RSS
Israel Has a Legal Option to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons: The Use of Force
FILE PHOTO: Iranian demonstrators attend an anti-Israeli gathering in front of the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran, April 14, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Though Iran describes its drone and missile attack on Israel as “retaliation,” it is actually an act of aggression. If Iran were an already-nuclear enemy state, Israel’s capacity for lawful self-defense would be glaringly limited. But as Iran is still pre-nuclear, the Iranian aggression could prove net-gainful for Israel. In essence, this Iranian crime offers Israel an 11th hour opportunity to prevent enemy nuclearization. In formal legal terms, such opportunity falls under the heading of “anticipatory self-defense.”
To be sure, the tangible human and material costs to Israel of any further escalation could be very high, but fighting against a not-yet-nuclear enemy that initiated the aggression would represent Israel’s best chance to avoid an eventual nuclear war.
Among other derelictions, Tehran’s earlier assurance that its strike against Israel would be limited “to avoid escalations” was disingenuous. After all, during any crisis search for “escalation dominance” by an already-nuclear Israel and a not-yet-nuclear Iran, competitive risk-taking would favor the former.
Under authoritative international law, defensive first strikes or acts of “preemption” could be permissible in existential-threat circumstances. But even if resorts to anticipatory self-defense would be deemed lawful or law-enforcing, they could still prove unreasonably dangerous, strategically misconceived, tangibly ineffectual, and/or irrational. It follows, going forward, that Israel will need to evaluate all anticipatory self-defense options along the two discrete standards of law and strategy.
From the standpoint of international law, preemption could represent a fully permissible option. Though subject to important constraints and conditions, the right of “anticipatory self-defense” is well established. And while a “bolt from the blue” Israeli preemption against Iran could involve assorted difficulties, such difficulties are unlikely to apply in an ongoing conventional war. In this connection, Iran had repeatedly declared its intention to strike Israel as “punishment.”
In law, this declaration, now fulfilled, was an open admission of mens rea or criminal intent.
The right of self-defense by forestalling an attack appears in Hugo Grotius’ Book II of The Law of War and Peace in 1625. Recognizing the need for “present danger” and threatening behavior that is “imminent in a point of time,” Grotius indicates that self defense is to be permitted not only after an attack has been suffered, but also in advance, that is, “where the deed may be anticipated.” Or, as he explains a bit further on in the same chapter, “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill….”
A similar position was taken by Emmerich de Vattel. In Book II of The Law of Nations (1758), Vattel argues: “The safest plan is to prevent evil, where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor. It may even anticipate the other’s design, being careful, however, not to act upon vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run the risk of becoming itself the aggressor.”
Grotius and Vattel draw upon the early Jewish interpreters, although the latter speak more generally of interpersonal relations than about international relations. Additionally, the Torah contains a prominent provision exonerating from guilt a potential victim of robbery with possible violence if, in self defense, he struck down and if necessary even killed the attacker before he committed any crime. (Ex. 22:1).
Even if Iran were not in a condition of active belligerency with the Jewish state, an Israeli preemptive action could still be law-enforcing. Israel, in the fashion of every state under world law, is entitled to existential self-defense. Today, in an age of uniquely destructive weaponry, international law does not require Israel or any other state to expose its citizens to atomic destruction. Especially in circumstances where active hostilities are already underway — that is, during times of conventional warfighting — Israel’s legal right to attack selected Iranian nuclear facilities would be unassailable.
Under current conflict circumstances, an Israeli non-nuclear preemption would represent the best available way to reduce the risks of a regional nuclear war. If Israel waits until the next “ordinary” war with Iran, that recalcitrant foe could conceivably launch nuclear attacks. Even if a then-nuclear Tehran would strike first with conventional weapons, Israel could still have no meaningful tactical choice but to undertake a nuclear retaliation.
The right of anticipatory self defense has its modern origins in the Caroline incident, an event that concerned the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule. Following this event, the serious threat of armed attack has generally been taken to justify a state’s militarily defensive action. In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then-US Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self defense which did not require an actual attack. In it, military response to a threat was judged permissible so long as the danger posed was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”
These are bewildering matters. What should Israeli planners conclude? The answer depends in part upon their view of Iran’s reciprocal judgments concerning Israel’s leaders. Do these judgments suggest a leadership that believes it can gain the upper hand with a nuclear counter-retaliation? Or do they suggest a leadership that believes such counter-retaliation would bring upon Israel variously intolerable levels of adversarial destruction?
