55 Summer 2025 treaty between the U.S. and Jordan, Tamimi remains free and celebrated in Amman. This case is emblematic of the necessary, but currently lacking, political will required to turn legal tools into actionable outcomes. The United States must enforce its own demands, to comply with applicable treaties, counterterrorism and sanctions regimes. The Battle on Campus and in the Classroom Legal warfare must also extend into the realm of education. Across North America, antisemitic narratives have taken root in K-12 public schools and on university campuses, often disguised as political critique or social justice activism. The Legal Affairs Forum emphasized the need for increased civil rights litigation to address this rising wave of discrimination and incitement. Legal advocates, particularly those affiliated with public interest firms, are filing complaints and lawsuits asserting that antisemitic and anti-Zionist harassment is discriminatory and constitutes a violation of Jewish students’ civil rights. Much more needs to be done to frame the public discourse appropriately. The term “Zionism” should be unapologetically reclaimed in legal and cultural narratives as the legitimate expression of Jewish peoplehood and statehood. To deny Jews the right to self-determination − whether on campus, in court, or in curriculum − is quite simply to engage in antisemitism, and flies in the face of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism adopted by countries and jurisdictions throughout the globe. Challenging the Hijacking of International Law Perhaps the most dangerous battlefield is the one where international law itself is being distorted. For many years, institutions such as the UN’s world courts at The Hague − the International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and various United Nations bodies − have been blatantly hostile to Israel, singling it out like no other nation-state. It is not due to law, but rather politicized and wrongful misapplication of law. Terms like “occupation,” “apartheid,” and “genocide” are deployed less as legal diagnoses and more as rhetorical weapons, providing fuel to the argument, pushed forward as a result of ICJ-issued “Advisory Opinions,” that Israel is in violation of international law, thereby meriting punishment and deserving of hateful attack. Forum participants called for more aggressive legal engagement by Israel and its allies with regard to these institutions. This means assertively filing defensive briefs, objecting to biased judges, making procedural challenges, and activating the power of truth in the court of public opinion − even against all odds. Silence cannot exist as an option except where strategic considerations show that it is the most effective strategy. Submissions that clarify Israel’s rights under doctrines like uti possidetis juris (which affirms territorial sovereignty upon state succession) help reset the narrative and reclaim legal credibility. Moreover, lawyers and policy advocates outside of government have special freedom to say what diplomats cannot. As civil society actors, we can denounce international hypocrisy, highlight double standards, and mobilize legal coalitions that expose the farce of politically-driven indictments. The Legal Affairs Forum emphasized that only a united legal front across law firms, NGOs, think tanks and international associations can sustain this long-term effort. The Role of the United States: Pressure with Purpose The United States must also re-examine how its power and funding are being used, or misused, in this context. From the billions of dollars in foreign aid all too freely given to nations that harbor terrorists or undermine Israeli sovereignty, to the 501(c)(3) tax exemptions granted to groups promoting antisemitic agendas, America has the leverage to change the course of parties worldwide. Recent policy shifts offer promising pathways, such as enhanced IRS scrutiny of organizations that support boycott movements or propagate incitement. The JNS Legal Affairs Forum recommended broader implementation of policy tools, including congressional hearings, regulatory petitions, and direct legal complaints against nonprofits and others operating in violation of U.S. law. This is not a partisan issue. It is a question of whether U.S. law will be enforced equally and consistently, standing against discrimination, hate, and wrongful conduct, and whether the principles of democratic accountability, justice for terror victims, and protection of minority rights will be upheld. Conclusion The time has come to elevate legal advocacy into a coordinated movement of resistance, defense, and strategic offense. The tools are already in our hands: judicial systems, civil statutes, treaties, and legal doctrine. But their power lies not merely in theory; it lies in their courageous, unapologetic, and sustained use.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=