RSS
The World Can’t Mourn Terrorists
Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal hugs senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh before leaving Gaza Strip, Dec. 10, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the Qatar-residing Hamas political leader and public face of the October 7th massacre perpetrators, has sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East and beyond.
As details emerge about the operation in Tehran, the global community is grappling with the immediate and long-term implications. Haniyeh’s killing comes in the immediate wake of another assassination, this one in Beirut, of Hezbollah’s military chief, Fuad Shukr, in a drone strike on a neighborhood that is the Iran-backed group’s stronghold in Lebanon.
Although Israel has long used assassination to deal with its enemies, the high-profile nature of Haniyeh’s assassination in particular raises significant questions about the ethics and effectiveness of targeted killings in modern warfare. Is assassination a legitimate tool of war? More importantly, does it ever achieve the desired result? How should leaders balance the moral imperatives of justice and security with the ethical constraints of their actions?
None of these questions are new, but even as the world braces for Iran’s threatened response to the elimination of a dear friend and ally on their sovereign territory, it is worth considering the ethics and efficacy of assassinating a sworn enemy if the opportunity presents itself.
Over the past few decades, international tendencies have leaned toward discouraging aggressive tactics against aggressor states, favoring appeasement and accommodation. The prevailing wisdom suggests that appeasement and accommodating aggressor demands leads to peace, or, more accurately, the absence of war. However, this approach is debatable as it often emboldens terrorist regimes like Iran and Gaza, raising critical questions about its effectiveness in promoting peace.
The renowned American military historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that “appeasement, in the long run, leads to greater conflict because it emboldens aggressors by rewarding their behavior. History shows that firm resistance and clear consequences for hostile actions are more effective in maintaining long-term peace.” Similarly, Edward N. Luttwak, in his book Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, notes that “the paradox of war is that it often takes the clear demonstration of strength and resolve to achieve peace.”
Historically, targeted assassinations have often had a significant impact on the outcome of a conflict. The US operation that killed Osama bin Laden not only disrupted al-Qaeda’s operations but also marked the beginning of the group’s decline. The program of targeted killings of other high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders severely crippled the organization, leading to its diminished global presence.
Similarly, the killing of ISIS leaders such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (who actually killed himself and his family to avoid being killed by the US Delta Force team sent to kill him) and his successor, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, played a crucial role in the group’s downfall.
These assassinations led to substantial disruptions in Islamist terrorist activities, including a significant reduction in suicide bombings and a shift to lower skill tactics. Over time, these targeted efforts contributed to the dismantling of Islamic terrorism’s organizational structure and capabilities. The constant fear of assassination forced al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders to be on the run, significantly undermining their operational effectiveness.
In a revealing 2015 New York Times article titled “Do Assassins Really Change History?”, Benjamin F. Jones and Benjamin A. Olken charted the history of assassinations over the past century and demonstrated that assassinations can change political systems, particularly when it comes to autocratic regimes.
They also found that assassinations definitely alter the course of conflicts, and although in moderate conflicts, assassinations tend to intensify violence, in intense conflicts they are more likely to bring about an end to the war.
Shortly after John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln in 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, later the prime minister of Great Britain, declared that “assassination has never changed the history of the world.” But while his statement is rhetorically compelling and often quoted, historical evidence suggests that assassinations have had profound, often positive, impacts on world history.
In Parshat Mattot, we encounter the commandment given to Moses to wage war against the Midianites: “Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites” (Num. 31:2). Rabbi Meir Leibush Weiser (“Malbim”), in his commentary on this verse, delves into the psychological and ethical aspects of the war that the Israelites were compelled to wage against the Midianites. He argues that they needed to confront and defeat the Midianites to regain their own moral strength and resolve. Killing the enemy that had so heinously targeted them was the only way for the Israelites to overcome the shame and guilt associated with their earlier failure to repel the Midianites.
Similarly, Rabbi Meir Simcha Hacohen of Dvinsk (“Meshech Chochma”) interprets the instruction to battle Midian as a crucial step in establishing a just and righteous society, suggesting that tolerating evil inevitably leads to its spread and dominance. By decisively confronting and eradicating the Midianite threat, brazenly and without mercy, the Israelites would demonstrate their dedication to creating a society based on divine justice and moral integrity.
