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
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul Faces Backlash Over Endorsement of ‘Raging Antisemite’ Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) is facing sharp criticism after endorsing far-left state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York City, with some US lawmakers describing the Democrat from Queens known for his fierce criticism of Israel as a “communist” and antisemitic.
Amid mounting pressure from progressive Democrats, Hochul endorsed Mamdani’s mayoral campaign in a New York Times op-ed on Sunday. The governor cited Mamdani’s emphasis on “public safety and making “New York City affordable.”
“We discussed the need to combat the rise of antisemitism urgently and unequivocally,” Hochul wrote. “I’ve been glad to see him meet with Jewish leaders across the city, listening and addressing their concerns directly.”
In the immediate aftermath of the endorsement, Hochul faced a withering denunciation from US Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who argued that the governor now supports a “raging antisemite communist.” She asserted that Hochul now “owns” Mamdani’s left-wing positions to “defund the police, abolish our law enforcement, abolish prisons, abolish private health-care insurance.”
Stefanik also accused Hochul of lending credibility to Mamdani’s “antisemitism, which put New York at risk and is a danger to the Jewish community in New York City.”
Stefanik, who serves on the House Republican leadership, is widely expected to run for governor of New York in 2026. Though a recent Sienna College poll shows Hochul maintaining a formidable lead over Stefanik, the margin has decreased from 23 points in June to 14 points in August.
US President Donald Trump also ripped into Hochul for endorsing Mamdani.
“Governor Kathy Hochul of New York has endorsed the ‘Liddle Communist,’ Zohran Mamdani, running for Mayor of New York,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “This is a rather shocking development, and a very bad one for New York City. How can such a thing happen? Washington will be watching this situation very closely. No reason to be sending good money after bad!”
US Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) also chimed in, calling Hochul’s endorsement of Mamdani “a complete and total disaster for our state and for the country.”
In previous elections, Hochul has enjoyed robust support from Jewish communities in Crown Heights, Borough Park, and the Five Towns. Some observers have speculated that her embrace of Mamdani threatens to fracture her base of support among Jewish voters.
A little-known politician before this year’s Democratic primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also initially defended the phrase “globalize the intifada” — which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. However, Mamdani has since backpedaled on his support for the phrase, saying that he would discourage his supporters from using the slogan.
RSS
Leading Nonprofit Holds ‘Antisemitism Symposium’ in Washington, DC for College Administrators
Visitors enter the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, MA on June 3, 2025. Photo: Jason Bergman/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
College administrators from across the US will amass in Washington, DC, this week for a three-day symposium on combating campus antisemitism, a sign of growing recognition that anti-Jewish hatred threatens not only Jewish students but all of higher education.
Organized by the Academic Engagement Network (AEN), which promotes academic freedom unfettered by boycotts and ideology, the event will be attended by administrators representing dozens of institutions such as Harvard University, Barnard College, and George Washington University, all of which have drawn scrutiny for responding to campus antisemitism in ways that critics — including Jewish community leaders and senior US officials — have described as insufficient if not dismissive.
Dozens of conversations and seminars will be held over the three-day “Antisemitism Symposium,” with many being led by AEN faculty, as well as staff from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and experts from the Jewish Federations of North America and the American Jewish Committee.
“College administrators are the ones tasked with recognizing and addressing antisemitism on campus, as well as setting the tone for behavioral expectations and campus culture,” Miriam Elman, executive director of AEN, said in a statement. “Today’s antisemitism, though, often takes forms that can be less familiar or harder to identify, making it all the more important to provide campus leaders with the tools, training, and support they need to recognize and respond effectively.”
She continued, “By hosting this convening and bringing these administrators together for a yearlong learning journey, we ensure they are not tackling these unique challenges in isolation, but as part of a national network committed to fostering welcoming, inclusive, and safe learning environments for all.”
