The Nottebohm Smoking Gun: When Both Amnesty and HRW Made the Identical Legal "Error"

My article yesterday about Human Rights Watch's shelved report calling Israel's immigration policy a "crime against humanity" reminded me of the last time HRW and Amnesty International claimed that international law requires Israel to accept millions of Palestinian "refugees" and their descendants.

Back in 2013, I noticed something curious: both organizations pointed to the same International Court of Justice case—Nottebohm (1955)—as proof that Palestinians have a legal "right of return" based on maintaining emotional and familial ties to territory their ancestors left. (Amnesty wrote about it in 2001, HRW in 2002.)

Their logic went like this: The Nottebohm case established that nationality requires a "genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments" between a person and a place. Palestinians who maintain ties to the land—even generations later—therefore have legal rights to return based on this genuine connection. Israel's refusal to honor this violates international law.

There was only one problem: Not only did the Nottebohm case not say what they claimed, it said the opposite.

The Nottebohm case involved a German businessman, Friedrich Nottebohm, who had lived in Guatemala for 34 years. When World War II broke out, he hastily obtained citizenship from Liechtenstein (where he had minimal ties) to avoid being treated as an enemy alien. Guatemala refused to recognize this new citizenship and seized his property. Liechtenstein sued on his behalf, claiming he was now their citizen and deserved diplomatic protection.

The ICJ ruled against Liechtenstein, finding that Nottebohm's "naturalization was not based on any real prior connection with Liechtenstein." The Court stated that nationality should reflect "a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments" between an individual and a STATE—not a territory.

Notice the critical distinction: The case was about which state could claim someone as a national for purposes of diplomatic protection. It was about citizenship and state sovereignty, not about territorial rights.

The key passage states: "nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties."

HRW and Amnesty quoted the "genuine connection" language while systematically replacing "state" with "territory" to twist a ruling about citizenship into one about land rights.

Here's what makes this particularly absurd: Nottebohm himself had genuine ties to Guatemala—34 years of residence, extensive business operations, deep roots in the community. Yet the ICJ ruled that Guatemala had no obligation to grant him citizenship or even recognize his Liechtenstein citizenship.

If anything, Nottebohm affirmed that states have absolute sovereign control over who they grant citizenship to, even when someone has genuine territorial connections. The ruling explicitly states: "it is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals."

This is the exact opposite of a "right of return" based on ancestral territorial ties.

When I wrote about this in 2013, I kept second-guessing myself. How could I—a non-lawyer, a blogger—have read the case so differently from two major international human rights organizations with teams of highly credentialed lawyers?

I must be missing something, I thought. Maybe there's some nuance in international law I don't understand. Maybe my layman's reading of the text was naive. These organizations have reputations to uphold. Surely they wouldn't deliberately misrepresent an ICJ decision.

So I published my analysis tentatively, always wondering if I'd gotten something wrong.

After writing about Omar Shakir and HRW's institutional bias yesterday, I decided to revisit Nottebohm with fresh eyes—and with new tools. I asked Claude (an AI system with legal analysis capabilities) to review both my 2013 article and the full text of the Nottebohm decision to identify any errors in my interpretation.

The verdict: I was right. HRW and Amnesty were wrong.

The case is explicitly about the relationship between individuals and states for citizenship purposes. It uses the word "state" throughout, not "territory." It affirms state sovereignty over nationality determinations. It provides zero support for territorial rights based on ancestral connections.

My layman's reading of the plain text was more accurate than the "expert analysis" from two major human rights organizations.

This raises a much more serious question: How could two supposedly independent human rights organizations, both staffed with professional lawyers, both look at the same ICJ case and both arrive at the same incorrect conclusion—while I, as a layman, got it right?

The odds of this being coincidental are essentially zero. When two students turn in identical wrong answers on a test, we know what happened.

This is evidence of either:

• Coordination: They're working from shared advocacy networks or talking points
• Shared ideology: They're part of the same ecosystem where the conclusion (Israel violates international law) is predetermined
• Institutional capture: Both organizations have been captured by an anti-Israel ideology that treats legal research as window dressing for predetermined conclusions

Nottebohm is not an obscure footnote. It's one of the most cited ICJ cases on nationality. The language is clear. The distinction between "state" and "territory" is fundamental to international law.

Their lawyers are not incompetent. They knew they were misrepresenting the case. The alternative—that multiple teams of international lawyers at two different organizations all somehow failed to notice they were confusing states with territories—is simply not credible.

This means both organizations made a deliberate choice to cite a case for the opposite of what it says because it served their advocacy goals.

This isn't an isolated incident. It's the pattern:

• Amnesty invents its own definition of "genocide" to accuse Israel
• HRW claims standard immigration policy is a "crime against humanity"
• Both misrepresent Nottebohm to create a fictional "right of return"
• Both apply novel legal theories only to Israel
• Both start with the conclusion that Israel is guilty and work backwards

What I've learned over two decades of documenting this is that both Amnesty and HRW approach every Israel-related issue from the position that Israel must be violating international law. They will twist evidence, cherry-pick sources, invent new legal standards, and—as Nottebohm proves—cite cases for the opposite of what they say.

Whether this is conscious malice or unconscious bias, I cannot say. But what I can say with certainty is that it's systematic, consistent, and deliberate.

When I wrote about Nottebohm in 2013, I thought maybe I'd misunderstood something. Now I know: They're the ones who chose to lie rather than tell a truth that might support Israel's position.

And that tells you everything you need to know about whether these organizations can be trusted on anything related to Israel.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

02/05 Links Pt2: You Can Do Anything As Long As You Do It For Palestine; Israel-Haters Are Murdering ‘Public Health’; Mamdani Fires Head of Anti-Semitism Task Force

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: You Can Do Anything As Long As You Do It For Palestine

For those seeking at least a hint as to why the court ruled that smashing in the spines of police officers is officially approved behavior in the United Kingdom, one clue comes to us from the Jewish Chronicle:

“While the jury was in retirement, the court heard posters had been put up on bus stops and lampposts near the building which said: ‘The jury decide not the judge,’ ‘Jury equity is when a jury acquits someone on moral grounds,’ and: ‘Jurors can give a not guilty verdict even when they believe a defendant has broken the law.’

