JUSTICE - No. 76

Winter 2026 No.76 הארגון הבינלאומי של עורכי-דין ומשפטנים יהודים (ע״ר)

The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Honorary President: Judge Hadassa Ben-Itto z”l (Israel) President Emeritus: Irit Kohn (Israel) Lifetime Member: Irwin Cotler, Prof. (Canada) Honorary Vice Presidents: Oreste Bisazza Terracini, Dr. z”l (Italy), Joseph Roubache z”l (France) Board of Governors All members of the Executive Committee are members of the Board of Governors. Executive Committee President Meir Linzen (Israel) Deputy President Daniel Reisner (Israel) Vice President and Coordinator for International Organizations Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Vice President and Secretary General Rachel Levitan (Israel) Vice President and Treasurer Avraham (Avi) Doron (Israel) Vice Presidents Robert Garson (USA) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Argentina) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Advisors Elyakim Rubinstein, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Israel) Roy Schondorf, Dr. (Israel) Jacques Cohen (France) Chief Executive Officer Sharon Banyan (Israel) Head of the Legal Center for Combating Antisemitism Talia Naamat (Israel) Special Projects Coordinator & Editor, JUSTICE Mala Tabory, Dr. (Israel) Representatives to the U.N. in Geneva (UNOG) Main Representative - Sharon Banyan (Israel) Meir Linzen (Israel) Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Representatives to U.N. Headquarters in New York Main Representative - Richard Horowitz (USA) Sharon Banyan (Israel) Meir Linzen (Israel) Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Representative to the European Parliament Pascal Markowicz (France) Meir Linzen (Israel) Daniel Reisner (Israel) Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Rachel Levitan (Israel) Avraham (Avi) Doron (Israel) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Argentina) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Robert Garson (USA) Elyakim Rubinstein, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Israel) Jacques Cohen (France) Roy Schondorf, Dr. (Israel) Alan Sacks (Israel) Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias, Prof. (Poland) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Amos Shapira, Prof. (Israel) Avraham Yishai (Israel) Axel Freiherr von dem Bussche, Dr. (Germany) Baruch Katzman (Israel) Ben Wahlhaus (Israel) Calev Myers (Israel) Carlos Schlesinger (Brazil) Clive Freedman, Sir (UK) Dalia Tal (Israel) Dan Roskis (France) Daniel Benko (Croatia) David Benjamin (Israel) David Pardes (Belgium) Edna Kaplan-Hagler, Judge (Ret.) Dr. (Israel) Ethia Simha (Israel) Fabiana Di Porto, Prof. (Italy) Graham ZelIick, Prof. (UK) Hernan Najenson (Argentina) Hila Kugler Ramot (Israel) Irit Kohn (Israel) Isaac (Tzachi) Shragay (Israel) Jeremy D. Margolis (USA) Jimena Bronfman (Chile) Jonathan David (Israel) Jonathan Lux (UK) Julia Andras (Austria) Maria Canals De-Cediel, Dr. (Switzerland) Michael H. Traison (USA) Michael Kempinski (Israel) Nathan Gelbart (Germany) Noemi Gal-Or, Dr. (Canada) Olaf Ossmann (Switzerland) Pascal Markowicz (France) Regina Tapoohi (USA) Richard Horowitz (USA) Ronit Gidron-Zemach (Israel) Ruben Pescara (Italy) Sarah B. Biser (USA) Sergio Mannheimer (Brazil) Sharon Banyan (Israel) Stephen C. Rothman, Judge (Australia) Stephen R. Greenwald (USA) Suzanne Wolfe-Martin (Malta) Talia Naamat (Israel) Theodor Goloff (Canada)

Winter 2026 1 JUSTICE is published by The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IJL) 10 Daniel Frisch St. Tel Aviv 6473111, Israel Tel: +972 3 691 0673 Fax: +972 3 695 3855 office@ijl.org www.ijl.org © Copyright 2026 by IJL ISSN 0793-176X JUSTICE is published for members and friends of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. Opinions expressed in JUSTICE are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JUSTICE or the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. The accuracy of articles appearing in JUSTICE is the sole responsibility of their authors. Articles in English are welcome but should be preceded by a query to the IJL Advisory Board at office@ijl.org. Back issues of JUSTICE are available at www.ijl.org. JUSTICE No. 76, Winter 2026 Editor Mala Tabory, Dr. Special Advisor Irit Kohn, Adv. Advisory Editor Alan D. Stephens Academic Advisory Board Michael Bazyler, Prof. Noemi Gal-Or, Dr. Oren Gross, Prof. Moshe Hirsch, Prof. Deborah Housen-Couriel, Adv. Robert Katz, Prof. Michla Pomerance, Prof. Arie Reich, Prof. Nicholas Rostow, Prof. Robbie Sabel, Prof. Amos Shapira, Prof. Malcolm N. Shaw, Prof. Joseph H. Weiler, Prof. Steven E. Zipperstein, Prof. Legal Editorial Staff Shani Birenbaum Jennifer Farrell, Esq. Gavriella Lazarus Graphic Design Climax Design Studio Ltd. www.climax-design.co.il | 03-7516747 Cover Photo Boxes and jars in which the Emanuel Ringelblum archives were concealed. Photo credit: Yad Vashem Photo Archive, 1605/17 In the background: A part of Emanuel Ringelblum letters/Wikimedia Contents President’s Message Meir Linzen 2 Addresses IJL Warsaw Conference Opening Remarks Meir Linzen 4 Justice and Law in Warsaw – and Beyond Lord (David) Wolfson, KC 6 Articles International Law Is Not a Suicide Pact: The International Legal Framework of Operation “Rising Lion” Ambassador Daniel Meron 8 The Legality of Operation “Rising Lion” Steven E. Zipperstein and Andrew Tucker 10 October 7 Civil Litigation in American Courts Michael Radine 18 The Genocide Accusation Against Israel: Three Critical Aspects Norman J.W. Goda 24 “No Zios on Campus”: UK Universities Since October 7 Rosa Freedman 31 Artificial Intelligence in the Israel-Hamas War: The Future Is Here Tal Mimran 38 Hungarian Holocaust Litigation in the U.S. Courts David H. Weinstein 45 The ICC’s Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Over Gaza Steven E. Zipperstein and Sharon Mayer 51 Book Reviews Culture as the Crux of “Genocide”: From Lemkin via the Eichmann Trial to Today: “The Struggle over Cultural Genocide in the Eichmann Trial” By Leora Bilsky Reviewed by Dan Michman 57 Sovereignty & Religious Freedom: A Jewish History By Simon Rabinovitch Reviewed by Chaim Saiman 61 Document Operation “Rising Lion”: Key Factual and Legal Aspects of the Iran-Israel Hostilities, June 13-24, 2025 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 64