The seminal commentator Don Isaac Abarbanel provides a historical and political context for the war against Midian. He explains that aggressively going after the Midianite threat was the only way to get rid of what would develop into a constant source of conflict and strife for the Israelites.
Abarbanel also emphasizes that acts of aggression against Midian were in fact defensive actions aimed at ensuring the long-term survival and prosperity of the Israelite nation. Waging war against Midian, using proactive decisive measures, was necessary to protect and preserve the nation against relentless threats.
The decision by Israel to target Haniyeh and Shukr, and the many other terrorist leaders who have been targeted and may yet be targeted, is the modern parallel to this divine directive. It is imperative to eliminate any source of ongoing violence and terror. By doing so, people’s lives will be saved.
Just as the ancient Israelites were commanded to confront the Midianites to preserve their community, modern leaders face the difficult task of confronting and neutralizing threats to ensure the safety and stability of their nations.
As always, the ancient wisdom of the Torah continues to illuminate our path, guiding us toward a more just and righteous world. By confronting evil head-on, we uphold the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct, ensuring that peace and order can prevail.
Haniyeh and Shukr epitomize evil, and they hinder the possibility of peace. The lessons from Parshat Mattot remind us that while leadership is fraught with challenges, especially in a time of war, it also offers unique opportunities to make the world a safer place for all of us. The killing of Ismail Haniyeh is the perfect example, and his death should be welcomed by all.
The author is rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post The World Can’t Mourn Terrorists first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Azerbaijan a ‘Potential Bridge’ for Arab-Israeli Normalization, Jewish Leader Says
From left to right, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, Israeli President Isaac Herzog, and Rabbi Marc Schneier. Photo: Foundation for Ethnic Understanding
Amid rising regional tensions, the idea of Azerbaijan joining the Abraham Accords overlooks its long-standing and often undervalued role as one of Israel’s most trusted allies in the broader Middle East, according to one of the country’s most influential Jewish leaders.
“I think discussions about incorporating Azerbaijan into the Abraham Accords are ridiculous and insulting,” Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, told The Algemeiner in an exclusive interview.
“Most people are clueless when it comes to understanding the dynamics of Muslim-Jewish relations, particularly between Azerbaijan and Israel,” Schneier added.
Signed in 2020, the Abraham Accords were a series of historic US-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab countries. Since then, Jerusalem has strengthened diplomatic ties with the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Bahrain, and Morocco, while also expanding defense and economic cooperation.
Azerbaijan’s ties with Israel have long been significant, with the country serving as the Jewish state’s most vital ally in the Caucasus and Central Asia for more than three decades, fostering a partnership that spans energy security, defense, and intelligence.
However, the depth of the relationship between Baku and Jerusalem is often overlooked, according to Schneier, who has worked with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and was among the first Jewish leaders to foster ties between Israel and Muslim nations.
During the first Trump administration, the Abraham Accords reshaped regional alliances, with experts suggesting that Azerbaijan could play a key role in balancing regional power blocs.
As a country sharing a lengthy border with Iran while maintaining strong ties with Israel and Turkey, the predominantly Shi’ite Muslim country holds a unique strategic advantage that could challenge Tehran’s influence and alter regional power dynamics.
“Azerbaijan plays a unique role in Israel’s broader strategy by serving as a potential bridge for normalizing relations between the Jewish State and other Muslim-majority countries,” Schneier told The Algemeiner.
He explained that Baku has contributed to regional normalization efforts in the past, notably by facilitating the restoration of full diplomatic ties between Turkey and Israel in 2022, even though the relationship between the two countries has since gone downhill.
According to Schneier, as a strong ally of both Israel and Turkey, Azerbaijan is well-positioned to mediate further diplomatic breakthroughs. Just this week, Azerbaijan hosted Turkish and Israeli officials for talks aimed at preventing potential clashes in Syria
In this regional context, the Jewish leader argued that Baku “serves as a paradigm for the greater Arab and Muslim world,” demonstrating that strong ties with Israel are possible despite historical tensions and religious differences.
“Azerbaijan plays a strategic role by positioning itself as a model for regional cooperation and independent foreign policy,” Schneier told The Algemeiner.
“Within the greater Muslim world, Azerbaijan serves as a beacon of interfaith dialogue and cooperation, setting an example for broader Muslim-Jewish relations,” he continued.
