Uncategorized
Is This Really a ‘Peace’ Agreement? History Says No

An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
Whatever else is offered under the Israel-Hamas agreement, offering Palestinian statehood would undermine authoritative international law. To wit, beyond any reasonable doubt, both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas have been responsible for decades of barbarous anti-Israel terrorism. Moreover, the entities that operate this continuous criminality have never sought a Palestinian Arab state that would co-exist with the existing Jewish State. Always, its unhidden objective is to destroy Israel.
Corroborative evidence of this is abundant. In this “One-State Solution,” all of Israel would become part of “Palestine.” Already, on official PA and Hamas maps, all of Israel, not just Judea/Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza, is identified as “Occupied Palestine.” Cartographically, therefore, Israel has already been removed.
The PA and Hamas both remain clear about their commitment to terror-violence as the sole path to Palestinian “self-determination.” It follows that Palestinian prisoners now being exchanged for Israeli hostages will escalate criminal harms against the innocent. In all likelihood, the Trump-brokered agreement will set the stage for a force-multiplying encore of October 7 defilements. Significantly, previous prisoner releases by Israel produced new waves of anti-Israel terrorism.
In the future, what should Jerusalem say to new victim families of agreement-generated crimes?
Plausibly, over time, some freed terrorists will likely plan calibrated escalations to chemical, biological, or nuclear (radiation dispersal) terrorism. Also likely will be variously coordinated rocket attacks on Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona. Though generally forgotten, Hamas already launched such an attack in the past, but was not yet technically able to inflict serious levels of destruction. This earlier terrorist incapacity is rapidly disappearing.
Terrorism is a codified and customary crime under binding international law. Its explicit criminalization can be discovered at all listed sources of the UN’s Statute of the International Court of Justice. This signifies that whenever Palestinian jihadists claim the right to use “any means necessary” against an Israeli “occupation,” their arguments are unsupportable in relevant law.
After the “peace agreement,” the PA and Hamas will mirror their long-bloodied past. From the beginning, all supporters of Palestinian terror-violence against Israelis have maintained that the “sacred” end of Palestinian insurgency justifies the means. Leaving aside the everyday and ordinary ethical standards by which any such argument must be unacceptable, ends can never justify means under conventional or customary international law
Empty Palestinian witticisms notwithstanding, one person’s terrorist can never be another’s freedom-fighter.
While it is true that certain insurgencies can be lawful (for prominent example, “just cause” is at the heart of the US Declaration of Independence), even residually permissible resorts to force must conform to humanitarian international law. These resorts are distinction, proportionality, and military necessity — standards that were made applicable to insurgent armed forces by Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols to these Conventions.
Regarding the rule of “proportionality,” this does not demand equivalent or symmetrical force, only force that is measured against clearly-stated and legitimate goals.
Whenever an insurgent force resorts to unjust means, its actions become terroristic ipso facto. Even if ritualistic Palestinian claims of an Israeli “occupation” were reasonable, any corresponding right to oppose Israel “by any means necessary” would be false. Specifically, any openly unjust means would be an expression of criminal terrorism.
These unchallengeable or “peremptory” legal standards are also binding on all combatants by virtue of customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention (1907). This foundational rule, called the “Martens Clause,” makes all persons responsible for upholding the “laws of humanity” and the “dictates of public conscience.”
History deserves some pride of place. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, three years before there were any “occupied territories.” What, therefore, was the PLO attempting to “liberate” between 1964 and 1967? There can be only one logical answer.
In law, terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment. As punishers of “grave breaches” under our decentralized system of international law, a system created after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, all states are required to search out and prosecute, or to extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators. In no circumstances are states permitted to treat terrorists as “freedom fighters.”
There is more. States are never authorized to support terror-violence against other states, whether by direct action or by acting within protective terms of an international agreement. This is emphatically true for the United States, which identifies international law as the “supreme law of the land” at Article 6 of the Constitution and at assorted Supreme Court decisions. The American nation was formed by its Founding Fathers according to timeless legal principles of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries and the Hebrew Bible.
If the Trump-brokered Israel-Hamas agreement leads to Palestinian statehood, Israel could expect tangible enlargements of terror violence. And because some of the new state’s assaults on Israel would be ones of direct military action rather than insurgency, international law would identify these actions as “crimes of war.” Here, the only decipherable changes would be linguistic.
There is one final observation. As the Israel-Hamas agreement coincides with President Trump’s new mutual security pact with Doha, Palestinian terrorists and war criminals who flee to Qatar would be granted immunity from law-based punishments. Very quickly, such immunization could lead Hamas and other jihadi fighters to implement new and more insidious cycles of terrorist assault. None of these agreement outcomes could reasonably be called “peace.”
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).
