JUSTICE - No. 78

Fall 2026 No.78 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) Maria Claudia Caputi, Judge (Argentina) 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) Theodore Goloff (Canada)

Fall 2026 1 JUSTICE is published by The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IJL) 10 Daniel Frisch St. Tel Aviv 6473111, Israel 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. 78, Fall 2026 Editor Mala Tabory, Dr. Special Advisor Elyakim Rubinstein, Prof., Justice (ret.) Advisory Editor Alan D. Stephens Academic Advisory Board Michael Bazyler, Prof. Rosa Freedman, Prof. Noemi Gal-Or, Dr. Oren Gross, Prof. Moshe Hirsch, Prof. Deborah Housen-Couriel, Adv. Robert Katz, Prof. Dan Michman, 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 Paolo Luigi Gozzi, Parma, 1713-1783 Geographical Map of Ancient Canaan, Parma, 1777 Manuscript in ink (and some hand-coloring) on two sheets of paper joined together Gift of Sir Trevor and Lady Susan Chinn, London, through British Friends of the Art Museums of Israel Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem by Elie Posner Contents President’s Message Meir Linzen 2 A Day of Infamy: October 7 – Legal Aspects Irwin Cotler 4 Address Protecting the British Jewish Community David Wolfson 14 Articles Judged Among the Nations: Israel´s International and Foreign Legal Challenges After October 7 Eran Shamir-Borer and Ben Wahlhaus 16 Accountability for Crimes of Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: Mission Impossible? Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas 26 The Jus ad Bellum Dimensions of the War with Iran Yuval Shany 35 The Legality of Israel and U.S. Attacks Against Iran Robbie Sabel 37 AI-Amplified Antisemitism and the Imperative for Balanced Regulation in the United Kingdom Limor Simhony Philpott 39 The 2004 Law Mandating U.S. Action Against Antisemitism: Origins, Obstacles, and Impact Rafael Medoff 47 Deploying Lawfare to Fight Antisemitism in the United States: New Approaches and Current Developments Richard A. Rosen 54 Why the “D” in BDS Failed: On Israel Divestment and American Law David H. Webber and Levi Trestan 64 How Immunizing UNRWA Would Let the UN Control U.S. Courts Joseph H. Tipograph 69 Book Reviews Proportional to the Mischief: International Law and U.S. Grand Strategy By Nicholas Rostow, Reviewed by Steven E. Zipperstein 77 Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight over Free Speech in Modern America By James Leoffler, Reviewed by Gil Troy 79 In Memoriam, Daniel Reisner On the Passing of a Star By Elyakim Rubinstein 82 An Exceptional Lawyer, Officer, Negotiator, and Friend 84 Cover Map: Geographical map of Ancient Canaan... divided into XII Jewish Tribes and in VI provinces as it was subordinated during the Roman Empire, but now called Holy Land, with neighboring countries from Antiochia in Syria to Alexandria in Egypt, to serve as knowledge to the Sacred History [B14.2112] From the exhibition: Fact, Faith, and Fantasy: Maps of the Holy Land from the Chinn Collection, at The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Curated by Ariel Tishby, January 13, 2026 - July 11, 2026 The exhibition displayed some of the rarest and finest maps of the Holy Land produced in Europe between the15th and 19th centuries, evincing humankind's enduring fascination with the Land of the Bible.