“The prosecution said it was aware of the signs being put up in public places during the trial, which set out the principle of ‘jury equity’ — the capacity of a jury to return a verdict according to conscience — and that police had been taking the posters down.”

Translation: You may find the defendants not guilty if you sympathize with the psychotic “anti-Zionism” that motivated their violence.

Again: the British legal system is a joke.

To be fair to the UK, it is not the first state in Europe to enshrine “the Jewish exception” into law. In 2021 in France, Kobili Traoré was deemed not responsible for his actions by the courts, ostensibly because he had smoked marijuana. What were his actions? He beat 65-year-old Sarah Halimi and then threw her out her window to her death. According to his psychiatric evaluation, he was sent into a violent rage by the sight of Halimi’s mezuzah.

Again, to translate: He realized she was a Jew, so he killed her. This was deemed a psychiatric episode not murder. In France, if you hate Jews so much that it makes you act crazy, you are permitted to murder random Jews. In the UK, if your hatred of Jews compels you to go on a violent rampage, you can count on “jury equity” to find you not guilty of the crimes you admitted to in court.

The sick man of Europe is Europe.

Seth Mandel: Israel-Haters Are Murdering ‘Public Health’

Zohran Mamdani pledging to confront anti-Semitism while his own administration staffers engage in taxpayer-funded Jew-baiting is the kind of hypocrisy we will hopefully never get used to.

The New York Post revealed that city Department of Health staffers have created a “Global Oppression and Public Health Working Group” whose entire reason for existence is to lie about Israel. Take it straight from the horse’s mouth: “We really developed in response to the ongoing genocide in Palestine,” one presenter said while, the Post reports, reading from the group’s mission statement at the beginning of its first meeting on Tuesday.

The blood libel club also vowed it will be “supporting colleagues negatively impacted” by the “trauma” of made-up tales of Jewish crimes.

Since this has nothing to do with “global health,” we are compelled to ask what it is about. And there are two answers.

First, as expected, Mamdani’s victory was taken as a green light for anti-Semites to hijack government services—and there’s no indication Mamdani has any objection to it. On the contrary, Mamdani believes New York City should be engaged in the BDS campaign that supports anti-Jewish boycotts, so he has made clear that he wants public money to be spent on his expensive addiction to anti-Zionism.

There’s no middle ground on “globalize the intifada,” much as Mamdani’s spin doctors would want you to believe otherwise. And Mamdani has made his choice. Why wouldn’t his likeminded fellows come out of the woodwork at the first sign that the coast is now clear; Jew-baiters of the world, unite!

Some of this will play out as Mamdani chooses to surround himself with anti-Semites. And some of it will be anti-Semites choosing to coalesce around Mamdani. Very quickly the difference will become immaterial, if it hasn’t already: This will just be a city government that practices and encourages anti-Semitism. How it got that way is less important than the fact that the one guy who can put a stop to it, won’t.

Joshua Namn: Acknowledging Hatred Against Jews Isn't “Complaining” - It's Life Saving

He was referring to poll by the (liberal) Honan Strategy group. It found that 53% of Jewish voters feel threatened by statements by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his allies, while most non-Jews — 55% — say that’s an overreaction fueled by politics.

Unless you actually believe that the statistics lie, and that attacks on Jews haven’t increased dramatically during the last decade, the most terrifying part of that poll is that more than half of New Yorkers think that we are all just “overreacting.”

Jews are also about 10% of New York’s population. They are the targets of 57% of all hate crimes (all, not just religiously motivated crimes).

The only reason any of this is even possible is precisely because complaining is viewed by the mainstream as an inherently Jewish trait.

We have to reject all negative Jewish stereotypes. It isn’t an issue of pride, but of safety. We left the physical ghettos, now it is time to consign the mental ghettos to that same distant past.

So what’s the best defense against Jewish ghetto stereotypes? Be a proud, unapologetic, warrior Jew (in mitzvot and, if necessary, in unapologetic self-defense). That starts with a psychological willingness to embrace being different. Jewish pride isn’t arrogance: it is confidence.

At the beginning of the Book of Joshua it tells us how to behave when we have to deal with adversity: “Did I not command you, be strong and have courage (chazak v’ematz), do not fear and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your G-d is with you wherever you go.”

Chazak v’ematz: Be strong and have courage.

And THAT is how we fight antisemitism.

Never be afraid. Never give up.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Be’eri to Manchester to Bondi: Antisemitism is the canary in the coalmine for extremism

Just like the Jews murdered in Be’eri, the Jews murdered in Manchester and Bondi did not die because of Middle Eastern geopolitics. They died because the modern strain of an ever-mutating, lethal hate has been normalised as legitimate, in the name of progress, justice, and liberation. Because the hatred of Jews has once again been reframed as a moral critique. Because calls for the elimination of Israel, the Jew among nations, from 'from river to sea' are uniquely tolerated as speech, not genocidal intent.

The victims’ biographies matter. Jews fleeing antisemitism. Jews fleeing war. Jews who believed liberal democracies and universal values would protect them. History tells us otherwise.

But the same ideologies that support ‘globalising the intifada’ are not hostile singularly to Israel or Jews. They are openly hostile to the foundations of democracies: rule of law, pluralism, individual rights, and the very idea of national self-determination. Israel is not the cause of this hostility. It is the testing ground. Antisemitism is not just a weapon in this war. It is the proof of concept.

