Trump administration. Address the internet’s role in fostering negative attitudes toward Jews and challenge the social media platforms’ commercial incentives to permit fake news and hateful messages. International, governmental, and public pressure is required. In the United States, acknowledge the constraints posed by First Amendment protections of free speech, which complicate direct regulatory action
Policy Recommendations – Government of Israel:
Ensure Security of Diaspora Jewish Communities: Israel must act to ensure the security of Diaspora Jews facing antisemitic threats when local authorities cannot. While authorities within each country have primary responsibility, Israel should assist Diaspora communities unable to eliminate serious antisemitic risks through training, information sharing, and emergency planning when required. Proactive measures are crucial for the security of world Jewry. This includes three complementary elements:
- Offer security training to community members.
- Monitor online threats against communities and share intelligence with them and local authorities for better protection.
- Prepare evacuation plans for distressed communities in volatile situations. Update contingency plans covering evacuation logistics and absorption in Israel (transport, employment, social integration etc.)
Establish an Israeli National Strategic Plan: Israel, under Article 6 of the Nation-State Law, has a role to play in the coordinated effort to ensure the safety and well-being of Jewish communities around the world in the face of rising antisemitism. There is an urgent need for a unified and multi-pronged approach to confront this resurgent threat. To advance this issue, the Institute established a steering committee headed by Natan Sharansky, tasked with preparing a strategic plan for the State of Israel to combat antisemitism.
Establish Premier US-Recognized Academic Degrees at Israeli Universities: Given the challenges of antisemitism on college campuses worldwide and the hesitance of some Diaspora Jews to enroll in leading universities, there is a compelling opportunity for Israeli universities to develop and expand top-tier, US-recognized academic programs conducted in English. These initiatives would create an antisemitism-free academic environment attractive to foreign students. Additionally, ramping up training on combating antisemitism in gap-year programs could further enhance these academic offerings. These efforts would not only bolster educational excellence but could also foster stronger Israel-Diaspora relations.
Israel in the International Legal Arena in the Wake of the War in Gaza: Mounting Risk
Introduction
Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, the State of Israel has faced unprecedented challenges in the international legal arena. Amid the ongoing fighting with Hamas, Israel has encountered growing international criticism and, at times, grave allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Proceedings are currently underway in international courts, primarily the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and potentially also in foreign legal systems invoking universal jurisdiction. These developments pose a first-rate strategic threat to Israel, and affect not only Israel’s political and military leadership, but also its ability to sell – and especially to purchase – weapons in many other countries. They also impact the economy, foreign relations, international support, and the overall legitimacy of the State of Israel.
This chapter analyzes Israel’s status in the international legal arena in light of the war. It will also discuss the main sources of threat, review the legal arguments made against Israel and the international frameworks in which they are being addressed, and propose possible directions for legal, diplomatic and public advocacy responses.
Israel’s Steadfast Commitment to the Laws of War
In recent years, and particularly since the horrors of October 7, some voices in Israel have called for the abandonment of the country’s longstanding commitment to international humanitarian law. Nevertheless, from the first day of the fighting, and certainly since Israel began its coordinated effort to defend its borders, the IDF and other security bodies have acted within the bounds of international law. Their actions have been guided by the professional oversight of a robust legal apparatus – senior legal experts in the IDF and Israel’s legal advisory system (the equivalent of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) in the U.S.
These operations have been monitored, even in pitched battle, by Israel’s Supreme Court, in its capacity as the High Court of Justice, which heard numerous petitions regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza.
When concerns have arisen that a specific military action might not align with international law, raising suspicion of war crimes, the IDF’s investigative authorities, in tandem with relevant enforcement agencies, have scrutinized the incident, sometimes even in the face of domestic Israeli criticism of the enforcement operations.
In some cases, despite the proven strength and independence of Israel’s legal system, and despite the fact that it acts to uphold the principle of “complementarity” – which stipulates that external courts (international or foreign national) should not intervene when a state conducts its own enforcement against alleged violations of international law – numerous legal proceedings have been initiated against Israel around the world. These developments pose an unprecedented legal and political challenge.
Below is a brief overview of the main legal threats against Israel: the investigation of a series of offenses by the International Criminal Court (ICC); charges of genocide brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ); and enforcement actions pursued by various countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction. We also outline possible responses to each.
It should be noted that the legal proceedings against Israel, in all the channels mentioned, are part of a sophisticated and, in some cases, coordinated legal campaign led by the Palestinians together with hostile or enemy states. This anti-Israel campaign has been underway for over two decades, but the current war has significantly intensified it and provided momentum for the Palestinian-led “lawfare” campaign.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the War in Gaza
Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the jurisdiction of the ICC. Accordingly, Israel has consistently argued that the ICC has no authority to adjudicate matters involving Israel. Moreover, from Israel’s perspective, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not a “state” capable of acceding to the Rome Statute, and in any case the Palestinian Authority is limited to the jurisdiction granted it by the Interim Agreements, and therefore cannot delegate authority to the ICC over matters beyond its legal control.