2 No. 76 JUSTICE am writing these lines a few days after January 27, 2026 – 81 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. My mother, Ita Linzen (née Weissman), of blessed memory, was among the survivors of this camp. Auschwitz represents not only a historical event and a memorial to the millions who perished there, and a command never to forget and never to forgive, but also a perpetual reminder that the danger of persecution, harm, and threat of annihilation of the Jewish People has not passed. On November 19-21, 2025, the IJL held an International Conference in Warsaw. After several years without an in-person gathering due to COVID-19 and the Iron Swords War, we held a Conference that was a great success in terms of the number of participants, the number and quality of speakers, and the impact of the Conference. The Conference was held at the POLIN Museum — the Museum of the History of Polish Jews, located in the heart of the area where the Warsaw Ghetto once stood. There is no more symbolic place to have held our Conference during a period of unprecedented growth in antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. For me, there was a personal and emotional aspect to holding the Conference at this location — my mother was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto, and many of my family members perished in the Ghetto or in the death camps to which they were sent from the Ghetto. My opening speech at the Conference appears in this issue of JUSTICE. I would like to thank the distinguished lecturers who joined us from around the world and generously volunteered their time and expertise to the Conference, as well as the IJL staff members who devoted many months to organizing the event and shaping its content. At the conclusion of the Conference, we held meetings in Warsaw with senior Polish government officials, and we can already see a meaningful shift in the government’s approach to combating antisemitism. Usually, our Conferences proceed without controversy. This time, however, an incident did occur. The U.S. Ambassador to Poland, Mr. Tom Rose, spoke at our Gala Dinner and endorsed the Polish narrative regarding Poland’s situation and the actions of the Polish people during World War II: that Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and lost its sovereignty; that the Polish people as a whole, and many individual citizens, were victims of the Nazi regime; that many Polish soldiers fought alongside the Allies against the Nazis; and that numerous Poles helped save Jews, often at the risk of their own lives under the threat of execution if discovered. There is no doubt that the intention of the Honorable Ambassador in his speech was to emphasize the Polish narrative, with a view to improving relations between Poland and the Jewish People, the United States, and Israel. According to the Ambassador, there is no proper weight given to the Polish narrative, and this is true. In this context, and again on a personal note, I wish to recall that my father, Mordechai Linzen, of blessed memory, after escaping from a labor camp, hid in the forests of central Poland. Friends—Christian Poles— helped him repeatedly with food, shelter, and other necessities. There is no doubt that he survived thanks to their courage and kindness. President’s Message I Meir Linzen Photo: Idan Gross

3 Winter 2026 Yet at the same time, one cannot ignore the many Poles who collaborated with the Nazis, those who handed Jews over to them, and the pogroms carried out by Poles against Jews during World War II and in its immediate aftermath. Numerous articles have been published following the U.S. Ambassador’s speech, and I refer here to just a few of them.* It is essential that unbiased historical research be conducted on all that occurred in Poland during World War II. In this context, the IJL filed a petition with the Constitutional Court of Poland regarding the 2018 so‑called Holocaust Bill, which sought to restrict historical inquiry into events that took place in occupied Poland during the War. In addition, the IJL supported Polish Holocaust scholars who faced defamation lawsuits for their research on the actions of certain Poles during that period (see the Engelking and Grabowski case). * Menachem Z. Rosensaft, “Ideas: What the US Ambassador to Poland left out when he absolved Poland of Holocaust complicity,” JTA (Nov. 21, 2025), available at https://www.jta.org/2025/11/21/ideas/whatthe-us-ambassador-to-poland-left-out-when-he-absolvedpoland-of-holocaust-complicity; Havi Dreifuss and Laurence Weinbaum, “Blood Libel Against the Polish People? How a U.S. Ambassador Just Helped Distort the History of the Holocaust,” HAARETZ (Dec. 4, 2025), available at https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2025 -12-04/ty-article-opinion/.premium/blood-libel-againstpoland-how-a-u-s-ambassador-just-helped-distortholocaust-history/0000019a-e417-d27b-a99ef697f7aa0000 Editor's Note: The articles in JUSTICE 76 were written and edited during 2025. This issue was closed and the President's Message was prepared on International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, 2026. The delays in publication are due to the vicissitudes and exigencies of Operation Lion's Roar. We appreciate the authors' patience and understanding, and value their academic contributions which will continue to enlighten and inspire.