The AEN symposium comes amid a concerted effort by American Jewish and allied organizations to persuade higher education leaders of the importance of taking steps to deter, or quell, antisemitism in the early weeks of the new academic year.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Jewish Federations of North America, Hillel International, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations issued a joint statement calling for action in August, putting forth a policy framework that they say will quell antisemitism if applied sincerely and consistently. It included “enhanced communication and policy enforcement,” “dedicated administration oversight,” and “faculty accountability” — an issue of rising importance given the number of faculty accused of inciting discrimination.
“These recommendations aren’t just suggestions; they’re essential steps universities need to take to ensure Jewish students can learn without fear,” ADL chief executive officer Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement at the time. “Jewish students are being forced to hide who they are, and that’s unacceptable — we need more administrators to step up.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, colleges campus across the US erupted with effusions of antisemitic activity following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, an uprising which included calling for the destruction of Israel, cheering Hamas’s sexual assaulting of women as an instrument of war, and numerous of incidents of assault and harassment targeting Jewish students, faculty, and activists.
At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), anti-Zionist protesters chanted “Itbah El Yahud” at Bruin Plaza, which means “slaughter the Jews” in Arabic. At Columbia University, Jews were gang-assaulted, a student proclaimed that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself, and administrative officials, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, participated in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes that described Jews as privileged and grafting. At Harvard University, an October 2023 anti-Israel demonstration degenerated into chaos when Ibrahim Bharmal, former editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, and Elom Tettey-Tamaklo encircled a Jewish student with a mob that screamed “Shame! Shame! Shame!” at him while he desperately attempted to free himself from the mass of bodies.
More recently, Eden Deckerhoff — a female student at Florida State University — allegedly assaulted a Jewish male classmate at the Leach Student Recreation Center after noticing his wearing apparel issued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
“F—k Israel, Free Palestine. Put it [the video] on Barstool FSU. I really don’t give a f—k,” the woman said before shoving the man, according to video taken by the victim. “You’re an ignorant son of a b—h.” Deckerhoff has since been charged with misdemeanor battery.
Majorities of Jewish students continue to describe their campuses as hostile environments.
According to a recent Spring Campus Poll conducted by The Daily Northwestern, the official campus newspaper of Northwestern University, 58 percent of Jewish students reported being subjected to antisemitism or knowing someone who has. An even higher 63.1 percent said antisemitism remains a “somewhat or very serious problem.”
Meanwhile, a Columbia University “climate survey” conducted last academic year found that 53 percent of Jewish students have been subjected to discrimination because of being Jewish, while another 53 percent reported that their friendships are “strained” because of how overwhelmingly anti-Zionist the student culture is. Additionally, 29 percent of Jewish students said they have “lost close friends,” and 59 percent, nearly two-thirds, of Jewish students sensed that they would be better off by electing to “conform their political beliefs” to those of their classmates.
Nearly 62 percent of Jewish students reported a low “feeling of acceptance” at Columbia on the basis of their religious identity, and 50 percent said that the pro-Hamas encampments which capped off the 2023-2024 academic year had a negative “impact” on their daily routines. Also, Jewish students at Columbia are more likely than their peers to report these negative feelings and experiences, followed by Muslim students.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activism Takes Center Stage at Emmy Awards After Paramount Condemns Boycott of Israeli Film Companies
Javier Bardem at the 2025 Emmy Awards. Photo: REUTERS/Daniel Cole
Several members of Hollywood promoted their pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activism on Sunday night at the 77th Emmy Awards at the Peacock Theater in Los Angeles.
Actor Javier Bardem – who stars in “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” – wore a Palestinian keffiyeh around his neck to the ceremony and talked on the Emmys red carpet about his decision not to work with Israeli institutions and companies.
The Emmy nominee told The Hollywood Reporter that he “will never work with some company now [who] are not condemning the genocide in Gaza.” If his decision impacts the number of jobs he gets, he said, “Me not getting jobs is absolutely [ir]relevant compared to what is going on there.”
The “F1” actor also told Variety on the Emmys red carpet: “I cannot work with someone that justifies or supports the genocide. I can’t. It’s as simple as that. And we shouldn’t, in this industry and in any other industry. What we are witnessing is a genocide on a daily basis.”
