RSS
Dangerous Intersections: Palestinian Statehood and Regional Nuclear War
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran, June 21, 2023. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA via Reuters
When Israel completes its obligatory counter-terrorism war in Gaza, the issue of Palestinian statehood will insistently be raised. This perilous resurrection is foreseeable even though any de facto reward for Hamas criminality would be unconscionable.
Still, if Israel could be convinced that an inherently flawed “two-state solution” would be preferable to a future of protracted warfare against terrorism, Jerusalem will have to take certain arguments for Palestinian statehood seriously.
The true intent of Palestinian statehood arguments could prove irrelevant to Israeli acceptance. Israeli reasoning would be strategy-driven whether the two-state argument were offered maliciously or in good faith. A prominent example of the well-intentioned alternative would be US President Joe Biden’s current calls for a two-state remedy.
For the long-beleaguered State of Israel, accepting or rejecting a state of Palestine would involve only injurious choices, but acceptance would be more injurious and more plainly an existential peril. At a minimum, any Palestinian state would be irredentist, seeking incremental control over Israel in its entirety. This signifies control over what Israel’s Islamic foes call “occupied Palestine.” In a worst-case scenario, Israel’s post-Gaza War efforts at self-defense would involve Iran as a direct enemy belligerent. Conceivably, Turkey could join forces with Iran against Israel, though that scenario would likely be “overruled” by Turkey’s membership in NATO.
What would Iranian involvement mean for Israel’s security and regional stability? Ultimately, even if Iran were not yet nuclear, a widening conventional or unconventional war with Israel could still elicit Israeli escalations to low-yield nuclear weapons. Such escalations would become increasingly realistic if Iran were to use “only” radiation-dispersal weapons against Israel. If Iran were already a fully nuclear power, however (i.e., in possession of chain reaction-based nuclear explosives), the Middle East could become the world’s first (and possibly last) venue for a nuclear war.
There is one more important nuance to consider regarding escalation prospects between Israel and Iran. Because North Korea has ongoing weapons-related ties to both Iran and Syria, even a pre-nuclear Iran might be able to draw upon nuclear support from an already nuclear North Korea. Here a non-nuclear Iran could act against Israel as if it were already a nuclear power. In effect, though perhaps difficult to imagine, a more advanced North Korea would act as surrogate of a less advanced Iran. Apropos of this worrisome scenario for Israel, even a North Korea that shares “only” its advanced ballistic missile technologies with Iran (not its explosive nuclear warheads) could trigger an unpredictable nuclear war.
There is an overriding message here for Israel. Issues of Palestinian statehood and nuclear war with Iran ought never to be treated as separate. Rather, these matters of existential security are potentially intersecting and “force multiplying.” For Israel, either an already-nuclear or still-nuclearizing Iran could vastly enlarge the plausible threat posed by a Palestinian state. Reciprocally, Palestinian statehood could vastly expand the existential risks to Israel of a pre-nuclear or nuclear war with Iran.
The holistic relationship between Palestinian statehood and nuclear war is apt to be synergistic and not merely intersectional. It follows that the whole of this core relationship’s injurious effect upon Israel could eventually prove greater than the sum of its parts. But what could usefully represent measurable correlates of this foreseeably catastrophic “whole?”
From the standpoint of science-based prediction, nothing accurate can be said about the likelihood of a nuclear war between Israel and Iran. Israel would nevertheless have no reasonable alternative to offering best-possible estimations. The reason why it is not possible to offer reassuringly scientific assessments of probability is that any such assessments would need to be based on the determinable frequency of relevant past events. Because there has never been a nuclear war, there can be no meaningful estimations of nuclear war’s probability.
Since 2012, the Palestinian National Authority has been recognized by the UN as a “Nonmember Observer State.” Looking beyond the Gaza War, if the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas are ever able to restore a functional level of cooperation, a fully sovereign Palestine could emerge. In short order, this furiously adversarial Arab state would become a jihadist platform for continuous war and terror against Israel.
Israel should remain keenly attentive to force multipliers in its struggles against terror-state patron Iran. Virulent synergies between Iranian nuclearization and Palestinian statehood could spawn unique threats to the Jewish State. Though Iranian and Palestinian annihilationist threats are entirely out in the open, they remain largely unacknowledged. Most worrisome are the myriad ways in which a Palestinian state could change the correlation of military forces in the region and the circumstances whereby Iran would be drawn into direct hostilities with Israel.
Understandably, nuclear weapons are generally regarded as destabilizing. In the special case of Israel, however, possession of such weapons could become all that protects the state’s civilian population from catastrophic international aggression. Maintaining stable nuclear deterrence, whether deliberately ambiguous or disclosed, could ultimately prove indispensable to Israel’s survival. But this conclusion makes sense only if those nuclear weapons are used for war avoidance or war mitigation, not for the fighting of nuclear war.