4 No. 76 JUSTICE t is my honor to open the International Conference of the IJL, entitled: “Antisemitism and the Jewish People in the Legal Aftermath of October 7th.” We are holding this Conference at the Polin Museum, the Museum of the History of Polish Jews. The Polin Museum stands in the heart of what was the Warsaw Ghetto, established by the Nazis in the heart of Warsaw, where the Jews of Warsaw and the surrounding districts were herded together. There, the Jews died of hunger, sickness, torture, and executions. From there, hundreds of thousands of Jews were sent to the death camp at Treblinka. Holocaust Remembrance Day is marked in Israel each year on 27th Nissan, the day on which, in 1943, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising broke out. The Warsaw Ghetto is a symbol of the Holocaust and Heroism, but for me, the Warsaw Ghetto is not just a symbol, but something very personal. My mother, Ita Linzen (née Weissman), together with a large portion of her family, were banished from Skranivicia (a small town near Warsaw), and other towns, to the Warsaw Ghetto. They lived only a few hundred meters from here, on 32 Zamenhof Street. My grandmother, my mother, several of her sisters and her brothers, together with other family members, squeezed into a small apartment. Those who remained in the Ghetto either perished there or were sent to their death in Treblinka. My mother escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto and survived the Holocaust. Escape from the Ghetto – Yes. Survived – Yes. But her personal story symbolizes the fate of the Jews of Poland. After she fled from the Ghetto, my mother was caught and sent to Labor Camps near Warsaw. From a Labor Camp in Pionki, my mother was sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and from there she was sent to the Hindenburg Labor Camp, in an area of Poland that was annexed to Germany. As the Red Army approached, my mother was sent to the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp, where she spent several months in a building housing 1,500 Jews. Of those 1,500 Jews, around 40 survived. Most died of hunger and sickness. Of the 40 who survived, many died soon after the War. One of the liberators of Bergen-Belsen, an officer in the liberating British Army, was Captain Haim Herzog, later President of the State of Israel, and before that honor, my mentor as an Attorney. On January 27, 1945, the Red Army liberated Auschwitz. That day is recognized as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The day following the ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a Conference was held here in the Polin Museum, on the subject of Holocaust Denial. I was supposed to discuss legal aspects of Holocaust Denial, but for me, Holocaust Denial is not only a public or legal issue. It is a truly personal issue. Holocaust Denial is, to a large extent, a denial of my own personality. Were my grandfathers, on both my mother and father’s side, not killed in the Holocaust? Were my uncles and cousins not murdered in the Holocaust? Were not hundreds of my family murdered in the Holocaust? If you deny the Holocaust, you deny my identity, which stretches back through generations, over hundreds of years. Several weeks ago, a court in Milan convicted the online personality Cecilia Parodi of offenses of incitement, in connection with her antisemitic outbursts. Both the IJL and I personally joined the criminal proceedings. I want to quote Ms. Parodi: I hate everyone, all the Jews, I hate everyone, all the Israelis… I hate everyone who defends them… all the journalists, all the politicians, all the cowards, everyone, I hate you. Why did you ruin the world? You have robbed us of every right… If one day I see you all hanging by your feet, and Piazza Loreto is not enough, Piazza Tiananmen is needed, I swear to you I will be in the front row spitting on you. Outbursts like these are flooding the internet almost daily. Throughout Europe there are antisemitic IJL Warsaw Conference Opening Remarks* Meir Linzen * Opening address at the IJL International Conference on “Antisemitism and the Jewish People in the Legal Aftermath of October 7th,” Warsaw, November 19, 2025. I

5 Winter 2026 demonstrations and protests denying the right of the State of Israel to exist. There are physical attacks and “minor disturbances” against Jews for being Jews, in Europe, Australia, Canada, and the United States of America. The life of Jewish students in Europe and other places around the world has become intolerable. The Jews of Europe and in many other places feel that this is reminiscent of the 1930s. Only this time, they know what the outcome was. Marian Turski, one of the last survivors of Auschwitz, returned for the ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz, and just a few days before his death he said: “Auschwitz did not fall from the heaven.” We cannot simply talk about a wave of evil that will pass. That train has already left the station. Today, we must say in the clearest and simplest terms: 1. Any antisemitic action or speech is not only serious in itself, but taken together with other antisemitic actions and speech, represents a danger to the existence of the Jewish People. 2. Any accusation against a Jew living in the Diaspora for the actions or omissions of the State of Israel is illegitimate, and itself represents a serious act of antisemitism. 3. The State of Israel is one of the very few nations of the world facing the danger of extermination. The State of Israel is the only State of the Jewish People. Denying the right of the State of Israel to exist, denying Zionism — the movement representing the rebirth of the Jewish People — is an antisemitic act that must be fought against. 4. Disproportionate criticism of the State of Israel, criticism which does not take into account what happened to the Jewish People only 80 years ago, as well as the existentialist threat to the State of Israel since its birth until today, is an act of antisemitism that must be fought against. I am a man of moderation, I am a man of the Center, but we are living in a time of emergency for the State of Israel and the Jewish People. We at IJL, a small, but stubborn organization, will do our very best through legal means to fight against these phenomena.n