Nevertheless, the PA joined the Rome Statute in January 2015, and retroactively “authorized” the ICC to adjudicate claims regarding crimes allegedly committed during Operation Protective Edge in July 2014. In 2021, the ICC found that it has jurisdiction over the territories of the “State of Palestine,” including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. This opened the door for an ongoing systematic inquiry into the actions of the IDF and Israeli leadership during military operations in ”the State of Palestine”, and more recently, the ongoing war in Gaza.
As a result, when the current war began, the ICC expanded its investigations to include Israel’s actions in the present conflict. The investigation led ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to request (May 2024) that arrest warrants be issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. In November 2024, the three judges in the pre-trial chamber approved Khan’s request and issued the warrants. This was an unprecedented measure against a democratic Western state and reflects a significant deterioration in how the international legal community perceives Israel’s wartime conduct.
The issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli officials places Israel in serious legal jeopardy internationally. This may affect diplomatic relations, international legitimacy, and how Israel conducts future military operations.
In his petition for the warrants, Prosecutor Khan and his team accused Israel of crimes, such as “the intentional starvation of a civilian population,” “deliberate harm to civilians,” and the “disproportionate use of force.” Khan argued that Israel’s “siege on Gaza,” the large-scale air strikes, and the control over aid crossings constitute violations of international humanitarian law. At the same time, he accused Hamas of bearing responsibility for the massacre of civilians, systematic rape, hostage-taking, and the use of civilians as human shields – all of which are considered severe crimes under the Rome Statute. Arrest warrants were also issued for senior Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, who were subsequently killed by Israel.
What distinguishes the current proceedings is that, for the first time, the ICC prosecutor has placed Israel and Hamas – a democratic entity and an Islamist terrorist organization – on the same legal footing. This move has sparked fierce criticism from the Israeli government, Western leaders, and legal experts who argue that it represents a fundamental moral imbalance. This is also the first time arrest warrants have been issued for serving Israeli leaders, obliging – at least in theory – the more than 100 state signatories to the Rome Statute to arrest Gallant or Netanyahu if they are in their jurisdiction.
Although the ICC lacks independent enforcement power for its warrants, their mere existence restricts the movements of the prime minister and the former defense minister, exposes other senior Israeli figures to legal risk, undermines Israel’s status as a legitimate democratic state, and could set a precedent for future legal action against IDF commanders or defense officials.
Impact on the Political, Military, and Legal Leadership:
One of the most troubling aspects of the ICC proceedings is the risk that Israeli politicians, soldiers, officers, generals, and even legal advisers and military prosecutors currently face or could be subject to in future investigations. It is also possible that other arrest warrants have already been issued, under seal, against military officials. Further, Israel’s internal oversight system, which includes the High Court of Justice and the Military Advocate General’s Corps, which in the past served as a legal shield against foreign legal claims (complementarity) may lose its efficacy. Allegations that the Israeli system does not act in good faith, or that its internal oversight mechanisms are ineffective could deepen the risk that other states will seek to invoke “universal jurisdiction” to prosecute Israeli officers and legal personnel, as detailed below.
Diplomatic and Political Consequences:
The mere existence of an international criminal proceeding against Israel’s leadership sets a dangerous precedent. It fuels campaigns to portray Israel as a rogue state that violates international law, contributes to Israel’s international isolation, and provides ammunition to BDS and other anti-Israel organizations. Some Western countries have already announced that they will honor the ICC arrest warrants. Additionally, this process encourages other countries and organizations, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to take similar action in the international arena – for example, by promoting adverse legal opinions on Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
The Strategic Challenge and Israel’s Response:
Israel’s response includes both diplomatic and legal efforts. On the legal front, for the first time, and contrary to its initial stance not to officially cooperate, Israel appeared directly before the ICC to challenge the arrest warrants. On the strategic front, Israel mobilized the Biden administration and later the Trump administration. President Biden declared that equating Israel to Hamas was an “outrage.” Upon his return to office, President Trump imposed sanctions on the ICC prosecutor and later also on the judges involved in the proceedings against Israel, as well as anyone assisting them. However, the ability to halt or cancel the proceedings is a matter of the independence of the ICC Prosecutor’s Office, which is largely, but not entirely, insulated from political pressure.
In the legal arena, Israel emphasizes its efforts to distinguish between combatants and civilians, its internal oversight mechanisms, and the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. However, as the war drags on and the number of civilian casualties rises, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince the world of the validity of Israel’s position.
