RSS
Israel Is Allowed to Target Hamas Terrorists; International Law Is Not a Suicide Pact
A home destroyed in Kibbutz Nir Oz in southern Israel during Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack that is featured in the film Kibbutz Nir Oz by “Uvda.” Photo: Screenshot
“Each state is expected to aid and enforce the law of nations, as part of the common law, by inflicting an adequate punishment upon the offenses against that universal law.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
Israel’s targeted killing of Hamas leader Marwan Issa in mid-March raises tactical and legal questions. Though it is unclear that such tactics can diminish tangible terror threats to Israel, there is also no reason to rule out their permissibility under international law. In the final analysis, such permissibility derives from the world legal system’s continuously anarchic structure and from the corresponding right of all nation-states states to protect their citizens from willful slaughter.
There are many clarifying details. By definition, world legal authority remains a fundamentally “self-help,” or vigilante system of justice. It is amid this perpetual global anarchy that every anti-terror government must systematically assess its strategic and tactical options. The victim of this necessary act (a targeted air attack) was a key Hamas planner of the October 7, 2024, assault on Israeli civilians, a murderous terror assault that combined the mass killing of noncombatants with the orchestrated rape of Israeli civilians.
Hamas, like Hezbollah, draws tangible support from Iran. A principal risk of leaving this insidious symbiosis unchallenged would be a direct Iranian attack on Israel that escalates incrementally into unconventional belligerency. Eventually, even if Iran were to remain non-nuclear, an intra-crisis search for “escalation dominance” by Israel and Iran could produce unprecedented nuclear conflict. This sui generis result could be produced suddenly, as a “bolt-from-the-blue,” or in variously hard to decipher increments. Initially, it could “present” as an Iranian use of radiation dispersal weapons (nuclear radiation rather than nuclear explosives), or as a conventional attack on Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona.
Under international law, which is binding upon all sovereign states, terrorism represents a crime that should be prevented and must be punished. As was learned originally from Roman law and Jewish law (Torah), a universal rule exists. This “peremptory” rule affirms the core principle of “No crime without a punishment,” or Nullum crimen sine poena. It can be discovered, among other sources, at the London Charter of August 8, 1945. This is the founding document of the post-war Nuremberg Tribunal.
In formal jurisprudence, terrorists are known as hostes humani generis, or “common enemies of humankind.” While the world legal system allows or even encourages certain insurgencies in matters of “self-determination,” there is nothing about these matters that can ever justify deliberate attacks on civilians. In this connection, it is important to remember that an integral part of all criminal law is the underlying presence of mens rea, or “criminal intent.”
On this point, there can be no reasonable comparison of Marwan Issa’s deliberate mass murder of Israeli noncombatants, and the unintended civilian harms now being suffered in Gaza. As a matter of law, responsibility for such ongoing harms falls entirely upon the “perfidious” behavior (i.e., “human shields”) of Hamas and Iran, and not on Israeli forces acting on behalf of legitimate self-defense.
Under the law of war, even where an insurgent use of force has supportable “just cause,” it must still fight with “just means.” Accordingly, the vapid phrase “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,” is never more than an empty witticism.
There is more. Ordinarily, assassination, like terrorism, is a crime under international law. Under certain conditions, however, the targeted killing of terrorist leaders can represent a life-saving and heroic example of indispensable law-enforcement. In a more perfect world legal system, perhaps, there could be no defensible justification for any violent self-help expressions of international justice. But this is not yet such a world.
In our self-defense oriented world legal order, the only state alternative to launching precise targeting actions against terrorists would be to allow incessantly escalating terror-violence against the innocent. Among pertinent clarifications, this is because terror-organizations like Hamas and terror-mentoring states like Iran harbor undisguised contempt for all ordinary legal expectations of criminal extradition. The formal term for this ignored expectation is “extradite or prosecute;” or aut dedere, aut judicare.
At first glance, to accept the targeted killings of terrorist leaders as law-enforcing remediation would seem to disregard the usual obligations of “due process.” Still, international relations are not overseen by the same civil protections offered by individual national governments, and terrorist leaders like Marwan Issa undertake barbarous attacks on men, women, and children with undisguised enthusiasm.
