What can JIJ do in a year?
2024 was our busiest and most impactful year since our founding 20 years ago
With your help, in 2024, JIJ provided FREE legal aid to 2,733 survivors of terrorism, human trafficking, and discrimination, including:
- 32 wounded Israeli soldiers
- 40 survivors of human trafficking
- 17 survivors of the October 7th massacre
- 68 families seeking Israeli citizenship or residency
- 112 refugees from Ukraine, Russia, and Eritrea
- 120 Israeli families displaced from their homes on the Gaza & Lebanon borders
How does JIJ do all of this in one year? With you, our amazing supporters. Thank you!
Our media presence grew & our team appeared on:
We met personally with dozens of global leaders, including Israel’s First Lady Michal Herzog, United Nations SRSG Pramila Patten, & US Senators Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, & John Fetterman.
We shared our research, forensic evidence, and legal analysis with diplomats from 30 countries.
January - June
JIJ held a series of free “ Know Your Rights” seminars for:
- 120 Israeli families who became suddenly homeless, unemployed, or disabled as a result of the war
- 57 Ukrainian & Russian refugee families
- 9 of these families receive Israeli citizenship through the Law of Return
- 500 wounded soldiers
Gathered 84 political & religious leaders in the U.S. for a private screening of unedited, uncensored footage of the October 7th massacre recovered from the bodies of Hamas terrorists and compiled by the IDF.
Drafted an urgent petition to Stop Funding UNRWA & persuaded key members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committees to enact a 1-year ban on US funding to UNRWA.
Hosted UN diplomats from 18 countries to hear testimony from Yuval Raphael a survivor of the Oct. 7th massacre. Yuval went to the Nova Festival to dance all night with her friends. At dawn, Hamas invaded, and she sought refuge in a roadside bomb shelter, which became a tomb when terrorists found them.
Launched the Survivors Seeking Justice project, and filmed detailed video testimonies of 17 survivors of the Oct. 7th massacre.
JIJ lawyers presented forensic evidence & first responder testimony to senior UN officials. This proof confirmed a pattern of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas on Oct. 7th and stopped the rape deniers in their tracks.
July-December
Discussed Israel’s anti-trafficking law with First Lady Michal Herzog. In 2018, JIJ persuaded the
Knesset to adopt a 5-year pilot program that treats women in the sex industry as victims of abuse, & the pimps as criminals. We’re advocating to make the law permanent!
JIJ assisted Israeli police in busting a major human trafficking ring - resulting in the arrest of 14 human traffickers, which was only possible through the testimony of our brave client.
We gave free seminars to soldiers recuperating at Ichilov & Tel Hashomer Hospitals. While private lawyers take 30-50% of a wounded soldier’s disability benefit as payment, JIJ is the only organization providing FREE legal aid to wounded Israeli soldiers, with 32 new soldier clients in 2024.
Intervened at the International Criminal Court with an amicus brief making it clear that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Israeli leaders.
Partnered with the World Union of Jewish Students to train & empower student leaders. Over 8 weeks, we trained 23 Jewish university students from 16 countries to combat antisemitism on their campuses.
The UN Human Rights Council convened a special gathering on the Jewish New Year, to condemn Israel. The timing was intentional - to prevent opposition. In response, we gave our General Assembly floor time to Amit Levy, brother of Naama Levy, who was kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7th. Amit gave powerful testimony on the need to free all of the hostages.
Every single donation you give, whether it’s $1000 or $10, changes lives!
Iran’s Proxies and Their Seven Fronts Against Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6Vmiq_VHg0
Did you know Iran is waging a multi-front war against Israel through its network of proxies? From Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza, and beyond, these seven fronts pose constant threats to Israel’s security and stability.
In our latest JIJ & GDC Israel Virtual Classroom Series, we unpack each front, revealing how Iran’s strategy works—and how Israel is responding. 💡🛡️
Don’t miss this essential breakdown of the threats facing Israel today. Follow us for updates and insights!
JIJ's Statement on The ICC Ruling
JIJ's Statement on The ICC Ruling to Issue of Arrest Warrant Against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant
The Jerusalem Institute for Justice vehemently condemns the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) ruling to issue arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant. This ruling is a purely political decision that not only flagrantly violates legal and moral standards but also shamefully capitulates to the pressures of anti-Israeli factions.