The Legal Proceedings Against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over Allegations of Genocide in the Gaza Strip
On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed a suit at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the State of Israel, claiming that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the Genocide Convention for its actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023. South Africa alleged that Israel is committing genocide – the systematic destruction of a significant portion of the Palestinian people, or at least attempting to do so – through military and economic means, and that public statements indicate genocidal intent.
Since this case was filed, several other countries have intervened in support of South Africa. Israel has rejected the allegations outright, arguing that they are a complete distortion of reality and a cynical exploitation of international legal mechanisms for political purposes.
This case is considered one of the most dramatic legal events in the international arena since the establishment of the State of Israel, placing it under unprecedented legal and moral scrutiny.
Cause of Action: Violation of the Genocide Convention
South Africa’s legal argument is based on the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which Israel helped to draft, and ratified in 1950. Under the Convention, member states are obligated not only to refrain from committing genocide, but also to prevent it and punish its perpetrators.
South Africa claimed that:
- Genocidal intent is evidenced by Israel’s pattern of conduct in Gaza, including mass killing of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, denial of humanitarian aid, and cutting off water, food, and electricity supplies. That is, South Africa has accused Israel of deliberately inflicting conditions of life intended to destroy Palestinians in Gaza. In this regard, they view the continued warnings and evacuations of Palestinians in different areas as intended to harm, rather than protect.
- Public statements by senior Israeli figures, including statements by ministers, Knesset members, and even by the prime minister, also indicate genocidal intent.
- Failure to prevent and punish incitement to genocide – that is, even if no actual genocide has occurred, Israel has failed to prevent it or punish those who, through their public statements, seem to advocate it.
- Continued actions despite warnings – More of a supporting note than a central claim, Israel is alleged to persist with its policies despite international warnings and calls for a ceasefire.
Israel, for its part, has rejected these claims, maintaining that its objective is not to destroy the Palestinian people, but to fight Hamas – a terrorist organization that carried out the deadliest attack in Israel’s history. Israel highlighted its efforts to distinguish between combatants and civilians, its opening of humanitarian crossings, its warnings to the civilian population before airstrikes, and the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.
ICJ Proceedings – Key Stages
Application for a provisional order (interim relief): In the first phase, South Africa submitted an application for provisional relief – i.e., urgent Court orders even before deciding the case. Among the measures requested: immediate cessation of military operations in Gaza, ensuring the supply of water, food, and electricity, opening humanitarian crossings, and refraining from statements that incite to genocide. On January 26, 2024, the ICJ accepted some of the requests. The Court did not order a ceasefire but did require Israel to take all measures necessary to prevent genocide, prevent, and punish incitement to genocide, preserve evidence related to its actions in Gaza, and report to the Court within a month on the measures taken.
This ruling did not determine that genocide is occurring in Gaza, but it affirmed South Africa’s position that there is an “immediate risk” of genocide and that it is plausible that genocide is already underway, and that preventive measures are therefore justified. It is important to note that the legal threshold that South Africa had to meet for provisional measures was very low, and the Court’s interim ruling is not indicative of the decision in the main proceedings.
Main Proceedings: Following the provisional measures, the main case will proceed. The Court will be left to determine whether Israel has indeed violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention. This process is expected to take years and will involve submission of legal briefs, evidence, expert witness testimony, and public hearings. Both sides will have the opportunity to present their positions in full.
A substantive ruling against Israel could be devastating – not only in the legal arena, but more significantly in terms of reputation and moral standing. A determination by this authoritative international judicial body that Israel has committed genocide would likely tarnish Israel’s name for generations, encourage boycotts, and make the country the target of widespread condemnation, sanctions, and other consequences imposed by signatory states of the Genocide Convention.
The ongoing ICJ proceedings and the potential for severe rulings against Israel further bolster the Palestinian narrative in the international arena. Already, many countries have come out in support of South Africa’s position, and some have even sought to intervene in support of its case against Israel.
Criticism of the Proceedings
In Israel and allied countries, there is pushback against the suit having been filed in the first place. Some see it as a cynical manipulation of international law, politicized by South Africa to exploit a legal system meant to protect vulnerable populations to attack a democratic state responding to a devastating terrorist attack. Critics have also noted that the proceedings ignore the context of October 7 – the slaughter, rape, and abduction Hamas visited on Israel – while portraying Gaza as a passive victim. Israel also contends that the case undermines the laws of armed conflict, under which it operates, and that it goes to extraordinary lengths – far beyond legal requirements – to minimize harm to civilians, while Hamas deliberately violates humanitarian law and uses civilians as human shields.