In the future, if Hamas and related terrorist criminals are effectively held immune by civilized states, indiscriminate attacks could exploit chemical, biological, or even nuclear elements. For the moment, a nuclear option would be limited to “only” a “dirty bomb” (radiation dispersal weapons), but this could change. To be sure, in the foreseeable future, Iran could fashion and deploy an authentic “chain-reaction” nuclear explosive.
There is more. The willfully indiscriminate nature of jihadist terrorist operations (not just Hamas) is well documented. Such intentional blurring of the lines between lawful and unlawful targets is rooted in certain generic principles of “holy war.” Several years ago, an oft-repeated remark by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, then a prominent Muslim cleric in London, explained core doctrinal linkages between Islamic terror and “holy war:”
Said the Sheikh, “We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever (a Jew or Christian) has no value. It has no sanctity.”
International law is not a suicide pact, especially when an adversary remains indifferent to its unassailable claims.
As was learned yet again on October 7, 2023, jihadist attackers add gratuitously barbarous effects to their corrosive primal ideologies. At “bottom line,” these are belief systems that gleefully embrace the sacrificial slaughter of “unbelievers.” To wit, for Hamas and related terror groups, “military objectives” have “normally” included elementary schools, bomb shelters, ice-cream parlors, civilian bus stops, and elderly pedestrians. In law, these perpetrators ought never to be called “militants.” Whatever their alleged cause, they are criminals of the irredeemably worst sort.
There is a related point. Though jihadists may call themselves “martyrs,” the personal death such terrorists seem anxious to suffer is presumptively just a transient inconvenience on the path to “paradise” and immortality. As this path is “glorious,” these jihadists are not “merely” aspiring mass murderers. They are also consummate cowards.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other terror groups remain dedicated to the idea that any peace agreement with Israel must represent an intolerable abomination to Islam. Facing these implacable enemies within a self-help system of international law, Israel deserves the self-defending right to target refractory terrorist leaders. Determining whether such self-help remedies are also militarily sound raises another question altogether.
In the final analysis, what is most noteworthy about the targeted killing of terrorist leaders is not its permissibility in law, but the widespread global unwillingness to endorse or even acknowledge this critical right.
In current jurisprudence, an ancient principle still holds true: Ubi cessat remedium ordinarium, ibi decurritur ad extraordinarium — “Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one.”
Under international law, every state maintains the inherent right and corollary obligation to protect its citizens from transnational criminal harms. In exceptional circumstances, this dual responsibility can extend to the targeted killing of terrorist leaders. Otherwise, on its face, world law would in fact be a suicide pact.
Targeted killings, subject to applicable legal rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity, could sometimes offer the least unwelcome form of national self-protection. In such cases, especially where additional terror-crimes are still in a planning stage, the legal acceptability of violent self-help measures is greater ipso facto. In our continuously anarchic system of international law, this proposition is beyond any logical doubt. The world legal system is designed to protect us all from foreseeable infringements of human rights. Ironically, however, this same decentralized system still has no independent means to meet such a primary obligation.
In the best of all possible worlds, targeted killing could expect no defensible place in law-based counter-terrorism. But we do not yet live in the best of all possible worlds, and the negative aspects of any such action ought never to be evaluated apart from alternative policy outcomes. If Israel had chosen not to target Marwan Issa so as not to injure the sensibilities of “civilized nations” (a phrase codified at article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice), it would have brought extensive injury to many innocent human beings.
Counter-terrorism should always be governed by rational and justice-oriented decision-making processes. If the expected costs of a targeted assassination appear lower than the expected costs of all other plausible self-defense options, such a self-defense operation must emerge as the patently rational choice. However odious it might first appear in vacuo, targeted killing in such circumstances could offer a beleaguered state the least injurious path to security from terrorist criminality.
Inevitably, targeted killings, even of Hamas leaders like Marwan Issa, will elicit righteous indignation from many quarters. For now, however, the philosophic promise of centralized international law remains far from being realized, and continuously beleaguered states such as Israel will need to consider multiple operational choices. In facing such bewildering choices, states would soon discover that all viable alternatives to targeted-killing also include violence, and that these alternatives could plausibly exact a much larger human toll.