All relevant calculations assume rationality. In the absence of calculations that compare the costs and benefits of strategic alternatives, what will likely happen between Israel and Iran would remain a matter of conjecture. The prospect of non-rational judgments in this relationship is always plausible, especially as the influence of Islamist/Jihadist ideology remains strongly determinative among Iranian decision-making elites.
Iran’s attack on Israel is anything but a lawful retaliation.
Under all pertinent international law, Iran’s attack represents an overt act of aggression, but one that now also leaves Jerusalem with a not-to-be ignored opportunity to preemptively destroy selected Iranian military targets. Such a non-nuclear preemption opportunity could express the optimal way to prevent future and irremediably destructive nuclear aggressions from Iran.
While Israel’s active defenses have been remarkably successful against the Iranian missile and drone attacks, more offensive measures will be required. It could never be sufficiently purposeful or law enforcing for Israel to confine its reaction to the current Iranian attacks to passive strategies of interception. Above all other strategic considerations, the Iranian attacks, whether halted or ongoing, offer Israel a life-saving opportunity to avoid later preemptions against an already-nuclear enemy.
“The safety of the People,” observed ancient Roman philosopher Cicero, “is the highest law.” Now, the safety of the People of Israel could best be served by waging a just war against a pre-nuclear Iran. Though such a war might still involve significant human and material costs, it would be substantially less catastrophic than war between two already-nuclear powers. This is the case even if an Iran that had crossed the nuclear threshold was verifiably “less powerful” than a nuclear Israel. In any pertinent nuclear conflict scenario, even a “weaker” Iran could wreak intolerable harms upon Israel.
All things considered, if an ongoing or future war with Iran is inevitable, it would be much safer for Jerusalem to proceed as the sole nuclear combatant. Accordingly, this is not a moment for Israeli strategic thinking to become confused or shortsighted. Calculating that immediate war curtailment is necessarily the best available option would subject Israel to future instances of existential harm. This could include a full-scale nuclear war.
The author is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of twelve major books dealing with international relations, military strategy and world affairs. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland on August 31, 1945, and lectures and publishes widely on issues of terrorism, counter-terrorism, nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres’ latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed. 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post Israel Has a Legal Option to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons: The Use of Force first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor
The “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Columbia University, located in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on April 25, 2024. Photo: Reuters Connect
Students of the Union Theological Seminary (UTS), an affiliate school of Columbia University, are pushing the institution to hire an academic who was just terminated for defending the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
Dr. Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor in modern Arab studies who defended Hamas after the terrorist group slaughtered over 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 others during its Oct. 7 onslaught, was reportedly relieved of his duties at Columbia University as of Sunday. Following Abdou’s firing, UTS students circulated a petition calling on the seminary to extend the anti-Israel academic an offer of employment.
“We condemn Columbia University’s efforts to stifle any mobilization around [the Palestinian] cause and its repressive, anti-Palestinian victimization of Dr. Abdou,” the petition reads.
“We ask the UTS administration to hire Dr. Abdou for the 2024-2025 academic year,” the petition continues.
During a US congressional hearing on campus antisemitism in April, Columbia President Minouche Shafik promised lawmakers that the university would terminate Abdou at the conclusion of the school year, citing his repeated public endorsements of violence against Israel and endorsement of terrorist groups.
During a Jan. 5 interview with Revolutionary Left Radio, Abdou heaped praise on Hamas, referring to the terrorist organization as a “resistance” and dismissed criticism of the terrorist organization as “white supremacy.” In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, many pro-Palestinian groups have similarly defended Hamas a a “resistance” group and referred to the Oct. 7 atrocities as “self-defense.”
On Jan. 16. the Columbia Middle East Institute tapped Abdou to serve as lead instructor for a course on “Decolonial-Queerness & Abolition.” According to the course description, students analyzed “Euro-American informed modernity animated by (neo)liberal-Enlightenment values (free will/humanity, secularism, racial capitalism)” and “contemporary conceptualizations of family, kinship, and friendship in Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities within the context of settler-colonial societies (as the U.S./Canada) as well as in postcolonial nations and regions (as Southwest Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) that arguably never underwent adequate decolonization.”
