This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the immediate aftermath of President Biden's major announcement on Sunday, stating that he was dropping out of the presidential race, a flood of responses was quickly posted online.
Political pundits were weighing in. Cultural commentators were sharing their perspectives. Social media influencers were having their say. After all, this was a seismic announcement.
But since I have nothing of political substance to add to the many perspectives that have been shared on TV, in online video commentaries, in articles, and in memes, I'll offer up a prayer for President Biden instead.
As I posted on X Sunday afternoon, "While President Biden has been an enemy of the pro-life movement and has pushed for many causes which I strongly oppose, I still grieve over him as a person for whom Jesus died. May he truly come to know the Lord and His mercy and goodness while he still has breath!"
Remarkably (and quite sadly), on Jan. 20, 2021, when I posted a prayer on Facebook for our just-inaugurated president, not all were happy to join in. In fact, I was following the guidelines of 1 Timothy 2:1-4, which reads: "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
But while the vast majority commenting on the post added their amens, others protested, saying, "He's not my president! The election was stolen." Or, "We don't have kings and those verses don't apply. 'We the people' lead our nation."
Others had far more sinister reasons for not praying. To paraphrase the sentiments of a small, vocal minority, "I would just as well pray for the devil as for Biden! He is just plain wicked."
In that case, our prayers for him should have been all the more fervent. After all, Paul likely wrote 1 Timothy when Nero – the infamous, evil, madman Nero – was emperor. Yet Paul called his readers to pray for him. If Nero, then, was not beyond the pale of salvation, surely Joseph Biden is not.
As I wrote in "The Political Seduction of the Church," Just as Donald Trump is not Jesus, Joe Biden is not the devil. Neither is he Nero. Biden may support gay 'marriage' and transgender activism, but Nero 'castrated a boy named Sporus to make him womanlike, and then married him in a traditional ceremony, which included a bridal veil and a dowry, according to the Roman historian and biographer Suetonius (circa A.D. 69).' And I do not believe for a moment that Biden would call for Christians to be set on fire and burned alive to illuminate the night. Please!"
God had mercy on me as a proud, rebellious, heroin-shooting, LSD-using, 16-year-old, Jewish, hippie, rock drummer, transforming my life in 1971.
He saved Paul, who once had followers of Jesus put to death (1 Timothy 1:13-16).
He saved David Berkovitz, the notorious Son of Sam serial killer, giving him a new heart, even while imprisoned for life.
He saved my dear friend Yesupadam, raised an untouchable in India before becoming an atheist, an alcoholic, and a radical communist who engaged in atrocities against the rich. It was only then that Yesupadam encountered Jesus and literally became a new man. Today, he is the truest Christian I know on the planet.
Perhaps you could insert your own name here too, even if your story is not as dramatic as some of those I just listed?
Even two of the most wicked kings in the Bible, Ahab king of Israel and Manasseh king of Judah, were shown mercy because they humbled themselves before God (see 1 Kings 21:29; 2 Chronicles 33:12-13). As I wrote recently, great is the mercy of the Lord!
So, as much as I wholeheartedly opposed much of President Biden's agenda, in particular his call to reinstate Roe and his dangerous support of radical transgender activism, I hate to see a fellow human being losing his cognitive abilities, and I certainly pray for his salvation.
Would you join me in this prayer?
Heavenly Father, we lift our voices to you on behalf of President Biden, asking You to reveal Yourself to Him afresh, to show him the depth of his sins in Your sight – while we make no excuses for our own sins – and to point him to the cross.
To the extent that his Catholic faith was ever real in his life, help him to understand how he has betrayed his values on many fronts, from the meaning of marriage to the sanctity of life in the womb. And whatever else he has done, be it in public or in private, bring the weight of conviction on him until he pleads for mercy and grace. Help him to humble himself before You!