Sir William Blackstone’s 18th century Commentaries, the foundation of United States jurisprudence, explain that because international law is an integral part of each individual state’s “common law,” all states are “expected to aid and enforce the law of nations.” This must be accomplished “by inflicting an adequate punishment upon the offenses against that universal law.” Derivatively, by its precisely targeted removal of Hamas terrorist leader Marwan Issa, Israel acted not in violation of the law of nations, but in its indispensable enforcement. Presently, this neglected clarification of global justice should not be undervalued or overlooked.
Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law, nuclear strategy, nuclear war, and terrorism. In Israel, Professor Beres was Chair of Project Daniel. His twelfth and latest book is titled Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post Israel Is Allowed to Target Hamas Terrorists; International Law Is Not a Suicide Pact first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Here’s a Partial List of Assaults on American Jews in June
Anti-Israel demonstrators outside the Adas Torah synagogue in the heavily-Jewish Pico-Robertson area of Los Angeles, June 23, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
Street protests targeting Jews and Jewish institutions, and institutions deemed supportive of Israel, escalated in June and were characterized by threats of violence and antisemitic rhetoric. Among the most notable incidents was a Los Angeles march by keffiyeh clad and masked protestors organized by the Palestinian Youth Movement and Code Pink, where Jews were physically assaulted outside of a synagogue.
The confrontations spilled over into the surrounding Jewish neighborhood, where a number of Jews were beaten and sprayed with mace. Reports indicate Los Angeles police, who had been warned about the event, were initially instructed to stand down and then protected protestors and prohibited Jews from entering the synagogue. Several injuries and one arrest were reported.
President Biden condemned the Los Angeles attack without naming the perpetrators as did Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass and other local politicians including Governor Gavin Newsom, all within a 30-minute period. The protests were defended by anti-Israel activists and the ACLU (for the non-violent part) on the grounds that the real estate fair was “political activity.”
In another egregious example, protestors from Within Our Lifetime (WOL) in New York City besieged an exhibition about the Nova music festival massacre of October 7. Police rushed the waiting viewers into the exhibition space while protestors lit flares and shouted “long live intifada” and “Israel go to hell.”
In another pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah protest, a two-mile long group organized by the People’s Forum, Palestinian Youth Movement, and the ANSWER Coalition encircled the White House. Protestors shouted “We don’t want no two states, we’re taking back 48” and “kill another Zionist now” while vandalizing local monuments with slogans including “Death to Amerikkka,” “Death to Israel,” “Death to Zionists,” and “Al-Qasam make us proud. Kill another soldier now.”
No arrests were made, and mainstream media reported only slogans such as “free Palestine.”
Other public events have been co-opted by anti-Israel protests, notably gay pride parades. In Philadelphia the pride parade was blocked by anti-Israel protestors who shouted “Now, Now, Now, Now, Burn Israel to the ground.” The Washington D.C., and Denver pride parades were similarly disrupted.
In one June incident, the homes of Brooklyn Museum trustees were vandalized by WOL activists with red paint, red triangles symbolizing Hamas targets, and the words “blood is on your hands.” The home of the head of the board, Anne Pasternak, was painted with the words “White Supremacist Zionist.”
The museum has been targeted repeatedly by pro-Hamas protestors, who have now attacked the institution for permitting arrests of protestors who took over part of the building.
Among the official responses to escalating pro-Hamas violence have been calls to reinstate mask bans which had been aimed at the Ku Klux Klan. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, New York City mayor Eric Adams, and Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass — all Democrats — spoke in favor, while the ACLU and “civil liberties”advocates expressed opposition.
A group took credit for three firebombings on the University of California at Berkeley campus in “in retaliation for UCPD’s violent assaults on vulnerable student demonstrators and to punish the university of kkkalifornia system for supporting the genocidal Zionist-Israel entity.” The Columbia University Jewish Voice for Peace chapter expressed support for the perpetrator.