2 No. 78 JUSTICE would like to dedicate this President’s Message to the memory of Daniel Reisner, of blessed memory. Daniel served as Deputy President of the IJL from the beginning of my term as President. I mentored Daniel, and hoped that in due course he would succeed me as President. A number of years ago, Daniel was diagnosed with a serious illness, which he confronted with extraordinary courage. Until almost his final breath, Daniel continued his professional work as a lawyer, and in particular on behalf of our organization. For me, Daniel’s passing also means the loss of a close friend of more than forty years. Daniel’s contribution to our organization was immense. He led our work in the field of public international law, particularly our complex submissions to international tribunals, including the ICC and the ICJ. This year, for the first time in its history, the IJL will confer its prestigious Founders’ Award. Following Daniel’s death, the IJL Board has decided to present the award to his family, in recognition of Daniel’s outstanding contribution to the organization and to the cause he served. May his memory be a blessing. I write these words on the evening following Simchat Torah, 5787. Three years ago, according to the Hebrew calendar, Hamas carried out its mass murder of civilians and soldiers in the communities bordering Gaza. The war in Gaza and on other fronts followed, and we are still engaged in a war for Israel’s survival. The fighting in Gaza is extraordinarily difficult, not least because it is taking place in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Hamas, an organization that arose in Gaza and whose terrorist fighters are themselves Gazans, has used public buildings, including hospitals and mosques, as well as civilian homes, for military purposes and as human shields. At the same time, Hamas has shown little regard for its own civilian population not involved in the fighting, including women, the elderly and children. Hamas has sought to turn civilian suffering into a weapon, using it to undermine Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of the world. This terrible war in Gaza has profoundly affected the standing of the State of Israel and the international legitimacy on which every state depends. Many governments and many people around the world find it difficult to comprehend the scale of the destruction of civilian structures and the large number of civilian casualties. In this respect, Hamas, though it may be defeated on the battlefield, has achieved gains on the diplomatic and legal fronts. The delegitimization of Israel also has grave consequences for Jews throughout the Diaspora. We are witnessing an unprecedented resurgence of antisemitism. President’s Message I Meir Linzen Photo: Idan Gross

3 Fall 2026 Israel is engaged in a just war of survival, a war it did not choose but was forced to fight. Yet, as I have written before, even in war there are rules that must be respected. Where those rules are breached, the breaches must be investigated and, where appropriate, those responsible must be brought to justice. Sadly, irresponsible statements by politicians — whether explicit or implicit — calling for destruction, starvation or expulsion, cause enormous damage to Israel’s case, even when none of these things is taking place on the ground. Likewise, the conduct of Jewish vandals in Judea and Samaria, coupled with what is perceived as inadequate law enforcement by the Government of Israel, seriously undermines the legitimacy of the Settler communities in those areas and, more broadly, Israel’s efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism there. Beyond the Biblical commandment to love the stranger, the Government of Israel has a duty to enforce both domestic and international law, to protect the local population, and to investigate and prosecute those who break the law. In November 2026, the 19th Congress of the IJL will take place in Jerusalem, in the presence of the President of the State of Israel, Mr. Isaac Herzog, and many other distinguished guests. The Congress and its accompanying conference will address the core concerns of the organization. We therefore warmly invite Jewish lawyers in Israel and throughout the Diaspora to join us. I take this opportunity to wish all our members and readers a blessed New Year — a year of health, tranquillity and peace. October 2026

4 No. 78 JUSTICE write in the shadow, pain and continuing trauma of the unspeakable mass atrocities of October 7, 2023 — the worst day in Jewish and Israeli history since the Holocaust — of horrors too terrible to be believed, but not too terrible to have happened; of horrific mass murder, rape, torture, maiming and mutilation, burning and beheading, of women, children, the elderly, disabled, Holocaust survivors — the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. I write of the crime of "kinocide" — the premeditated and wholly illegal targeting, terrorizing, torturing and killing of whole families. This includes the killing of parents in front of their children, and children in front of their parents; and the forcible abduction of 251 hostages, many of whom were, themselves, tortured in captivity, and even murdered. Every day spent in Hamas’s captivity was an ongoing crime against humanity. Hamas, the perpetrator of these unspeakable atrocities, is not only a terrorist statelet, but a genocidal antisemitic terrorist statelet. Hamas affirmed this stance in its 1988 charter, and has maintained it since, having sworn to commit October 7 “again, and again, and again, until Israel’s annihilation.” One would have thought that these genocidal atrocities by Hamas — let alone its standing incitement to genocide, which is a standalone breach of the Genocide Convention — would have resulted in a global condemnation, including by the UN, ICC and ICJ, of the terrorist group; that it would have resulted in global action against Hamas. On the contrary, and beginning on October 8, one found denial even that these atrocities took place, or support for them, or justification for them, or even celebration and glorification of them, in the political square, the public square, the cultural arena, and, in particular, on the campus and in academic culture. And more: what we witnessed, and beginning also on October 8, was an unprecedented global explosion of antisemitism, where we have been witnessing the highest level of incidences of antisemitism since audits began in the late 1970s, and where we have also been witnessing the highest level of hate crimes targeting Jews; and where, for example, Canadian Jews, 1% of the population, are the target of 72% of religiously motivated hate crimes, and where Canadian Jews are 25 times more likely to be the target of a hate crime than any other minority; and where hate crimes increasingly characterized by violence are identity-based crimes, which reverberate amongst the community as a whole; where, for example, the Bondi Beach Hannukah massacre