RSS
Why Palestinian Terrorism Is Never Legal or Justified: A Fact-Based Retort
Partygoers at the Supernova Psy-Trance Festival who filmed the events that unfolded on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: Yes Studios
In a world of international anarchy, law-based counter-terrorism is never just about strategy, tactics, or doctrine. Whatever an insurgency’s specific features, this critical arena of national security planning should remain intellect-based and logic-centered.
For Israel in the Islamic Middle East, this means an ongoing awareness of enemy concepts of death. It signifies, among other things, that Israel’s counter-terrorism planners ought continuously to bear in mind the primacy of an historically under-examined form of geopolitical power.
This neglected form of power, abstract but incomparable, is “power over death” — meaning, in what manner should have jihadi promises of immortality been affected by the Assad regime collapse in Syriaand the still-unresolved Gaza War?
“An immortal person,” says Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, “is a contradiction in terms.” Accordingly, any promise of immortality to jihadi terrorists will be densely problematic. It will, however, still resonate among those many insurgents who routinely prefer mystery to reason.
Assuming that others use decision-making rationality often make sense in explaining world politics, but there remain enough significant exceptions to temper any mundane generalities.
If Israel’s national decision-makers were to survey the prevailing configuration of global jihadi terrorist organizations (Sunni and Shiite) from a suitably- augmented analytic standpoint, the nexus between “martyrdom operations” and “life-everlasting” could become more conspicuous and understandable.
At that point, Israel’s national security planners could begin to place themselves in a better position to deter murderous hostage-takers and suicide-bombers, in microcosm (i.e., as individual human terrorists) and in macrocosm (i.e., as law-violating organizations or states that support the terrorist microcosm).
Those jihadi insurgents who seek to justify gratuitously violent attacks on Israelis in the name of “martyrdom” are acting contrary to codified and customary international law.
All insurgents, even those who passionately claim “just cause,” must still satisfy longstanding jurisprudential limits on permissible targets and levels of violence. Moreover, as a binding matter of law, such limits can never be tempered by any actively contending claims of religious faith. Under law, Palestinian claims of insurgency “by any means necessary” remain nothing more than an empty witticism.
Under established rules, even the allegedly “sacred” rights of insurgency always exclude any deliberate targeting of civilians or any intentional use of force to inflict unnecessary suffering. When Hamas terrorists kidnapped and beheaded Israeli infants on October 7, 2023, they were acting not on behalf of sovereignty or self-determination, but rather to cultivate the grotesque pleasures of a lascivious barbarism.
Law and strategy are interrelated. At the same time, they remain analytically distinct. The legal “bottom line” is unambiguous: Violence becomes terrorism whenever “political” insurgents murder or maim noncombatants, whether with guns, knives, bombs or automobiles. Always irrelevant to assessments of “just means” (jus in bello) is whether the expressed cause of terror-violence is just or unjust (jus ad bellum). Under the universal “law of nations,” unjust means used to fight for allegedly just ends are still law-breaking ipso facto.
Sometimes, Israel’s martyrdom-seeking jihadi foes advance the supposedly legal argument of tu quoque. This argument stipulates that because “the other side” is guilty of similar, equivalent or even greater criminality, “our side” is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Jurisprudentially, any such argument is disingenuous and incorrect, especially after landmark legal judgments by the Nuremberg (Germany) and Far East (Japan) ad hoc tribunals. Historically, tu quoque is always an immutably discredited posture.
For conventional armies and insurgent forces, the right to use military force can never supplant “peremptory” rules of humanitarian international law. Nonetheless, without a scintilla of law-based evidence, supporters of jihadi terror-violence against Israeli noncombatants continuously insist that “ends justify means.”
Leaving aside the ordinary ethical standards by which any such argument should be dismissed on its face, ends can never justify means in the law of armed conflict. Indeed, there can be no authoritative argument against this civilizing affirmation.
Witless banalities of politics ought never be taken as valid expectations of international law. In such law, whether codified or customary, one person’s terrorist can never be another’s “freedom-fighter.”