Baku’s strategic importance stems not only from its role at the crossroads of a growing pro-Western bloc countering the regional ambitions of Iran, but also from its economic influence in the region.
Azerbaijan and Israel have continued to expand their cooperation and strengthen their bilateral ties, especially in the energy sector, highlighting the predominantly Shi’ite Muslim country’s emerging role as a strategic player in the evolving Middle East.
Earlier this year, Jerusalem and Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR, struck a major energy deal. In March, SOCAR also signed a gas exploration license agreement with the Jewish state
As of 2019, Azerbaijan supplied over a third of Israel’s oil. Last year, Jerusalem was the sixth-biggest buyer of oil from Baku, with sales totaling $713 million.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has acquired advanced Israeli defense systems, including the “Barak MX” missile system and surveillance satellites, and remains a leading buyer of Israeli military hardware, which was crucial in its 2020 war with Armenia.
The post Azerbaijan a ‘Potential Bridge’ for Arab-Israeli Normalization, Jewish Leader Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran’s Navy Chief Compares Tehran to Israelites Fleeing Pharaoh Ahead of Passover
Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani. Photo: Screenshot
Ahead of the Jewish holiday of Passover, Iran’s navy chief boasted that his country’s naval and defense power is stronger than ever, seemingly comparing Iran to the ancient Israelites and warning that enemies would be drowned at sea like Pharaoh’s army.
In an ironic twist, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani drew a parallel between Iran and the ancient Israelites enslaved by Egypt in the Exodus story, positioning Tehran as the modern-day victim of persecution.
In that biblical account, Pharaoh, fearing the growing Israelite population, enslaved them and even ordered the death of newborn boys. However, under God’s power, the Israelites, led by Moses, escaped Egypt. When Pharaoh’s army pursued them, driven by greed and fear, they were ultimately destroyed by the sea.
On Thursday, the Iranian commander praised Tehran’s naval strength and defense capabilities during a meeting with the families of the country’s 86th naval fleet, as tensions grow in the lead-up to nuclear talks with the United States.
“Our maritime power and defensive capabilities are stronger than ever,” Irani was quoted as saying by Iranian state media.
“Today, our enemies see the Islamic Republic’s armed forces and strategic navy as a superpower,” Irani continued. “The devil seeks a direct confrontation at sea, but with God’s help, we will defeat and drown it like the people of Pharaoh.” Other translations quoted him as saying Iran’s “enemies” will be defeated “just as Pharaoh was drowned.”
The apparent comparison was striking since Iranian leaders routinely call for Israel’s destruction, often describing the Jewish state as a “cancer” that must be wiped off the map.
Earlier this week, Tehran and Washington announced that diplomats from both countries will meet in Oman on Saturday to begin negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
US and Iranian officials have put out contradictory statements about whether the talks will be direct or indirect, the latter of which would involve Omani mediators passing messages between the sides.
As talks approach, Iran has warned that the country may suspend cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog if external military threats persist, following US President Donald Trump’s renewed warnings of military action should Tehran fail to reach a nuclear deal.
“Continued external threats and putting Iran under the conditions of a military attack could lead to deterrent measures like the expulsion of IAEA inspectors and ceasing cooperation with it,” Ali Shamkhani — an adviser to the country’s so-called “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — wrote in a post on X, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Friday that Trump wants Iran to know that there will be “all hell to pay” if it does not abandon its nuclear program, which Western countries believe is meant to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran claims its nuclear activities are purely for civilian energy purposes.
The negotiations will reportedly be led by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, with Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, serving as a mediator, as the country has long been a channel for communication between the two adversaries.
In response to the White House’s military threats, Iran issued notices to Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, and Bahrain, warning that any support for a US attack on Iran — including the use of their airspace or territory by American forces — would be considered an act of hostility.
During his first term, Trump withdrew the US from a 2015 nuclear deal — known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — between Iran and several world powers, which had imposed temporary limits on Tehran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
Since then, even though Tehran has denied wanting to develop a nuclear weapon, the IAEA has warned that Iran has “dramatically” accelerated uranium enrichment to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level and enough to build six nuclear bombs.