was felt by Jewish communities the world over, as was the killing of two Israeli embassy officials outside the Jewish Museum in Washington D.C.; the murder of a Holocaust survivor peacefully marching for the release of the hostage in Boulder, Colorado; let alone the torment, torture and even murder of the hostages in captivity. At the same time, and paradoxically while we witness a virulent resurgence of global antisemitism, there are now more resources dedicated to combating antisemitism than ever before. We have Special Envoys across multiple countries, working individually and collectively, we have National Action Plans to combat antisemitism, and we have growing advocacy involving Jewish communal leadership and their respective domestic governments. To comprehend this paradox, we need to understand the origins, nature, essence and impact of antisemitism. Antisemitism is the oldest, longest, most enduring, most toxic and most lethal form of hatred — one which mutates and metastasizes over time — but is always anchored in one historical, foundational generic, conspiratorial trope — that Jews, the Jewish People, and the Jewish State are the enemy of all that is good, and the embodiment of all that is evil – reflected in whatever is the zeitgeist of the particular moment. When the zeitgeist was Christianity, the Jews were held to be guilty of deicide. When the zeitgeist was the Black Plague in the Middle Ages, the Jews were the poisoners of the wells. When the zeitgeist was race, Jews were nonA Day of Infamy: October 7 — Legal Aspects* Irwin Cotler * Foreword by The Honorable Irwin Cotler to a forthcoming volume of articles on A Day of Infamy October 7 – Legal Aspects. The author commends the IJL under the leadership of Meir Linzen and the editorship of Mala Tabory for organizing and publishing this timely and significant volume of essays. I

5 Fall 2026 Aryan and sub-human. When the zeitgeist in the 1970s became human rights — as “the new secular religion of our times” — Israel became the meta human rights violator — emerging as the enemy of all that is good, and the embodiment of all that is evil. In other words, Israel became the new geopolitical Antichrist of our time. In an era of human rights and revolutionary developments in international law, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – the embodiment of the International Bill of Rights – we mark also three tipping points of this new antisemitism. The first tipping point occurred in 1974 when Israel was held out as: the enemy of labor, with a resolution of the International Labor Organization condemning alleged Israeli suppression of Palestinian trade unionism; the enemy of health, with a resolution of the World Health Organization condemning alleged Israeli poisonings of Palestinians in the West Bank; the enemy of culture, with a UNESCO resolution condemning alleged Israeli desecration of Palestinian holy sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank; the enemy of women, with a resolution of the UN Commission on the Status of Women condemning Israel for its alleged suppression of Palestinian women’s rights; the enemy of peace, with a resolution of the UN General Assembly condemning Israel as a non-peace-loving nation. Finally, Israel was held out as the enemy of human rights, with a resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights — the predecessor of the UN Human Rights Council — condemning alleged Israeli suppression of human rights. So it was that Israel, as the enemy of labor, health, culture, women, peace, and human rights, became the enemy of all that is good and the embodiment of all that is evil — culminating in the 1975 UN General Assembly “Zionism is Racism” resolution — which the late U.S. Senator Daniel Moynihan said “gave the abomination of antisemitism the appearance of international legal sanction.” The resolution began the long process of the laundering of antisemitism under the protective cover of the UN, the authority of international law, the culture of human rights, and the very struggle against racism itself — a process which proceeded sometimes imperceptibly, often indulgently, but inexorably over the next 50 years. The second tipping point occurred at the World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. When it was announced in the late 1990s that this World Conference was to be held in South Africa, I greeted this with excitement and anticipation. This was to be the first international human rights conference of the 21st century; it was to be the first international conference in which anti-racism was to be the organizing theme; and it was going to be held in Durban, South Africa, the birthplace of South African apartheid. As someone who had been involved in the anti-apartheid movement for years, I was delighted to be part of the Canadian Government’s delegation to the conference, while participating also in both the NGO and student forums. What happened at Durban was truly Orwellian. A World Conference Against Racism and Hate was turned into a conference of racism and hate against Israel and the Jewish People. A world conference on human rights singled out one state — Israel, and one people — the Jewish People, for selective opprobrium and indictment. A world conference that was to commemorate the dismantling of South Africa as an apartheid state became a conference calling for the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state. I can still see the marches and demonstrations, the thousands of students, NGOs, and others marching; I can still hear the chants that kept repeating themselves, “that the struggle against racism in the 20th century required the dismantling of South Africa as an apartheid state, and the struggle against racism in the 21st century requires the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state.” I can still see the placards and posters – not only about Israel and apartheid, but Israel as a genocidal, Nazi state. I can still see the stereotypical posters and placards of Jews with hooked noses and fangs dripping in blood. I can still see the images of a group of Jewish students being assaulted right outside of the NGO forum, being told “you don't belong to the human race.” Those of us who were at Durban have been forever transformed. Durban has indelibly implanted not only on our memory, but on our being. I flew back from Durban to Montreal on September 10. I awoke the next morning, on September 11, to 9/11. I remember receiving a call later that day from one of my South African colleagues who had been at the Durban conference. She said to me something that I never forgot — she said that if 9/11 was the Kristallnacht of terror, then Durban was the Mein Kampf. Durban became the second tipping point for the laundering of antisemitism under the protective cover of human rights and international law, and for the weaponizing of international law for the singling out of the Jewish State and the Jewish People for selective opprobrium and indictment.