The ICC, established to protect genuine victims and hold accountable leaders responsible for the gravest crimes, has, for the first time in its history, chosen to target a democratic nation with a robust, independent judiciary fully dedicated to upholding the principles and rules of international law. This is a deplorable and calculated attempt to undermine the State of Israel and the IDF as they take decisive actions to defend the very existence of the world’s only Jewish state against an attempt to eradicate it. These efforts come in response to the most extensively documented barbaric massacre of modern times, orchestrated by Hamas and other terror groups.
We are deeply disappointed by the court’s decision to dismiss JIJ’s arguments, as outlined in our recently submitted legal observation. The court has chosen to disregard our strong legal arguments and overreach by asserting jurisdiction it does not possess. In doing so, it has acted in violation of the binding agreement between the parties to this ruling, wrongly recognized Palestine as a state despite its failure to meet the established threshold conditions, and blatantly ignored the existence of a robust, independent judicial system within a democratic state. Even more troubling, the court has created a false moral equivalence between the leaders of a democratic state and the arch-terrorists of Hamas. To further undermine its credibility, the court also decided to issue an arrest warrant against the dead terror mastermind, Mohammed Deif.
This ruling targets our leaders in the immediate term, but the repercussions are far more profound and far-reaching. It delivers a severe blow to the court's integrity, inflicting irreparable harm on public trust and the very concept of international justice. What should serve as a safeguard against atrocities has been twisted into a political weapon wielded against moral, law-abiding nations. The Jerusalem Institute for Justice urgently calls on the international community to stand against this outrageous ruling. Only by taking a firm stand can we begin to restore faith in the mechanisms of international accountability and uphold the principles of true justice.
Restoring Deterrence: Israel's Strikes and Strategic Offensives Against Hezbollah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2tfsbRfy-g
In this lecture, from our GDC Virtual Classroom series, we’ll take you behind the scenes of Israel’s bold and strategic fight against Hezbollah. You’ll discover how the IDF executed daring operations, including the remote detonation of thousands of Hezbollah's explosives, crippling their rocket capabilities. We’ll explore how Israel systematically dismantled Hezbollah’s leadership, including the assassination of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and launched a ground operation in southern Lebanon. If you’re ready to uncover the gripping details of Israel’s game-changing military tactics, this is a lecture you won’t want to miss.
A Year of Resilience
Three Strikes for Starmer
Three Strikes for Starmer
When Sir Keir Starmer ascended to the leadership of the UK Labour Party in 2020, he promised a decisive break from Jeremy Corbyn. Hamas and Hezbollah would no longer be considered ‘friends’, anti-Semitism would no longer be tolerated, and Israel would no longer be demonized.
Over the last four years, Starmer made significant progress on these fronts. He purged Corbyn from the Labor Party, adopted the recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s investigation into anti-Semitism,[1] and affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense.
The Anglo-Jewish community responded constructively to these changes. Where British Jews voted for the Conservatives over Corbyn by a six-to-one margin in 2017, Starmer attracted support from a plurality of Anglo-Jewish voters.[2] This reflected voting patterns across the British electorate, enabling Labour to return to power after 14 years in opposition.
Since Labour assumed power in July, however, the Party has taken three troubling decisions on Israel. In isolation, any one of these decisions could be dismissed as a blip on the radar. In their totality, they suggest a failure to root out the ideological undercurrents of Corbynism.
UNRWA
The first warning sign appeared on July 19, when Foreign Secretary Danny Lammy agreed to restore £21 million in funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). In announcing this decision, Lammy parroted UNRWA’s assertion that they ‘meet the highest standards of neutrality.’[3]
Such a claim is not credible. Israel has produced substantive evidence showing that UNRWA facilities have been systematically used as command centers and storage facilities for Hamas.[4] It has identified 42 employees of UNRWA who assisted Hamas on October 7, and it has alleged that over 10% of their workers are affiliated with terrorist groups.[5] Last month, UNRWA fired nine of its employees for their involvement in the October 7 massacre.
Lammy sidestepped this evidence by focusing on the UN-commissioned Colonna report from April 2024. But this report did not support the Foreign Secretary’s claim of neutrality. Instead, it found that alleged breaches of neutrality by UNRWA ‘escalated significantly’ after October 7. Referring to anti-Semitic educational content as a ‘grave violation of neutrality’, it noted that 3.85% of textbook pages in Palestinian schools contain concerning material.[6]
ICC
On July 26, the Labour Government made its second move against Israel. It dropped a pre-trial submission challenging the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
In June, the Sunak Government had responded to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants against Israel’s leaders by requesting permission to comment on ‘outstanding jurisdictional issues.’ The Government wanted the Court to address the implications of the Oslo Accords, which deny criminal jurisdiction to the Palestinian Authority over Israeli nationals.[7] The Court agreed to accept submissions from the UK and other interested parties until August 6.