Summary
The case currently being pursued against Israel in the ICJ under the Genocide Convention poses a grave legal and reputational threat to Israel. Although the Court has not ruled that genocide has been committed, its willingness to hear the case and its issuance of provisional measures cast a heavy pall over Israel, damaging its image and triggering broad international repercussions. This is a long-term legal and strategic challenge. It will require Israel to mount comprehensive legal, public-advocacy, and diplomatic efforts to defend its reputation, safeguard its international legitimacy, and circumvent a dangerous precedent that could constrain future counterterrorism operations.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israeli Control over the Territories – Background, Substance, and Implications
One of the key strategies pursued by the Palestinians and hostile states involves exploiting Israel’s relative diplomatic isolation and the automatic majority against it in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and other UN bodies. On December 30, 2022, UNGA passed a dramatic resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the legality of Israel’s “prolonged occupation” of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
This was not the first time that the “advisory opinion” mechanism had been used against Israel. Notably, two decades ago, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion regarding the legality of the separation barrier Israel erected in response to the Second Intifada. This legal tool makes it possible to bypass the UN Security Council, where the U.S. veto usually shields Israel from hostile resolutions. Although ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant weight due to the Court’s status, and can significantly affect Israel’s the legitimacy of Israeli policy, its diplomatic relations, and even future legal proceedings in other forums such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Questions Posed to the ICJ
UNGA’s 2022 resolution asked the ICJ to answer two central questions:
- What are the legal consequences of Israel’s continued occupation, settlement activity, and de facto annexation of the Palestinian territories since 1967, including legislative and enforcement measures taken by Israel, especially in East Jerusalem?
- How does Israeli policy affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal implications of this for all states and for the UN?
In essence, UNGA requested that the ICJ examine the legality of the occupation itself, not just specific violations committed within it.
Israel’s Position
Unlike the genocide case, Israel chose not to appear before the ICJ in the course of these proceedings, and categorically rejected the request for an advisory opinion, arguing that it constituted a politicization of international law. Israel contended that the petition was an attempt to bypass direct negotiations as stipulated in the Oslo Accords, and to produce a legal ruling designed to apply unilateral pressure.
Israel also asserted that the occupation resulted from a defensive war in 1967, not an act of aggression; that the status of the territories is “subject to negotiation” under the Oslo Accords; and that unilateral decisions by international bodies do not alter the substantive legal framework.
The ICJ Decision
After a nearly two-year process, the ICJ delivered its advisory opinion in July 2024. From Israel’s perspective, the opinion was exceptionally harsh and problematic.
The ICJ reaffirmed its earlier finding that Judea, Samaria, Gaza (despite the 2005 disengagement), and East Jerusalem are occupied territories. It added that while a prolonged occupation is not inherently illegal under international law, the “occupying power” must meet all obligations under international law, foremost among them that a military occupation is temporary by nature. Thus, the Oslo Accords do not diminish Israel’s obligations under international law, including the duty to end the occupation.
The Court further ruled that Israel’s practices, particularly the settlement enterprise, constitute a breach of Israel’s obligations under international law and amount to “de facto annexation” of large portions of these territories.
Even more severe, the ICJ did not determine that Israel is merely violating the Palestinian right of self-determination, but that Israel was committing race-based discrimination in the West Bank – a claim that plays directly into accusations of “apartheid” leveled at Israel. Additionally, the advisory opinion alleged a long list of violations of international humanitarian law, including home demolitions, restrictions on movement, exploitation of natural resources (water, land), and the imposition of Israeli law on occupied territories.
As a result, the advisory opinion concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is “illegal” and that Israel must end its presence in the territories “as soon as possible,” including halting all settlement activity and dismantling all existing Jewish enclaves. Furthermore, Israel must pay reparations for the damage it has caused.
As if this were not enough, the Court ruled that all countries, international organizations, and the United Nations are obligated not to recognize the “legality of the occupation,” or to assist in its continuation. It went on to advise the UN General Assembly and Security Council to consider steps they must take to put an end to the Israeli occupation.
Legal and Policy Implications
Although, as noted, the ICJ advisory opinion is non-binding, it does carry serious potential consequences for Israel that are difficult to fully assess at this stage. These include:
- Impact on bilateral relations and international organizations, especially the European Union – The advisory opinion’s categorical and harsh language places even Israel’s closest allies in a highly problematic position. The explicit call for measures to end the “illegal occupation” poses, and will continue to pose, a dilemma for decision-makers in these countries (certainly in light of growing public pressure) concerning the nature and extent of their engagement with Israel – from security cooperation and weapons supply to trade relations and cultural or academic exchanges.
- Among other things, the opinion could spur tougher actions against Israeli settlements and key individuals associated with them and intensify the product boycotts already in play across Europe. Toward the end of the previous U.S. administration, steps were taken against entities and individuals supporting the settlements – and this trend could gain momentum.