6 No. 78 JUSTICE Traditional antisemitism was the discrimination against, denial of, and assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members in whatever society they inhabit. The new antisemitism – which began with the human rights and international law revolution in the 1970s — is the discrimination against, denial of, assault upon the right of Israel and the Jewish People to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is common to both forms of antisemitism, old and new, is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has passed from discrimination against the Jews as individuals to the discrimination against the Jews as a people, and then reverberating back against the Jews as individuals, and as a community wherever they reside. Accordingly, I share what transpired in the immediate aftermath of Durban and which continues to reverberate to this day. Jews and Israel were blamed for 9/11, a conspiratorial trope that continues to this day. The UN General Assembly met, and passed some twenty resolutions condemning Israel, with only five resolutions against the rest of the world combined. The UN Commission on Human Rights, as it then was, met, and in a disproportionate set of resolutions, again singled out Israel for selective opprobrium and indictment. At the University of Michigan, the first convening of what became the BDS movement took place, where a resolution proposing and supporting a two-state solution, if Israel were to become a democratic state — itself somewhat problematic —was defeated in favor of a resolution condemning Israel as an apartheid state. Finally, perhaps the most egregious international legal indictment of all: For the first time in 52 years the contracting parties to the Geneva Convention convened in 2001, and they did so to put one state in the docket of the accused. It wasn't Russia. It wasn't China. It wasn't Syria. It wasn't Iran. Only one state was put in the docket of the accused, and that was Israel. Notably, the contracting parties to the Geneva Convention have met twice since then – and again, condemned only one state – Israel. And so it was then, that in the aftermath of Durban, we witnessed the emergence of five strains of antisemitism that have continued to gain strength ever since – genocidal antisemitism, demonological antisemitism, political antisemitism, legalized antisemitism and ideological antisemitism. Genocidal antisemitism — the toxic convergence of the advocacy of the most horrific of crimes, genocide, embedded in the vilest of hatreds, antisemitism — involves calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be. The 21st century began on January 3, with the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei, saying that “there can be no resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict without the annihilation of the Jewish state” — he did not even use the typical euphemism of the “Zionist regime.” The Islamic Regime’s genocidal antisemitism has continued and metastasized since, ignored by the international community, in contravention of their international legal obligations under the Genocide Convention. This kind of genocidal incitement — emanating from Iran, its proxies, and elsewhere — has been allowed to continue with impunity, which only serves to incentivize its occurrence, including after October 7, 2023. Demonological antisemitism involves the notion and condemnation of Israel as a racist, settler-colonialist, imperialist, ethnic cleansing, child-murdering apartheid, genocidal, Nazi state — the delegitimization, dehumanization, and demonization of Israel. This type of antisemitism is the direct continuation of the core conspiratorial trope that Jews, and by extension, the Jewish State, as the “Jew among the nations,” are the enemy of all that is good and the embodiment of all that is evil. Political antisemitism is the denial of Israel's right to exist and more: the denial of its legitimacy — in other words, the denial of the Jewish People's right to self-determination. In addition to denying Jewish indigeneity in their ancestral homeland, political antisemitism often goes so far as denial of the Jews as a people — the denial of Jewish People in any form or manifestation often under the crude cover of “anti-Zionism.” The fourth indicator of the new anti-Jewishness, legalized antisemitism, is even more sophisticated and insidious, but no less prejudicial and pernicious. For here antisemitism seeks, at one and the same time, to mask itself under the banner of human rights, to invoke the authority of international law, and to operate under the protective cover of the United Nations – the lynchpin of international human rights law. In an Orwellian inversion of human rights, language and law — the singling-out of Israel and the Jewish People for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena is “legalized.” From a juridical human rights perspective, I set forth a series of case studies of this “legalized” antisemitism: The first case study, as set forth above, was the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban, which became the “tipping point” for the emergence of the new anti-Jewishness.