By dropping the UK’s request for comment, the Starmer Government weakens pressure on the Court to address an important pre-trial question. It advances Prosecutor Khan’s unprecedented attempt to target the elected leaders of a democratic state, and it signals moral cowardice in the face of the ICC’s efforts to equate Hamas terrorists with leaders bound by the rule of law.
Export Licenses
On September 2, Labour completed its trifecta of measures against Israel. Secretary Lammy announced that the UK would suspend 30 of its 350 arms export licenses to Israel.[8] Coming on the same day as the funerals of six murdered hostages, the announcement provoked opposition in Israel and America.
Though the Foreign Secretary emphasized that ‘this is not an arms embargo’, his decision to block export licenses represents a clear departure from his predecessor. In December 2023, then Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron concluded that Israel is ‘committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law.’ Following five legal assessments, Cameron reiterated his stance in April 2024, rejecting calls to suspend export licenses.[9]
Though Britain does not account for a large share of Israel’s arms imports, these restrictions will affect the supply of drones, jets, and other aircraft. Coming just weeks after the UK dropped its challenge to the ICC, the decision reflects a troubling pattern of one-sided measures against Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense.
Conclusion
Starmer deserves credit for confronting rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. He has repudiated the sordid legacy of Corbyn and worked to regain the trust of British Jews.
It seems, however, that his foreign policy has privileged the concerns of a loud left flank over the defense of a democratic ally. In just two months, Labour has departed from the Conservatives on three issues. Each of these actions has hurt Israel’s security while exacerbating the divide between British and American policy. To maintain good will at home and abroad, Starmer is due for a course correction.
Written by Ben Solomon
JIJ Intern
Click Here To read the full article including notes
Philadelphi Corridor: The Critical Strip Shaping Gaza's Future Amid Tensions and Negotiations
The Philadelphi Corridor, running along the Gaza-Egypt border, is a focal point of intense
debate. It plays a critical role as a vital conduit for essential supplies and materials into Gaza,
acting both as an air bridge for resupply and a checkpoint for movement in and out of the
territory. During the Swords of Iron War, Israel's control of this corridor has been viewed by
the Western world as worsening the isolation of Gazans, who are already displaced for their
safety.
The corridor’s significance is underscored1 by its’ role in transporting essential supplies,
including food and weapons. Currently controlled by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), its
management raises concerns about its effects on aid from Iran and Iraq and its role in
smuggling. "That control is critical … some areas are wide enough for trucks, which have been
used to smuggle weapons and personnel into Gaza."2 This corridor can significantly impact the
humanitarian situation and potentially cause chaos if used for smuggling. If controlled by
Hamas, it remains a persistent issue for Israel.
Hamas, elected to the Palestinian Parliament in 2006, has clashed with Fatah and the
Palestinian Authority (PA), which both support a two-state solution that Hamas opposes. The
corridor's control limits Hamas' access to weapons and supplies from Egypt, giving Israel
leverage to weaken Hamas and influence negotiations. However, the Western world
disapproves of this control and is urging Israeli leaders and the IDF to withdraw military
personnel before finalizing a deal.
Egypt has cautioned Israel against taking actions that could drive Gazans to cross the border or
jeopardise the significant peace agreement between the two nations established in 19793. In
response, Israel plans to relinquish partial control of the corridor as part of a hostage deal with
Hamas, aiming to preserve its alliance with Egypt. This move alleviates pressure on Prime
Minister Netanyahu and shifts responsibility to Hamas leaders like Yahya Sinwar. By agreeing
to the terms set out by the US, Israel disrupts Hamas’s supply chain and affects Western
perceptions of the situation.