Iran is adding to its arsenal of cruise missiles. Even without nuclear warheads, such “fully smart” weapons could lead to accelerated Israel-Iran competition in risk-taking and a corresponding search for escalation dominance. To succeed in this competition, Israel should prepare to move beyond a policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity to one of selective nuclear disclosure. The reason would not be to validate Israel’s military nuclear capacity (that capacity is already well recognized in Tehran), but to convince Iranian leaders that an Israeli resort to the use of nuclear weapons could be rational.
Ironically, the credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrent could vary inversely with that deterrent’s perceived destructiveness. Though counterintuitive, a seemingly too destructive Israeli nuclear force could undermine Israel’s deterrent effectiveness.
There are associated matters of law. In its landmark Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled: “The Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense…” Where the very survival of a state would be at stake, concluded the ICJ ruling, even a tangible use of nuclear weapons could be permissible.
Israel’s existential vulnerability to a fully nuclear Iran is manifest. On its face, Israel’s small size precludes tolerance of any Iranian nuclear attack. In 2015, this point was made openly by a senior Iranian official: “Israel is a one-bomb state.” This means that Israel’s annihilation would require only a single Iranian nuclear bomb.
For Israel, it is time for analytic clarity and absolute candor. From a regional or world security standpoint, Israel’s nuclear weapons are not the problem. In the Middle East, the most persistent source of war and terror remains a genocidal Arab/Islamist commitment to “excise the Jewish cancer.” Faced with the threat of a Palestine that is “free from the River to the Sea” – that is, a Palestine that has completely destroyed and replaced Israel – the Jewish State will need to acknowledge that Palestinian statehood is not just another tactical enemy expedient. Indeed, a cartographic genocide has already been inflicted upon Israel. All official Palestinian maps describe Israel as “Occupied Palestine”. The Jewish State has already been eliminated.
With a selectively revealed nuclear weapons posture, Israel could more reliably deter a rational Iranian enemy’s unconventional attacks and perhaps most of its large conventional aggressions. Additionally, with such an updated deterrence posture, Israel could, if necessary, launch non-nuclear preemptive strikes against Iranian hard targets and against associated counterforce capabilities.
Left in place, these assets could threaten Israel’s physical survival with impunity. In the absence of acknowledging possession of certain survivable and penetration-capable nuclear weapons, therefore, Israel’s lawful acts of preemption (“anticipatory self-defense”) could trigger the onset of a much wider war. The reason is straightforward: There would then remain no convincing threat of an unacceptable Israeli counter-retaliation.
The decision to bring Israel’s “bomb” out of the “basement” (that is, Israel’s calculated end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity”) would not be easy. But the stark realities of facing not only a nuclear-capable Iran but also assorted other nuclear aspirants – sometimes in synergy with anti-Israel terrorists – obligate immediate reconsideration of “deliberate nuclear ambiguity.” As a corollary, Jerusalem will need to clarify that its multi-level active defenses would operate in tandem with Israel’s counterforce nuclear retaliations, not in their stead.
All of this suggests that Israeli security assessments of Palestinian statehood and Iranian nuclearization should be undertaken together, and with due regard for complex synergistic intersections. For Israel, the cumulative impact of Palestinian statehood and Iranian nuclearization would be substantially greater than the sum of their parts. The poet Auden’s words should ring as a galvanizing prophecy: “Defenseless under the night; our world in stupor lies.”
Louis René Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). His twelfth book, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy, was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2016. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Dangerous Intersections: Palestinian Statehood and Regional Nuclear War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why Do Western Countries Treat Qatar Better Than Their Jewish Citizens?
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani attends an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, following an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, at UN headquarters in New York City, US, Sept. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
Growing up in communist Prague, I was exposed to antisemitism expressed largely by government officials and communist outlets, rather than by citizens themselves.
I learned in school about three major enemies of the socialist republic of Czechoslovakia: Germans seeking to conquer back the Sudetenland, American imperialists, and, you might have guessed, Zionists. And I was one of them.
The propaganda during the Six-Day War was unrelenting and hostile to Israel. Some years later, during my studies in medical school, I was invited to continue as a graduate student at the genetics institute after obtaining my MD degree. However, a year or so later, I was disinvited because I was Jewish.
Surprisingly, the old Jewish quarter in Prague was relatively well maintained — it was a big tourist attraction, especially for Germans, and a good source of Western currency for the state. There was also a permanent exhibit of art by Jewish children imprisoned in Theresienstadt during World War II. And we did read Anne’s Frank diary. Prague was still much better than the Soviet Union and Romania.
At that time, Western Europe, the US, and Canada were the beacons of freedom for everybody, including Jews. A few decades later, it appears to me that the sides have switched.
