RSS
Here Is Exactly Why Israel’s War Against Hamas Is Legal — and Required — By International Law
An Israeli military vehicle patrols on the Israeli side of the Gaza border, May 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israel has always had to navigate “new waves.” Today, however, separate but force-multiplying “seas” of jihadi terrorism and Iranian nuclearization define an existential threat. To confront this, Jerusalem’s strategic decision-makers will need to offer assessments in legal and strategic terms.
On these matters, geography remains specific. Gaza is often center stage, and Gazan Palestinians are portrayed as victims of incessant harms. Though the death and victimization of so many Gaza noncombatants seems difficult to reconcile with humanitarian international law, there exists a clarifying distinction between jihadist-inflicted terror violence and Israeli-inflicted defensive measures — measures needed by Israel to survive as a state.
This distinction centers on “criminal intent” or mens rea. For Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, the Houthis and assorted other Islamist foes, mens rea is conspicuous and indisputable. These groups aim to kill civilians.
For Israel, on the other hand, it is absent prima facie. Though Gaza civilians do not deserve to suffer the harms of any military attacks, legal responsibility for these attacks does not lie with Israel. It lies with those Palestinian leadership cadres that insidiously place military assets within normally-protected civilian structures — and that launched this war with its massacre against Israel on Oct. 7, which it has threatened to repeat “over and over” if it stays in power.
Critics of Israel’s Gaza policies should consider an elucidating analogy from domestic law. In national or “municipal” legal settings, no reasonable comparisons can be made between the crime of murder and police action to stop murder. In the first case, the grievously inflicted harms are intentional. In the second case, they are unavoidable.
International law is not a suicide pact. As is the case for every state in world politics, Israel has an immutable right to “stay alive.”
To protect itself against the sorts of lascivious harms perpetrated on October 7, 2023, Jerusalem has not only the right — but the obligation to prevent Israel’s planned “elimination.” This primary obligation extends beyond Israel to the entire community of nations.
In its current law-enforcing war against jihadist terror — in Gaza, but also in Yemen, Lebanon, Judea/Samaria (West Bank), and various other places — Israel is acting on behalf of all imperiled or “at risk” states.
While this assessment has been difficult to acknowledge by those who see only the tangible effects of Israeli counter-terrorism efforts, it is still supported by applicable legal standards, especially the long-established principle of “mutual aid.” By this immutable principle, each state is obligated to assist other states threatened by terror-violence.
The Nuremberg Principles (especially Principle 1) stipulate “No crime without a punishment” (Nullum crimen sine poena). There would have been no Gaza war and no Palestinian casualties if Hamas had not launched its October 7, 2023, criminal assault against noncombatant Israelis, some under five years old, with civilians repeatedly raped (male and female) and ceremoniously burned alive.
Among the jurisprudentially-vacant charges leveled against Israel in its necessary Gaza War operations is “disproportionality.” But what exactly does this charge mean under humanitarian international law?
Though counter-intuitive, proportionality has nothing to do with any obligation to inflict symmetrical or equivalent harms.
The law-based obligations of “proportional combat” are contained in rules governing resort to armed conflict (“justice of war”) and the operational conduct of hostilities (“justice in war”). In the former, proportionality concerns existential rights of national self-defense. In the latter, it references the manner in which a particular belligerency is being conducted.
Proportionality derives from a more basic legal principle, namely that belligerent rights of insurgent groups and nation-states always have specific limitations. To wit, the ubiquitous Hamas declaration that the organization is entitled to fight “by any means necessary” contravenes Hague Convention No. IV (1907), Annex to the Convention, Section II (Hostilities), Art. 22: “The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.”
Unlike Israel, which plainly regrets the collateral damage of its mandatory self-defense war in Gaza, Hamas rocket fire and variegated terror attacks are the express product of openly “criminal intent.”
There is more. Unlike Israel, Hamas actively seeks to target, maim and kill noncombatants. Under humanitarian international law, a belligerent’s resort to armed force always remains limited to what is “necessary” to meet allowable military objectives. The related notion of “military necessity” is defined as follows: “Only that degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required for the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life, and physical resources may be applied.”
We generally speak of “international” law, but belligerents include not only nation-states, but also insurgent and terrorist armed forces. This means that even where an insurgency is presumptively lawful — that is, where it seemingly meets the settled criteria of “just cause” — it must still satisfy all corollary expectations of “just means.” It follows that even if Hamas and its sister terror groups could have a presumptive right to fight against an alleged Israeli “occupation,” that fight would need to respect the established limitations of “distinction,” “proportionality” and “military necessity.”
Deliberately firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas and intentionally placing military assets amid civilian populations represents a “perfidious” crime of war. And any taking of civilian hostages, whatever the alleged cause, represents an unpardonable criminality.