For the past two years, Israel has been on the front lines of this global threat. The war has not been confined to conventional battlefields. The existential threat is raging as a cultural, legal, informational, and moral war. As Jew among nations, Israel is where an axis of evil tests how far it can go, how much terror can be normalised, how much violence can be justified, how many individual and collective ‘Jews’ can be dehumanised, delegitimised, and applied double standards to - before the world objects.

When antisemitism spreads unchecked, it emboldens those who seek to dismantle democratic norms everywhere. When Jews are murdered, it signals that the guardrails are down. This is why antisemitism is the most reliable predictor of democratic collapse. It is the siren that sounds before the raging fire engulfs everyone else.

The lesson of Bondi Beach, like Manchester, Pittsburgh, Paris, Brussels, Mumbai, Washington, Boulder and elsewhere, is not merely that Jews remain vulnerable as canaries in the coalmine. It is those societies that fail to confront antisemitism at its ideological roots that will inevitably embolden the extremism it predicts, fueling broader violence. This is not about Jewish exceptionalism. It is about memory as historical literacy.

The axis of evil no longer hides its intent. It slaughters and tortures the people of Iran, emboldened by impunity. It openly declares its desire to collapse the West and to build a Caliphate on its rubble. It does so by using shape-shifting antisemitism as defined by the IHRA in a long democratic process as both weapon and symptom. The recent UK court decision that chants of ‘death to the IDF’ to which all Israelis must conscript at a music festival aired to millions - “does not meet criminal threshold” should trouble all who cherish life and liberty.

Those who continue to treat antisemitism as a marginal issue, or a subset of prejudice, are willfully ignoring history’s clearest warning sign. The siren is sounding again. The question remains whether we will finally recognise the fire before it consumes us all.

Read More

02/05 Links Pt1: Why No One Wants Iran to Win or Collapse; Why is the United Nations Chief Calling for Israel's Destruction?; Tucker Carlson Just Can’t Stop Lying About Israel.

From Ian:

Andrew Fox: Analysis on the rocks: a rebuttal

Throughout his piece, Milburn compares Israeli conduct unfavourably to US operations in places like Mosul, suggesting Israel should have done more to protect civilians. However, as discussed, Gaza posed unique challenges: a fully trapped population, an enemy deeply embedded within civilian infrastructure, and an ongoing threat to Israel’s own civilians (Hamas rockets and the context of a wider regional war). Other Western militaries engaged in similar conflicts (the US in Iraq, NATO in Afghanistan, etc.) often took measures such as establishing safe corridors or pausing operations to facilitate evacuations. Israel did make some attempts at pauses and corridors, but Hamas frequently undermined them (by blocking evacuations or attacking convoys).

Milburn largely overlooks how Hamas drastically increased the difficulty of conducting a “surgical” military campaign. To illustrate: Hamas fighters would fire from within crowds of displaced civilians or move into UN shelters after attacking, effectively daring Israel to respond. This blurred the lines between civilians and combatants in real time. Israeli soldiers on the ground faced an enemy that did not wear uniforms and exploited urban chaos as cover. These are not excuses for any reckless strikes, but they provide essential context. A fair analysis would acknowledge that even the best-trained army would struggle to avoid civilian harm under such conditions. Milburn’s focus, nearly solely on Israeli “choices”, suggests Israel could have attained the same military goals with much less damage if it had chosen differently. He offers little insight beyond generic appeals to restraint. This approach risks echoing armchair generalship that fails to engage with the tactical reality of Gaza.

One must also consider the dangerous precedent that Milburn’s one-sided assignment of blame could set. According to his account, Israel’s overwhelming firepower in Gaza is nearly entirely responsible for civilian deaths, while Hamas’s strategy of using human shields is treated as a minor detail. This framing effectively rewards the use of human shields. If an army knows its enemy will be condemned for any civilian casualties, while it (the defender) faces little blame for hiding behind civilians, the perverse incentive is to continue using this unlawful tactic.

International law explicitly prohibits using civilians to make targets immune (Additional Protocol I, art. 51(7)) for this very reason – it weakens the law’s protections when followed. Milburn’s analysis minimises Hamas’s role to the extent that it may encourage the Hamas strategy: bunker under hospitals, coexist with families, and then hope global outrage restrains Israel. That is a dangerous message to send. To be clear, Israel is not exempt from blame if it caused disproportionate harm, but we cannot ignore that Hamas’s unlawful tactics are relevant to the outcome. Both legally and morally, Hamas bears significant responsibility for endangering Gazan civilians. Ignoring this, as Milburn does, distorts the moral balance and creates a one-dimensional view of the war.

Hamas’s illegality does not absolve Israel. The IDF still faces tough questions. Did every airstrike truly follow the principle of proportionality? Were target validations and intelligence sufficiently rigorous amid the chaos? Did Israel do everything possible to minimise harm (without abandoning its mission)? These are valid questions, and there are grounds for criticising Israel. Indeed, Israeli authorities have at times acknowledged failings or launched investigations into incidents with high casualties.

This rebuttal is not an unfounded defence of all Israeli actions. Instead, it is a plea for analytical balance. Milburn’s broad accusation, essentially claiming that Israel deliberately chose a policy of killing civilians rather than risking harm, is not substantiated by the full record. Proportionality in war is a complex challenge, and reasonable observers can debate specific instances. However, such debate must consider the realities of Hamas’s tactics of human shielding, the unprecedented battlefield conditions, and the inherent uncertainty of war. Once these factors are taken into account, the narrative shifts from a simplistic “Israel behaved recklessly and Gaza’s civilians paid the price” to a more nuanced (and uncomfortable) truth: Hamas created a battlefield where high civilian casualties were almost inevitable, and Israel’s military, while endeavouring to achieve its mission to halt ongoing attacks, made mistakes and caused tragic, unintended consequences, but did not fundamentally deviate from how other professional armies have operated under similar or worse constraints.