The post Iran’s Navy Chief Compares Tehran to Israelites Fleeing Pharaoh Ahead of Passover first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Passover BDS Referendum at Georgetown University Decried by Jewish Students
Anti-Israel activists protest at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. Photo: Andrew Thomas via Reuters Connect.
The group Students Supporting Israel (SSI) at Georgetown University is imploring President Robert Groves to halt what they describe as an antisemitic outrage caused by the student government’s placing an anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) referendum on the ballot during the Jewish holiday of Passover.
A slim of majority of the Georgetown University Student Association’s (GUSA) senators voted via secret ballot for a resolution to hold the referendum on April 14-16, according to a report by The Hoya, the school’s official campus newspaper. It will ask students to decide whether they “support … divesting from companies arming Israel and ending university partnerships with Israeli institutions.” Many GUSA senators, however, withheld their support from the measure due to its being passed under a cloud of controversy.
The resolution only passed because GUSA senators, the Hoya noted, “voted to break rules” which require referenda to be evaluated by the Policy and Advocacy Committee (PAC), a period of deliberation which establishes their merit, or lack thereof, for consideration by the senate. At least one GUSA senator, Saahil Rao, has gone on the record to denounce the skipping of this key step as “secretive and rushed,” echoing concerns communicated by SSI in a letter sent to Groves that was shared exclusively with The Algemeiner.
“This referendum, cloaked in the language, represents not only a troubling overstep into Georgetown’s academic and fiduciary independence but also a campaign rooted in the discriminatory logic of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement,” said the letter, which has attracted support from members of the US Congress. “The process by which this vote was initiated raises further alarm. Reports of procedural irregularities, including a violation of student government rules, call into question the legitimacy of the referendum and risk setting a precedent where activist agendas bypass due process to achieve political outcomes.”
It continued, “More broadly, the passage of this measure would not occur in isolation. It would embolden future efforts to marginalize Jewish and Israeli students, deepen campus polarization, and risk fueling the disturbing rise in antisemitism seen at other institutions. Universities that have permitted such one-sided campaigns are now facing not only fractured communities and repetitional harm but growing federal scrutiny — including potential impacts to public funding.”
On Friday, Georgetown University sophomore and SSI leader Jacob Integrator told The Algemeiner that the BDS referendum undermines the common interests of the Georgetown community, as it has fostered the impression GUSA would violate procedural norms to alienate groups because of their shared ancestry. Alleged impropriety has already compromised the referendum’s integrity, he stressed, adding that GUSA’s holding it at a time when Jewish students will be unable to express their opposition at the ballot box is, in addition to being undemocratic, morally reprehensible.
“Georgetown SSI supports free expression by all campus groups,” Integrator said. “However, we believe that GUSA’s diverging from its standard procedures and the vote being held on Passover is not affording the Jewish community a fair and inclusive opportunity to engage in the process, voice concerns, and participate in shaping a decision that directly affects them.”
The Algemeiner has asked Georgetown University to provide a comment for this story.
Georgetown is one of 60 colleges and universities being investigated by the federal government due to being deemed by the Trump administration as soft on antisemitism and excessively “woke.” Such inquiries have led to the scorching of several billion dollars’ worth of federal contracts and grants awarded to America’s most prestigious institutions of higher education.
The Trump administration recently paused nearly $1.8 billion in combined federal funding to Cornell University and Northwestern University.
In March, it cancelled $400 million in federal contracts and grants for Columbia University, a measure that secured the school’s acceding to a slew of demands the administration put forth as preconditions for restoring the money. Later, the Trump administration disclosed its reviewing $9 billion worth of funding Harvard University, jeopardizing a substantial source of the school’s income over its alleged failure to quell antisemitic and pro-Hamas activity on campus following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Princeton University saw $210 million of its federal grants and funding suspended too, prompting its president, Christopher Eisgruber to say the institution is “committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.”
Brown University’s federal funding is also reportedly at risk due to its alleged failure to mount a satisfactory response to the campus antisemitism crisis, as well as its embrace of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement — perceived by many across the political spectrum as an assault on merit-based upward mobility and causing incidents of anti-White and anti-Asian discrimination.
“Jewish students studying on elite US campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year,” US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement last month. “US colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by US taxpayers. That support is a privilege, and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Passover BDS Referendum at Georgetown University Decried by Jewish Students first appeared on Algemeiner.com.