Central and Eastern Europe (not counting Russia) have become more hospitable to Jews, and Western Europe and Canada are outright hostile. The situation in the US is somewhat mixed. What happened?
Most Western officials and leaders blame Israel for the war in Gaza, and they accuse Israel of genocide, intentional famine, and starvation of Gazans. Hamas has become — or at least is becoming — a beacon of freedom, especially among younger generations. In the meantime, the EU, UK, and Canada are threatening Israel with sanctions and recognizing a State of Palestine, which is basically a reward for Oct. 7.
Affairs have further deteriorated after Israel’s bombing of a meeting of Hamas leaders in Doha last week. Everybody runs to the defense of Qatar — after all, Qatar is considered an “honest” mediator between Israel and Hamas. This is the same Qatar that is the instigator of anti-Zionism and antisemitism by infiltrating Western institutions, particularly universities and subverting the education of Western values into support for radicalism, and is also the host of Hamas leaders and financiers, including those who planned the October 7 massacre.
Do Western countries really believe that Qatar, led by an emir with three wives, with a track record of slave working conditions of its foreign workers and with funding of Hamas terrorists, deserves support?
Furthermore, the hate in Western Europe is not being directed just at Israelis (which is still wrong, since Israel is not a monolith) — but against all Jews.
Jews, and particularly Israeli Jews, are disinvited from conferences, art performances, collaborations with their colleagues, sports events, and more. They are dehumanized and physically attacked on the streets of Western cities. The Spanish Prime Minister has been attempting to throw out Israeli athletes from several competitions because they were attacked by pro-Palestinian demonstrators rather than preventing demonstrators from attacking Israelis.
What is going to happen to Jews living in the West? Will they really be protected? Overall, Western governments appear to be willing to throw their Jewish citizens under the bus. Why is that? Do they really trust Qatar as an honest mediator, and even more as the most important non-NATO ally? Do they pretend they’ve never heard about Qatar’s subversive role in Western countries and support of the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they afraid of their increasing Muslim populations due to immigration and high birth rates in their own countries? Don’t they realize that they are falling into a moral morass at an accelerating rate?
It is unclear how long Western outrage at Israel will last. Is it going to be short-lived, like when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981? Or will the West try to humiliate Israel and force (or at least attempt to do so) a solution to the war that leaves Hamas in power and isolates Israel internationally? One can only hope that the West, led by the US, will make the right decision not only for Israel, but for all democratic countries.
Dr. Jaroslava Halper has been a professor of pathology at The University of Georgia in Athens, GA for many years. She escaped from communist Prague because of antisemitism, and lack of freedom and free speech. The gradual increase of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in certain circles in her second homeland, and the devastating October 7 massacre by Hamas, led her to realize that more active engagement is necessary to combat antisemitism, including anti-Zionism.
RSS
Palestinian Authority: Marco Rubio’s ‘Invasion’ of the Western Wall Is a Crime Against Islam
Benjamin Netanyahou and Marco Rubio. Photo: David Azagury, US Embassy Jerusalem
On Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ambassador Mike Huckabee visited the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, together with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) was incensed by this visit, and publicized a long condemnation by the PA Jerusalem Governorate against what they called a “crime” against Islamic holy places:
The participation in these invasions by high-ranking American officials in an official capacity constitutes unacceptable collusion with the occupation’s policy, and dangerous willful blindness to the daily crimes committed against the holy city, its residents, and its holy places.
When Jews and Christians pray at the Western Wall or on the Temple Mount, the PA condemns what they call “Talmudic ceremonies.” The visit “offends the feelings of our Palestinian people”:
The Jerusalem Governorate viewed the invasion of the occupation’s Prime Minister — Benjamin Netanyahu, American Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and American Senator [sic, Ambassador] Mike Huckabee into the Western Wall plaza, and the fact that they held Talmudic ceremonies at this purely Islamic site, as a provocative step that offends the feelings of our Palestinian people and constitutes a blatant violation of the historical and legal status quo in the occupied city of Jerusalem.
Even though Muslims built a mosque in Jerusalem on the site of the Temples specifically because it was a Jewish holy site, today the PA proclaims that the Western Wall is a solely Islamic site:
The governorate emphasized that the Western Wall is an inseparable part of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and that it is part of the Islamic Waqf lands under Palestinian sovereignty. It further stressed that there is no legitimacy for any Israeli or foreign presence within it, without the approval of the relevant Palestinian authorities.
The PA even threatened that this “escalation” would have “consequences”:
The governorate warned of this escalation’s consequences on the situation on the ground within the city. It emphasized that the Palestinian people would not agree to any harm to the Arab identity of Jerusalem or its Islamic and Christian holy places, and that they would resist all attempts to impose the occupation’s sovereignty over the land and the people. The governorate called on the international community… to curb the occupation’s violations and stop the American involvement in support for the Judaization projects of the occupied city.
