The body of a motorist lies on a road following a mass-infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip, in Sderot, southern Israel October 7, 2023. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

The United Nations was founded to maintain international peace and security. But the UN subverts that goal when faced with terrorist groups like Hamas.

Hamas has waged war on Israel five times in 15 years, not counting thousands of one-off terror attacks. The group’s genocidal charter envisions the destruction of Israel — and even genocidal assaults on Jews everywhere — to avenge Allah, not to gain self-determination. The Palestinians already have self-determination, thanks to Israeli compromises in the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords.

During each Hamas offensive, the group seizes military advantages through wholesale violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war. Most alarmingly, these religious fanatics target Israeli civilians, use Palestinian civilians as human shields, convert civilian buildings such as homes, schools, and hospitals into military positions, and take Israelis hostage. The four-part mixture of war crimes exploits Israel’s compliance with IHL. Specifically, Israeli commanders accept military setbacks because they willingly operate in a manner that protects Palestinian civilians.

To address this deadly IHL imbalance, the UN has a large workshop of disciplinary tools it could use. For example, because Hamas violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits attacks on civilians, the UN Security Council could adopt a legally binding and enforceable resolution ordering Hamas to comply with the law. Alternatively, the UN could refer the IHL violation to its principal judicial organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Similar measures before the UN and ICJ could enforce Article 57 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which bans the use of human shields, and the International Convention Against Hostage Taking. The anti-terrorist laws already require all UN member states to prosecute terror suspects or extradite them for prosecution.

Unfortunately, the UN and many member states ignore the above mandates. No UN resolution has ever condemned Hamas for designing war strategies based on war crimes. The UN has never even declared Hamas a terrorist organization.

Over time, Hamas has capitalized on its IHL impunity by designing war plans with even more elaborate war crimes. Its fifth war, launched on  October 7, 2023, produced an Industrial Revolution of IHL abuse. The primary innovation was to upgrade the Gaza terror tunnels into a complex underground fortress spanning 350 miles, while adding countless more civilian structures as warfighting sites. Essentially, Hamas turned Gaza into a giant human shield. It maximized the killing of Israelis by using drone technology for surveillance, shaped explosive charges to blast multiple holes in Gaza’s border fence, motorized paragliders to supplement the ground-based assault, and used cyberattacks. Consequently, the jihadists killed far more Israelis and captured many more hostages on October 7 than in any prior attack or war.

Individual IHL atrocities also grew more extreme. Babies murdered with bare hands. Decapitations. Rape with female genital mutilation. Families burned alive. Hostages tortured and starved.

Under the shield of UN passivity, Hamas even persecutes its own people. Ordinary Gazans have no voice in their governance and no civil liberties. Perceived dissidents are summarily killed. Because the Islamist gang enlarged the battleground of the current war to include all of Gaza, virtually the entire district is now destroyed. During bouts of combat, the gunmen warned Gazans not to enter Israeli-designated safe zones. Hamas operatives routinely stole humanitarian aid intended for the masses. Recently, crowds of Gazans became so desperate that they staged public protests. Hamas executed some of them and tortured others.

Hamas needlessly prolongs misery on both sides of the blood-soaked conflict, every day that it continues its hopeless military campaign against Israel.

The UN should have responded to Hamas’s fifth war on Israel by punishing Hamas for the lawless slaying of Israelis, the deaths of Palestinian human shields, and the hostage-taking. But ironically, the UN treated Israel as if it were the IHL culprit.

This cynical approach was a typical product of an anti-Western UN voting bloc, called the “automatic majority,” which scapegoats Israel relentlessly. No wonder the ICJ entertained a petition that absurdly accused Israel of genocide. Remarks of the UN rapporteur for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were so antisemitic that she compared Israel to Nazi Germany, claimed the US was controlled by “the Israel lobby,” and implied that the October 7 massacre was justified.

The UN office for humanitarian affairs parroted Hamas’ falsified casualty statistics. The UN agency authorized to give Palestinians humanitarian aid employed members of Hamas and failed, whether through negligence or design, to stop them from looting the aid. Although a few toothless UN resolutions pushed for ceasefires, they falsely branded Hamas and Israel as equally responsible for the violence.

Last year, a world body that cooperates with the UN threatened to restrain Hamas. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for certain Hamas leaders. However, there was no ICC follow-up when those leaders were subsequently eliminated. The court’s motives were suspect because, even as it failed to act against Hamas, it sought to arrest Israeli officials despite worldwide complaints that it lacked jurisdiction over Israel.

Had the UN done its job, Hamas might be disarmed today. Israelis would not be suffering in captivity. Gaza would still be intact. If the UN continues to countenance IHL-exploiting war plans, Hamas and/or other terrorists will continue to make a mockery of IHL. At some point, the systemic criminality may force countries like Israel to adjust their IHL compliance strategies by doing more to protect their own civilians and less to protect others, something a fair reading of IHL would permit. This race to the bottom would only erode the value of IHL.

Joel M. Margolis is the Legal Commentator, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, US Affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. His 2021 book, The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War, analyzed the major legal issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The post How the United Nations Enables Hamas first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Smith Hall at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Photo: AlexiusHoratius.