Also on Sunday, in Bardem’s home country of Spain, a major cycling race was shut down after thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashed with police while protesting an Israeli team’s participation in the race. Bardem mentioned the shutdown while speaking on the Emmys red carpet and said Israel’s inclusion in the race is an example of “whitewashing” the “genocide” Israel is supposedly perpetrating in Gaza.
“We ask for a commercial and diplomatic blockade, and sanctions on Israel to stop this genocide. Free Palestine,” Bardem said.
Earlier this month, thousands of members of the Hollywood film industry signed a pledge by Film Workers for Palestine to boycott any Israeli film institutions and companies that are “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people.” More than 1,300 filmmakers, actors, and other creatives signed the pledge.
The film production giant Paramount criticized the boycott in a released statement on Sept. 12.
“At Paramount, we believe in the power of storytelling to connect and inspire people, promote mutual understanding, and preserve the moments, ideas, and events that shape the world we share. This is our creative mission,” read a statement issued by Paramount chief communications officer Melissa Zukerman.
“We do not agree with recent efforts to boycott Israeli filmmakers,” the statement continued. “Silencing individual creative artists based on their nationality does not promote better understanding or advance the cause of peace. The global entertainment industry should be encouraging artists to tell their stories and share their ideas with audiences throughout the world. We need more engagement and communication — not less.”
Bardem responded to Paramount while speaking to The Hollywood Reporter at the Emmys.
“It’s also important to clarify to Paramount that we do not target individuals by their identity. That’s absolutely wrong. Don’t send that message; that is a wrong thing,” he said. “What we target are those complicit film companies and institutions that are involved in whitewashing or justifying the genocide of Israel in Gaza and its apartheid regime. And we stand with those who fight and stand in solidarity with the oppressed.”
Jewish-American actress and “Hacks” star Hannah Einbinder was among those who signed the anti-Israel pledge by Film Workers for Palestine. On Sunday night, Einbinder won the Emmy for best actress in a comedy series and concluded her acceptance speech by cheering the Philadelphia Eagles, calling out immigration raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and declaring “Free Palestine.” Backstage in the press room after her first Emmy win, she told reporters that the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is “an issue that’s very close to my heart.”
“I have friends in Gaza who are working as frontline workers, as doctors, right now in the north of Gaza to provide care for pregnant women and for school children to create schools in refugee camps,” Einbinder said. “I feel like it is my obligation as a Jewish person to distinguish Jews from the state of Israel because our religion and our culture is such an important and longstanding institution that is really separate to this ethnonationalist state.”
She also explained why she signed the Film Workers for Palestine pledge.
“It’s like many movements — boycotting is an effective tool to create pressure on the powers that be to meet the moment,” she said. “The Film Workers for Palestine boycott does not boycott individuals; it only boycotts institutions that are directly complicit in the genocide. So, it’s important to me and I think it’s an important measure and I was happy to be a part of it.”
Fellow “Hacks” star Megan Stalter walked the Emmys red carpet wearing a white T-shirt and jeans that she paired with a black handbag featuring a message that read, “Cease Fire!” which seemed to be a reference the war in Gaza. There were some members of the audience inside Peacock Theater who were also seen wearing the Artists4Ceasefire red pins that call for an end to Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip. “White Lotus” actress Aimee Lou Wood, “Hacks” director Lucia Aniello, “Abbott Elementary” actor Chris Perfetti, and “Presumed Innocent” actress Ruth Negga were among the celebrities who wear the pins on the red carpet on Sunday.
Film Workers for Palestine responded to Paramount’s criticism of its anti-Israel boycott by saying that it hopes the studio is not “intentionally misrepresenting the pledge in an attempt to silence our colleagues in the film industry.”
“Such a move would only shield a genocidal regime from criticism at a time when global outrage is exponentially growing and while meaningful steps towards accountability are being taken by many,” Film Workers for Palestine wrote in a statement posted on social media. “Should Israeli film institutions wish to continue working with pledge signatories, their choice is clear: end complicity in Israel’s genocide and apartheid, and endorse the full rights of the Palestinian people under international law, in line with Palestinian civil society guidelines.”