Holding Israel to strict IHL standards is justified; expecting zero civilian harm in a scenario deliberately designed by Hamas to maximise civilian casualties is not. A calm analysis understands Hamas’s illegal actions as a significant factor without excusing Israeli mistakes. It also reinterprets proportionality not as a simple casualty measure after conflict, but as a continual obligation of responsible military decision-making amid uncertainty. Milburn’s critique, by largely ignoring the real battlefield limitations, does a disservice to his stated goal of learning how to better protect civilians. A more balanced discussion would recognise that both Hamas’s tactics and Israeli decisions influenced the outcome, and that the real challenge is how democratic armed forces can maintain humanitarian standards when fighting an opponent who intentionally seeks to undermine them. That is the conversation we need, and it begins by correcting the record that Milburn’s biased argument left so vulnerable to critique.

Islamic Warfare and America: Why the West Must Now Confront Jihad at Its Doorstep

The American Constitution enshrined individual rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and thought, regardless of how radical or extreme. Yet these uniquely American liberties have been exploited by its enemies to subvert the U.S. and the West from within. Americans have largely been willfully blind to recognizing that enemy ideologies can eventually undermine U.S. national security and destroy its societal fabric. Why does America continue to struggle to recognize jihadi subversion by Islamist organizations and actors?

America's Islamic enemies have publicly declared their intention for decades. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum discovered by the FBI reveals this strategy in detail. Authored by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Akram, the blueprint details a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" to destroy Western civilization from within and establish Islamic governance in North America. "The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within." These are not metaphors. They are declarations of war.

Dr. Harold Rhode describes the foundational doctrine of Islamic warfare in his book Modern Islamic Warfare, which explains how jihadist movements view their struggle as a cosmic battle that cannot cease "until the world be all for Allah." Among both Sunni jihadists and the messianic variety of Shiite jihadists that dominate the Iranian regime leadership, the West represents an adversary to be subdued, and Israel is merely the first, local hurdle in conquering the world for Islam.

The PLO's original 1964 charter and Hamas's 1988 covenant called for the annihilation of Israel through jihad. Today it is Hamas whose doctrine and political popularity dominate the Palestinian street. The fact that many Americans view the Palestinian cause primarily as rooted in territorial grievance rather than ideological jihad demonstrates the success of their disinformation and deception campaign. Any American policy toward the Palestinians must be conditioned on the explicit and verifiable rejection of jihad, recognition of Israel's permanent right to exist, and adoption of educational curricula free of religious hatred and incitement.

Most importantly, the U.S. must recognize that Israel's fight is also a battle for Western civilization's future survival, safety, and security. Moral clarity and a united front between Israel and the U.S. is necessary to defeat jihadist terror and political subversion.

Rep Rashida Tlaib faces terrorist ties allegations in new report

A comprehensive new briefing document from a prominent nonpartisan research and policy group is sounding the alarm on "serious ethical and national security concerns" related to Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib and her affiliations with individuals and organizations linked to designated foreign terrorist entities.

"The conduct of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, including her rhetoric, affiliations, campaign infrastructure, and ideological alignment with certain individuals and organizations, raises serious concerns about potential risks to the ethical and institutional integrity of the United States government," the report, released by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy’s advocacy and policy-oriented arm, states.

The report details a "recurring pattern" of behavior that it says suggests an ideological affinity for radical movements, ranging from participation in conferences featuring convicted terrorists to significant campaign payments made to activists linked to Hamas and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-aligned networks.

The briefing covers Tlaib’s financial history and says her campaign apparatus poured large sums of cash to anti-Israel activists, including almost $600,000 between 2020 and 2025 to Unbought Power, a consulting firm headed by Rasha Mubarak.

Mubarak has faced scrutiny for her past affiliations with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2009 Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial, and the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ), which has been investigated for ties to the PFLP-linked group Samidoun.

Tlaib, according to the briefing, has shared the stage with a variety of questionable figures highlighted by a conference alongside Wisam Rafeedie, a convicted PFLP operative, who defended the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack as "resistance."

Read More

The Shelved Report That Exposes HRW's Antisemitism

Two senior Human Rights Watch staff members, Omar Shakir and Milena Ansari, resigned last month over the organization's decision to shelve a report concluding that Israel's refusal to allow Palestinian "refugees" and their descendants to "return" constitutes a crime against humanity. The New York Times and other outlets are framing this as a story about HRW's internal politics and the courage of principled researchers.

They're missing the real story: the report's underlying logic reveals how accusations against Israel consistently rely on assuming Jewish evil from the outset—and that assumption is itself antisemitic.

While the report hasn't been published, the NYT article provides enough detail to reconstruct HRW's likely legal argument. The dispute centers on "whether there is a solid legal basis for the sweeping determination that denying the right of return to a particular location causes a level of suffering that rises to a crime against humanity."

Under the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity require proof that acts were committed "as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." 

Here are the crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender
 (j) Apartheid;

How on Earth can a nation's immigration policy be put in the same category as these crimes? How can it be considered an "attack" at all, which is the very definition of a crime against humanity? 

It cannot - but the HRW report almost certainly relies on an additional item listed in the Rome Statute:

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Notice what's embedded both in that formulation as well as in the general definition of crimes against humanity: intentionality. 

Let's be explicit about what HRW's theory requires: Israel's immigration policy must be intentionally designed to cause great suffering to Palestinians. No nation on Earth allows anyone to become a citizen without fitting some criteria, and Israel's is no more onerous than that of most other countries. As a Jewish state, it favors Jews - but millions of people became citizens of European states without even being residents because of their ethnic ties. Germany's Spätaussiedler program, Hungary's citizenship-by-descent law, and Ireland's generous policies for those with Irish grandparents are all considered legitimate expressions of national identity. 