“The vast majority of Israelis are bad people,” claimed my pro-Palestinian classmate during a discussion a few weeks ago.

The discussion was about the legitimacy of Zionism — the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. According to my classmate’s repugnant belief, most Israelis are inherently bad people because they are both “settlers” and racists. Another one of my pro-Palestinian classmates subsequently chimed in, asserting that Jews don’t have the right to self-determination in the Land of Israel, and that Israel should never have been created.

While these are two fairly insignificant instances of hate perpetuated by pro-Palestinian activists, they are representative of the widespread bigotry and ignorance plaguing the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities campus.

Although I’m not Jewish (I was raised as a Greek Orthodox Christian), I have always identified as a liberal Zionist. I’ve always believed that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. I’ve always believed that Israel’s right to exist is incontestable. Since the Palestinians have lived in the Land of Israel (which they call Palestine) for generations, I have always believed that Palestinians also have a right to live on the land. In my ideal world, the two peoples would figure out how to both overcome the trauma that they have experienced, and live in peace with one another. I don’t think any rational person would argue that these beliefs are radical or unreasonable.

Certainly, every activist advocating on behalf of Israel that I’ve encountered has understood and welcomed my views. The same can’t be said for the pro-Palestinian demonstrators that I’ve conversed with at the University of Minnesota.

Every time that I mention my Zionist convictions, pro-Palestinian activists become outraged. When pro-Palestinian demonstrators hear the word “Zionism,” many of them wrongly assume that it inherently equates to the oppression of Palestinians. When I remind pro-Palestinian activists that Zionism is simply the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the Land of Israel, many of them never cease to tell me that I’m wrong.

Whenever pro-Palestinian activists are confronted by the horrors that took place on October 7, 2023, I always hear them argue some variation of “history didn’t begin on October 7.” Yes, that’s definitely correct. However, whenever I talk about the atrocities committed by Palestinians on the Jewish people throughout history, it’s always dismissed as “misleading” or “irrelevant.” Apparently, it’s “misleading” or “irrelevant” when I mention the massacres of Jews that took place in Hebron and Safed in 1929, or the assassination of 127 Jews in Kfar Etzion one day before the State of Israel was declared, or the suicide bombings that took place during the Second Intifada. While pro-Palestinian activists rightly decry the killing of innocent Palestinians, many of them curiously turn a blind eye when confronted with the killing of innocent Israelis.

Moreover, elementary facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I often mention are constantly ignored. For example, when I mention that so many families from the Palestinian elite sold land to the Jews before the establishment of Israel, it’s invariably labelled as “misleading” or “irrelevant” by the Palestinian propagandists that I come in contact with. It’s definitely understandable to be critical of certain Israeli policies (I am myself), but it’s wholly unproductive to ignore basic historical facts that illustrate that both peoples have possessed a role in creating and perpetuating the conflict. I’ve been talked down to and ridiculed many times for simply recounting history and defending the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

Unfortunately, I’m not alone in my experiences. Radical pro-Palestinian activity and propaganda has a history of being pervasive at the University of Minnesota.

Last year, pro-Palestinian groups continuously denied or justified the massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. For instance, “VICTORY TO THE AL-AQSA FLOOD” was previously written on the campus quad. During the fall of 2024, pro-Palestinian demonstrators belonging to UMN Students for a Democratic Society “barricaded doors and windows,” “spray-painted security cameras,” and occupied a university building. Earlier this year, “REST IN MARTYRDOM HASSAN NASRALLAH!! GLORY TO HEZBOLLAH! GLORY TO HAMAS!” was written inside of a tunnel on campus.

Earlier this month, pro-Palestinian demonstrators protested a private speech by Yinam Cohen, even going as far to label him a “war criminal” for simply being the Consul General of Israel to the Midwest. Free speech should never be suppressed, but wouldn’t it be more reasonable for pro-Palestinian activists to listen to Cohen and subsequently set up alternative forums to discuss the issue without hating and intimidating others? Recently, I spoke with Michael Oren (a former Israeli ambassador to the US), and I disagreed with him on certain issues. Nevertheless, I still learned a lot from his perspective. If pro-Palestinian activists truly cared about resolving the conflict, wouldn’t they listen to and attempt to understand the other side?

While pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the University of Minnesota incessantly object to actions taken by the United States and Israel, they are dramatically silent on the damage Hamas inflicts upon Gazan civilians. Never have I witnessed pro-Palestinian college demonstrators utter a single word about either the oppression Hamas perpetuates on Gazan civilians, or the recent protests in Gaza, some of which are explicitly against Hamas rule.

Instead, many pro-Palestinian demonstrators at the University of Minnesota are committed to utilizing the Gazan population as a statistic in order to delegitimize Israel. At the University of Minnesota, bigotry and ignorance about Zionism and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remain prevalent. As someone who isn’t Jewish, I can’t imagine how my Jewish peers are feeling in reaction to the omnipresence of anti-Zionism (and antisemitism), but I will always be there to defend them.