Efforts were made to disrupt remaining campus activities. At Columbia University, an encampment was set up to harass attendees at alumni weekend. Building takeovers also occurred at Cal State Los Angeles and Oregon State University. At Cal State, the takeover trapped a number of staff members inside the building, including the president, and vandalism was widespread. No arrests have been made.
University and local authorities continue to take little or no action against protestors. Notably, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg dropped most charges against students and others arrested for taking over a building at Columbia University.
Harassment of Jewish students and campus organizations remained steady in June. The University of Southern California Chabad house and the University of Minnesota Hillel building were vandalized. Student for Justice in Palestine (SJP) remains at the forefront of targeting Jews on campus. At the University of Pittsburgh, the SJP chapter demanded , among other things, that the Hillel chapter be banned from campus for its support of Zionism.
Direct SJP protests were also held at the Baruch College Hillel, which included banners stating “Hillel stands with genocide,” “It is right to rebel, Hillel go to hell,” and “Synagogue of Satan.” The masked protestors also wore Hamas and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) headbands.
Faculty support for anti-Israel students was highlighted by the events surrounding publication of a tendentious and absurd paper by the Columbia Law Review that alleged “nakba” should be a new category in international law. After secretly soliciting and then circumventing the normal review process the paper was accepted. The board of directors then asked the student editors to delay posting the piece online leading to accusations of censorship.
The student editors then published the piece and leaked the story to the media while the directors shut down the website. The piece was later published with a board disclaimer regarding the irregular process. The incident illustrated how student activists have helped subvert international law by controlling law reviews and surrounding discourse.
In the K-12 sphere, walkouts occurred across the country, and support of anti-Israel activities at the New York City Department of Education was also shown by the fact that it had hired prominent BDS activist Debbie Almontaser to conduct “workshops” on the Gaza war for teachers. Jewish teachers complained that the materials presented were deeply anti-Israel.
The predictable targeting of Jews by teachers and parents reached its peak in June at a fifth grade commencement ceremony in Brooklyn when a Jewish family was physically attacked by an Arabic-speaking family shouting “Free Palestine!” “Gaza is Ours!” and “Death to Israel.”
A presentation made by teachers to high school students in the Fort Lee, New Jersey, Public School District — which described Hamas as “armed resistance,” the “Nakba” as “the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and near destruction of Palestinian society,” and the Gaza war as “genocide” — is another event criticized after the fact. The tendentiousness of the presentation was explicitly recognized by the teachers who confiscated students’ cellphones and warned in advance that it was “biased.”
Most egregiously, efforts are being made by schools to institutionalize anti-Israel bias and Palestinian narratives in the guise of outlawing “anti-Palestinian racism.” At the Toronto District School Board, proposals were adopted in June to outlaw this supposed hatred. While the Toronto proposal was vague, other cases indicate that objecting to the Palestinian narrative of the nakba, Palestinian descriptions of Zionist as racism, and demands for Israel to be erased, are examples of “anti-Palestinian racism.”
The June political primaries showed the pivotal place of Israel and antisemitism at all levels of American politics. In the most closely observed race, Westchester County Executive George Latimer defeated Squad member Rep. Jamaal Bowman by a large margin in a New York Democratic primary. Bowman blamed the loss on Israel supporters, Jews, and AIPAC.
Another key test will come in August when Rep. Cori Bush faces a Democratic primary challenge in Missouri, and Rep. Debbie Wasserstein-Schultz (D-FL) is facing a challenge from a Jewish anti-Zionist.
In the international sphere, the Maldives announced that it was banning Israelis from entering. After an outcry and calls for a boycott of the country by the Jewish community, the Maldive government announced it was reconsidering. One consideration was apparently the fact that the edict as written banned Arab citizens of Israel in addition to Jews.
Anti-Israel bias continues to dominate and divide the various communities in the arts, with attacks from Palestinian supporters leading to sudden revocation of corporate support for festivals and other events. In Britain, Barclays has dropped support for music festivals after protests from artists regarding the firm’s alleged business relationship with Israel. Several festivals boycotted Barclays, which has been long targeted by the anti-Israel movement including recently vandalizing of branches around Britain.