7 Fall 2026 The second example of anti-Jewishness marching under the banner of human rights has taken place throughout the life of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and continuing thereafter with its successor, the UN Human Rights Council. The UN Human Rights Council not only has emerged as a centerpiece of international human rights expression today, but, in all its configurations — it exerts an enormous influence on all those engaging with it: the large class of UN civil servants; member governments; member delegations; and members of parliaments around the world, for whom the UN is an organizing idiom of their foreign policy. There is also the critical mass of people who are exposed to and influenced by UN human rights decision-making internationally. Students and scholars who learn the “jurisprudence” of the UN Human Rights Commission as part of their studies and their intellectual experience; and the media who report it, are also influenced by it. At the UN Human Rights Council, the annual Session begins with Israel being the only country that is singled out for a country-specific indictment even before the deliberations begin — in breach of the UN’s own procedures and principles — an “Alice in Wonderland” situation where the conviction and sentence are pronounced even before the hearing begins. Moreover, some 30% of all the resolutions passed at the UN Human Rights Commission and its successor, the UN Human Rights Council over the past 50 years have been indictments of Israel. Among the resolutions adopted — as, for example, at the 2002 Session which convened amidst the zenith of anti-Jewish terror —were resolutions that indicted Israel for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide — language right out of the Nuremberg indictments for the very victims of Nuremberg. And while Israel has annually been the target of some five indictments, no other state has been the object of more than one resolution or indictment, while the major human rights violators – Iran, China, Sudan – enjoy exculpatory immunity. Indeed, in the antiterrorism debate that took place at the UN in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Arab states and their supporters opposed any attempt to classify “resistance” as terrorism, thereby appropriating the Durban rhetoric of the de-legitimization of Israel, on the one hand, and the legitimization of terrorism as “resistance” against Israel, on the other. Yet, in a not-so-subtle reference to Israel, the UN Human Rights Commission astonishingly passed a resolution in 2002 justifying the use of “resistance by all available means” in instances of colonialism, foreign occupation, and the like, which has been taken to validate, then and since, anti-Jewish terror against Israeli civilians. Accordingly, it was a hopeful sign when a reform panel of eminent persons appointed by the Secretary-General referred to the Commission’s eroding credibility and professionalism. The Commission was replaced in June 2006 by the newly renewed UN Human Rights Council and heralded as “the dawn of a new era.” But as UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer put it, “The Council […] devoted one hundred percent of its country-specific resolutions, two special sessions, one factfinding mission, and a ‘high level commission of inquiry’ to one single purpose: the demonization of Israel.” These two case studies are not the only examples of the international “legal” character of the new antisemitism. An entire book can be devoted to the systematic, if not systemic, denial to Israel and the Jewish People of equality before the law, and international due process, in the international arena, including the following additional case studies, herewith abbreviated for space considerations: n The annual ritual of some twenty resolutions — indictments — of Israel at the UN General Assembly. Indeed, there are more indictments against one state than all the resolutions passed against the other 190 members of the United Nations combined — an appalling example of the singling-out of Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena. n The annual obsessive preoccupation with Israel by the UN Security Council – the authoritative UN standardsetting body on international law. A case study is the UN Security Council meeting continuously for three months, from April to June 2002, to discuss what turned out to be a false libel accusing Israel of a “massacre” in Jenin, while the major human rights violations of that period — the killing fields in the Congo, Darfur, and elsewhere — went unaddressed, let alone unacknowledged. n The conversion of refugee camps under UNRWA’s management of refugee camps into bases and sanctuaries of incitement and terror in breach of fundamental principles of international humanitarian and refugee law. n Procedural anti-Jewishness, as in the denial of international due process to Israel and the Jewish People in the international arena. I am referring to the disenfranchisement of Israel — where, for example, Israel emerges as the only country that is denied “standing” because it is not a full-fledged member of the five regional grouping

8 No. 78 JUSTICE from which countries can be nominated or elected to UN bodies. Israel’s excluded status does not grant it the right to participate equally in the deliberations of the UN in violation of the UN Charter and the principles of the equality of nations, large or small. n The application of “double standards” is particularly evident in the indictments of Israel in the UN specialized agencies, as set forth above, beginning in 1974. n Examples of UN institutional bias continue to find expression: m The UN General Assembly Emergency Special Sessions, initially created to convene the UN General Assembly together to respond to the world’s gravest security problems if the UN Security Council failed to act, has been engaged in the singling out of Israel, yet again, for selective opprobrium and indictment. m The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Right of the Palestinian People is the only committee among all the subsidiary organs of the General Assembly whose resources are devoted to the one-sided advancement of Palestinians only, while calling for “boycotts, divestments and sanctions against … Israel.” m The Division of