If a “common-sense” definition of proportionality was ever deemed appropriate, there could be no legitimate defense for America’s “disproportionate” attacks on European and Japanese cities during World War II. By that standard, Dresden, Cologne, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would represent the incontestable nadir of inhumane and lawless belligerency. Expressed differently, these US attack histories would represent the modern world’s very worst violations of humanitarian international law.
Hamas’ perfidy represents a much greater wrongdoing than simple immorality or visceral cowardice. It expresses a starkly delineated and punishable crime. It is identified as a “grave breach” at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV.
Deception can be lawful in armed conflict, but The Hague Regulations disallow any placement of military assets or personnel in populated civilian areas. Related prohibitions of perfidy can be found at Protocol I of 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. These rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law, a principal jurisprudential source identified at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
All combatants, including Palestinian insurgents allegedly fighting for “self-determination,” are bound by the law of war. This rudimentary requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. It cannot be suspended or abrogated.
On its face, the expressed Hamas goal of Palestinian “self-determination” is founded on an intended crime — that is, the total “removal” of the Jewish State by attrition and annihilation.
This literally genocidal orientation has its origins in the PLO’s “Phased Plan” of June 9, 1974. In its 12th Session, the PLO’s highest deliberative body, the Palestinian National Council, reiterated the terror-organization’s aim “to achieve their rights to return, and to self-determination on the whole of their homeland.”
For Israel, the core existential threat is no longer “Pan-Arab War.” At some still-ambiguous point, Hamas and other jihadi forces (plausibly, with Iranian support) could prepare to launch mega-terror attacks on Israel. Such potentially perfidious aggressions, unprecedented and in cooperation with allied non-Palestinian Jihadists (e.g., Shiite Hezbollah) could include chemical, biological, or radiological (radiation-dispersal) weapons.
Foreseeable perils could also include a non-nuclear terrorist attack on the Israeli reactor at Dimona. There is a documented history of enemy assaults against this Israeli plutonium-production facility, both by a state (Iraq in 1991) and by a Palestinian terror group (Hamas in 2014). Neither attack was successful, but variously fearful precedents were established.
Under international law, terrorists are considered hostes humani generis or “common enemies of humankind.” This category of criminals invites punishment wherever the wrongdoers can be found. Concerning their required arrest and prosecution, jurisdiction is now unambiguously “universal.” Correspondingly relevant is that the universality-declaring Nuremberg Principles reaffirm the ancient legal principle of “No crime without a punishment.”
In the end, Hamas and its kindred jihadi forces argue they are fighting a “just war” and are therefore entitled to employ “any means necessary.” Under determinative international law, however, even a just war must be fought with “just means.” Ends can never justify means.
A corollary clarification is warranted: Rights can never stem from wrongs (ex iniuria ius non oritur). Under no circumstances can there be law-based justifications for inherently-criminal terror-violence. To suggest otherwise would be an oxymoron.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the forerunner of both Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) and the Palestinian Authority was formed in 1964. This formation was three years before there were any “Israeli Occupied Territories.” So what exactly were the Palestinians trying to “liberate”?
It’s not a hard question. The answer remains incontestable. “Palestine” is everything “From the River to the Sea.” By unwavering design, it includes the entire State of Israel.
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 Here Is Exactly Why Israel’s War Against Hamas Is Legal — and Required — By International Law first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Launches New Academic Partnerships With Israel Amid Trump Funding Fight
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University has announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions, a move which appears aimed at reversing an impression that the institution is ideologically anti-Zionist and content with antisemitic discrimination being an allegedly daily occurrence on its campus.
As first reported by The Harvard Crimson, Harvard will hold a study abroad program, in partnership with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, for undergraduate students and a postdoctoral fellowship in which Harvard Medical School faculty will mentor and train newly credentialed Israeli scientists in biomedical research as preparation for the next stages of their careers. The campus paper — which in 2022 endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — said the programs constitute a “dramatic expansion of the university’s academic and institutional ties to Israel.”
Speaking to the Crimson, Harvard vice provost for international affairs Mark Elliot trumpeted the announcement as a positive development and, notably, as a continuation, not a beginning, of Harvard’s “engagement with institutions of higher education across Israel.” Elliot also said Harvard is planning “increased academic collaboration across the region in the coming years.”
The new partnerships with Israel come only months after Harvard paused its relationship with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. They also coincide with the university’s titanic legal fight against the federal government to reclaim over $3 billion worth of taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts the Trump administration impounded to pressure school officials into a process of rehabilitation and reform that will see it discontinue a slew of practices conservatives have cited as causing campus antisemitism, as well as the hollowing out of American values.
Since that first step, the Trump administration has continued backing Harvard into a corner.