Abdou faced intense criticism after a student recorded and circulated a course lecture in which he denounced Israel as a “settler colonial” entity that was inspired by American-style beliefs on private property, gender, and sexuality.
Following Shafik’s congressional testimony, Abdou claimed that the Columbia president “lied” about his firing and accused her of “misrepresenting” his opinions. He reiterated his support for Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are backed by Iran.
Abdou’s public support for terrorism has caused a firestorm of controversy with Columbia students and alumni, calling into question the university’s commitment to fostering a tolerant and safe environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
Abdou indicated gratitude for the petition on X/Twitter, saying that he is “indebted for this generous initiative.” He called on his supporters to sign and spread the petition “as far [and] as wide as possible.”
The post Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australian War Memorials Vandalized With Pro-Hamas Graffiti
A war memorial in Canberra was vandalized by anti-Israel graffiti. Photo: Screenshot
Multiple memorials near the Australian War Memorial have been defaced with anti-Israel graffiti as Australian policymakers grapple with how to manage a rise in antisemitism that has continued unabated since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Located on Anzac Parade — named in honor of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) — near downtown Canberra, vandals spray-painted pro-Hamas messages onto sites dedicated to those who died fighting for Australia in war. The messages included “Free Palestine,” “Free Gaza,” “Blood on your hands,” and “From the river to the sea” — the last of which is a popular slogan among anti-Israel activists calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The Australian National Korean War Memorial, Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial, and the Australian Army National Memorial were all targeted over the weekend, as well as a wall between the memorials along Anzac Parade.
The incidents sparked outcry among Australian lawmakers and members of the Jewish community. In parliament, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the vandalism as “criminal” and called for the perpetrators to “get exposed publicly as well for who they are. We know what they are — they’re unworthy of having any respect and any leniency as a result of their own actions.”
The Australian Jewish Association wrote on X/Twitter in response to the desecration of the war memorials, “The anti-Israel movement is one of the ugliest Australia has ever seen.”
Condemnation of the vandalism by Australia’s politicians was not universal, however. On the far left, Green Party Senator Jordan Steele-John refused to support a motion from a fellow lawmaker condemning the memorials’ desecration. “War memorials are not politically neutral spaces,” Steele-John argued to the Senate.
Adam Brandt – the leader of the Green Party who days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel condemned “Israel’s occupation — declined to comment on whether vandalism is a legitimate form of protest.
Over 17,000 ANZAC soldiers fought in Korea and 60,000 in Vietnam. ANZAC forces also participated in the Gallipoli campaign of World War I.
Australia’s Senate has faced growing calls to recognize a Palestinian state. Recently, Fatima Payman — a newly elected senator and member of the majority Labour party — was suspended by Albanese after voting against the Labour Party’s official position when she supported a Green Party motion for Palestinian statehood.
Meanwhile, the city council of Sydney — one of Australia’s largest and wealthiest cities — last week passed a motion calling on lawmakers to review its investment portfolio to determine whether it is linked to companies which provide arms and other services to the state of Israel. Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who is not formally affiliated with any political party, backed the idea to move toward adopting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
Such political steps have come amid a surge in antisemitic incidents across Australia.
In just the first seven and a half weeks after the Oct. 7 atrocities, antisemitic activity in Australia increased by a staggering 591 percent, according to a tally of incidents by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
In one notorious episode in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas onslaught, hundreds of pro-Hamas protesters gathered outside the Sydney Opera House chanting “gas the Jews,” “f—k the Jews,” and other epithets.
The explosion of hate also included violence such as a brutal attack on a Jewish man in a park in Sydney in late October.
Pro-Hamas sentiment has also led to vandalism. Last month, the US consulate in Sydney was vandalized and defaced by an unidentified man carrying a sledgehammer who smashed the windows and graffitied inverted red triangles on the building. The inverted red triangle has become a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies. The Palestinian terrorist group, which rules Gaza, has used inverted red triangles in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the red triangle is now used to represent Hamas itself and glorify its use of violence.”