Palestinian Rights is the only division in the multi-layered UN Department of Political Affairs that is uniquely dedicated to one national cause with activities that are politically onesided, devoted to a discriminatory advancement of the Palestinian cause. This is well manifested in its convening of the annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which prominently displayed a Middle East map that blatantly excluded the entire State of Israel – apartheid UN style. m The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People is again the only separate committee in the entire General Assembly’s human rights structure devoted to the one-sided advancement of one single people — the Palestinian people — while ignoring any Israeli human suffering. m The reports of UN Special Rapporteurs regularly and unfairly demonize Israel, particularly the reports of Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In summary, there have been more resolutions adopted, more committees formed, more deliberations held, more speeches made, and more resources expended in the condemnation of Israel than on any other state, or combination of states. None of this is intended to suggest, nor should it be inferred, that Israel is above the law or that the Jewish People are entitled to any preference or privilege because of the horrors of the Holocaust or the persecutions and prosecutions of Jewish history. The problem is not that Israel should be exempt from legal responsibility, but that it is being systematically denied equality before the law. It is not that human rights standards should not be applied to Israel, but that these same standards are not being applied equally to all others. Nor is it that Israel should be exempt from respecting its obligation to respecting human rights law, but rather that its own rights are entitled to equal recognition and respect. The fifth strain, ideological antisemitism, also demonstrates that the embers of antisemitism were burning long before October 7, 2023. If the first four indicators – genocidal antisemitism, demonological antisemitism, political antisemitism, and legalized antisemitism – are overt, public and clearly demonstrable, ideological antisemitism is a much more sophisticated, and therefore arguably a more pernicious expression of the new antisemitism. Indeed, it may even function as an “ideological” support structure for the first four indicators, which are themselves sufficiently prejudicial and pernicious on their own. Ideological antisemitism finds expression not in any genocidal incitement against Jews and Israel, or overt racist denial of the Jewish People and Israel’s right to be; rather, ideological antisemitism disguises itself as part of the struggle against racism itself. Indeed, it marches under the banner of anti-racism, anchoring itself in the protective cover of the United Nations and the international struggle against racism. By ideological antisemitism I am referring not only to the discrimination against, denial of and delegitimization of the Jewish People’s and Israel’s raison d’être or right to be – including, among other things, the denial or distortion of Zionism as the legitimate national liberation movement of the Jewish People; nor am I referring only to the denial and distortion of the Jewish People’s historical and “aboriginal” connectedness to Israel — a form of “ideological cleansing” of the Jewish People’s juridical claim to Israel as the aboriginal homeland of the Jewish People. I am referring to the labelling of Israel and Zionism as being “triple racist,” as set forth below, and thereby warranting its dismantling as an anti-racist mandate.

9 Fall 2026 Again, I am not talking about critiques — even serious critiques — of Israeli policy or Zionist ideology; these of course are fair, not uncommon, and part of legitimate speech, however distasteful or offensive some of these critiques might sometimes be. Rather, I am referring to any one of the following manifestations of ideological antisemitism — usually though not necessarily found in combination — which constitute the ideological underpinnings of this sophisticated, yet scurrilous, form of antisemitism. The first racist manifestation of this ideological antisemitism was its institutional and juridical anchorage in the “Zionism is racism” Resolution at the United Nations. But we have gone much beyond that. The second and more scurrilous manifestation is the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. This indictment is not limited to talk about divestment — it is about the actual dismantling of Israel based upon the notion of apartheid as a crime against humanity. The third and most pernicious manifestation of ideological antisemitism is that the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state is now joined by the “Nazification” of Israel – of Israel as an evil, genocidal state. Israel is thus delegitimized — if not also demonized — by the ascription to it of the three most scurrilous indictments of the 20th century — racism, apartheid and genocide — the embodiment of all evil. Indeed, these very labels of Zionism and Israel as “racist, apartheid, and genocidal” supply the criminal indictment. No further debate is required. The conviction has been secured. And if any further debate is required, it is only to pronounce the sentence: that the convergence of these three labels — the “triple racism” — now warrants the dismantling of Israel as a moral obligation for us all. Such a state, as the discourse puts it, does not really have any right to exist – and who would deny that a “racist, apartheid, genocidal” state should not have any right to exist today? What is more, this characterization allows for terrorist “resistance” to this racist, apartheid, genocidal state to be deemed justifiable — after all, such a situation is portrayed as nothing other than occupation et résistance, where “resistance” against a racist, apartheid, genocidal, occupying state is legitimate, if not mandatory. What is so disturbing about this ideological antisemitism — and indeed what makes it effectively antisemitic — is not simply the defamatory and delegitimating labels that impugn Zionism as the raison d’être for a Jewish State — or delegitimate the Jewish State itself; but the use of these defamatory and delegitimating