6 No. 76 JUSTICE arsaw is a city where the Jewish story and the legal story intersect with unique force. A city where the rule of law was destroyed — catastrophically, systematically, and with consequences that still echo. And yet a city where the Jewish People showed, even in their darkest hour, what it means to insist upon human dignity, upon moral justice, upon the irreducible humanity of the individual. To speak about law and justice as Jews, in Warsaw, is to speak with the weight of memory on our shoulders. What I have just said would have been true, I suggest, at any time since the Shoah. But it is now especially true after October 7, 2023. We gather in a city where we have all seen, usually in black and white films and photographs, how thriving Jewish life was overrun by devastation. And we now look at those scenes with the images of a more recent devastation imprinted forever on and in our minds — in all their terrible reality and in sharp and unflinching colour. My father, zichrono livracha, passed away in March 2025. At times when I was growing up, it seemed to me that he was a Jew, and therefore he was a lawyer. At other times, it seemed to me that he brought his legal persona to animate and enhance his Jewish life. Because of course he was both a lawyer and a Jew. At the same time. And in a manner which was not just complementary, but essential. He was someone for whom the essence of what it is to be a lawyer, and the essence of what it is to be Jewish, went hand in hand. So let me start with one of his favourite stories, one we all know so well. We begin with the first Jewish lawyer — or perhaps the first Jewish advocate — Abraham. Confronted with divine judgment on the evil city of Sodom, he asks the most audacious and the most enduring question in all of legal philosophy: Hashofet kol ha’aretz lo ya’ase mishpat – “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” In that one line is the foundational and fundamental Jewish attitude to law: that power must be accountable; that justice must be universal; that even the highest authority is subject to moral scrutiny. Our tradition begins with a cross-examination, and not just any cross-examination. It is a cross-examination conducted between man and God —but where man asks the questions, and God has no answer — because there is no answer. There was no divine answer to Abraham’s question because as Jews, we do not only believe that God acts justly. As Jews, we believe that God is justice. For Jews, law has never been a luxury. It has been a necessity. It has been our shield when we were vulnerable, our framework when we were scattered, and our identity when everything else was taken away. We are, by temperament and by experience, a legal people. We argue not only because we enjoy argument — we argue because we believe that justice depends on reasoned disagreement. That belief sits at the heart of the role of the Attorney General in England and Wales. The Attorney is a political figure — he or she sits for the governing party in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords — but the Attorney is also the constitutional guardian of the rule of law. The role of Attorney General in this guise is a peculiarly British invention: part minister, part jurist, part lightningrod. It is an office that requires you to give independent legal advice even when it is inconvenient; to say “no” to colleagues who would prefer you to say “yes”; and to uphold — without fear or favour — not only what is lawful, but what preserves public confidence in the law itself. And it is not a job for the faint-hearted. You need a thick skin, a sharp mind, and the ability to say, with a perfectly straight face to a senior politician whose career depends on your approving his policy: “I’m afraid the law does not agree with you.” Well, ladies and gentlemen, you do not need me to tell you that if the role of the Attorney General in London is difficult, the role of the Israeli Attorney General is … Olympian. In Israel, the Attorney General stands at the Justice and Law in Warsaw – and Beyond Keynote Address* Lord (David) Wolfson, KC * Keynote address at the IJL International Conference on “Antisemitism and the Jewish People in the Legal Aftermath of October 7th,” delivered in Warsaw, November 19, 2025. W

7 Winter 2026 intersection of security, politics, constitutional identity, and national trauma. The office must defend the state while constraining it; advise a government seeking to navigate the country in what sometimes seems like perpetual crisis; and protect rights in a society where every right is contested and every decision has existential implications. It is a role without real precedent anywhere in the democratic world. It requires legal skill, moral courage, and the loneliness that comes from telling — and from having to tell — the most embattled democratic government on earth: “This far — and no further.” The Psalmist reminds us: Tzedek umishpat mechon kis’o – justice and law are the foundation of God’s throne. It is a phrase I chose when appointed to the House of Lords, as the motto on my personal coat of arms — and in the original Hebrew, I should make clear. And if justice and law are the foundation of the throne of the Jewish God, they are also, I suggest, the foundation of the constitution of the Jewish State. But — and we know that for us Jews there is always a “but” — we instinctively distrust any proposition to which there is no exception — but, at the same time, and even at the highest level, we must acknowledge the limits of law. Steven E. Zipperstein —an attorney and a Senior Fellow at UCLA—has recently published an important study: Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism and the Law: 1939– 1948. It is a meticulous, deeply sourced examination of how British legal structures, Mandate institutions, and competing Jewish and Palestinian national movements collided in the decade before Israel’s independence. Zipperstein’s central insight is sobering: the law could manage conflict, but it could not resolve it. Legal mechanisms were deployed with intelligence — sometimes with idealism — often with brilliant novelty — but the underlying national narratives were irreconcilable within any legal formula. His conclusion is that law cannot deliver political reconciliation when the parties deny each other’s legitimacy. The law can restrain; it can channel; it can articulate principles — but it cannot manufacture trust, and it cannot conjure peace out of incompatible visions of nationhood. Which brings me to international tribunals and international courts. As Jewish lawyers, we understand their profound importance. A world without international law is not a world in which Jews have ever been safe. The absence of effective international institutions in the 1930s and 1940s remains one of history’s bitterest warnings. But we also understand their deficiencies. They are only as strong as the consent that sustains them. When they over-reach, they lose legitimacy; when they underreach, they lose relevance. They can deliver judgments — but not always justice. In the post-October 7 world, these deficiencies are especially stark. For us, October 7 is a wound that has not healed. For the Jewish People, it was the most brutal day since the Holocaust. But around much of the world, October 7 is not a date that resonates. We have discovered, painfully, month by month over the past few years, that even the starkest atrocity can dissolve in the acid of political storytelling. And that international legal institutions are not immune to that corrosion. If we cannot rely on shared moral premises, then law — by itself — cannot save us. And yet, precisely because of these challenges, our work matters now, more than ever. We are the heirs of Abraham — questioning, arguing, insisting on justice — even when the world is deaf to it. Especially when the world is deaf to it. We are the heirs of the jurists who rebuilt Europe after the war. We are the heirs of those heroes here in Warsaw, who lived and died — no, who lived and were murdered — not a mile from here. We are the physical and spiritual and legal heirs of those kedoshim — who believed that humanity endures even when the law collapses. Our task is not to pretend that law can do everything. We cannot look to law to solve all our problems nor heal all our divisions. We need to recognize that there is a boundary where law ends, and politics begins. Our task is to ensure that law does what it can do — with integrity, with courage, and also with humility. “Tzedek, tzedek tirdof” — Justice, justice shall you pursue. Not admire. Not discuss. Not file in triplicate. Pursue. And pursue, because perhaps you will never — perhaps you can never — fully and completely and enduringly attain complete justice. Here in Warsaw — a place where justice was denied, and where the consequences stand as a permanent warning — we reaffirm that pursuit. We will defend the law. We will defend the truth. We will defend human dignity — for our own people, and thereby for all people. Because if the Judge of all the earth must do justice, then surely — surely — so must we.n David Wolfson (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, KC) served as Minister of Justice in the House of Lords for the previous UK Conservative Government, and is now the Shadow Attorney General. David is one of the most sought-after commercial Silks at the English Bar, and is a trustee or patron of several Jewish organizations and charities in the UK. He also has strong family connections with Israel, where he maintains a home.