May he not trust in his own works. May he not trust in Church tradition. May he not trust in the approval of his friends and family. May he recognize instead that he stands naked and guilty in Your sight, and in that light, may he receive an overwhelming revelation of Your love, Your kindness, Your mercy, Your compassion, and the power of the blood of the cross.
As you saved us and washed our slates clean, do the same for President Biden. May he have a glorious conversion experience in the days ahead, and may we have the joy of hearing him proclaim his new life in You.
We pray this in Jesus' name.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'They fear that if Donald Trump wins, he will follow through on a promise to close the border to asylum-seekers'
There have been new reports of a large migrant caravan heading toward the United States, after illegal migrants looking to cross the Southern Border in Texas, fear former President Donald Trump may take the win in the 2024 presidential election.
Multiple reports have stated the caravan has over 3,000 migrants, who are currently making their way through southern Mexico.
The Associated Press reports the caravan has people from more than a dozen countries, including Cuba, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
"Some of the members of the group said they hoped to make it to the U.S. border before elections are held in November because they fear that if Donald Trump wins, he will follow through on a promise to close the border to asylum-seekers,"
Migrants told the AP they were concerned about the Trump administration nixing an app migrants use to enter the U.S. called CBP One. The app allows asylum-seekers to enter America legally by allowing them to make their cases to U.S. officials upon arrival. The app, however, only works close to the U.S. border.
Vice President Kamala Harris is partly responsible for the crisis at the southern border after she was tasked with leading the Biden administration to find solutions to the influx that began in early 2021.
Joe Biden told migrants to "surge the border" during the Democratic debates ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
In January, the U.S. House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the Biden administration incentivizing illegal immigration involving children.
Joseph Edlow, founder of the Edlow Group, told the committee that immigration laws currently have too many loopholes, and encourage illegal migrants to cross the border with a child because they are almost guaranteed to be granted asylum, whether or not the child belongs to them.
"If you bring a child, you're going to be able to claim asylum, whereas you wouldn't if you didn't have a child. So it's gonna encourage more illegal immigration, more families coming across," Edlow told the committee.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump stressed at last week's Republican National Convention that he will be stopping illegal migration, calling it an "invasion."
"No hope or dream we have for America can succeed unless we stop the illegal immigrant invasion. The worst that's ever been seen anywhere in the world," Trump said during his speech at the RNC, adding third-world nations would fight with "sticks and stones" to stop this happening in their own countries.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
No sooner had a social media statement appeared online in which Joe Biden said he was bowing out of the 2024 race for the Democrat party nomination for president for the "good" of his party and country than questions were raised.
Why was it posted on social media without a White House news conference, or press release?
Why was there no official presidential seal on the document?
Online was the question, 'Who signed Biden's letter?" with images from five recent presidential orders, and the differing signature from his weekend post.
"This is kind of important . Five identical signatures appear to be with an auto-pen (a real thing Presidents use) and the one on the resignation letter differs," explained Naomi Wolf, who describes herself online as, "Journalist. DPhil, Oxford, Poetry. CEO, http://DailyClout.io. Deplatformed 8 times; still right. Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age."
Pershing Square CEO Bill Ackman pointed out, "One would think that a letter to the American people from the president announcing his decision to step aside would not be signed using a digital signature and would be accompanied by a photo op and a scheduled conference in the morning that followed. Instead we have a digitally signed letter released on the president's @X account, an account we know that is run by a staffer, no photo, and no live scheduled address to the American people. If I were China, I would invade Taiwan tomorrow."
A report at the Gateway Pundit speculated, "Did we just witness a coup?"
The report pointed out the statement was not on official letterhead.
"Shortly after Biden's announcement letter was released, several journalists noticed Biden's signature in his announcement letter did not match Biden's official signature," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A U.S. senator is demanding answers from the head of Joe Biden's Department of Homeland Security to allegations there was a law enforcement agent assigned to the roof on which former President Trump's shooter was perched, but abandoned that post because of "hot weather."
In a Monday letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wrote about the security failures of Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle.