Similarly, the investment firm Baillie Gifford ended its support for all book festivals in Britain after being attacked for its minor business links with Israel and alleged relationship with fossil fuel. Critics note that continued attacks on corporate sponsors will undermine arts funding in Britain and jeopardize the existence of book festivals. A similar process is emerging in the US where the South by Southwest festival announced it would no longer accept support from the US Army or weapons companies after boycott threats from various bands.
The politicization of Wikipedia, where a handful of anti-Israel editors have now elected to ban the ADL as a source, parallels that of the media, albeit behind the fig leaves of anonymity and decentralization. The use of Wikipedia as a source for generative artificial intelligence training promises to expand and cement anti-Israel bias and antisemitism.
The author is a contributor to SPME, where a significantly different version of this article was first published.
The post Here’s a Partial List of Assaults on American Jews in June first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Watchdog Group Calls on Talent Agency to Drop Former ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Star for Promoting Antisemitic Blood Libels
Jesse Williams at the 2024 Tribeca Film Festival World Premiere for “FOLLOWING HARRY” held at the SVA Theater in New York, NY, USA. Photo: LJ Fotos/AdMedia/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The watchdog group StopAntisemitism is calling on a global talent agency to drop actor and former “Grey’s Anatomy” star Jesse Williams as its client for sharing antisemitic content, including blood libels and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, on social media.
The American actor recently uploaded a series of posts on his Instagram Stories that additionally support antisemitic tropes of Jewish power and misinformation about Israel’s military actions during its ongoing war against Hamas terrorists controlling the Gaza Strip. One post featured a world map that pinpointed Israel and claimed that “your freedom of speech is being controlled” by the Jewish state.
In another post on his Instagram Story, Williams falsely alleged that in Gaza, Israel “forced a Palestinian captive to have sex with a dog, is siccing attack dogs on elderly woman,” and shot a six-year-old child “355 times.”
One of his accusations appeared to stem from the Qatar-based news network Al Jazeera reporting on footage of what it claimed was an Israeli military dog mauling an elderly Palestinian woman in her home in the northern Gaza city of Jabaliya. However, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) revealed that the dog was actually abducted by the terrorist group Hamas, which used the canine to film an “attack” as anti-Israel propaganda before killing the animal and booby-trapping its body with explosives in the event that Israeli soldiers tried to retrieve their canine comrade.
Williams also reposted a message that falsely claimed Zionists “consider Palestinian deaths a good thing, creating favorable demographic shifts in the direction of a Jewish minority in Palestine.” The post further claimed that “mass Palestinian death is a major Zionist ‘war aim.’”
A fourth Instagram post uploaded by the actor featured a quote attributed to Cairo-based comedian Bassem Youssef, who said recently on the NewsNation show “Cuomo,” hosted by Chris Cuomo, that, “We will only be safe if Israel is safe, and Israel will be safe if all of us are dead.”
Jewish groups and scholars of antisemitism have argued that attributing to Jews a desire to harm Palestinians is a modern iteration of the medieval antisemitic blood libel, which falsely claims that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children in their religious rituals.
Williams is represented by Creative Artists Agency (CAA), which is the world’s leading entertainment, sports, and media agency, according to its website. CAA did not immediately respond to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment regarding Williams’ social media posts.
Liora Rez, executive director of StopAntisemitism, told The Algemeiner on Tuesday that her organization “calls on CAA to immediately break ties with antisemite Jesse Williams.”
“His propagating such horrifying antisemitic tropes are unforgivable,” Raz added.
The post Watchdog Group Calls on Talent Agency to Drop Former ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Star for Promoting Antisemitic Blood Libels first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
No, Israel Is Not at All Comparable to the Nazis
Egyptian trucks carrying humanitarian aid make their way to the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, at the Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Israel, May 30, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
In a repulsive Guardian op-ed, the New York-based writer John Oakes not only falsely accused Israel of causing the mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, but likened the situation to the Nazis’ starvation of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (“The starvation of Gaza is a perverse repudiation of Judaism’s values,” June 25).