8 No. 76 JUSTICE n June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation “Rising Lion” against the Iranian regime to neutralize the imminent existential threat emanating from the regime’s nuclear weapons program, as well as the grave strategic threat from its ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxies. Alongside public and behind-the-scenes diplomatic support for doing the world’s “dirty work,” Israel’s operations sparked debate regarding their legality. As always, when it comes to assessing Israeli military actions, a chorus of commentators is quick to label the conduct as unlawful. These assessments are often derived from a selective reading of the facts on the ground and a confusion between international law and normative or political aspirations. They resonate particularly strongly within the ranks of the United Nations, known for its intrinsic reluctance to recognize the sometimes necessary and lawful use of military force, especially when it comes to Israel. As Israel’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, it is my duty to challenge the simmering misconceptions and present a grounded perspective on the international legal implications of Israel’s recent actions in Iran, rooted in the undeniable security realities of the Middle East. Operation “Rising Lion” marked a new phase of an ongoing armed conflict between Israel and the Iranian regime. For years, Iran has consistently carried out hostilities against Israel, both directly in covert or overt acts of aggression, and indirectly through its substantial involvement in attacks by affiliated terrorist armed groups. Since the October 7 massacre, Iran has directly attacked Israel twice (in April and October 2024) and the terrorist organizations Iran guided, funded, and armed – including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others – constantly attack Israel on different fronts with Iran’s aid. To understand the gravity of the situation that unfolded in June 2025, we must consider recent developments in their full context. While this conflict has been ongoing for some time, this new stage was unique due to recent alarming developments in Iran’s nuclear weapon program and acceleration of its ballistic missile capabilities. The last window of opportunity to address this existential threat was closing, and Israel was compelled to address it as a last resort at the eleventh hour. For many years, Iran has publicly declared its intent to eliminate the State of Israel, but these were not merely statements. The Iranian regime focused on manufacturing tens of thousands of missiles and UAVs, and advancing plans for a combined ground offensive against Israel on multiple fronts simultaneously, whereby terrorist groups would create a “ring of fire” around Israel. Materials collected during the war in Gaza document in detail how the Iranian regime plans to re-arm Hamas and Hezbollah, including after the October 7 massacre. The “crown jewel” of this project was Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which, based on credible intelligence, was now on the verge of becoming a tangible reality. Israel was not alone in its assessment of nuclear-armed Iran: on June 12, 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared Iran to be in breach of its nonproliferation obligations and admitted that it “was not able to verify that there has been no diversion of nuclear material ... to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” Israeli intelligence agencies confirmed the suspicions lingering in the international community for years: Iran not only produced highly enriched uranium rapidly, but also significantly accelerated its clandestine efforts to produce nuclear weapons in recent months. This effort included speeding up the production of different components required to produce such a weapon and efforts to disperse those components to different sites, including underground facilities, throughout Iran. Any levelheaded evaluation of the legality of the use of force under international law must consider Iran’s breach of its non-proliferation obligations, its accelerated efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and its public declaration to eliminate the State of Israel. Many in the International Law Is Not a Suicide Pact: The International Legal Framework of Operation “Rising Lion” Ambassador Daniel Meron O