"Additional whistleblowers have contacted my office with troubling information about the assassination attempt on former President Donald J. Trump," Hawley began.
"Contrary to Director Cheatle's public statements about the 'safety' of the sloped roof of the American Glass Research Building 6, one whistleblower with direct knowledge of Secret Service planning for the event alleges that there was supposed to be law enforcement presence on the roof that day.
"In fact, the whistleblower alleges that at least one individual was specifically assigned to the roof for the duration of the rally, but this person abandoned his or her post due to the hot weather.
"The whistleblower further alleges that concerns over the heat prompted law enforcement to forego patrolling Building 6 and instead to station personnel inside the building."
Hawley also asked Mayorkas three pointed questions in the correspondence: "If the whistleblower's allegations are accurate, when did the individual abandon the post?"
"Which law enforcement units were assigned to the roof?"
"Did any law enforcement personnel fail to report to their assigned stations that day?"
Also Monday, Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner scorched Cheatle for not having personally visited the site of the horror, nine days after the gunfire erupted July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson interviewed talk-show host Jack Posobiec, telling him: "At this point government should be presumed guilty until proven innocent."
Posobiec noted: "I would say the burden of innocence is on the citizens and the burden of guilt is on the government."
Carlson said of the Secret Service: "Common sense suggests this is screw-up after screw-up after screw-up which, put together, suggests an intentional series of screw-ups which would have allowed Trump to be murdered and whatever else would happen after that.
"So the fact that they haven't explained themselves and haven't been forced to explain, and I mean forced to explain themselves, tells you that things are totally out of control – that they can do anything, and nobody can do anything about it."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – The Israel Defense Forces confirmed the deaths of two of the hostages – Alexander Dancyg and Yagev Buchshtab – held in Hamas captivity Monday, after obtaining new intelligence.
Tragically, it is thought the two died months ago in Khan Yunis as the IDF operated against Gaza's terrorist infrastructure, although there has not been confirmation the IDF mistakenly killed them.
Dancyg and Buchstab were thought to be held together. Hamas terrorists abducted both of them on Oct. 7, 2023; Dancyg from Kibbutz Nir Oz, while Buchstab was snatched from Kibbutz Nirim – both of which terrorists overran on that day. Buchstab's wife, Rimon Buchshtab-Kirscht, was also held hostage in Gaza but was freed after 50 days in captivity as part of the only hostage deal to date. July 21st would have been Dancyg's 76th birthday.
Their deaths were declared by a panel of health experts and members of the rabbinate, following new information obtained by the IDF. Hamas still holds their corpses, with the IDF confirming 44 out of the 116 remaining captives in Gaza are known to have died.
In total, the terrorist group and Gazan civilians captured some 251 hostages during the Oct. 7 onslaught. Hamas also still holds the bodies of two soldiers since 2014's Operation Protective Edge, and two Israeli civilians who entered Gaza in 2014 and 2015.
The news came on the day when the IDF ordered Gazan civilians to move away from certain areas of Khan Yunis because it was operating there to root out terrorist elements who had reentered. Operationally, the IDF has generally not taken action in areas where it has received intelligence hostages might be held. In fact, it has called off dozens of operations against terrorists during the course of the war for this very reason.
Buchstab was a sound technician by profession, who played numerous musical instruments, as well as constructing them himself. He was described as a "humble and unassuming man who loved life in Kibbutz Nirim."
Dancyg was a historian, educator, and farmer. Born to Holocaust survivors, he became one of the founders of educational delegations to Poland. He worked at Yad Vashem for about 30 years, where he trained thousands of guides in Holocaust education.
Hostages who were held captive with him reported Alex spent his time in captivity giving history lectures to fellow captives.
The Hostages and Families Forum released a statement on receiving the news about Dancyg and Buchstab, which was also posted to X.
"This morning's devastating news about their deaths serves as yet another stark reminder of the urgency to bring home the hostages, who face immediate mortal danger every moment in Hamas' hell."