- Expanding ICC investigation of Israeli officials – Even before the ICJ opinion, Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank was an ICC focal point. The ruling provides significant encouragement for further investigation and additional arrest warrants for high-ranking Israelis.
- Impact on peace prospects and international recognition of a “Palestinian state” – The ICJ opinion reinforces hardline Palestinian positions and could bolster wider international recognition of the “State of Palestine.” In summer 2025, Australia, Canada Malta, Portugal, and the United Kingdom announced plans to recognize Palestinian statehood, joining the more than 140 countries that have already done so.
- This could further complicate the path to resolving the conflict. In light of the ruling, Palestinians may feel no incentive to agree to any compromise that includes “concessions” to Israel. Conversely, Israel will find it increasingly difficult to accept any solution requiring a complete withdrawal from East Jerusalem or the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from the West Bank settlements.
- Economic repercussions – The advisory opinion may accelerate problematic trends against Israel by commercial entities that wish to avoid association with a state accused of war crimes and other perceived unlawful conduct.
Summary
The ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the contested territories is a significant inflection point in the legal-diplomatic arena and must be taken seriously. It perpetuates the trend of using international legal mechanisms to pressure Israel politically, effectively changing the rules of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although the advisory opinion is non-binding, the opinion could evolve into a foundational document influencing the policies of countries, international institutions, and civil society organizations. As such, it presents legal, diplomatic, and reputational risks that Israel should prepare for – alongside its management of the ongoing political and security conflict.
The Legal Risk to Israelis Under the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction
Introduction
The war in Gaza, started by Hamas on October 7, 2023, has sparked significant developments in the international legal arena. Beyond formal legal proceedings and media scrutiny, is the threat of the principle of universal jurisdiction being invoked against Israeli public figures, military commanders, soldiers, and legal advisers suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Under international law, the universal jurisdiction principle allows states to prosecute individuals suspected of particularly heinous crimes (such as war crimes, genocide, and torture), even if the crimes were not committed within their territory or involving their nationals. The principle is grounded in the idea that such crimes harm the entire international community, giving all states a vested interest in prosecuting them.
In recent years, with the strengthening of international law and expanded information access, the risk that the principle will be applied to Israelis has increased, particularly in European countries with appropriate legislation, solid evidence, the presence of the accused inside their territory, and legal entities or human rights organizations ready to initiate proceedings.
Israel’s legal exposure in the international arena is growing. High-risk targets include senior political figures (such as the prime minister and other senior officials), high-ranking IDF officers, military legal advisers, and even rank-and-file soldiers, especially those involved in controversial operations or with significant public visibility. The proceedings are generally initiated by a prosecutor or local judge and usually triggered by reports from human rights organizations or Palestinian diplomatic missions. The legal process encompasses several stages: preliminary examination, investigation, the issuance of arrest warrants, and in some cases, extradition requests. Recently, a number of organizations, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) among them, have begun filing legal complaints against Israeli soldiers and reservists in many different countries, based on information gathered from social media platforms – often due to the unawareness of soldiers that their social media posts or event IDF or media publications about them may carry serious consequences. In a number of instances, Israel received advance information and was able to extricate Israelis from countries where criminal complaints had been filed against them.
The war in Gaza has heightened this risk due to wide media exposure, abundant documentation, and perceptions that Israel uses excessive force. To reduce this exposure, Israel must take legal and diplomatic steps: preserving the independence of its judiciary (under the complementarity principle), thoroughly documenting IDF operations, monitoring travel by senior officials, fostering understandings with friendly countries, and conducting effective international public diplomacy to clarify the difference between legitimate military actions and war crimes, while emphasizing Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields.
Summary
The legal risk to Israelis under universal jurisdiction is increasing as the Gaza war continues and the global perception of Israel becomes more critical. Although few actual prosecutions have occurred so far, the legal and political groundwork has been laid.
International Legal Proceedings Against Israel – Toward a Complex Legitimacy Crisis
The international legal system now poses an unprecedented challenge to Israel. In 2024 and 2025 parallel legal processes were initiated – criminal, state-level, and advisory – including at the ICC and the ICJ, as well as the application of universal jurisdiction by several countries. The cumulative effect of these proceedings is not just quantitative but also qualitative – they fuel each other, reinforce negative narratives, and undermine Israel’s legitimacy on the international stage. This is not just a legal threat; it is an ongoing campaign of political and reputational delegitimization.
One serious consequence of this is an erosion of the credibility of Israel’s legal system, which has in the past served as a protective shield against international proceedings. Today, trust in Israel’s legal institutions is waning, especially in light of the ICJ rulings, the ICC’s advancing criminal investigation, and the invocation of universal jurisdiction by democratic states. Practical repercussions are already emerging: paralysis among senior officials, fear of international travel, and restrictions on military, legal, and diplomatic activity.