In June, the Trump administration issued it a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
Sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, it charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a deluge of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus. It concluded with a threat to cancel all federal funding for Harvard.
Amid this policy offensive, interim Harvard president Alan Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
Garber “did not discuss how close a deal could be,” the Crimson reported, “and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying out the steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the university and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
In a new conciliatory move reported by the Crimson, Harvard closed its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, packing up the staff and transferring them to what will become, the Crimson said, a “new Office of Culture and Community.” It added that Harvard has “worked to strip all references to DEI … from their websites and official titles.”
Harvard will continue dealing with the fallout of its campus antisemitism problem for the foreseeable future.
Earlier this month, it was sued by a Jewish student who claims that he was exposed to antisemitic abuse because the university refused to intervene and correct a hostile environment even as his bullies’ misconduct escalated to include violence.
The mammoth complaint, totaling 124 pages, lays out the case that the university miscarried justice in the aftermath of two students’ public assault on recent Harvard Business School graduate Yoav Segev during the fall semester of the 2023-2024 academic year — just weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre — by refusing to discipline them and even rewarding them the university’s highest honors.
Segev endured a mobbing of pro-Hamas activists led by Ibrahim Bharmal and Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, who stalked him across Harvard Yard before encircling him and screaming “Shame! Shame! Shame!” as he struggled to break free from the mass of bodies which surrounded him. Video of the incident, widely viewed online at the time, showed the crush of people shoving keffiyehs — traditional headdresses worn by men in the Middle East that in some circles have come to symbolize Palestinian nationalism — in the face of the student, whom they had identified as Jewish.
“This malicious, violent, and antisemitic conduct violated several university policies — such as its anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies — and it prompted criminal charges,” the complaint says. “No one doubts for a second that Harvard would have taken swift, aggressive, and public actions to enforce its policies had the victim been one of Harvard’s ‘favored’ minorities … Harvard’s antisemitic discrimination against Mr. Segev is far more sinister than inaction and indifference. Harvard did everything it could to defend, protect, and reward the assailants; to impede the criminal investigation; and to prevent Mr. Segev from obtaining administrative relief from the university.”
It continues, “Harvard’s antisemitic intent is obvious. Several of its faculty publicly supported the attacker and tried to blame the victim (because, the faculty said, his Jewish presence was ‘threatening’ to other students). And, of course, hundreds of rabidly anti-Israel students disrupting campus life pressured the Harvard administration. Ultimately, and shamefully, the university kowtowed to the antisemitic mob it had allowed to take over its campus.”
Alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, breach of contract, and conspiracy to deny civil rights, the suit demands all relevant recompense, including damages and the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Hezbollah Chief Rejects Disarmament Amid US and Lebanese Pressure, Accuses Washington of Aiding Israel
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem delivers a speech from an unknown location, Nov. 20, 2024, in this still image from video. Photo: REUTERS TV/Al Manar TV via REUTERS.
Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem has once again rejected calls for the Lebanon-based terrorist group to disarm, saying such demands only serve Israel’s interests amid mounting pressure from the United States and the Lebanese government.
“Those who call for us to surrender our weapons are practically asking us to hand them over to Israel. We will not submit to Israel,” Qassem said in a televised speech on Wednesday.
“The US is destroying Lebanon in order to help the Zionist enemy [Israel],” he continued.
Washington and Beirut have engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations in recent weeks over a US proposal to fully disarm the Iran-backed terrorist group, which for years as held significant political power in Lebanon.
The latest proposal calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
“The US wants to use Lebanon as a tool to implement its own greater Middle East scheme,” Qassem said during his speech.
“The US is complicit in Israel’s violations of the ceasefire and is fueling tensions among Lebanese factions,” the terrorist leader continued.
Washington’s proposal initially called for the Lebanese government to pass a cabinet decision committing to Hezbollah’s disarmament — a step the US is now actively pushing for before resuming talks on ending Israeli military operations.
Despite growing diplomatic pressure, the Lebanese terrorist group has repeatedly rejected demands to surrender its weapons.
“Resistance in Lebanon has proved to be one of the pillars of state construction. Hezbollah’s weapons will be used to protect Lebanon against the Zionist enemy,” Qassem said. “All those who demand Hezbollah’s disarmament are serving the Israeli plot. The resistance will never agree to hand over its weapons to the Zionist enemy.”
Qassem also argued that increasing demands for Hezbollah’s disarmament are driven by Israel’s fear of the Islamist group and accused US special envoy Thomas Barrack of protecting Israeli interests at the expense of Lebanon’s security.
“Israel will not be able to defeat us, and it will not be able to take Lebanon hostage,” he said.