Recently, the US has been facilitating talks for a ceasefire and hostage return, focusing on “how
to advance hostage negotiations”4. Netanyahu has indicated that the IDF will stay within the
corridor. The US supports the IDF’s strategic aims due to its alliance with Israel, but
maintaining control of the corridor does not help in retrieving hostages. Despite public pressure
for a quick resolution, Israel views the corridor as vital for strategy and negotiations, rejecting
a full military withdrawal. Prominent figures like Antony Blinken advocate for a swift
resolution to ensure safety. As of August 24th, 2024, President Biden and Prime Minister
Netanyahu have reached an agreement on the corridor. Despite differing views, they have
informally agreed to a military withdrawal as per request from Egypt and Hamas6.
Written by Ariela Cameron
Jerusalem Institute of Justice Intern
To Read the Article with the notes- Click Here
Philadelphi Corridor: The Critical Strip Shaping Gaza's Future Amid Tensions and Negotiations
The Philadelphi Corridor, running along the Gaza-Egypt border, is a focal point of intense
debate. It plays a critical role as a vital conduit for essential supplies and materials into Gaza,
acting both as an air bridge for resupply and a checkpoint for movement in and out of the
territory. During the Swords of Iron War, Israel's control of this corridor has been viewed by
the Western world as worsening the isolation of Gazans, who are already displaced for their
safety.
The corridor’s significance is underscored1 by its’ role in transporting essential supplies,
including food and weapons. Currently controlled by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), its
management raises concerns about its effects on aid from Iran and Iraq and its role in
smuggling. "That control is critical … some areas are wide enough for trucks, which have been
used to smuggle weapons and personnel into Gaza."2 This corridor can significantly impact the
humanitarian situation and potentially cause chaos if used for smuggling. If controlled by
Hamas, it remains a persistent issue for Israel.
Hamas, elected to the Palestinian Parliament in 2006, has clashed with Fatah and the
Palestinian Authority (PA), which both support a two-state solution that Hamas opposes. The
corridor's control limits Hamas' access to weapons and supplies from Egypt, giving Israel
leverage to weaken Hamas and influence negotiations. However, the Western world
disapproves of this control and is urging Israeli leaders and the IDF to withdraw military
personnel before finalizing a deal.
Egypt has cautioned Israel against taking actions that could drive Gazans to cross the border or
jeopardise the significant peace agreement between the two nations established in 19793. In
response, Israel plans to relinquish partial control of the corridor as part of a hostage deal with
Hamas, aiming to preserve its alliance with Egypt. This move alleviates pressure on Prime
Minister Netanyahu and shifts responsibility to Hamas leaders like Yahya Sinwar. By agreeing
to the terms set out by the US, Israel disrupts Hamas’s supply chain and affects Western
perceptions of the situation.
Recently, the US has been facilitating talks for a ceasefire and hostage return, focusing on “how
to advance hostage negotiations”4. Netanyahu has indicated that the IDF will stay within the
corridor. The US supports the IDF’s strategic aims due to its alliance with Israel, but
maintaining control of the corridor does not help in retrieving hostages. Despite public pressure
for a quick resolution, Israel views the corridor as vital for strategy and negotiations, rejecting
a full military withdrawal. Prominent figures like Antony Blinken advocate for a swift
resolution to ensure safety. As of August 24th, 2024, President Biden and Prime Minister
Netanyahu have reached an agreement on the corridor. Despite differing views, they have
informally agreed to a military withdrawal as per request from Egypt and Hamas6.
Written by Ariela Cameron
Jerusalem Institute of Justice Intern
To Read the Article with the notes- Click Here
Amicus Brief- Challenging ICC's Prosecutor’s Request to Issue Arrest Warrants for Israeli Leaders
On August 6, the Jerusalem Institute of Justice legal team, submitted its Written Observations to the International Criminal Court on the unresolved matters of jurisdiction with respect to the ‘Situation in Palestine' case.In our submission, we've challenged the ICC's jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants against Israeli citizens, questioned the classification of "Palestine" as a state, and asserted that the Gaza Strip is not under occupation.
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice submitted its reservations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) , stating that the tribunal may not exercise its authority over Israeli citizens, in light of the Oslo Accords, which were signed between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and regulated the jurisdiction in these territories.
This submission follows a request by the ICC prosecutor to issue arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their alleged responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Representing survivors of the Hamas massacre on October 7, the JIJ seeks to challenge the tribunal’s attempt to exert authority over Israeli citizens, contrary to the Oslo Accords. In the documents filed, the JIJ’s legal experts dispute the classification of “Palestine” as a state and argue that the Gaza Strip is not under occupation.