"Yagev and Alex were taken alive and should have returned alive to their families and to their country."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the city of Castle Rock, Colorado, from interfering with a church's program to help the homeless by providing temporary shelter in an RV and a trailer camper unit on its own property.
The Rock Church had sued the town after officials there ordered church members to no longer help the homeless on their own church land, and the judge said that campaign created a substantial burden because it "prevents participation in a conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief."
A CBS report noted the Rock Church has sheltered homeless people in RVs on its land since 2019 but town officials blocked that ministry multiple times in 2021, 2022 and 2023 claiming it was a violation of zoning laws.
The church's legal action charged that city officials were violating the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act with their campaign.
The church's goals were clear, in its filing: "The Holy Bible specifically and repeatedly directs faithful Christians like the church's members to care for the poor and needy out of compassion and mercy for those who are experiencing significant misfortune and hardship."
U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico on Friday ruled that the town did violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a law passed by Congress in 2000, which grants religious institutions protections from zoning laws that prohibit free exercise of religion.
The judge said in his order, "The church stresses that by preventing it from allowing the homeless to live on its property, the town is precluding the church from exercising its religious beliefs regardless of whether it might be possible to provide for the needy in some other way. There is no reason to second-guess the church at this point, regardless of how idiosyncratic or mistaken the town may find its beliefs to be."
He continued, "The town does not explicitly argue that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the (Planning Division) regulations as interpreted by the board of adjustment, and the church contends that the town could have no such interest because the church takes a number of precautions to ensure that its temporary shelter is safe. These include having a third party conduct background checks and requiring any RV tenants to sign contracts indicating that they will abide by certain rules."
Further, he said the town failed to identify any safety issues from the church's actions.
The report noted the church had has to turn away people who needed help because of Castle Rock's actions.
The judge noted the precedent he was following: "As the 10th Circuit has noted, a substantial burden exists for the purposes of RLUIPA where the government 'prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.'"
Those beliefs are "supported by sworn affidavits," the judge said, which the town "does not ultimately dispute."
The judge said, "To hold otherwise would invite the sort of 'trolling through a person's … religious beliefs' and 'governmental monitoring or second-guessing' of 'religious beliefs and practices' that the 10th Circuit recently reiterated is forbidden by the First Amendment."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Israel Air Force jets pounded the Houthi-controlled port of Al-Hudaydah Saturday – in a mission dubbed "Outstretched Arm" – in retaliation for both the drone strike Friday leaving one 50-year-old Israeli man dead and several wounded after it struck a Tel Aviv apartment building, and for the more than 200 other projectiles launched at the Jewish state since October.
The Israeli military said: "Fighter jets struck military targets of the Houthi terror regime in the area of the Al-Hudaydah Port in Yemen, in response to the hundreds of attacks carried out against the State of Israel in recent months."
More than 20 Israeli warplanes, including F-15s and F35s, as well as aerial refueling tankers took part in the strike.
The attack destroyed a massive Houthi weapons depot attached to oil storage facilities, the power station for the city, and numerous other military targets, which led to the port being shut down and a complete loss of power in Al Hudaydah. The port is seen as a critical element of the Houthi infrastructure, as it is the main locus of the transfer of weapons from Iran to Yemen.
Israel has absorbed the launching of hundreds of projectiles – including cruise missiles shot at its own Eilat port – almost all of which have been knocked out of the sky, but Friday's fatality in Tel Aviv was the final straw.
Reports suggest Israeli decision-makers at the highest political levels – i.e. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant very much included – had drawn up a list of high-value targets in Yemen months ago if the green light to an attack such as this were granted.
On Saturday, Gallant, alongside IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi and other senior defense officials, as well as Netanyahu who is due to address Congress this week, authorized the daylight attack.
Commentators and analysts noted the approximately 2,500-mile round trip to Yemen – hence the need for refueling aircraft – and have extrapolated the strike also as a warning to Tehran. The distance from Israel to Iran is approximately two-thirds of the distance from Israel to Yemen.