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on northern Israel — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — decrying “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
RSS
France Demands Probe Into Refugee Vetting Process as Gazan Expelled by Top University Over Antisemitic Posts
A flag is flown during a protest in support of Palestinians in Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, outside the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, France, Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
A Palestinian from Gaza studying at the prestigious Sciences Po Lille has been expelled after French authorities discovered hundreds of antisemitic social media posts, including praise for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and calls for the murder of Jews.
The episode has led ministers in the French government to demand answers and push for an investigation into the vetting process that allowed the Gazan student to enter France in the first place.
After receiving a scholarship, 25-year-old Nour Atalla arrived in France earlier this year, planning to begin her law and communications studies at the Institute of Political Science in Lille, northern France.
She is one of 292 Gazans admitted to the country with support from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, following a court ruling that opened the door for Gazans to seek refugee status based on their nationality.
On Wednesday, the university announced it had revoked Atalla’s enrollment after hundreds of her past antisemitic and violent social media posts went viral, sparking widespread condemnation from political leaders and members of the local Jewish community.
In several of these posts, she glorified Hitler, praised Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, called for the execution of Israeli hostages and the killing of Jews, and expressed support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
“The content of these posts directly contradicts the core values of Sciences Po Lille, which actively opposes all forms of racism, antisemitism, and discrimination, as well as any incitement to hatred toward any group,” the university said in a post on X.
Le contenu de ces publications entre en contradiction frontale avec les valeurs portées par Sciences Po Lille, qui lutte contre toute forme de racisme, antisémitisme et discrimination, ainsi que contre tout type d’appel à la haine, contre quelque population que ce soit.
— Sciences Po Lille (@ScPoLille) July 30, 2025
In one post, Atalla shared a video of Hitler giving a speech about Jews, writing. “Kill their young and their old. Show them no mercy … And kill them everywhere.”
In another post shared on Oct. 7, 2023, she wrote, “We must do everything we can to match the bloodshed — as much as possible.”
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, kidnapped 251 hostages, and perpetrated widespread sexual violence during their Oct. 7 onslaught, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
After the posts went viral, French politician Matthias Renault of the far-right National Rally party condemned Atalla’s antisemitic views and called on Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau to revoke her asylum status.
“These repeated views pose a serious threat to French society,” Renault said.
In a statement on X, Retailleau announced that he had ordered legal action to be taken against Atalla and “immediately requested the closure of this hateful account.”
“A Palestinian student, admitted to our country through a procedure beyond our Ministry’s authority, made statements that are entirely unacceptable and deeply concerning,” the French official posted.
“There is no place for Hamas sympathizers in our country,” he continued.
Présente sur notre territoire, en raison d’une procédure d’entrée pour laquelle notre ministère n’est pas compétent, une étudiante palestinienne a tenu des propos inacceptables et inquiétants.
J’ai immédiatement demandé de faire fermer ce compte haineux, et donné instruction au… https://t.co/uONrjoEekl
— Bruno Retailleau (@BrunoRetailleau) July 30, 2025
Philippe Baptiste, the French minister responsible for higher education and research, expressed similar outrage, noting he referred to the matter to law enforcement for potential prosecution.
“France does not have to welcome international students who advocate for terrorism, crimes against humanity, and antisemitism,” he said on X. “Whether they come from Gaza or elsewhere, international students holding or relaying such statements have no place in our country. Nor on our territory. Within the government, we will take the necessary steps to ensure that the case of the Palestinian student welcomed at Sciences-Po Lille, who relayed statements of extreme gravity on social networks, is handled with the utmost firmness. I have already referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor under Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called for an investigation into the screening process that allowed Atalla to enter the country.
“A Gazan student making antisemitic remarks has no place in France,” he posted. “The screenings carried out by the competent services of the relevant ministries have clearly not worked. I have requested that an internal investigation be conducted to ensure this cannot happen again under any circumstances.”
Like many countries around the world, France has seen an alarming rise in antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel sentiment since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The growing wave of anti-Jewish hatred is fueled in part by a rapidly expanding Muslim population from the Middle East and North Africa — a result of ongoing migration trends in France.
The local Jewish community in France has consistently called on authorities to take swift action against the rising wave of targeted attacks and anti-Jewish hate crimes they continue to face.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron announced last week that the country will recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September — part of its “commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” — and is now urging other nations to join this initiative.
Israeli officials have condemned such a move, calling it a “reward for terrorism.”
The decision came after Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia officially recognized a Palestinian state last year, claiming that such a move would contribute to fostering a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and promote lasting peace in the region.
Following France’s announcement, Germany said it was not planning to recognize a Palestinian state in the short term, and Italy argued that recognition must occur simultaneously with the recognition of Israel by the new entity.
However, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told his cabinet on Tuesday that Britain will recognize a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the “appalling situation” in Gaza.