indictments to call for the dismantling of the Jewish State itself. And more: to disingenuously mask this ideological antisemitism as if it were part of the struggle against racism, if not also the struggle against apartheid and genocide, and thereby transform what is, in effect, an antisemitic indictment, i.e. to dismember the only Jewish State, into a moral imperative; and to seek to give it the imprimatur of the United Nations and international law. All this serves as the backdrop for, and underpins, the principal findings and recommendations of my tenure as Canada's first Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. These were presented on the third tipping point — the May 2021 war between Israel and Hamas, when over 4,000 rockets were launched indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, a double war crime under international law, while referencing also the post-October 7 explosion of antisemitism: The first principal finding, already in 2021, was that we were witnessing an alarming, exponential rise in antisemitic incidents globally, including the highest level of antisemitism since auditing began in 1975, along with a disturbing rise in antisemitic beliefs. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported in 2023 that 20% of Americans believed six or more antisemitic tropes — double the number who believed such tropes in 2019 — representing more than 60 million Americans. More disturbingly, the ADL’s 2025 Global 100 survey found that 46% of adults worldwide — an estimated 2.2 billion people — harbor significant antisemitic beliefs. The second principal finding was the globalization of antisemitism, facilitated in no small part by social media. This has incessantly stoked the incendiary increase in antisemitic hate speech on the internet — a significant cause of antisemitism’s global rise. Young people exposed to social media daily are immensely vulnerable to its effect. The lack of action taken by platforms like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, when antisemitic social media posts are reported, is striking. Social media has become a breeding ground for toxic hatred and radicalization. The third finding is that while the conventional paradigm of combatting antisemitism from the far right, far left and radical Islam still holds, the major concern now is the increasing mainstreaming, normalizing, and legitimation of antisemitism. This has taken place — even before October 7 — in the cultural fields of politics, entertainment,

10 No. 78 JUSTICE and sports, and perhaps most explosively, on university campuses. There is much indifference and little action or outrage about this. Antisemitism has become socially acceptable throughout our society. This led to the fourth finding, which is the marginalization of combating antisemitism within the broader framework of combating racism and hate. When calling for the combating of all the other forms of racism, including hatred aimed at Indigenous people, Blacks, Muslims, people of color, and Asians, it was common practice not to include reference to antisemitism. This sort of marginalizing or erasure of Jews, the notion that Jews do not count, was disturbingly commonplace even before October 7. The fifth finding is that alongside the marginalizing of antisemitism within the broader struggle against racism, there was an actual laundering of antisemitism under the very cover of anti-racism policy itself; for example, where antisemitic individuals were the recipients of government grants for anti-racism work. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan advised me in 2005, that “a United Nations that does not put the struggle against antisemitism at the forefront of its international agenda is a United Nations that has forgotten its past and origins, and will forfeit its future.” The sixth finding pertains to the politicization of antisemitism, whereby antisemitism is called out in the other's political party, but not in one's own, which in part reflected the growing divisiveness and polarization that we already witnessed in the political sphere. The seventh and final finding was the disconcerting erosion of allyship, where in recent years, other marginalized communities who the Jewish community had stood by and stood with, have increasingly begun to turn their backs on the Jewish community. Collectively, these alarming findings — even before October 7 — call for a strong, multifaceted response, guided by the following seven recommendations in my 2021 report, but which remain relevant today: 1. Governments should enact, and implement, National Action Plans to Combat Antisemitism, encompassing “a whole of government commitment” and requiring numerous entities and agencies within governments to work both singly and collectively, and not in silos and disconnectedly. 2. The importance of Holocaust education and broader antisemitism education, underscored by an appreciation of the relationship between the Holocaust as a paradigm for radical evil and antisemitism as a paradigm for radical hate. 3. Emphasis must be placed on celebrating the vast, positive contributions of the Jewish People, and celebrating the history and heritage of the Jews as a prototypical indigenous people — a people that still inhabits the same land, embraces the same religion, studies the same Bible, observes the same traditions, speaks the same indigenous language, Hebrew, and bears the same indigenous name, Israel, as it did 3500 years ago — a prototypical anti-colonial people. 4. It is important to affirm that antisemitism is toxic to democracies, and therefore, the combating of antisemitism must be part and parcel of efforts to support, safeguard, and promote democracy. It also constitutes an assault on our human rights and fundamental freedoms, and therefore the promotion and protection of human rights must include combating antisemitism. 5. We must continue to promote the importance of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism — the most authoritative, comprehensive and international consensus definition that we have, adopted over a fifteen-year decision-making period, in which I had the privilege to participate both as a member of Parliament, starting with the initial drafting — together with Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Elie Wiesel and Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark — in the aftermath of the World Conference in Durban. 