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice shares the ICC’s commitment to fight impunity for serious violations of international law. At the same time, this goal cannot be realized at the expense of circumventing existing legal frameworks. We call on the tribunal to refrain from making unilateral decisions that could damage the peace process.
JIJ unequivocally argued that the Oslo Accords, which govern relations between Israel and the Palestinians, constitute a binding and central legal document recognized internationally. According to these agreements, the Palestinian Authority has no criminal jurisdiction over Israeli citizens and cannot transfer powers it does not possess to the ICC.
The JIJ also noted that in its 2021 decision, the tribunal declared it could not determine whether Palestine was a state. The Chief Prosecutor’s current classification of the conflict, both as an international conflict and as a non-international conflict, stems from uncertainty in the law and its interpretation by the tribunal. This situation affects the types of crimes investigated and creates an imbalance in the application of the law between the different parties.
For an entity to be considered a state and for the conflict to be classified as an international conflict, it must meet four conditions: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the ability to engage in international relations. The JIJ argues that Palestine does not meet these conditions, and its unilateral declaration of statehood contravenes the Oslo Accords and is therefore illegal under international law.
The second option for recognizing the conflict as an international confrontation is to acknowledge the occupation. In this respect, JIJ argues that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and does not control it, a necessary element for being considered an occupier. Thus, Israel’s current military actions in Gaza are characterized as a response to active hostilities of Hamas, not an occupation.
JIJ emphasizes the need to respect existing agreements and the rules of international law and warns against any modifications, deviations, or reinterpretations of these agreements by the tribunal. The Institute further notes that, to ensure a clear and fair legal framework in Israeli-Palestinian relations and to prevent unilateral decisions that could jeopardize the peace process, the tribunal must uphold what the parties agreed to in the Oslo Accords and the boundaries defined therein.
Observations ‘Situation in Palestine’
JIJ submited to the International Criminal Court these written observations on the unresolved matters of jurisdiction with respect to the ‘Situation in Palestine’.
In accordance with the Pre-Trial Chamber’s order of July 22, 2024, granting the Jerusalem
Institute of Justice (JIJ) leave to submit observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the ICC Rules
of Procedure
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice submitted its reservations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) , stating that the tribunal may not exercise its authority over Israeli citizens, in light of the Oslo Accords, which were signed between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and regulated the jurisdiction in these territories.
This submission follows a request by the ICC prosecutor to issue arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their alleged responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Representing survivors of the Hamas massacre on October 7, the JIJ seeks to challenge the tribunal's attempt to exert authority over Israeli citizens, contrary to the Oslo Accords. In the documents filed, the JIJ's legal experts dispute the classification of "Palestine" as a state and argue that the Gaza Strip is not under occupation.
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice shares the ICC's commitment to fight impunity for serious violations of international law. At the same time, this goal cannot be realized at the expense of circumventing existing legal frameworks. We call on the tribunal to refrain from making unilateral decisions that could damage the peace process.
JIJ unequivocally argued that the Oslo Accords, which govern relations between Israel and the Palestinians, constitute a binding and central legal document recognized internationally. According to these agreements, the Palestinian Authority has no criminal jurisdiction over Israeli citizens and cannot transfer powers it does not possess to the ICC.
The JIJ also noted that in its 2021 decision, the tribunal declared it could not determine whether Palestine was a state. The Chief Prosecutor’s current classification of the conflict, both as an international conflict and as a non-international conflict, stems from uncertainty in the law and its interpretation by the tribunal. This situation affects the types of crimes investigated and creates an imbalance in the application of the law between the different parties.
For an entity to be considered a state and for the conflict to be classified as an international conflict, it must meet four conditions: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the ability to engage in international relations. The JIJ argues that Palestine does not meet these conditions, and its unilateral declaration of statehood contravenes the Oslo Accords and is therefore illegal under international law.
The second option for recognizing the conflict as an international confrontation is to acknowledge the occupation. In this respect, JIJ argues that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and does not control it, a necessary element for being considered an occupier. Thus, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are characterized as a response to active hostilities of Hamas, not an occupation.
JIJ emphasizes the need to respect existing agreements and the rules of international law and warns against any modifications, deviations, or reinterpretations of these agreements by the tribunal. The Institute further notes that, to ensure a clear and fair legal framework in Israeli-Palestinian relations and to prevent unilateral decisions that could jeopardize the peace process, the tribunal must uphold what the parties agreed to in the Oslo Accords and the boundaries defined therein.