Local reports also said the Israeli aircraft did not simply attack from a distance, but were "low and loud" in the skies above Yemen. That too was meant as a warning about how close the planes could come to their targets, seemingly unmolested.
Indeed, Gallant released a statement from the defense ministry headquarters, which laid out in plain language the reason for Israel's response.
"The fire … currently burning in Yemen is seen across the Middle East. The blood of Israeli citizens has a price. This has been made clear in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Yemen, and in other places — if they dare to attack us, the result will be identical," he warned.
It is thought the choice of these targets was more than merely practical – it was assumed the fires would burn for days providing a very visible reminder of the costs of taking Israeli lives.
Netanyahu took to X to remind Israel's enemies it "would act against those who attack us."
"And to Israel's enemies, I have a simple message: Do not doubt Israel's determination to defend itself on every front. All those who seek to harm us will pay a very heavy price for their aggression."
Israel made a point of carrying out the attack alone – without any U.S. involvement – although Washington was informed – as were other Middle Eastern partners – of the strike.
IDF Spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said the strikes were not only about Israel's defense but also because the Houthis have "targeted other countries in the Middle East, the United States, and other countries around the world with their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea."
The Houthi-run health ministry said the strike caused casualties.
An official in the Iran-backed group said the attack would be met with "escalation," according to the Times of Israel.
"The Zionist entity will pay the price for targeting civilian facilities, and we will meet escalation with escalation," Houthi politburo member Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said in a post on social media.
On Sunday, Israel's Arrow 3 defense system downed a ballistic missile – outside of Israeli airspace – which the Iranian-backed Houthis launched. Sirens sounded in Israel's southernmost city Eilat – a favorite Houthi target – as a precautionary measure for fear of falling shrapnel. The IDF acknowledged it had been preparing for retaliatory strikes following its targeting of the Al-Hudaydah port.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden officially quit the 2024 presidential race Sunday and endorsed Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee at the top of the ticket.
"My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term," Biden said on X.
"My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it's been the best decision I've made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it's time to come together and beat Trump. Let's do this."
"It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your president," Biden wrote in a farewell-to-the-campaign letter he posted on X.
"And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on my duties as president for the remainder of my term."
"I will speak to the nation later this week in more detail about my decision."
"For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected.
"I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me."
"I believe today what I always have: that there is nothing America can't do – when we do it together. We just have to remember we are the United States of America."
Interestingly, at 7:16 p.m. Saturday night, just 18 hours before posting his campaign resignation letter, Biden posted a video of former President Trump, who said: "This will be the most important election in the history of our country. This is going to be the most important election."
Biden noted atop the video: "It's a miracle, folks. Donald told the truth for once. It's the most important election of our lifetimes. And I will win it."
Elon Musk reacted on X, saying "Exactly" to a commenter who posted: "The Democratic elite, corporate media, and billionaire donors successfully pressured the candidate chosen by Democratic primary voters to drop out because he's down in the polls and losing.
"Democrats destroy democracy in pursuit of power."
In response to Biden's announcement, DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said: "The American people owe President Biden an enormous debt of gratitude for the unparalleled progress he has delivered over the last four years – and we will honor that legacy, and the decision that he has made today, through a firm commitment to nominating and electing a Democratic president this November who will carry that torch into the next four years.
"The work that we must do now, while unprecedented, is clear. In the coming days, the party will undertake a transparent and orderly process to move forward as a united Democratic Party with a candidate who can defeat Donald Trump in November. This process will be governed by established rules and procedures of the party. Our delegates are prepared to take seriously their responsibility in swiftly delivering a candidate to the American people.
"Democrats are prepared and united in our resolve to win in November. As we move forward to formally select our party's nominee, our values as Democrats remain the same – lowering costs, restoring freedom, protecting the rights of all people, and saving our democracy from the threat of dictatorship. We have and will continue to make this case to the American people."