Only when Israel does that same is it considered an active act of aggression against another group of people specifically to cause suffering. HRW is arguing that Israel's immigration policy - denying entry to descendants of people who left in 1948, most of whom have never lived in Israel - belongs in the company of extermination and mass rape.. That standard immigration controls exercised by every state somehow constitute "intentionally causing great suffering" comparable to murder, torture, and enslavement.

We aren't even getting into the discussion of Israel's security needs that prompted the policy not to allow Arabs who fled in 1948, hoping for a quick defeat of Israel, to return. Nor about how the UN resolution that is misread to give a "right" to return also specifies that the people must be willing to live in peace, a requirement that was never met. 

The Arab world has been clear from the start that their insistence on "return" is a means to destroy Israel. Muhammad Salah al-Din Bey, Foreign Minister of Egypt, said in 1949, "It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland… they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel."

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was equally explicit. In 1961 he stated that Arab demands meant "the destruction of the State of Israel." Even more directly, Nasser declared: "If the refugees return to Israel – Israel will cease to exist." Arab leaders weren't hiding their intent - the "right of return" was always a demographic weapon to eliminate the Jewish state

HRW is not advocating human rights for Palestinian Arabs. It is demanding the destruction of Israel.

The  assumption of malicious intent when Israel is doing what every other nation does is not limited to this report.   It's the common thread running through every major accusation against Israel:

"Genocide": Amnesty International's recent report claims Israel commits genocide in Gaza. But genocide requires "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." If Israel's intent is to destroy Hamas then the entire argument falls apart - but Amnesty embedded the result claiming intent for genocide into the assumption. The accusation assumes the worst possible motive while ignoring the obvious alternative: self-defense against a terrorist organization that openly seeks Israel's destruction.

"Apartheid": Multiple NGO reports claim Israel practices apartheid. But apartheid requires intent "to maintain [a] regime of systematic oppression and domination." Israel's laws enshrining equality for its Arab citizens demolishes the "intent" requirement. As I've documented, Amnesty invented its own definition of apartheid to reach this conclusion.

"Illegal settlements": The portrayal of Israeli communities in the West Bank assumes they exist to "steal land" or "oppress Palestinians"—not for security, not because Jews have historical and legal claims to the territory, not because successive Arab rejections of peace offers left the status unresolved.

In every case, the methodology is identical:

1. Assume Israeli Jews act from uniquely malicious motives
2. Ignore obvious alternative explanations (security, self-defense, standard state practice)
3. Use that assumption of evil intent to "prove" the predetermined conclusion
4. Create legal standards that apply only when you've assumed malicious intent from the start

In this case, it is crystal clear that the HRW report was written with the conclusion first, and the legal justification shoe-horned in afterwards. (Which is similar to Amnesty's report which was referred to internally as the "genocide" report while it was being written.) 

This isn't just bias. It's a modern variant of an ancient libel.

The classical blood libel assumed Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. The modern version assumes Jews design state policies specifically to maximize gentile suffering. The structure is identical: attribute uniquely evil motivations to Jews, dismiss obvious innocent explanations, use the assumption to "prove" extraordinary Jewish wickedness.

When you assume a Jewish state operates from fundamentally different and malicious motives than other states, you're not applying universal standards. You're applying a Jewish exception. And when that exception consistently assumes the worst possible intent while ignoring obvious alternatives, it reveals the prejudice driving the analysis.

The antisemitism becomes even clearer when you examine how Arab states treat the exact same Palestinian population.

Israel's immigration policies have been in place since 1948. There is no active oppression in not allowing Arabs to "return" to a state that almost none of them have ever lived. 

But Arab nations that have hosted Palestinian Arabs since 1948 have refused to give them citizenship for over 75 years. And this is a deliberate policy - the Arab League says that Arabs can become citizens of other Arab countries except for Palestinians.

Under HRW's own logic - that denying people citizenship causes 'great suffering' - this active, ongoing discrimination against actual residents would far more clearly constitute a crime against humanity than Israel's standard immigration policy. History has shown that Palestinians want to become citizens of Arab countries if they could, and the rare times that brief windows opened to allow some of them to be naturalized they enthusiastically took advantage of that. The 1951 Refugee Convention says, "The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees" and every Arab state has flouted that. (Even Jordan, which naturalized the West Bank Palestinians in 1951, has not done the same for Gazans who went to Jordan after the Six Day War; they are still living in camps without access to state services.) 

Don't hold your breath for HRW to accuse Lebanon, which doesn't even allow Palestinians to purchase land and forces them to live in overcrowded camps, of "crimes against humanity." But if HRW wasn't institutionally antisemitic and truly believed that keeping Palestinians stateless is a crime, that is exactly what they would do. 

Even Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director from 1993 to 2022, called this "a novel legal theory that was unsupported by the facts and law." When Kenneth Roth - whose anti-Israel bias has been extensively documented - can't defend your reasoning, you've revealed the prejudice underlying it.

Interestingly, HRW and Amnesty claimed that the "right to return" is a legal requirement over 20 years ago, using a different argument. It was based on a purposeful misreading of  the Nottebohm ICJ case. They quote-mined an ICJ decision about citizenship disputes to mean the opposite of what it says - because they started with the conclusion that Israel must be violating international law and worked backwards, just as they have done countless times since. Elevating the argument to the even more absurd "crime against humanity" shows far more about HRW than about Israel. 

The report was led by Omar Shakir, HRW's Israel-Palestine director for nearly a decade. Shakir has a documented history of opposing Israel's existence dating to his college years. HRW hired him knowing this - they wanted someone who would assume the worst about Israel.

And that's precisely what this report represents: start with the assumption that Israeli Jews are uniquely evil, construct a legal theory that only works if you maintain that assumption, apply it only to Israel while exempting states engaged in far worse conduct.

The report may be shelved, but the effort to write it reveals the antisemitism embedded in HRW's institutional approach: assume Jewish malice, ignore alternative explanations, use that assumption to prove predetermined conclusions, and call it "human rights research."