Oakes’ antisemitic trope, comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Nazis’ treatment of Jews during the Holocaust, has sadly been employed or legitimised by Guardian contributors previously.
Oakes begins with a lie:
For many months now, it has been no secret that one of America’s closest allies has been using hunger as a weapon against a civilian population. That hunger is being used by Israel is supremely ironic, given the particular role that privation from food plays both in Jewish philosophy and in the grim history of the Jewish people. It is a charge that the Jewish state has repeatedly denied in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This is the opposite of the truth.
The starvation narrative was given credibility in the mainstream media following a March report by Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) which alleged that famine was imminent and likely to occur by May in northern Gaza, and by July in other parts of the territory.
However, in early June, the IPC published a follow-up report titled, “Famine Review Committee: Review of the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) IPC-Compatible Analysis for the Northern Governorates of the Gaza Strip.”
That report concluded that the analysis published in March was not plausible, pointed out the omission of certain categories of food deliveries, and noted that “the available evidence does not indicate that famine is currently occurring.” The analysis also acknowledged that the daily kilocalories requirements for Palestinians in Gaza were surpassed in April, and found that the food supply in Gaza is increasing each month.
Even prior to that conclusion by the Famine Review Committee, multiple reports and studies — citing fatal methodological and data collection flaws — contradicted the initial warnings of imminent starvation in Gaza by the IPC. One of the reports, by Columbia University professors Awi Federgruen and Ran Kivetz, analyzed available data and found that “sufficient amounts of food are being supplied into Gaza.” According to the paper, “the mean calories available per person per day in Gaza in January was 3,076 kcal, for February that figure dropped to 1,741 kcal, but then rose in March to 3,446 kcal and rose again in April to 4,580 kcal.”
After telling that lie, the Guardian contributor pivots to the Nazi analogy:
Even Germany, which for obvious historical reasons has long been one of Israel’s staunchest allies, finally has begun to warn against using starvation to win a war. The Germans would know about such a tactic. During the second world war, 380,000 people were crowded into the Warsaw ghetto, barricaded, and left to die by the Nazis.
Much of what we know about the effects of long-term starvation comes from a manuscript smuggled out of the ghetto in 1942 and translated into English in the 1970s as Hunger Disease. The remarkable document was compiled by a heroic team of 28 Jewish doctors working under unimaginable conditions.
…
The suffering and the defiance of the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto have become touchstones for students of Jewish history, a story that every Jew knows well. As Holocaust museums struggle to address the Israel-Gaza war, the idea that we can somehow put what is happening in Gaza at a distant remove from the history of the Warsaw ghetto is grotesque. [emphasis added]
What’s truly grotesque is his comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto, implemented by a regime which murdered two out of every three Jews in Europe, and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. The daily food rations in the Warsaw Ghetto, which housed as many as 460,000 Jews and was completely sealed off from the outside, were the equivalent of “one-tenth of the required minimum daily calorie intake” — causing an 80,000 to die of either starvation or disease. Most of those who survived were sent off to death camps.
By contrast, there have been no credible reports of Palestinians dying of starvation in Gaza, and aid continues to pour in to the Strip.
If there are any Nazi-analogies to be made in this war, it should be directed at Hamas, the genocidal antisemitic terror group whose sent death squads rampaging across southern Israel on Oct. 7th with the sole purpose of murdering, torturing, raping, mutilating, and taking hostage as many Jews as possible — a barbaric assault that represents the worst antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust.
Finally, Oakes’ vilification of the Jewish state reaches a crescendo further into the op-ed, when he reaches the culmination of his big lie, writing that, given the historical and religious history of Jews, “it is remarkable that of all nations, the Jewish state is using mass starvation as a method of warfare“ — a libel against the Jewish collective as morally obscene and toxic as the antisemitic medieval superstitions peddled for centuries against individual Jews.
Amidst an ongoing tsunami of antisemitism in the UK and elsewhere in the Jewish diaspora, the Guardian continues to incite the mob.
Adam Levick serves as co-editor of CAMERA UK – an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post No, Israel Is Not at All Comparable to the Nazis first appeared on Algemeiner.com.