Richard McDaniel is an undergraduate political science student at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

The post What It’s Like to Be a Non-Jewish, Zionist Student at the University of Minnesota first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A London bus outside the Houses of Parliament. Photo: public domain.

Border security and a visa policy. There isn’t a single sovereign state in the world that doesn’t have both.

The United Kingdom certainly does — a robust one, no less. For Palestinians, a visa is mandatory to enter the UK, whether for tourism, family visits, business, or study — short stay or long.

In addition to a visa, Palestinians must present a valid passport, proof of accommodation (hotel booking or invitation from a local host), evidence of financial means (bank statements, employer letter, etc.), and a return or onward travel ticket. Processing is time-consuming, often expensive, and far from guaranteed.

The irony of this, however, has been lost on British Labour MPs Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang, who apparently believed their parliamentary status placed them above the entry requirements enforced on ordinary visitors when they arrived in Israel earlier this month.

Upon landing at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport and telling border authorities they were on a “parliamentary delegation to visit humanitarian aid projects in the West Bank,” they were found to have misrepresented the nature of their visit, denied entry, and promptly deported — just like anyone else who flouts standard entry procedures.

The two MPs were, in fact, on a trip arranged by Caabu — the Council for Arab-British Understanding — a lobby group that specializes in escorting British parliamentarians on carefully choreographed “fact-finding” tours of the West Bank.

According to NGO Monitor, Caabu’s stated aim is to “counter the Israel lobby” in British politics — a mission it advances by promoting inflammatory, evidence-free accusations of “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid,” under the guise of educational outreach.

In the aftermath of Hamas’ October 7 massacre, Caabu’s director, Chris Doyle, stopped just short of defending the atrocities outright, instead casting them as the inevitable “reaction” to decades of Israeli policy. “Hell in Gaza,” he warned, “will never equal heaven in Israel.” A grimly revealing insight into Caabu’s wider agenda.

For Mohamed, though, this wasn’t a matter of border policy, as she told the House of Commons, but an act of “control and censorship” — part of a broader effort, she claimed, to suppress those trying to “expose” Israel.

She went further still, casting her routine deportation as political repression and invoking the familiar antisemitic dog whistle: “No state, however powerful, should be beyond criticism.”

One must assume, then, that Mohamed also views the UK’s visa system — which requires Palestinians to navigate layers of bureaucracy and reserves the right to deny them entry — as an example of a state’s unrestrained power.

Mohamed and Yang landed in Israel at 2:30 p.m. on Saturday, April 5, on a flight from Luton, accompanied by two aides. During questioning, the two MPs — both vocal supporters of BDS — claimed they were part of an official parliamentary delegation. That claim was reportedly untrue: no Israeli authority had received notification of such a delegation, nor had any approval been granted, according to Israel’s Interior Ministry.

Interior Minister Moshe Arbel denied entry to all four individuals “in accordance with the law,” noting their intent to cause harm to the state.

The Israeli embassy in London issued a statement explaining: “These individuals had accused Israel of false claims, were actively involved in promoting sanctions against Israeli ministers, and supported campaigns aimed at boycotting the State of Israel.”

The UK’s own Foreign Office, it’s worth noting, explicitly states that foreign nationals can legally be denied entry to Israel if they’ve publicly called for a boycott or belong to an organization that has. It’s right there on the government’s website — advice Mohamed and Yang might have reviewed before confirming their airline tickets.

But their apparent disbelief that Israel would actually enforce its own laws has been matched, headline for headline, by the British media’s hyperventilation over the supposed diplomatic scandal.

Sky News has breathlessly tracked every twist of the saga, with headlines about the “furious row” over the Labour MPs’ denied entry and helpful explainers outlining “what the MPs said about the war in Gaza” — just in case anyone was still wondering why they might not be welcomed with open arms.

The Guardian is doing its best to amplify the manufactured indignation, leading its coverage with Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s condemnation of Israel’s decision as “unacceptable, counterproductive, and deeply concerning.”

Curiously, it failed to mention Lammy’s own support, back in 2008, for banning Israeli MPs from entering the UK — a rather pertinent omission, as noted by journalist Stephen Pollard in The Spectator.

Labour MP Emily Thornberry weighed in with her characteristic self-importance, declaring that the deportation was particularly egregious because Mohamed and Yang were, in her words, “potential leaders” of the UK.

“They are highly respected parliamentarians,” she told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, “and Israel is badly advised to try to alienate them, to humiliate them, and to treat them in this way, because people listen to what these two young women say — and they will do for decades to come.”

This would be the same Emily Thornberry, chair of the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, who once told Sky News that, if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the UK, she’d have no problem arresting him. Apparently, arresting a current leader is fine — but deporting two “potential” ones is beyond the pale.

So while the BBC blares about how “astounded” these MPs are, and The Independent frets about the “escalat[ing] diplomatic row,” let’s take a moment to remind the media — and our stunned British lawmakers — of a basic principle:

It’s called the law, and it applies to everyone. And as the Brits themselves might put it, this is nothing more than a storm in a teacup.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post The UK Media Attacked Israel for Refusing Entry to BDS-Backing Politicians; But Israel Was Right first appeared on Algemeiner.com.