When your entire analytical framework depends on assuming Jews act from uniquely evil motives, you're not doing legal analysis. You're perpetuating an ancient prejudice in modern legal language.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

A new Arab claim that many Israelis are descended from 19th century converts (Subbotniks)

We know that Arabs love the Khazar theory, which allows them to claim that most of the Jews in Israel don't really descend from the Israelites and therefore are purely European colonists.

I just saw a new variant in the UK-based Al Araby:

But how did these Europeans become Jews, claiming today to be the "Children of Israel" mentioned in the Bible? Although the Bible speaks of a Middle Eastern people whose features are not European, and whose stories all take place between Egypt, Sinai, and Palestine, there is no clear answer to this central question. While historical information begins with the Khazar Kingdom, which converted to Judaism in the 8th century CE, artificial intelligence tells me that in the 19th century, some Eastern Europeans and some peasants in regions like Russia and Ukraine began to recognize Judaism as part of their cultural and religious identity within the Enlightenment movement. Some of these communities adopted the Jewish religion or some Jewish customs. In short, the situation of these European Jews with our countries is similar to that of someone from Mexico, for example, who converted to Hinduism and then came demanding that the Indians reclaim their temples and holy sites.

What is he talking about? 

It seems he means the Subbotniks. a small sect of Christians who started to take on various Jewish rituals starting in the late 18th century. Some of them did convert, some of them embraced Karaitism, some of them made aliyah in the early 20th century and blended into Israeli society as Jews, but they were a fringe movement; reaching at most 10,000 members, a tiny percentage of European Jewry. 

It is very clear that they are only a tiny percentage of today's Jews in Israel. The author appears to know this quite well, being careful not to say "most" of the Israelis are Subbotniks, but heavily implying it. 

Deep down, Arabs know that Jews are more native to Israel than they are This is why they are so anxious to create new theories to discredit them as being related to the Israelites. 

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

02/04 Links Pt2: The Anti-Zionism Exception; A Hamas Hostage’s Secret Ordeal; Britain’s shameful tolerance for terrorism; The Woman Who Refused to Give Flowers to Hitler

From Ian:

The Anti-Zionism Exception

Civil rights law has an anti-Zionism problem. In cases alleging discrimination, courts typically allow civil rights plaintiffs to use a contextual test—assessing what the U.S. Supreme Court has called the “totality of the relevant facts”—to prove that discrimination in fact occurred. And when key facts are disputed, courts rely on juries to resolve them. Juries are quintessential finders of fact, and discrimination is a quintessential fact question.

But now, for Jews and Israelis, there is an emerging exception to the customary contextual test. Under this exception, behaviors styled as “anti-Zionism”—opposition to Israel’s continued existence—are deemed inherently not discriminatory. Although this anti-Zionism exception started with progressive activists, it has recently jumped to the pages of a published decision by a federal appeals court, which seemed to imply that anti-Zionism, once draped over someone’s speech, generally disproves allegations of discrimination.

This anti-Zionism exception is wrong. It obscures that, in context, anti-Zionism can involve discrimination based on both national origin and race. If it stands, the civil rights of Jews and Israelis will be profoundly unequal to those of other groups that experience discrimination. And, for those who discriminate against Jews and Israelis, anti-Zionist arguments and rhetoric will function as a sort of “get out of jail free” card, enabling them to skirt legal accountability.

As a civil rights lawyer, I have had a front-row seat to the emerging anti-Zionism exception in civil rights law. For years, I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with other advocates to oppose discrimination of one kind or another, from racially disparate policing to President Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban. Sometimes we win. Sometimes we lose. But through it all, there has been one constant: a broad, contextual approach to diagnosing discrimination. In no area of civil rights law is there a magic word that defendants can utter to automatically defeat the charge of discrimination.

Instead of following the typical path in discrimination cases, the court seemed to do something different just for anti-Zionism and just for Jews.

That’s because discrimination can be subtle, especially in an age when being seen as a bigot is often socially undesirable and legally risky. As a result, even the most serious cases of discrimination often manifest through tacit double standards rather than explicit bigotry. Consider a police officer who allegedly deems it suspicious when a Black man, but not a white man, puts his hands in his pockets. Or an employer who, as one court put it, deems a man “assertive” but a woman “pushy.” Normally, a jury or other fact finder would be asked to decide whether, in context, these situations reflect discriminatory double standards or instead something more benign.

So it should be with anti-Zionism.

For starters, when deployed as a reason to target “Zionists,” such as by excluding them from school buildings, anti-Zionism is at least arguably, as Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs has explained, “a form of national-origin discrimination.” The reason is simple: Discriminating based on national origin includes insisting that people disavow a specific nation, especially their own nation of origin. Just imagine how easily laws prohibiting national-origin discrimination could be defeated if courts were to indulge wordplay such as “Oh, I’m not refusing to hire Italians and Haitians; I’m refusing to hire Italianists and Hatianists.”

Yet activists have resisted that logic for people they deem “Zionists.” And it’s easy to see why.

Particularly since the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, anti-Zionism has become a pillar of progressive movements. Sometimes it is bare opposition to Israel’s existence. But sometimes it is more extreme. Indeed, I have witnessed people who consider themselves civil rights supporters—people I know—express support for Hamas. But unlike their right-wing counterparts, who openly revel in Jew hatred, progressives want to believe that they oppose explicit discriminatory postures. Instead, they insist that there is something unique about “anti-Zionism,” which they view as a response to a “Zionist” political ideology, that exempts their statements and actions from standard antidiscrimination analyses.

The Weaponization of the Word “Ethnostate” Against Israel

Israel is, by its own description, an ethnostate, and saying otherwise would be a “ludicrous lie.” At least, that’s according to Tucker Carlson in a recent conversation with white nationalist Peter Brimelow.