[PA Jerusalem Governorate, Facebook, September 14, 2025]
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
What Charlie Kirk Meant to Jewish Conservatives
Charlie Kirk speaking at the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect
The horrific assassination of activist Charlie Kirk has left Jewish conservatives asking who will weaken the anti-Jewish hostility brewing in some corners of the far right now that Kirk has left us.
The 31-year-old, a devout Christian and founder of the organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA), understood that a society that turns on its Jews is a society that is rotting at its core.
When it came to quieting the antisemitic energies of the far right, Kirk knew that the conspiratorial scapegoating was a symptom of a serious malady, aggravated by an anxious and unhappy generation living in a digital den within an increasingly secularized America.
Kirk said that rejecting antisemitism, which he called “demonic,” was directly tied to defending Western civilization and protecting America’s Judeo-Christian identity.
That’s sadly ironic, given that many far right conspiracists online have blamed the Jewish people or Israel for Kirk’s murder.
In what may have conveyed a warning to the crop of influencers seeking to manipulate the Kirk assassination to advance their anti-Jewish objectives, US President Donald Trump released an image on Friday, showing the US leader and Kirk embracing against a backdrop of a US and Israeli flag with the caption reading, “Everybody Loved Charlie!”
Kirk’s speaking engagements at college campuses across the country drew thousands of students, admirers, and protestors. The informal open-air events provided participants with a platform to ask the late conservative influencer his thoughts on a host of issues, with many questions focused on Israel, Gaza, and the Jews.
Always respectful, Kirk carefully articulated why antisemitism is anti-Americanism.
Whether coming from the progressive left or the far right, Kirk defended Israel through a strategic and historical lens, and rejected the slew of libelous accusations leveled against the Jewish State.
Most recently, the TPUSA President exposed liberal media outlets for their role in fomenting the lie that Israel was starving the citizens of Gaza.
I just debated at Cambridge and Oxford. At Cambridge, instead of focusing on their own decaying country, they are obsessed with Israel. The lack of moral clarity on this topic is chilling. I decided to put this bouncy Brit in his place.
Watch: pic.twitter.com/RRnLiXJE2X
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 21, 2025
He also inspired Jewish conservatives to confront toxic positions with serious rebuttals, rather than with reflexive smears, while affirming that the path to a healthier country required responding to unsavory ideas through thoughtful and critical reason.
Acknowledging that it’s “hunting season for Jews right now in this country and that is a sick thing,” Kirk recently instructed an Israeli student who was harassed on a US campus to get “tougher.”
Indeed, he encouraged Jews to fight hate not with grievance, but with grit.
Jewish victimhood may have worked as a convenient tool of the political left, but Kirk saw the necessity and beauty in Jewish strength.
He emboldened Jewish Americans to lean into faith, and showed us that religion is the moral and divine anchor in today’s complicated and liberalized world.
Kirk advocated for issues that were in American Jews’ best interest, even as many of our own leaders resisted departing from the liberal sensibilities that undermined Jewish safety, and refused to acknowledge the dangers embedded in liberal immigration regulations.
As mainstream Jewish groups ignored the challenges associated with the increasing number of Muslims with radical ideologies entering the US, Kirk was firm in his assertion that radicalized Islam was incompatible with Western civilizational values.
Kirk granted right-leaning American Jews the space and the courage to sharpen our arguments as to why adopting strict immigration provisions was sound policy. He also defended Israel his whole life, and was an astute observer of the cracks in the emerging debate among younger conservative cohorts as it relates to safeguarding the US-Israel bond.
Warning of an “earthquake coming on this issue”, Kirk convened a focus group over the summer featuring Gen Z conservatives to discuss America’s alliance with Israel.
It was a candid discussion, and the panel provided a blueprint for what constituted “persuadable” pro-Israel arguments, and why, according to the young TPUSA supporters, focusing on shared values, radical Islamist threats, and intelligence cooperation was more of a motivator for bolstering support for Israel than unveiling public campaigns that underscored the progressive policies undertaken by the Jewish State.
The horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk has left Jewish Americans with an intense sadness over losing a friend who was critical to sidelining the anti-Jewish rumblings occurring across the cultural and political landscape.
As an Evangelical Christian, Kirk also taught American Jewry the value of adhering to our Jewish inheritance. He delivered a roadmap for how strong Jews, who commit to channeling conservative ideals through robust debate, are crucial to preserving the Judeo-Christian character of our country and will organically yield a US-Israel alliance that will be a bulwark against the enemies of Western civilization.
Irit Tratt is a writer who resides in New York. Follow her on X @Irit_Tratt.