How Israel Faces Legal Warfare on the Global Stage

This article is informed by interviews conducted by V24 with various experts including Arsen Ostrovsky, an international human rights lawyer. Video coming soon.

A New Frontline of Conflict

Israel is now facing a new kind of battle. One fought in courtrooms and international forums. This is "lawfare," where legal frameworks, originally designed to ensure justice and accountability, are weaponized to undermine a country’s legitimacy or to exert political pressure. In essence, lawfare involves using legal systems not merely for justice but as tools to harm, delegitimize, or constrain the actions of others.

According to international human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky, Israel is contending with lawfare on multiple fronts. Palestinian groups and their allies, unable to achieve their goals through military means, are leveraging international bodies to accuse Israel of war crimes, apartheid, and genocide. Ostrovsky argues that these strategies aim to erode Israel’s legitimacy while shielding groups like Hamas from accountability.

One particularly troubling example is the accusation of genocide. This charge invokes legal mechanisms established to protect civilians and prevent atrocities such as the Holocaust. Michal Kotler-Wunsch, Israel’s Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism, describes these accusations as a “perverted blood libel.” She highlights the bitter irony that the Genocide Convention, born out of the horrors of the Holocaust, is now being misused against Israel - a state founded as a haven for Jews.

Strategies of Lawfare

The legal campaign against Israel takes various forms, strategically targeting the state’s global standing and restricting its actions. Arsen Ostrovsky identifies three key arenas in this conflict: the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice.

The UN’s one-country, one-vote system has enabled anti-Israel majorities to exert disproportionate influence. Bodies like the UN Human Rights Council have been criticized as pawns in the battle against Israel, with Agenda Item 7, a permanent agenda item focused solely on Israel, illustrating this bias. Israel is the only country subject to such perpetual review, regardless of other global conflicts. Dan Fefferman, co-chairman of Sharaka, a coalition fostering Israel-Arab relations, likens this to kabuki theater, where nations with poor human rights records themselves vote against Israel. This dynamic reveals a structural problem within the UN, where resolutions against Israel consistently outnumber those addressing egregious human rights violations elsewhere.

International legal institutions have also been employed as tools of lawfare. At the ICC, Israeli leaders face potential arrest warrants and investigations for alleged war crimes, despite Israel’s non-signatory status to the Rome Statute. This approach seeks to stigmatize Israel by equating its self-defense measures with crimes against humanity. Ostrovsky describes this as a grotesque distortion that undermines the integrity of international law by erasing distinctions between democratic states and terrorist organizations.

The ICJ remains another critical battleground. In 2004, it issued an advisory opinion declaring Israel’s West Bank barrier unlawful. More recently, in 2024, it declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories unlawful. This escalation reached new heights with South Africa’s December 2023 complaint accusing Israel of genocide. Michal Kotler-Wunsch condemns these accusations as a perverse misuse of historical memory, particularly given the Holocaust’s role in shaping the Genocide Convention.

The Role of NGOs and Economic Pressures

Economic lawfare is another battleground, driven by NGOs and advocacy groups that challenge Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, launched in 2005, exerts significant economic pressure on Israel, targeting products, companies, and cultural exchanges. In Europe, BDS campaigns have pushed governments and companies to adopt labeling laws and boycott products from Israeli settlements, impacting Israel’s economy and international image.

Gadi Taub, a historian and op-ed columnist, criticizes these efforts as tools used by elites who disregard Israel’s democratic processes. NGOs with international funding often pursue legal actions against Israeli policies, bypassing the will of Israeli citizens. This dynamic allows external pressures to shape Israeli policies, sidelining internal debates and undermining national sovereignty.

The Erosion of Trust in International Institutions

Lawfare highlights a broader issue: the politicization of international legal frameworks. Arsen Ostrovsky argues that institutions designed to uphold justice are eroding, undermining the foundations of the rule of law. By failing to differentiate between democracies defending themselves against terrorism and the actions of terrorist organizations, these institutions compromise their mandates and lose credibility on the global stage.

Hilik Bar, a former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, points to the hypocrisy in decisions by bodies like the ICJ. While Israel is condemned for its security measures, actions by groups such as Hamas often escape meaningful scrutiny. Bar argues that this selective accountability undermines the credibility of international institutions, reducing them to tools for political agendas rather than instruments of genuine justice.

Towards a Fairer International Legal Order

As lawfare continues to be waged against Israel, it raises fundamental questions about the future of international law. Can legal frameworks designed to promote peace and accountability fulfill their purpose if they are wielded as weapons in political conflicts? For Israel, this is not merely a rhetorical issue but an existential one that affects its right to self-defense and global standing.

International institutions have a responsibility to uphold justice impartially, not only for Israel but for all nations. The current trend toward lawfare undermines this mission, weakening the trust placed in these institutions and setting dangerous precedents for other democracies. A re-evaluation of the mechanisms and motivations driving lawfare is essential if international law is to be a true force for peace, rather than a battleground of political maneuvering.

Alexandra Audrey Tompson

Editor-in-Chief | Lawyer (Admitted in New York; England & Wales)