Because Jewish identity is matrilineal, meaning a person is considered Jewish if their mother is Jewish, Brimelow and Carlson argue that the Jewish religion is racially based and therefore a “racial component” is inherent in the State of Israel. Being that the state was founded by atheists who “identified as Jewish racially,” Carlson suggests that Israel can only be described as such.

However, Israel, by its own description, is not an ethnostate in the way that Carlson and his guest describe. It is not a ludicrous lie to say this, but rather a simple understanding of the state’s laws and what an ethnostate actually is. This term, nevertheless, has become increasingly popular amongst anti-Israel influencers and journalists to negatively single out the only Jewish state for being just that – a Jewish state.

An ethnostate, at its basic understanding, is a state dominated by a certain ethnic group. But anti-Israel influencers have taken this term to mean something drastically different when applied to Israel, because, being a Jewish-majority state, would naturally make Israel an ethnostate in the same way that other ethnic or cultural majority states, such as Japan or Greece, would also fall under this category.

But when applied to Israel specifically, the entire understanding of the term changes to be one of racial discrimination based on fundamental misinterpretations of Israeli and Jewish laws.

Israel’s establishment as a Jewish state grants every Jew in the world the right to live in Israel, under the Law of Return. Under this law, anyone with one Jewish grandparent is eligible to become a citizen of the state. This is not a racial hierarchy as Carlson and Brimelow allude to, but rather a policy rooted in peoplehood, history, and refuge. The Law of Return exists because Jews are a nation with a shared identity that predates modern racial categories and has survived thousands of years, despite much of that time being in exile from the land of Israel.

Crucially, Israeli citizenship is not limited to the Jewish people. Arab Israelis account for 21% of the total population and hold the same rights as Jewish Israelis, including holding positions of government and law.

Yet this has not stopped journalists such as Briahna Joy Gray from incorrectly and continuously repeating that as an ethnostate, Israel denies Arabs equal rights.

Seth Mandel: The American Jewish Novel After October 7

One of the more interesting questions about Jewish culture after October 7 is: What will the future of American Jewish fiction look like? It will be particularly interesting to see how Israel is portrayed in the imaginations of Jewish writers of the Diaspora.

Conveniently, two recent books, both just named finalists at next month’s National Jewish Book Awards, can shed some light on the topic. The best way to describe Israel in American fiction before October 7 is by conjuring the film trope of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Coined by Nathan Rabin in 2007, the term refers to the female character who “exists solely… to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.”

American Jewish novelists have just gone through a period in which Israel appears as the national version of this archetype: Call it the Manic Pixie Dream Country. In the books, American Jews are assimilated and spiritually adrift, while their Israeli counterparts are tan and fearless. The Americans are outwardly dismissive of the Israeli machismo but inwardly captivated by it. The Diaspora Jew and the New Sabra look at each other the way one imagines the Flintstones and the Jetsons might, as if their co-presence represents some kind of tear in the fabric of the universe. And if the American characters end up in Israel, it is at the end of a redemption arc, a moment of salvation and fulfillment.

In the most extreme versions, the plot involves Israel’s literal destruction, as if a non-Israeli Jewish future can only be imagined if there is no Israel, so strong is the Jewish state’s gravitational pull. As the novelist David Bezmozgis once said: “The Jewish future is to be found in Israel. The Jewish past in Europe. Where in this equation is North America?”

The apotheosis of this genre is, unfortunately, Jonathan Safran Foer’s 2016 novel Here I Am, an absolute chore of a book. In it, an earthquake hits the Middle East, devastates Israel and leads to a mass invasion of it by regional powers. Even with Israel on the edge of the abyss, the U.S.-based Jewish family remains unable to find its own identity. (Like many of the books in this genre, it owes something of a debt to Philip Roth’s The Counterlife.)

A much better version of the disaster storyline plays out in 2024’s Next Stop, by Benjamin Resnick, in which a supernatural phenomenon that makes people disappear also makes Israel disappear. The Jews are blamed for the anomaly and in the U.S. they are herded into ghettos.

Read More

02/04 Links Pt1: Hamas terrorists use ambulances, schools, hospitals in violation of US-brokered ceasefire; US charges Elias Rodriguez with terrorism in killing of two Israeli diplomats

From Ian:

Trump signs bill ending shutdown, with more than $4 billion for Israel

Legislation that U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law on Tuesday included more than $4 billion for Israel, as well as several other provisions in support of the Jewish state, according to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Trump acted fewer than three hours after the U.S. House of Representatives cleared the bill that would reopen the federal government through Sept. 30 after a short shutdown. The Senate had passed the legislation earlier.

Atop the list is $3.8 billion for the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, which includes $3.3 billion in security assistance and $500 million for missile defense, such as Iron Dome and Arrow.

“Congress sent a powerful message about the strength and vibrancy of the U.S.-Israel alliance,” AIPAC stated. “This funding makes America safer, stronger and more prosperous, and ensures our democratic ally can defend itself from our shared enemies.”

Other funding includes $47.5 million for U.S.-Israel emerging technology cooperation (a $27.5 million increase), $75 million for U.S.-Israel counter-drone and directed energy investment (up $20 million), $80 million for U.S.-Israel anti-tunnel defense cooperation (a $32.5 million increase), $37.5 million for the Nita Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act that supports economic cooperation and peace building and $3 million for U.S.-Israel international development cooperation.

The measure also bans funding for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA); the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, both in The Hague; and the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry against Israel.

“Congress once again came together to send an unequivocal and bipartisan message of support for Israel and the U.S-Israel relationship,” AIPAC stated. “This strong bipartisan support reflects that the enduring partnership between the United States and the Jewish state remains stronger than ever.”

US charges Elias Rodriguez with terrorism in Washington killing of two Israeli diplomats last May

A man accused of killing two Israeli diplomats in Washington last year was indicted on four additional counts of terrorism, in a new indictment that was unsealed on Wednesday.

