Mayor Mamdani Gets International Law on Israel Wrong
A New York politician faces criticism for allegedly distorting international law in statements about Israel, with experts warning such rhetoric undermines legal principles and Western interests.
According to New York Post, the misuse and inversion of international legal concepts has become a hallmark of anti-Israel propaganda throughout media coverage of the Middle East in recent years. This trend not only undermines genuine international law but poses a growing threat to the United States and the broader Free World, as these misrepresentations are increasingly turned against Western interests.
Zohran Mamdani, the Mayor of New York, stands out as one of the most prominent figures spreading such misinformation. His track record includes allegations that synagogues promoted activities “in violation of international law,” threats to arrest the Prime Minister of Israel, and claims that the United States is “subsidizing a genocide.”
The consequences for New York’s Jewish community have been severe, but experts warn that the wider implications of these legal distortions should not be underestimated. Such rhetoric is designed to shut down debate, advance false narratives, and ultimately target Western nations.
Misapplying International Law
Mamdani has repeatedly characterized Israel as an “occupying” power engaged in an “unlawful occupation” and endorsed assertions that Israeli settlements are “illegal under international law.” Legal scholars argue these claims fundamentally misapply international law principles to Israeli territory.
The borders of the State of Israel derive from the universally recognized customary rule of Uti Possidetis Juris, which translates to “as you possess under the law.” This principle has governed border formation for emerging states across South America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe during decolonization, establishing that existing administrative boundaries become international borders when new states emerge.
As the only state to emerge from the British Mandate for Palestine—after 75 percent of the Mandate territory was granted to Arabs to form what became the Kingdom of Jordan—Israel inherited the Mandate’s administrative lines as its international borders in 1948. No subsequent agreement has altered those boundaries.
The Legal Reality of 1967
When Israel recovered Gaza and Judea and Samaria from Egyptian and Jordanian occupation respectively in 1967, it could not legally have become an occupier of its own sovereign territory. No nation can occupy land that falls within its own recognized borders under international law.
The false claims regarding Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are particularly troubling, critics note, especially given that some of these communities were reestablished after Jordan ethnically cleansed Jews from the territory between 1948 and 1949. The assertion that these settlements are “illegal” amounts to arguing that Jews should not live in certain areas simply because of their religion—a position that enables calls for modern ethnic cleansing.
True Apartheid in the Region
Mamdani’s use of the term “apartheid” to describe Israel ignores the actual apartheid conditions in the region, as New York Post reports. Palestinian-controlled territories are completely free of Jews. Areas A and B of the West Bank, which Israel relinquished in exchange for peace assurances under international agreements, and Gaza, which was evacuated unilaterally under international pressure, are now entirely Jew-Free zones.
The pattern reflects what observers call projection—accusing Israeli Jews of the very crimes committed against them. This extends to the accusation of genocide, a charge Mamdani frequently deploys despite its complete inversion of historical and current reality.
The Jewish experience of actual genocide—the Holocaust, which gave rise to the term itself, and the October 7th massacre, where Palestinian terrorists specifically targeted Jews for rape, torture, and murder—stands in stark contrast to the false allegations being leveled against Israel.
Legal experts warn that this systematic abuse of international law terminology represents more than rhetorical excess. It establishes dangerous precedents that can be weaponized against other Western nations and undermines the credibility of legitimate international legal frameworks.
With information from New York Post