It’s really not complicated. Whenever an insurgent group resorts to unjust means, its actions constitute terrorism. Even if adversarial claims of a hostile controlling power could be plausible or acceptable (e.g., relentless Palestinian claims concerning an Israeli “occupation”), corollary claims of entitlement to “any means necessary” remain false.
Recalling Hague Convention No. IV: “The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.”
What about Israeli attacks on Gaza targets? Though Israel’s bombardments of Gaza are spawned multiple Palestinian casualties, the legal responsibility for these harms lay entirely with Hamas “perfidy” or “human shields.” While Palestinian casualties were always unwanted, inadvertent and unintentional, Israeli civilian deaths and injuries were always the result of jihadi criminal intent or “mens rea.”
International law does not provide an intuitive or subjective set of standards. This law has determinable form and content. Therefore, it can never be casually invented or reinvented by terror groups to justify selective adversarial interests. This is especially the case when inhumane terror-violence intentionally targets a designated victim state’s most fragile and vulnerable civilians. Murdering captive infants is never defensible. Never.
National liberation” movements that fail to meet the test of just means can never be protected as lawful or legitimate in themselves. Even if relevant law were to accept the questionable argument that jihadi terror groups had fulfilled all valid criteria of “national liberation,” these groups would still fail to satisfy equally significant jurisprudential standards of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
These standards were specifically applied to insurgent or sub-state organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and (additionally) by the two 1977 Protocols to these Conventions.
There is more. Standards of “humanity” remain binding upon all combatants by virtue of the broader norms of customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. This rule, commonly called the “Martens Clause,” makes “all persons” responsible for the “laws of humanity” and for associated “dictates of public conscience.” There can be no exceptions to this universal responsibility.
Under international law, terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation in both apprehension and punishment. As punishers of “grave breaches” under international law, all states are expected to search out and prosecute or extradite individual terrorists. This is emphatically true for the United States, which incorporates international law as the “supreme law of the land” at Article 6 of the Constitution.
For the foreseeable future, jihadi “martyrs” could present an incrementally existential threat to Israel. If these criminals should ever get their hands on usable fissile materials, however, this threat could become more immediately existential. This does not mean that terrorists would necessarily require a “chain-reaction” nuclear explosive, but only the essential ingredients for an advanced radiation dispersal device.
In a worst case scenario, jihadi use of radiation dispersal weapons against Israel could spur Iran into protracted and enlarged military conflict with Israel. At that unpredictable point, Israel’s policy considerations of adversarial “last things” could become all-important.
In essence, for Israel, a jihadist enemy that links terror-violence to faith-based hopes of immortality could pose an incomparable threat. To suitably deter this fearsome peril, Israel’s national security planners should more expressly examine all strategic, geographic, and legal dimensions of the problem. For these science-based planners, jihadi searches for “power over death” ought immediately to become a subject of highest policy urgency.
Prof. 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, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018).
The post Why Palestinian Terrorism Is Never Legal or Justified: A Fact-Based Retort first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Slams Mamdani For Defense of ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Slogan as Pressure Mounts on Presumptive Mayoral Nominee
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand speaks during the second night of the first Democratic presidential candidates debate in Miami, Florida, US Photo: June 27, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Segar.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has condemned presumptive New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani for his defense of the controversial phrase “globalize the intifada.”
During a Thursday appearance on Brian Lehrer’s WNYC radio show, Gillibrand called on Mamdani to distance himself from the phase, arguing that it endangers Jewish citizens of New York City. Gillibrand added that many of her Jewish constituents are “alarmed” at Mamdani’s defense of the slogan.
“As a leader of a city as diverse as New York City, with 8 million people, as the largest Jewish population in the country, he should denounce it,” she said. “That’s it. Period. You can’t celebrate it. You can’t value it. You can’t lift it up. That is the challenge that Jewish New Yorkers have had certainly since … Oct. 7. It is exactly what they have felt.”
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) , issued a statement urging all participant in the Big Apple’s mayoral race to forcefully condemn antisemitism and anti-Jewish rhetoric.