Other reaction online was more comical, including:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's a Supreme Court precedent in Hill v. Colorado that comes out of that leftist and abortion-promoting state that cuts into the free speech rights of counselors who wish to persuade women not to abort their unborn children.
A case now has developed that allows a coalition of those counselors to ask the justices to reverse that agenda that appears to infringe on constitutionally backed freedoms.
A report from the Thomas More Society explains that pro-life advocates from Coalition Life, the "nation's largest professional sidewalk counseling organization," are requesting the high court's intervention in their case.
The petition for certiorari was filed on behalf of Coalition Life in the organization's fight with the city of Carbondale, Illinois.
Helping in the fight for the pro-life agenda is former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.
"For nearly a quarter of a century, sidewalk counselors like those who work with Coalition Life have been forced to live with 'an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment' when it comes to the kind of peaceful, conversational speech outside an abortion facility in which they wish to engage," Clement explained.
The case developed following 2023 when Carbondale, Illinois, adopted a "bubble zone" law that limits Americans' speech on a particular topic in a particular location.
The restriction applied to public sidewalks outside "hospitals, medical clinics, and healthcare facilities" to include Carbondale's three abortion businesses.
It was modeled on Colorado's earlier censorship scheme in Hill.
That lets governments ban "the peaceful life-affirming speech of pro-life advocates on public sidewalks. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, similar laws aimed at chilling pro-life speech near abortion facilities have proliferated nationwide, especially in abortion-permissive municipalities, and states such as Montana and New Hampshire," the legal team explained.
The counselors sued Carbondale in March 2024, and a federal court opened the path to the Supreme Court by saying it could not rule against the Hill precedent.
The society's lawyers said, "Since the Supreme Court decided Hill in 2000, the case has come under fire for being out of step with the First Amendment and a prime example of the 'abortion distortion' factor in case law. The Supreme Court itself, in its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, singled out Hill as the leading example of the court's abortion precedents having 'distorted First Amendment doctrines'—suggesting its readiness to revisit the constitutionality of speech-restricting 'bubble zone' laws."
Carbondale has developed an abortion industry because of its proximity to nearby states with abortion restrictions.
"Now that the Supreme Court has returned the abortion debate to the people and their legislators, it is more important than ever to restore the free speech rights of those who advocate for life in the public square," explained Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president.
"Hill v. Colorado was egregiously wrong on the day it was decided, and it remains a black mark in our law to this day. In the decades since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Hill, the Court has steadily eroded Hill's shaky foundations in more recent First Amendment cases and, in the majority opinion which overturned Roe v. Wade, sounded the death knell for Hill's distortion of our bedrock First Amendment principles."
He said, "'Bubble zones,' like the one in Carbondale, are an unconstitutional and overzealous attempt to show favor to abortion businesses, at the expense of the free speech rights of folks who seek to offer information, alternatives, and resources to pregnant women in need. It's time to end, once and for all, the political gamesmanship places like Carbondale play with our free speech rights."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – In a move which surprised precisely nobody, the International Court of Justice in the Hague delivered a non-binding ruling Friday claiming Israel's rule in "the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967" is "illegal," and it is obligated to bring its "unlawful presence" in that territory to an end "as rapidly as possible."
As if Israel did not already have enough on its collective mind with a full-blown nine-month-long war with Hamas, as well as daily drone, rocket, and missile strikes from Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen, even the country's political rulers viewed the likelihood of this opinion with a significant degree of trepidation.
Although the opinion is not binding, there are fears it could hold sway with the International Criminal Court, which is thought to be close to issuing arrest warrants for both Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as further erode Israel's standing – as well as support for it – in other international bodies and arenas.
Israel did not take part in the hearings, instead submitting a written contribution describing the questions the court had been asked as "prejudicial" and "tendentious."
The ICJ's Lebanese President Nawaf Salam – who has a long-recorded history of bias against Israel – delivered the opinion, in which he said, "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law."