Political, Diplomatic, and Legal Consequences
The legal ramifications are not confined to courtrooms; they extend to the political/diplomatic, economic, and public spheres. In 2024 alone, nine resolutions condemning Israel were passed by the UN General Assembly, most in connection to Israel’s actions in Gaza. Colombia, Turkey, and South Africa have called for boycotts of Israeli products, or the cessation of security cooperation with Israel.
European ICC member states may be obligated to enforce warrants if issued. This could restrict the freedom of movement of senior Israeli officials, or even prevent them from attending international summits. Israel is experiencing growing isolation, including restrictions on its participation in international defense exhibitions.
At the same time, a new academic front has opened: universities, foundations, and scholars around the world are boycotting Israeli institutions and researchers. In a few cases, scientific collaborations have been terminated even after contracts were signed.
The business sector has also been affected: Scandinavian pension funds have announced their divestment from companies active in Israeli settlements, and Israeli tech firms report a decline in the confidence of international investors due to fear of sanctions.
Recommended Courses of Action
- Legislation and the establishment of an organizational and legal defense framework for IDF personnel abroad: The scope of the threat necessitates formulation of a national policy and a protective framework for IDF service members, including preventive measures, such as training on the risks stemming from social media use; monitoring publications that might endanger soldiers; legal action against organizations seeking to harm IDF soldiers, and providing legal protection and financial support for soldiers facing prosecution abroad.
- Enhancing public diplomacy in the legal arena: Systematic documentation of all offensives; operational explanations; and the publication of video footage and legal briefs for international audiences.
- Mobilizing senior international legal experts: To encourage support for Israel’s positions, and the publication of substantiating legal opinions by internationally renowned jurists.
- Legal action against Hamas: Gathering testimony and evidence on rape, abduction, and shooting attacks (rockets and bullets); building a counter-narrative in the legal and public diplomacy spheres.
- Transparent internal oversight: Publishing independent investigations, including reports by non-governmental public committees, to demonstrate accountability and transparency to the international community.
Overall Summary
Jewish history is rife with attempts to marginalize, delegitimize, or erase our presence from the world. And yet, time and again, the Jewish people has endured these challenges – and thrived. The challenge we face today is no less serious. It demands an understanding that antisemitism and the legal campaign against Israel are not separate battles, but fronts in the same war. A war that is not only against Jews, but against the resilience that sustains us.
The international legal campaign is not new to the State of Israel, but the war in Gaza has amplified and inflamed it. Understanding the legal context, the challenges and risks – alongside building strategic legal and diplomatic response capabilities – is essential to preserving Israel’s legitimacy, deterrence, and operational freedom over the medium and long term. This struggle is not only with prosecutors and judges – it is also with public opinion, the media, and international consensus. In this battle, law, policy, and public diplomacy must act as one.
The Legal Dimension in News Coverage of Israel: Trends and Data
The following graph presents an analysis of the percentage of news coverage about Israel that includes legal-related keywords such as “The Hague,” “war crimes,” “international law,” and others.
The analysis was conducted across major English-language news outlets, both Israeli and international. The findings are presented for periods when legal issues were central, including this past July, when Israel faced an unprecedented wave of international criticism. Key insights from the graph include:
- Legal topics are common in both international and Israeli media – In major events, the share of coverage on this topic ranged roughly between 10% and 30%, though this varies greatly from one outlet to another.
- No major difference between Israeli and international coverage volumes – In some cases, Israeli media coverage even exceeded international levels. For example, in Haaretz and The Times of Israel, the share reached about 30%.
- No single peak period identified – Based on the numbers, there is no clear period when legal-related coverage was at its highest, as the proportion varies widely by outlet. For instance, in The New York Times, the share was around 20% throughout the events.
In conclusion: Terms related to international law appear frequently in both international and Israeli English-language media. Based on the findings, there is no indication of an overall increase in the percentage of coverage containing international law-related keywords in connection with Israel.

Research Summary:
The Legality of Israeli and Iranian Actions During Operation Rising Lion (June 12-24, 2025) as Discussed in the Media and Legal Forums
A new Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) study examined, using artificial intelligence (AI), media outlets with a combined reach of over 2 billion monthly visitors. The findings show that during the 12-day campaign, Operation Rising Lion, there was extensive media engagement with questions concerning the legality of Israel’s actions in the fighting, but relatively few concerning the legality of Iran’s actions.
The study reviewed 17 leading global news outlets and found that of the hundreds of items addressing Israel’s and Iran’s adherence to international law during the fighting, 77% of the items published focused on Israel, and only 23% on Iran. This imbalance was even more pronounced in Al Jazeera, where the proportion of references to Israel’s actions – mostly critical – reached about 92%.
Background: Why Examine References to “Legality”?