6. We must combat hate crimes using the four Ps, as I have called them: the prevention of such hate crimes to begin with, the protection of the targets of hate crimes, the prosecution of the perpetrators of hate crimes, and the partnerships between governments and civil society in combating hate crimes. 7. Finally, we must be wary of what we label antisemitism, lest if we are indiscriminate in our labelling of antisemitism, we will undermine the very struggle against it. Equally, we must guard against the weaponization or politicization of antisemitism, and guard against selective condemnations. This brings me to October 7, which is not so much a fourth tipping point as it is a transformative historical inflection moment reflecting and representing the following four dynamics: First, the weaponization of international law, legal institutions, legal language and legal norms. This involves not so much the instrumentalization of antisemitism as it does the institutionalization of a groupthink that finds expression

11 Fall 2026 in singling out Israel for selective opprobrium and indictment. A case study of this institutionalized groupthink in the post October 7 arena is that of the International Criminal Court (ICC). I am a longtime supporter of the ICC and was “present at the creation.” I co-sponsored the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act in the Canadian Parliament as an MP in 2000, providing for domestic implementation of the ICC Statute, and convened the first ever Parliamentary Assembly for the ICC in 2002. I continued to support it thereafter, both as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and as a parliamentarian. Accordingly, I work closely with ICC Special Prosecutor Karim Khan to support efforts to hold Hamas responsible for its war crimes and crimes against humanity. I filed a brief with the ICC to that effect, while serving also as counsel for families of the hostages taken by Hamas in 2023. Surprisingly, Karim Khan called for indictments against both the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister of Israel, the first ICC indictments against the leaders of any democratic state. These acts were not antisemitic, as some have contended. Karim Khan, whom I know well, is not an antisemite in any way, but the institutionalized groupthink of which he partook ended up breaching the very foundational principles of the ICC and international law — complementarity, cooperation and equality before the law. It may also end up being antisemitic in effect, though not in intent, in the way the ICC indictment is weaponized for singling out Israel for selective opprobrium and indictment. This leads to the second dynamic, that of the intensified post-October 7 laundering of antisemitism under universal public values — the protective cover of the UN, the authority of international law, the culture of human rights, and the very struggle against racism and apartheid itself, which has found expression in the indictment of Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), yet another UN legal body with which I have had an ongoing involvement. In December 2023, South Africa launched its case at the ICJ, accusing Israel of genocide and calling for provisional measures to end Israel's “genocidal actions.” Israel replied to the filing “with disgust,” describing South Africa’s case a “blood libel” and urging the Court to reject it. I was asked by the Israeli leadership to be their nominee for the ICJ in January 2024, and this would have included presiding in this case. I would have been honored to do so – given my respect for the Court let alone this proceeding – but I declined for health reasons and recommended the appointment of the former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, Aharon Barak, a jurist respected internationally, and the Government of Israel followed suit. I also had been looking forward to serving along with the South African nominee to the ICJ at that time, Justice Dikgang Ernest Moseneke, with whom I had a long and mutually respectful relationship and who had been imprisoned with Mandela, and was himself a former Deputy President of the South African Constitutional Court. While I did not join the Court, I did publish a twelve-point critique of South Africa's weaponization of international law and abuse of process in undertaking this proceeding, as summarized below: 1. South Africa purports to be representing and affirming our common humanity, which would presuppose Israel’s legitimacy as a state with an inherent right to self-defense under the UN Charter. Yet South Africa’s Application impugns Israel’s legitimacy — characterizes its founding as an “apartheid state” — while engaging in delegitimizing and demonizing tropes. South Africa’s Application appears more as a proxy for Hamas than an Applicant on behalf of our common humanity. 2. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice presupposes the existence of a dispute under the Genocide Convention between the Applicant South Africa and Respondent Israel. For there to be a “dispute,” the Convention requires that the Respondent, Israel, be engaged in the matter of the “dispute” — that it be given a right of reply — before proceedings are instituted. Yet as the record shows, Israel was not engaged as a party to the dispute, not given a right to reply, and was effectively denied “due process” and the “right to a hearing” as mandated by the Genocide Convention itself. Indeed, South Africa falsely presented the dispute to the Court as existing. Since this was not true, the International Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate. This alone warrants the case to be dismissed. 3. The exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of the Genocide Convention presupposes not only a finding of Israeli “acts of Genocide” but the requisite “intent to commit Genocide.” In the absence of such intent, there is no case to proceed with, and no case to answer. In South Africa’s Application before the Court, it not only ignores the overriding evidence of Hamas’s genocidal intent, let alone Hamas’s genocidal acts, but it imputes

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=