9 Winter 2026 international community refuse to acknowledge the closely inter-related network of radical actors in the Middle East, and instead attempt to frame the current situation as de novo exchanges of fire between Israel and Iran. The ample evidence and openly declared ties between Iran and the Iran-backed, trained, and equipped axis of terror – actively working toward its declared goal of destroying Israel – cannot be ignored. In fact, rockets fired at Israel by the Houthis, Hamas or Hezbollah on an almost daily basis since the horrendous massacre of October 7, are almost never reported by European media. It takes a direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran to make your headlines. Israelis cannot afford such a privileged approach. Since October 7, 2023, the Israeli population has been subjected to near-daily fire – ranging from single projectiles to large-scale barrages – of missiles, rockets, mortars, and explosive drones launched by Iran and its proxies, amounting to a staggering total of 19,484 rocket and 606 UAV alerts. Indiscriminate attacks were fired towards civilian population centers, causing death, injury and destruction. There can be no doubt that an armed conflict between Iran and Israel has been ongoing, and any references to Israel starting a “new” war with Iran by initiating Operation “Rising Lion” on June 13 are clearly divorced from the reality. We are not starting a war – we are defending our country and people from an enemy whose declared military objective is that Israel “must be eradicated.” Given that Israel is engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Iran, it is not required to assess its actions toward Iran under the legal framework for initiating a war, but rather under the laws governing the conduct of hostilities therein. Nonetheless, even if such an assessment were necessary – which it is not – Israel’s actions would fully meet all the requirements of lawful self-defense under international law. Any other interpretation of Israel’s inherent right to self-defense, especially when nuclear weapons are involved, turns international law into a suicidal pact, and has long been rejected not only by Israel but also by the UK, the U.S., Australia, and a number of NATO countries, who have long held the position that the right to self-defense under international law – just like any other under any legal regime – includes the right to use force when an armed attack is imminent. There is absolutely no requirement of international law that compelled Israel to allow further deterioration of the situation and jeopardize its ability to thwart the Iranian nuclear weapons threat. As for Israel’s conduct throughout the operation, here too Israel has maintained its commitment to international law, and particularly the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions. Iran’s nuclear weapons program, ballistic missiles infrastructure, and key military officials and scientists with exceptional and decisive value for the outcome of an armed conflict, who were integral to the development of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and were actively involved in its ongoing advancement – are all military objectives. Here, too, despite operational challenges involved in fighting a sophisticated enemy thousands of miles away, Israel took all feasible measures to mitigate the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects. In stark contrast, Iran indiscriminately attacked Israeli population centers, striking homes, a hospital, and even foreign diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv. Would you allow such a radical regime to develop nuclear capabilities if your nation were threatened to be annihilated? The massacre of October 7 has forever changed the Israeli psyche. When our enemies rally for our destruction, amass the necessary weapons arsenal to do so, devise a coordinated, fully operational multi-front extermination plan, we do not ignore them. We listen – unlike the United Nations, which has never held Iran accountable for its long standing and repeated call for the elimination of Israel. Operation “Rising Lion,” supported by decisive U.S. action, was more than a military achievement that has changed the Middle East. It was a strategic message to the Iranian regime, delivered with the obliterating force: the era of denial and placating aggressive and lawless regimes is over. As NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted himself, the U.S.-Israeli operation was something no one else dared to do, and it made us all safer.n Ambassador Daniel Meron serves as Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

10 No. 76 JUSTICE ntroduction Israel’s June 2025 military strike against Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, known as Operation Rising Lion, achieved dramatic success. We analyze whether those strikes were justified under international law. While several commentators were quick to condemn the strikes as illegal,1 we contend that the strikes were fully justified for two independent reasons. First, the strikes constituted a lawful act of self-defense against Iran in response to the unlawful military invasion and ongoing rocket, drone, and missile attacks Iran and its proxies launched against Israel commencing on April 13, 2024. Second, the strikes constituted a lawful exercise of Israel’s inherent right to anticipatory self-defense against the imminent threat that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs posed to Israel. First Justification: Self-Defense Against Ongoing War of Aggression Iran’s Complicity in the October 7, 2023, Hamas Invasion of Israel Iran’s strategy for years has been to surround Israel with a “ring of fire” in the form of heavily armed proxies ready and willing to do Iran’s bidding to bring about the destruction of the Jewish state. Iran armed, funded, and trained proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Iran has also smuggled weapons from Syria and Iraq to the West Bank via Jordan. Hamas invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, crossing the border by land, air, and sea, and fired thousands of rockets at civilian targets. Hamas murdered 1,200 people, took 251 hostages back to Gaza, and committed horrific acts of sexual violence, mutilation, and torture. On October 8, 2023, Hezbollah began firing hundreds of rockets and drones at civilian targets in northern Israel, displacing tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes, towns, and villages. Iran bore responsibility for both the October 7 Hamas attack and the October 8 Hezbollah attack. The Wall Street Journal, citing senior Hamas and Hezbollah sources, reported that Iran had green-lighted the Hamas attack several days prior to October 7.2 Although the Biden Administration said it had not seen evidence directly implicating Iran in the Hamas attacks,3 neither Iran nor Hamas ever denied The Wall Street Journal report. Subsequent reporting bolstered The Wall Street Journal’s account. Documents discovered in 2024 revealed that Hamas had disclosed its October 2023 invasion plans to both Iran and Hezbollah several months before the attacks.4 If The Wall Street Journal overstated Iran’s involvement in the Hamas attacks, it could be argued that Iran would not be legally responsible for the attacks. Even though Iran had provided financial support, arms, and training to Hamas, Iran’s defenders would argue that Iran had not been directly involved in or exercised “effective control” over the planning or implementation of the October 7 invasion. The Legality of Operation “Rising Lion” Steven E. Zipperstein and Andrew Tucker 1. Adil Ahmed Haque, “Indefensible: Israel’s Unlawful Attack on Iran,” JUST SECURITY, June 19, 2025, available at https://www.justsecurity.org/115010/israel-unlawfulattack-iran-charter/; Marko Milanovic, “The Illegal Israeli-American Use of Force Against Iran: A FollowUp,” EJIL: TALK! June 23, 2025, available at https:// www.ejiltalk.org/the-illegal-israeli-american-use-offorce-against-iran-a-follow-up/ 2. Summer Said, Benoit Faucon, and Stephen Kalin, “Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gave the final goahead last Monday in Beirut,” The WALL STREET JOURNAL, Oct. 8, 2023, available at https://www.wsj. com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planningbbe07b25 3. Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed, “We don’t have anything that shows us that Iran was directly involved in this attack, in planning it or in carrying it out.” See “Meet the Press” (NBC television broadcast Oct. 8, 2023), transcript available at https://www. nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-october-82023-n1307318 4. Ronen Bergman, Adam Rasgon, and Patrick Kingsley, “Secret Documents Show Hamas Tried to Persuade Iran to Join Its Oct. 7 Attack,” NEW YORK TIMES, Oct. 12, 2024, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/ world/middleeast/hamas-israel-war.html I