“At this time of record antisemitism, our country needs leaders at all levels who are unequivocal in condemning this oldest of hatreds,” Greenblatt said in a news release. “We call on all candidates not only to condemn and avoid using language that is harmful to the Jewish community, but also to disassociate themselves and publicly disavow it.”
Greenblatt stressed that the ADL will be “forthright in calling out antisemitism during this campaign season, whatever the source,” and called on candidates to lay out specific plans to support New York’s Jewish community.
New York City, home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, experienced a surge of incidents in 2024 alone, more than any other U.S. metropolitan area, according to ADL’s annual audit.
The organization pointed to phrases like “globalize the Intifada,” the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)” movement, and the slogan “From the River to the Sea” as examples of rhetoric that undermines Jewish safety and legitimacy. According to the ADL, such language invokes a decades-old history of attacks on Jews, denies the Jewish right to self-determination, and often serves to incite violence.
In addition to calling out antisemitic speech, the ADL is pressing candidates to explain how they will ensure the safety and security of the Jewish community while upholding their constitutional rights. This includes protecting the ability of Jewish New Yorkers to live, worship, work, and gather without fear of harassment, and to guard against the demonization of Jews, including Israelis.
“Antisemitic rhetoric should have no place in our electoral discourse,” Greenblatt said. “We need to know the specific plans of candidates to support the Jewish community. This is an issue for all candidates to explain in detail where they stand.”
Mamdani, a progressive representative in the New York State Assembly, has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani, but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has indicated interest in meeting with the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement.
The post Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Slams Mamdani For Defense of ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Slogan as Pressure Mounts on Presumptive Mayoral Nominee first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Rejects US Talks, Signals It May Block UN From Nuclear Sites as Trump Leaves Door Open to Future Bombings
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addresses a special session of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, June 20, 2025. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
Iran announced Friday that it will not engage in nuclear talks with the United States, rejecting a two-week deadline set by US President Donald Trump for renewed negotiations aimed at resolving the ongoing standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.
In a televised speech, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned what he described as Washington’s “complicity in the Israeli regime’s war of aggression against Iran,” and slammed recent US military strikes as a betrayal of diplomacy and a blow to any prospects for dialogue.
“Americans want to negotiate and have sent messages several times, but we clearly said that as long as [the Israeli] aggression doesn’t stop, there’s no place for dialogue,” the top Iranian diplomat said in an address on state television.
“No agreement has been made on the restart of negotiations. There has not even been any talk of negotiations,” Araghchi continued. “The subject of negotiations is out of question at present.”
However, he reassured that Tehran remains committed to diplomacy, but the decision to resume negotiations with Washington must be carefully evaluated.
“It is still early to say that the conditions are right for negotiations,” Araghchi said.
Meanwhile, Trump said he would consider carrying out further strikes on Iran if US intelligence reveals new concerns about the country’s uranium enrichment program.
“Sure, without question, absolutely,” Trump said Friday during a press briefing when asked if a second wave of bombings was possible.
During his speech, he also addressed the recent American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, acknowledging that the damage was significant but adding that the regime is still assessing its full extent.
For its part, US intelligence officials have reported that Tehran’s nuclear sites were “severely damaged” during the American airstrikes last weekend.
Araghchi’s comments came as he met on Friday with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas in Geneva — marking their first meeting since the Iran-Israel war began.
Europe is actively urging Iran to reengage in talks with the White House in an effort to avert any further escalation of tensions.
In a post on X, Araghchi also announced that Iran may reject any requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, to visit the country’s nuclear sites.
He said this latest decision was “a direct result of [IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi]’s regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency — a full decade ago — already closed all past issues.”
“Through this malign action, he directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA BoG [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” the Iranian top diplomas said in a post on X.
“In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has additionally failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi continued.
The Parliament of Iran has voted for a halt to collaboration with the IAEA until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed.
This is a direct result of @rafaelmgrossi‘s regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency—a full decade ago—already…
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 27, 2025
Iran’s critique of Grossi comes as the Iranian parliament voted this week to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi wrote in his post on X.
