The debate surrounding the war between Israel and Hamas, the blockade of Gaza, and the application of international humanitarian law has become one of the most polarized and emotionally charged subjects in contemporary global discourse. Amid a surge of antisemitic incidents worldwide and, at the same time, amplified accusations against Israel of systematic violations of international law, a troubling phenomenon has emerged that goes beyond legitimate criticism of state actions. Increasingly, political arguments are morphing into explicit calls for the dismantling of the State of Israel itself. This shift transforms political critique into a direct assault on the foundations of the international system established after 1945.
This dangerous trajectory became particularly apparent following the publication of University of Kentucky law professor Ramsay Woodcock’s article, “We Need an International Coalition to Declare War on Israel Right Now,” published on December 10, 2024, on the website Antizionist.net. Woodcock asserted that the “only way to stop genocide” is an international military intervention designed to “withdraw recognition from Israel,” “end the Zionist settler state,” and transfer all territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to a single Palestinian state. These appeals are not simply radical political opinions; they constitute direct incitement to violate core principles of international law, including the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition on the use of force, and the territorial integrity guaranteed under the UN Charter.
The situation escalated further when Woodcock filed a lawsuit against the University of Kentucky, claiming that his suspension was unlawful and that the IHRA definition of antisemitism was unconstitutional. His university had relied on IHRA, which defines the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination—including claims that the State of Israel is a racist endeavor—as a manifestation of antisemitism. Simultaneously, Woodcock began fundraising for a conference scheduled for May 2026 titled “End Israel!” This constitutes an unprecedented and dangerous precedent: professorial authority and academic freedom are being used not to advance critical inquiry but to legitimize explicit political advocacy for the elimination of the only Jewish state. This clearly falls within the scope of antisemitism as defined by IHRA and recognized by numerous governments and international institutions.
However, these radical and destructive calls do not negate the need for a serious and sober reassessment of Israel’s conduct during the Gaza war. Criticism grounded in international law is both legitimate and necessary. Menachem Z. Rosensaft articulated a model for such criticism in his article “The blockade of Gaza was legal; withholding humanitarian aid, not so much,” published in The Times of Israel blog (adapted from his presentation at the Interreligious Convening on Upholding Human Dignity in Turbulent Times at The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, November 19, 2025). Rosensaft offers a crucial and nuanced distinction: the blockade of Gaza, as a military tactic, is not prohibited per se under international humanitarian law. Historically and legally, blockades have been recognized instruments of warfare. They do not violate the Geneva Conventions as long as they pursue legitimate military aims, do not constitute collective punishment, and do not become a means of starving the civilian population.
Rosensaft emphasizes that the mere existence of the blockade cannot be equated with a war crime. International humanitarian law, most notably the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, makes it clear that blockades are permissible, but that civilian populations must have access to humanitarian relief. Article 23 requires the free passage of medical supplies and essential foods unless there is a serious risk that they could be diverted for military use. Article 55 obligates the occupying power to ensure adequate food and medical supplies for civilians. And while Israel and the United States are not parties to the 1977 Additional Protocols, the prohibition on the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare has become part of customary international law. Israel, therefore, had both the right and the obligation to prevent humanitarian aid from being seized by Hamas while ensuring that non-combatants received adequate supplies.
The difficulty, as Rosensaft notes, lies in implementation: Israel’s attempt to control the flow of humanitarian aid sometimes resulted in severe delays or restrictions that may have violated its legal obligations under Article 55. However, he also stresses that tens of thousands of aid trucks did, in fact, enter Gaza during the war—an important point often omitted in politicized narratives. This dual reality—the legality of the blockade itself and the shortcomings in ensuring humanitarian access illustrates how legitimate criticism should function: fact-based, legally grounded, and ethically serious. It is precisely this form of critique that should serve as the benchmark for international debate, not the ideological and incendiary discourse represented by Woodcock’s manifesto.
To distinguish between legitimate criticism and antisemitic incitement, one need only return to the key resolutions of the United Nations. Resolution 181 (II) of 1947 provided the legal basis for the creation of two states in Mandatory Palestine—Jewish and Arab. Israel’s establishment was therefore the result of an internationally sanctioned process, not an act of defiance against international law. Resolution 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973) reaffirm the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war and call for a negotiated peace ensuring secure and recognized boundaries for every state in the region, including Israel. Resolution 3379 (1975), declaring Zionism a form of racism, was a politicized aberration, later overturned by Resolution 46/86 (1991), which explicitly recognized the earlier decision as contrary to the principles of the UN Charter. Resolution 2625 (1970) articulated the foundational principles of international law: the prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state, the sovereign equality of states, and the right of peoples to self-determination. It is these principles that Woodcock’s appeals directly violate.
The distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism is therefore not a matter of political taste but one of legal precision. Criticism of Israeli government policy, even harsh criticism, is entirely legitimate. Claims that Israel should not exist, that Zionism is an illegitimate form of self-determination, or that the Jewish people alone among nations must be deprived of statehood are manifestations of antisemitism, regardless of how they are framed. The core problem with Woodcock’s argumentation is therefore not his concern for humanitarian outcomes, but his transformation of legal and moral discourse into a political program advocating the destruction of a UN member state.
Moreover, the questions Rosensaft raises at the end of his analysis are of critical importance. Why did the Israeli government not adjust its humanitarian policy once evidence mounted that its mechanisms were insufficient? Why did it require external pressure to avert a potentially catastrophic famine? Why was Israeli society largely silent? These are questions that can and should be examined only by an independent commission with broad authority to investigate: who issued unlawful orders, whether such orders received legal scrutiny, how humanitarian decisions were made under conditions of war, and whether political rhetoric by certain ministers exacerbated the situation. If violations occurred, those responsible must be held fully accountable. This is the appropriate and lawful way to address concerns—not through calls to destroy a state.
These discussions are not an abstract academic exercise. They mark the precise point at which antizionism, as a worldview and ideology, transforms into a political program aimed at eliminating a member state of the United Nations. This is the line where antizionism becomes antisemitism.
Dr. Haim Ben Yaakov is the Director General of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress (EAJC)