11 Winter 2026 The International Court of Justice reached a similar conclusion in the Nicaragua case, where it noted the lack of evidence directly connecting the United States to armed attacks by the Contras against the Sandinista government, even though the United States had provided arms, money and training to the Contras: United States participation, even if preponderant or decisive, in the financing, organizing, training, supplying and equipping of the contras, the selection of its military or paramilitary targets, and the planning of the whole of its operation, is still insufficient in itself, on the basis of the evidence in the possession of the Court, for the purpose of attributing to the United States the acts committed by the contras in the course of their military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. All the forms of United States participation mentioned above, and even the general control by the respondent State over a force with a high degree of dependency on it, would not in themselves mean, without further evidence, that the United States directed or enforced the perpetration of the acts contrary to human rights and humanitarian law alleged by the applicant State. Such acts could well be committed by members of the contras without the control of the United States. For this conduct to give rise to legal responsibility of the United States, it would in principle have to be proved that that State had effective control of the military or paramilitary operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed.5 Several commentators have criticized the Nicaragua “effective control” test as too strict, especially as it pertains to states providing weapons to non-state actors operating and fighting for them. The government of Austria, for example, advocated in 2013 for a standard based on State knowledge: “[s]hould supplied arms be used by armed opposition groups in Syria in the commission of internationally wrongful acts, the States who had supplied these arms and had knowledge of these acts would incur State responsibility for their aid and assistance in the commission of such acts.”6 As discussed above, the evidence here indicates Iran had a far more direct role in the Hamas attacks than the United States played in any of the Contra attacks in Nicaragua. The uncontroverted reporting from both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times demonstrates that Iran had knowledge of Hamas’s attack plans months in advance, and then green-lighted the attacks a few days prior to October 7. Moreover, Iran eventually joined the war against Israel directly, launching drone and missile attacks against the Jewish state on April 13, 2024, and October 1, 2024. Iran’s Complicity in the October 8, 2023, Hezbollah Attacks Against Israel Iran also bore responsibility for the Hezbollah attacks against Israel that began on October 8, 2023, and continued for many months. Hezbollah essentially functioned as an arm of the Iranian IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Command), taking orders directly from Tehran. The United States Congressional Research Service described Hezbollah in December 2024 as an “Iranian partner force.”7 In 2016, former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah’s “budget, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, comes from the Islamic Republic of Iran.”8 Iran’s Foreign Minister travelled to Beirut to confer with Nasrallah on October 12, 2023, only a few days after Hezbollah began launching rockets into northern Israel.9 5. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶ 115 (June 27). 6. Jennifer Maddocks, “Israel-Hamas 2023 Symposium – Iran’s Responsibility for the Attack on Israel,” LIEBER INSTITUTE, Oct. 20, 2023, available at https://lieber. westpoint.edu/irans-responsibility-attack-israel/ 7 Clayton Thomas, Jim Zanotti, “Lebanese Hezbollah,” CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Dec. 4, 2024, available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/ IF10703 8. “Hezbollah's Record on War & Politics,” WILSON CENTER, Oct. 25, 2023, available at https://www. wilsoncenter.org/article/hezbollahs-record-war-politics 9. “Iranian FM met with Hezbollah leader Nasrallah in Lebanon,” JERUSALEM POST, Oct. 13, 2023, available at https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-768101