The post Iran Rejects US Talks, Signals It May Block UN From Nuclear Sites as Trump Leaves Door Open to Future Bombings first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Argentina to Try Iranian, Lebanese Suspects in Absentia Over 1994 AMIA Bombing in Historic Legal Shift
People hold images of the victims of the 1994 bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community center, marking the 30th anniversary of the attack, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Irina Dambrauskas
A federal judge in Argentina has ordered the trial in absentia of ten Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of orchestrating the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.
The ten suspects set to stand trial include former Iranian and Lebanese ministers and diplomats, all of whom are subject to international arrest warrants issued by Argentina for their alleged roles in the country’s deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.
In April, lead prosecutor Sebastián Basso — who took over the case after the 2015 murder of his predecessor, Alberto Nisman — requested that federal Judge Daniel Rafecas issue national and international arrest warrants for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over his alleged involvement in the attack.
This legal action marks a significant departure from Argentina’s previous stance in the case, under which the Iranian leader was regarded as having diplomatic immunity.
Since 2006, Argentine authorities have sought the arrest of eight Iranians — including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who died in 2017 — yet more than three decades after the deadly bombing, all suspects remain still at large.
Thursday’s ruling marks the first time Argentina will try suspects in absentia, following a legal change in March that lifted the requirement for defendants to be physically present in court.
This latest legal move comes amid a renewed push for justice, with President Javier Milei vowing to hold those responsible for the attack accountable.
Among those accused of involvement in the terrorist attack are Ali Fallahijan, Iran’s intelligence and security minister from 1989 to 1997; Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister; Mohsen Rezai, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps between 1993 and 1994; and Hadi Soleimanpour, former Iranian ambassador to Buenos Aires.
Also implicated are former Al Quds commander Ahmad Vahidi; Iranian diplomat Ahmad Reza Asghari; Mohsen Rabbani, the former cultural attaché at Iran’s embassy in Argentina; and Hezbollah operatives Salman Raouf Salman, Abdallah Salman, and Hussein Mounir Mouzannar.
According to Judge Rafecas, the defendants were declared in contempt of court years ago, remain fully informed of their legal standing, and have consistently disregarded multiple extradition requests.
He said that trying the suspects in absentia would give the courts a chance to “at least uncover the truth and piece together what happened.”
This latest decision acknowledges “the material impossibility of securing the defendants’ presence and the nature of the crime against humanity under investigation,” Rafecas said.
“It is essential to proceed … to prevent the perpetuation of impunity,” he continued.
Despite Argentina’s longstanding belief that Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah terrorist group carried out the devastating attack at Iran’s request, the 1994 bombing has never been claimed or officially solved.
Meanwhile, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement and has refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.
To this day, the decades-long investigation into the terror attack has been plagued by allegations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, cover-ups, and annulled trials.
In 2006, former prosecutor Nisman formally charged Iran for orchestrating the attack and Hezbollah for carrying it out.
Nine years later, he accused former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner — currently under house arrest on corruption charges — of attempting to cover up the crime and block efforts to extradite the suspects behind the AMIA atrocity in return for Iranian oil.
Nisman was killed later that year, and to this day, both his case and murder remain unresolved and under ongoing investigation.
The alleged cover-up was reportedly formalized through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2013 between Kirchner’s government and Iranian authorities, with the stated goal of cooperating to investigate the AMIA bombing.
Last year, Argentina’s second-highest court ruled that the 1994 attack in Buenos Aires was “organized, planned, financed, and executed under the direction of the authorities of the Islamic State of Iran, within the framework of Islamic Jihad.” The court also said that the bombing was carried out by Hezbollah terrorists responding to “a political and strategic design” by Iran.
The court additionally ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1992 truck bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people and injured 200 others.
Judges determined that the bombing of the Israeli Embassy was likely carried out in retaliation for then-President Carlos Menem’s cancellation of three agreements with Iran involving nuclear equipment and technology.
The post Argentina to Try Iranian, Lebanese Suspects in Absentia Over 1994 AMIA Bombing in Historic Legal Shift first appeared on Algemeiner.com.