The use of legal rhetoric such as “violation of international law” or “war crimes” helps frame criticism (or support) of one side of the conflict in a manner that lends additional credibility to the critique or endorsement.
It is important to stress that the legal arena has come to occupy an increasingly central role in efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel. By labeling Israel as a “criminal state” – including accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and similar terms – a negative perception of Israel is becoming entrenched among wide audiences.
Methodology
The study identified 1,348 articles published during Operation Rising Lion on the English-language websites of 17 major global media outlets that reached 2.11 billion people in June 2025 (according to Similarweb). These articles were located using keywords presumed to be linked to issues of legality (e.g., “civilians,” “law,” “international law,” etc.).
Next, using advanced AI tools, the study filtered for articles that actually addressed the legality of actions under international law in the context of the fighting between Iran and Israel.
Finally, with the assistance of these AI tools, a deeper analysis was conducted. This included identifying who was raising the issue of legality – whether Iran, Israel, a third country, or a non-state actor (such as journalists, human rights organizations, legal experts, and the like). The analysis also classified the “tone” of the coverage (critical, supportive, or neutral/unbiased) and broke down the specific legal issues discussed in the publications.
In addition to examining news websites, the study also reviewed leading professional legal forums (blogs) where international law experts – regarded as influential in the Western legal discourse – participate.
Findings
1. Ratio of References to the Legality of Iran’s Actions vs. Israel’s Actions
Of the 1,348 articles collected from the media outlets listed above, which contained content with a potential connection to “legality,” 242 articles explicitly addressed legality in the context of the fighting. Of these:
- 176 articles (about 70%) dealt with the legality of Israel’s actions.
- 76 articles (about 30%) dealt with the legality of Iran’s actions.

However, this picture is incomplete: A substantial portion of media references to “legality” were merely quotations of official accusations made by either side against the other (e.g., Iranian or Israeli claims that harm to civilians constitutes a war crime), or self-justifications of their own actions (e.g., Iran claiming it acted under the “right to self-defense”).

Thus, the real question is: “How does the world – meaning actors other than Israel or Iran – regard the legality of each side’s actions?”
When excluding mutual accusations and self-justifications, and examining only third-party references, the results were:
- 120 references addressed the legality of Israel’s actions
- Only 36 references addressed the legality of Iran’s actions
In other words, about 77% of third-party references focused on Israel, while only 23% focused on Iran.
2. Distribution by Media Outlet
The following bar chart illustrates the distribution of references to the legality of Israeli and Iranian actions, excluding articles that consisted solely of “mutual recriminations” or self-justifications by state officials. That is, the chart shows third-party references – such as those made by journalists, experts, NGOs, or others.


3. Distribution Over the Course of the Fighting
Unsurprisingly, in the opening days of the conflict the discussion focused primarily on the question of Israel’s decision to launch Operation Rising Lion. Accordingly, most of the discussion in those days revolved around the legality of Israel’s initial strikes. However, as shown in the following graph, throughout almost the entire duration of the fighting, references to the legality of Israel’s actions consistently outnumbered those concerning Iran’s actions.


4. Main Issues Discussed
The study found that the main legal issues debated in the media were as follows:
- The law on resorting to the use of force (Jus ad bellum) – The legality of Israel’s decision to launch Operation Rising Lion and Iran’s subsequent response. For example, claims that Israel violated the UN Charter and that its actions could not be justified under the principle of self-defense, and, conversely, Iranian claims that Iran was entitled to exercise the right to self-defense in response to Israel’s attack.
- Harm to civilians and to civilian infrastructure – Coverage of strikes on targets alleged not to be military objects or combatants, such as accusations referring to the targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists.
- Attacks on medical facilities and personnel – Reports of strikes on hospitals and harm to medical staff.
- Violation of the sovereignty of other states – Issues surrounding actions conducted across border without the consent of third countries.
In addition, and for the reasons stated in page, the study also looked for possible references to the legality of the use of cluster munitions.
The following graph depicts the extent of reference to each of these issues during the fighting, including mentions of the mutual recriminations exchanged between Israel and Iran (e.g., Iranian officials accusing Israel of unlawful aggression, or Israeli ministers accusing Iran of unlawful attacks on civilians).
When filtering out mutual accusations and focusing solely on third-party actors, the picture becomes even more one-sided: far greater emphasis was placed on Israel’s actions compared to those of Iran.
These findings show more extensive discussion of Israel’s actions concerning attacks on civilians, medical personnel, and medical facilities in Iran, than of Iranian attacks on civilians and medical facilities in Israel. In essence, nearly all discussions of “legality” concerning Iranian attacks came from mentions of accusations leveled official Israeli sources.