12 No. 76 JUSTICE October 2023 – June 2025: One Long, Complex, Dynamic War The attacks of October 7-8, 2023, should be viewed as the beginning of an Iranian war of aggression against Israel that has continued to the present. As the war continued, it expanded beyond Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon to include attacks against Israel from other Iranian proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Iran itself attacked Israel twice in 2024, launching hundreds of drones and a smaller number of missiles on April 13, 2024, and a much larger fusillade of ballistic missiles on October 1, 2024. Therefore, as of June 2025, Israel had been defending itself in a long, complex, and dynamic war against Iran and a variety of terrorist groups acting at Iran’s behest, all united in common cause against Israel. The war began, at the earliest with the Hamas invasion, and at the latest when Iran directly attacked Israel on April 13, 2024. In any event, the war has been ongoing ever since. Legal Consequences: Israel’s Right to Self Defense Iran initiated the war against Israel that began on October 7-8, 2023 by enabling and green lighting the invasion of Israel led by Hamas, in close cooperation with Iran and its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon. Under ius in bello, Israel is entitled to use whatever force is necessary and proportionate to eliminate the military threat facing it.10 Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter obligates nations to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” In Resolution 242, the UN Security Council called for the “[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the [Middle East] area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Iran violated Article 2(4) and Security Council Resolution 242 when it drove Hamas and Hezbollah to launch an unprovoked military attack against Israel on October 7-8, 2023. Article 51 of the Charter sets forth the self-defense exception to the rule against armed aggression, providing, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Israel therefore acted fully within its rights in responding militarily to the attacks. Israel’s right to respond against Iran arose immediately on October 7-8, 2023, but Article 51 does not prescribe any time limit for acting in self-defense. Notwithstanding one commentator’s admonition that “[l]egitimate self-defence must be neither too soon nor too late,”11 as a practical matter, Israel could not have responded directly against Iran in October 2023 (or, for that matter, in April or October 2024), because the threat of a massive Hezbollah response against Israel still loomed. Although Israel had significantly degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities by October 2024, the Assad regime had yet to be overthrown in Syria, and Israel could not have taken the risk of a massive response of rocket and missile fire coming from just across its borders. Therefore, the better argument would be that Operation Rising Lion did not constitute a new war by Israel against Iran, but instead as Israel acting in self-defense against the war that Iran and its proxies had already started as early as October 2023, but no later than the first Iranian attack against Israel on April 13, 2024. Accordingly, Israel was under no time deadline to exercise its right to selfdefense against Iran. As one recent article noted: Several . . . commentators have based their contention that Israel’s attack is illegal on their opinion that Israel was not responding to an “imminent” nuclear attack by Iran. But this argument overlooks a critical legal principle: When two countries are already in a state of armed conflict—in colloquial terms a war—there is no requirement to wait for “the next attack” to be imminent. Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, including its ballistic missile capabilities, was legal because Iran and Israel were already engaged in an ongoing international armed conflict.12 10. The International Court of Justice has approved selfdefense measures “which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law." Supra note 5, at 94, ¶ 176. 11. George P. Fletcher, BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL LAW 133-34 (Oxford University Press 1998). 12. Geoffrey Corn and Orde Kittrie, “Israel’s Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program is Fully Justified under

13 Winter 2026 Therefore, as a matter of international law, Israel had the full right to use force to defend itself, subject to the rules regarding proportionality and necessity, against direct and indirect Iranian aggression at any time between October 7, 2023, and June 13, 2025, when it initiated Operation Rising Lion.13 Second Justification: Anticipatory Self-Defense Against Imminent Iranian Threats Alternatively, it could be argued that if Operation Rising Lion constituted the beginning of a new war in June 2025 (which some have referred to as the “12-Day War”), then Israel had the lawful right to strike first in anticipatory self-defense against the imminent nuclear and ballistic missile threat posed by Iran, a regime that for decades has threatened to destroy the State of Israel. Iran’s Longstanding Threats to Destroy Israel Ever since it came to power in 1979, the revolutionary regime in Iran has sworn to destroy Israel. The Ayatollah Khameini has made such threats abundantly clear in his public statements, including Tweets, calling for Israel’s “elimination” and “eradication.”14 Iran’s foreign policy, based on its Islamist theology, demands the destruction of Israel. Iran has never accepted Israel’s existence, and refers to the country, a fellow United Nations Member State, solely as “The Zionist Entity.” Iran’s Nuclear Program Iran’s nuclear program – which the Iranians claim is peaceful – must be seen in light of Iran’s stated goal of eradicating Israel. There is abundant evidence that the Iranian regime has been working to build nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles needed to deliver them. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, yet Iran began pursuing the development of nuclear weapons following the Islamic Revolution in 1979. In August 2002 an Iranian opposition group revealed secret underground nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak meant for enriching uranium and producing heavy water. Concerns increased about Iran’s nuclear ambitions over the next decade, culminating in the so-called P5+1 group (the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China and the EU) signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in September 2015, the so-called “nuclear deal.” The Obama Administration later justified the JCPOA by claiming but for the deal, Iran already had enough enriched uranium to assemble 8 to 10 nuclear bombs within 2-3 months.15 President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018. The White House issued a fact sheet describing Iran’s bad faith, its decades-long support for terrorism that had claimed hundreds of American and other lives, its use of armed proxies to threaten Israel and international shipping, and other conduct the President said justified terminating the deal.16 In the succeeding years both the Biden and eventually the second Trump Administration tried to renegotiate new terms with Iran to prevent the regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, but the talks proved fruitless. By early June 2025, Israel had become deeply worried about an International Law,” UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTER FOR ETHICS AND THE RULE OF LAW, June 18, 2025, available at https://www.penncerl.org/the-ruleof-law-post/israels-attack-on-irans-nuclear-weaponsprogram-is-fully-justified-under-international-law/; see also Michael Schmitt, “Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the Right of Self-Defense,” LIEBER INSTITUTE, June 16, 2025, available at https://lieber.westpoint.edu/israelsoperation-rising-lion-right-of-self-defense/ 13. Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany, “A New War or a New Stage in an Ongoing War – Observations on June 13 Israeli Attack against Iran,” JUST SECURITY, June 15, 2025, available at https://www.justsecurity.org/114641/ israel-iran-un-charter-jus-ad-bellum/?utm_ source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=israeliran-un-charter-jus-ad-bellum 14. See, e.g., Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei (@Khamenei.ir), X, Nov. 9, 2014, available at https://x.com/khamenei_ir/ status/531366667377717248 (“Why Should & How Can Israel be Eliminated?”); Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei (@ Khamenei.ir), X, June 3, 2018, available at https://x. com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?lang= en (“Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. #Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen”). 15. President Barack Obama, “The Historic Deal that will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon,” THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE ARCHIVES, Jan. 16, 2016, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/328996 16. “President Donald J. Trump is Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal,” THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ARCHIVES, May 8, 2018, available at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefingsstatements/president-donald-j-trump-ending-unitedstates-participation-unacceptable-iran-deal/

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=