The new indictment includes nine charges, including hate crimes, filed earlier. Several of the charges carry a maximum penalty of death or life imprisonment, the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia said.

"These additional terrorism-related charges carry a mandatory life sentence under DC Code, while also reflecting the reality that this act was in fact an act of terror," US Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said in a statement.

Prosecutors accuse Elias Rodriguez, 31, of opening fire on people leaving an event for young professionals and diplomats hosted by the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group that fights antisemitism and supports Israel.

He fired approximately 20 shots from a semi-automatic handgun, and called out "Free Palestine," according to prosecutors.

Lawyers for Rodriguez did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26, who both worked for Israel's Embassy in Washington, were killed.

Darren B. Cox, the FBI assistant director in charge of the Washington Field Office, said Rodriguez wrote and published a manifesto as an attempt to "morally justify his actions" and inspire others to commit political violence.

US slams South Africa’s expulsion of Israeli diplomat

U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said South Africa’s expulsion of Israel’s senior diplomat prioritized political grievances over the country’s national interests and its citizens’ well-being.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Pigott called Pretoria’s move “another example of its poor foreign policy choices. Expelling a diplomat for calling out the African National Congress party’s ties to Hamas and other antisemitic radicals prioritizes grievance politics over the good of South Africa and its citizens.”

South Africa declared Israel’s chargé d’affaires, Ariel Seidman, persona non grata on Jan. 30 and ordered him to leave the country within 72 hours, according to a statement from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Department of International Relations and Cooperation, DIRCO).

South African officials said the decision was based on what they described as “violations of diplomatic norms,” including the alleged use of official Israeli platforms to criticize South African leadership and a failure to notify authorities of visits by senior Israeli officials.

In response, Israel’s Foreign Ministry designated South Africa’s top diplomat in Israel, Shaun Edward Byneveldt, persona non grata, ordering him to leave the country within 72 hours. The ministry said that “additional steps will be considered in due course.”

The diplomatic exchange further strains relations between Jerusalem and Pretoria, which have deteriorated sharply since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Both countries recalled their ambassadors in the weeks that followed.

South Africa has been a leading critic of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip and has pursued legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, both based in The Hague.

The United States has strongly opposed South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. President Donald Trump last year froze most U.S. aid to South Africa, citing Pretoria’s positions toward Washington, including its ties with Russia and Iran and its legal campaign against Israel.

Incoming U.S. Ambassador to South Africa Leo Brent Bozell has said that defending American policy on Israel will be a top priority when he assumes his post later this year.

Read More

No One Is Illegal—Except When It’s the Jews (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

At the Grammys, Billie Eilish announced that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” Her proclamation was received with applause, reverence, and the familiar assumption that a complicated moral question had just been settled by a pop star wearing a weird, tux-like garment.

💯 https://t.co/vC6hDyGZO3

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 2, 2026

Her “No one is illegal on stolen land” proclamation was offered as a foregone conclusion, requiring no explanation. The line worked precisely because it sounded finished, as though nothing more needed to be said. After all, it was Eilish saying this, and Eilish is famous. That, apparently, was enough to give authority to a statement that makes no sense whatsoever.

Taken seriously, the logic becomes absurd. Imagine a burglar breaking into your home and explaining that nothing illegal has occurred, because the house sits on land once taken from someone else. The theft of the land, under this reasoning, somehow nullifies every theft that follows.

Israel, after all, is routinely described as “stolen land.” Its presence is labeled “illegal occupation.” Jewish communities are not merely contested but criminalized. Entire legal, academic, and activist industries are devoted to arguing that Jewish sovereignty itself is unlawful.

It is a shame the International Court of Justice has spent years laboring over Israel’s supposed crimes. Under the principle that no one is illegal on stolen land, the allegation itself would defeat the charge. A claim of theft would eliminate the possibility of illegality altogether. There could be no crime, no unlawful presence, and no verdict to render.

Jews, of course, reject the premise of illegal occupation entirely. Because it makes no sense. The charge that Israel is “stolen land” collapses under even casual historical scrutiny. The Jewish connection to the land is documented and continuous, embedded in Jewish history, language, and practice.

The Jewish relationship to the land of Israel is one of symbiosis. Jewish prayer tracks its rain, Jewish law depends on its soil, Jewish time follows its seasons. Exile is experienced as dysfunction rather than displacement.

None of this figures into celebrity activism, which treats land as interchangeable scenery—something that can be stolen, reassigned, and morally laundered with a sentence. The idea that a people’s law, language, and obligations might be inseparable from a specific place does not fit neatly on a placard.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Josh Seiter (@josh_seiter_official)

Ironically, the most grounded response to Eilish’s comment came not from pundits or performers, but from the Tongva people, whose ancestral land includes much of present-day Los Angeles.

Rather than attack the celebrity, the Tongva acknowledged their history and thanked Eilish for the visibility. They asked—politely—that the tribe be explicitly named when discussing its ancestral land. They made no accusations and didn’t call for eviction. No one said anything about the moral side of what happened, or what the law had to say. And no one said boo.

In fact, people were really impressed by the way the Tongva handled Eilish’s idiotic land acknowledgement. They asked that we say their name when we talk about their ancestral land. It all makes a sharp contrast to the way Jews are perceived, when they own their history and plainly state that Israel is Jewish land. The world basically explodes with hate whenever we say, “Israel is ours—it belongs to the Jews.” But when Tongva do it, no one concludes that Los Angeles must cease to exist, or that its residents are therefore illegitimate.

That conclusion is reserved almost exclusively for Israel, where historical claims are treated not as context, but as a mandate for reversal.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Athena Dawson (@athenakuhnn)

Eilish’s comments drew applause from some and ridicule from others, much of it focused on her wealth and lifestyle. That debate, however, never touched the actual claim she made. Once treated as anything more than a momentary expression, it produces conclusions that even its defenders seem unwilling to follow—especially where Israel is concerned.

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More