This is particularly jarring given that, during the conflict, Iran fired 591 missiles with over 50 impact sites in populated areas. These attacks killed 31 Israelis and injured approximately 3,500 (according to the Institute for National Security Studies – INSS).
In some cases, even when Iranian actions were mentioned, they were presented in a way that obscured their full legal implications. For example, after the direct hit on Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva, the media quoted a high-ranking Iranian official claiming that the missile had targeted a site within one kilometer of the hospital. Yet, there was no acknowledgement that firing such a heavy missile (with such a large margin of error) at a densely populated area cannot legally be regarded as a “discriminate attack.”
5. Case Study 1 – Israel’s use of cluster munitions and their use against Israel
Israel had long faced harsh criticism over its use of cluster munitions in the Second Lebanon War, even before the international process led to the prohibition of cluster munitions in battle (the Dublin Convention – the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)). Over 110 countries have ratified the CCM, although Israel and Iran are not, so far, parties to it.
The issue of cluster munitions use has continued to garner media attention since then. It has come up most recently in the Russia-Ukraine war, with criticisms both of Russia’s use of them against Ukrainian civilians, and U.S. provision of such munitions to Ukraine. Outlets like CNN and the New York Times (both included in this study) have addressed the issue.
During Operation Rising Lion, however, coverage of Iran’s cluster munition attacks on Israel was extremely limited (as shown in the graph above). In the few instances where it was mentioned, it was in a muted and marginal manner – contrasting sharply with the far more extensive and critical treatment of other issues.
It is worth noting that after the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, Amnesty International issued a report accusing Iran of illegally using cluster munitions against Israel. Yet, the organization was silent during the fighting itself.
6. Case Study 2 – The Absence of Discussion on the Legality of Iran’s Response
Israel argued that it is engaged in an armed conflict with Iran, which, in its view, entitled it to attack Iran under international law. Consequently, much of the public and legal discourse has revolved around whether Israel’s attack on Iran could be justified as “self-defense” under the rules of Jus ad Bellum in international law.
However, international law regulates the use of force by both sides in a conflict. The relevant question is not only whether Israel acted lawfully in launching Operation Rising Lion, the legality of Iran’s response should also be scrutinized. Among other things, Iran would need to show that its actions were both “necessary” and “proportional” to repel Israel’s armed attack.
Put simply: Can indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli cities be considered a legitimate act of self-defense?
In past cases, such as the Second Lebanon War, or Israel’s response to October 7, there was extensive debate in the legal and public spheres regarding Israel’s right to respond, and whether its actions complied with international law.
By contrast, in the case of the 12-day war with Iran, there was very little discussion – either in the media or legal forums – about the legality of Iran’s response. Instead, the discourse focused almost exclusively on whether Israel’s initiation of the offensive was justified.

The following graph illustrates this imbalance, showing the extensive focus on Israel’s decision to launch the campaign versus the minimal attention to the legality of Iran’s actions in this context:
7. The Use of Legal Rhetoric as a Tool of Public Diplomacy
As part of this study, researchers examined the extent to which legal rhetoric was used – that is, the degree to which the media quoted statements by Iranian and Israeli officials about their own state’s actions on the one hand, and the illegality of the adversary’s actions on the other.
The findings revealed a clear advantage for Iranian legal rhetoric:
- Iranian officials consistently framed their actions as lawful, presenting Iran as a state that abides by international law.
- At the same time, they worked to depict Israel’s actions as violations of international law, even as war crimes.
By contrast, Israeli officials were found to use legal language far less frequently in their communications.
(Toward themselves – each country’s statements about the legality of its own actions
Toward the other – each country’s statements about the legality of the adversary’s actions)
It is possible that, as with other aspects of this study, this imbalance partly reflects a pro-Iranian media bias, rather than a true absence of Israeli legal framing. Yet, a sample review of statements by Israeli officials suggests that, indeed, unlike their Iranian counterparts – who made deliberate, consistent efforts to invoke international law – Israeli officials often refrained from systematically employing such legal rhetoric when addressing Iran’s actions.

Recommendations
Timely Publication of Legal Reports – Israel should publish, both immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities and promptly after they conclude, official reports explaining the legality of its actions while also pointing to the legal violations of its adversary. With respect to Operation Rising Lion, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs only released such a report six weeks after the operation ended, which diminished its influence on media discourse or the positions of legal experts.
Greater Use of Legal Rhetoric by Israeli Officials – Israeli political and public diplomacy figures should employ legal language more consistently. To achieve this, they must receive systematic briefings and recommendations from the relevant legal advisers as an integral part of their preparation for press briefings and conferences.
Leverage Technology and Social Media – During hot conflicts, Israel should better use technological tools, particularly social media, to “amplify” its narrative, including the legal justification for Israel’s actions and its adversary’s violations of international law.