The court further said Israel's obligations include paying restitution for harm and "the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements."
The case stems from a 2022 request for a legal opinion from the U.N. General Assembly, predating the war in Gaza. The ICJ clarified its definition of "occupied Palestinian territory" including Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and east Jerusalem.
However, the majority of the opinions did not relate to Gaza – and did not include judgment on Israel's actions in the coastal enclave since the onset of the war – although the court rejected Israel's claims that because it had unilaterally withdrawn from the area in July 2005, it should no longer be deemed responsible. The ICJ explained Israel still retained some elements of control over Gaza, particularly about land, air, and sea access.
The court also ruled Israel had contravened both Articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva Convention. The former deals with the International Convention on the Elimination of Forms of Racial Discrimination, otherwise known as CERD, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.
The ICJ opinion argued Israel's "transfer of settlers in the West Bank [sic] and east Jerusalem, as well as Israel's maintenance of their presence, is contrary to the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
There might be jeopardy attached to this finding and could form the basis of ICC war crimes charges against Israel in the future. It could also be used to implement sanctions against individual Israelis or Israeli entities and companies, which could make doing business highly problematic.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called the opinion "historic" and urged states to adhere to it.
"No aid. No assistance. No complicity. No money, no arms, no trade … no actions of any kind to support Israel's illegal occupation," Palestinian envoy Riyad al-Maliki said outside the court in The Hague, according to Reuters.
Predictably, Israel's response was both rapid and dismissive.
"The Jewish people are not occupiers in their land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor Judea and Samaria, our historical homeland," said Netanyahu.
"No absurd opinion in The Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their communities in our ancestral home."
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – whose political base is strongly based on those who have settled Judea and Samaria posted a pithy two-word rejoinder to The Hague court's decision: "Sovereignty Now."
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who, like Smotrich, draws much support from those living in Judea and Samaria posted a verse from Chapter 23 of the Book of Numbers: "He will dwell as a people alone and will not be counted among the nations."
Israel Ganz, Mayor of the Binyamin Regional Council located in Judea and Samaria echoed Smotrich's reply:
"The Hague Tribunal's decision encourages us to apply Israeli sovereignty."
"This is a decision contrary to justice and morality. And it is designed to bring Hamas terrorists closer to the beds of our children and women in the center of the country.
"The prime minister must quickly promote a government decision that will apply sovereignty over the territories of Judea and Samaria.
"We are back after 2,000 years, and no one will get us out of here again!"
Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel came out strongly against the opinion saying, "The Children of Israel are indigenous to the Holy Land … Neither the UN nor the ICJ has the authority to make pronouncements about Judea and Samaria."
Legal rejoinders also came thick and fast, and there was even one dissenting opinion from among the ICJ's judges.
The ICJ's Ugandan Vice President Judge Julia Sebutinde wrote a 36-page dismantling of the opinion, arguing "Court should have declined to give its Advisory Opinion in the present case." Principally she said, " The Advisory Opinion omits the historical backdrop crucial to understanding the multifaceted Israeli-Palestinian dispute and is tantamount to a one-sided 'forensic audit' of Israel's compliance with international law."
International human rights lawyer and CEO of the International Legal Forum, Arsen Ostrovsky, called the opinion "absurd" noting Israel was already considered guilty before a decision had even been delivered. "The decision will first and foremost reward Hamas for their actions, and it is another baseless and politically motivated decision."
UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) legal director Natasha Hausdorff, a British attorney, who along with Douglas Murray humiliated both Mehdi Hasan and Haaretz's Gideon Levy at the June Munk Debate on the notion "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism," also rejected the ICJ's findings, as well as the process that led to its decision.
"This opinion has emanated from a … politicized court," she told Times Radio. "It has been waging a campaign against Israel, which unfortunately is based on false information."
She also highlighted facts on the ground, which were not adequately taken into consideration, such as some 93% of the population of east Jerusalem wishing to remain under Israeli rule of law rather than the Palestinian Authority.