The post Australian War Memorials Vandalized With Pro-Hamas Graffiti first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Rabbi Tory Candidate Berated Outside British Mosque, Called a ‘Snake’ and ‘Child Killer’
Illustrative: A pro-Hamas march in London, United Kingdom, Feb. 17, 2024. Photo: Chrissa Giannakoudi via Reuters Connect
A rabbi and Tory parliamentary candidate in England was berated with accusations of “smiling like a snake” and supporting the murder of children during a recent visit to a mosque in Greater Manchester, which has become a hub of antisemitic activity since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel.
Rabbi Arnold Saunders, the Conservative candidate for the heavily Jewish seat of Bury South, was invited last week to Bilal Mosque, located in the town of Prestwich, by its elders. During his visit, however, a member of the mosque began aggressively shouting at the elderly rabbi, who uses a cane, according to video circulated on X /Twitter.
“You are a snake”
WATCH the threatening way Rabbi Arnie Saunders was treated when he was invited to the Bilal Mosque in Prestwich, Manchester in his role as the Conservative candidate for Bury South by the mosque elders. That he was allowed to be abused, intimidated and have his… pic.twitter.com/X4PZTsteLq
— NW Friends of Israel (@NorthWestFOI) June 30, 2024
In the video, the enraged worshiper can be seen demanding that Saunders “condemn the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in the strongest terms” for its military campaign targeting Hamas in Gaza.
“Don’t come to the house of Allah and try to engage with us when we know that what when you’re in your own places you’re saying that it is good that they are killing children,” the man continued.
“He’s happy that children are dying. Ask him to go,” he told mosque officials. “We don’t want to engage with these people.”
Muslim worshipers berate Rabbi Arnold Saunders outside of a mosque in Greater Manchester, England. Photo: Screenshot
“You come here and smile like a snake,” the protestor screamed at the rabbi as he stood up to leave.
Saunders attempted multiple times to respond to the man’s accusations but was repeatedly cut off. According to the video, other members of the mosque watching the exchange did not attempt to defend the rabbi.
British Jewish organizations quickly condemned the abuse of Saunders.
“We are disgusted by the abusive treatment of Rabbi Arnold Saunders … the footage clearly shows the rabbi was being targeted in this fashion due to his religion,” the UK’s main Jewish organization, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said in a statement. “We urge all who care about the health of our democracy to call out this bigotry.”
The Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester & Region (JRC) similarly lambasted the treatment of Saunders.
“Rabbi Saunders is a much respected communal figure and we unequivocally condemn his treatment in this video. It is unquestionably antisemitic and we expect action to be taken,” the organization posted to social media. “The fact he has been attacked emphasizes how individuals are importing the tragic conflict taking place in Israel and Gaza onto the streets of the UK.”
North West Friends of Israel, an organization supporting Jews in the northwestern UK condemned the scene as well.
“That he was allowed to be abused, intimidated and have his personal space invaded is disgraceful and shocking,” the group said. “He must have feared for his safety. By contrast two of the mosque elders were recently invited to the Jewish Community of Manchester Bury South Hustings and treated with nothing but courtesy and respect.”
Saunders’ opponent for the British parliamentary seat in Bury South, Labour lawmaker Christian Wakeford, wished the rabbi his best. “Despite political disagreements, Rabbi Saunders and I have always had an excellent relationship and I hope he is OK following this incident.”
Recently, Manchester has evolved into somewhat of a hub for antisemitic and anti-Israel activity following the Hamas terrorist attacks of Oct. 7.
Earlier this year, two Israeli survivors of the Oct. 7 atrocities were detained and subjected to discrimination while being processed at Manchester Airport. According to the JRC, the two individuals, who were traveling to the UK to discuss narrowly escaping the Hamas onslaught, were singled out upon presenting their Israeli passports and explaining why they were there. British Border Force officers allegedly forced the Israelis to submit to two hours of “detention and interrogation,” as well as abusive comments.
More recently, a world map on the wall of Manchester’s Airport was removed by airport authorities after they were notified by the organization UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) that the Jewish state was crossed out and instead labeled “Palestine.”
“While we are very grateful to Manchester Airport for its swift action, we are concerned that people are unable to walk past a map that mentions ‘ISRAEL’ without deleting its name,” ULKFI said of the incident. “This shows an extremely worrying attitude to the world’s only Jewish state.”
The post Rabbi Tory Candidate Berated Outside British Mosque, Called a ‘Snake’ and ‘Child Killer’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.