Uncategorized
Think the left is politically violent? Young Republicans have a wake-up call for you
“I love Hitler,” one individual wrote, in leaked texts from a Young Republicans group chat that Politico reported on earlier this week. Over the course of several months earlier this year, the chat’s participants talked about sending those who worked against them in their quest for political power to gas chambers. One person, referring to a Jewish colleague, wrote that a fellow texter was giving “the Jew” too much credit.
Condemnation came quickly — but not from the White House.
While some members of the chat were fired by their Republican bosses, and others found their chapters of the Young Republicans disbanded, the reaction from the top was defensive. Vice President JD Vance downplayed the texts by comparing them to violent texts sent in 2022 by Jay Jones, who is running to be Virginia’s attorney general. “This is far worse than anything said in a college group chat, and the guy who said it could become the AG of Virginia,” Vance posted on X.
But in attempting to deflect attention from the violent fantasies of GOP youth, Vance actually highlighted why they’re so concerning. If our collective understanding of whose urges toward political violence matter most hinges on the question of who has power, we should be more concerned by those urges on the right.
Yes, even when they’re expressed in a “college group chat” with limited practical influence. Because when we look at who actually has power in this country, we can see quite clearly that it’s the reactionary right. The chat is yet more evidence of the ways in which that political sector has normalized and elevated violent, extremist hatred, including antisemitism — and why we should see that normalization as a pressing problem.
The Republicans in power in the White House and Congress, and their powerful allies in conservative media, have succeeded in making the idea of the politically violent left seem like the primary threat. If one consumes certain media, one gets the impression that cities are being destroyed by violent leftists, and that the greatest threat to American Jews today is the left.
But the truth — although President Donald Trump’s administration pulled down the government web page that laid out the data — is that the right is the most common source of political violence in this country. And, unlike the left, it is so with the backing of the most powerful people in the country.
Consider the fallout from the murder of the prominent young conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Trump officials and various figures across the right jumped to blame the murder on leftist political violence, long before a suspect was publicly identified. They blamed their political enemies for the killing and vowed to crush them, going so far as pushing to get people fired for not having the response to Kirk’s death that they deemed appropriate. (More than 145 people did in fact lose their jobs).
In other words, the right cast political violence as something that should automatically be perceived as a leftwing problem — one that could be solved by some of the most powerful people vilifying the everyday people who disagreed with them, including nurses, restaurant managers and professors, while leaving calls for reactionary violence against the left unchecked.
This was not calls for violence and punishment ping ponging back and forth from side to side. It was those with power blaming and seeking to punish those with whom they disagreed.
Perhaps some do not consider members of the Young Republicans to have power just yet. But surely all can agree that the Pentagon official pushing a conspiracy about Leo Frank, and the various White House officials with ties to antisemitic extremists — to take just a few examples — do. The Young Republicans in this chat are training to be the next generation of people in these roles. They are following the example that’s been set for them, and working to stitch it more firmly in the fabric of the right.
Seeing this clearly is especially pertinent for American Jews in grappling with antisemitism today.
This is not to say that there isn’t antisemitism on the left as well as the right. Of course there is. I have no doubt that some readers of this piece will be thinking of the images of college protesters against the war in Gaza, some of whom did indeed cross over into antisemitism. There have been significant cases in which antisemitism from those on the left has led to vandalism and even, tragically, violence.
But those college protesters, the vast majority of whom were peaceful, do not have any real power.
It may feel like they do, particularly for students who feel lost or excluded in the campus political climate. But real power on campus is held by the board of trustees. It is held by the people who have too often, recently, decided to compromise academic freedom in order to try to placate Congress and the administration over weaponized charges of student antisemitism.
Congress and the president have still more power. And they, as Vance’s dismissal of the hatred from the group chat signifies, are comfortable normalizing hatred when it comes from within their own ranks.
I sympathize with young people navigating their feelings about Jewish identity and Zionism who have felt ostracized or demonized by their peers. But their peers cannot arrest, detain and threaten to deport them. Those who hold real power can and do, and are doing so ostensibly to fight antisemitism — just ask Mahmoud Khalil.
And yet, at the same time, the FBI is being helmed by someone who has repeatedly appeared on a podcast hosted by a prominent Holocaust denier.
It may be that many of us are more likely, in our everyday lives, to encounter someone who is leftwing and blurs the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. But that we are more likely to encounter this kind of antisemitism more often in a social context does not change the basic math. The right in this country, which holds power in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, is made up of individuals who have shown themselves to be at best disinterested in ridding their movement of calls for discriminatory political violence. And they are the ones whose decisions have the ability to actually affect the essential conditions of our lives.
And so, in this one extremely limited way, we should listen to Vance. We should look at who has actual power, and think critically about the ways in which they have advanced — or facilitated the advance of — racist, extremist, xenophobic and, yes, antisemitic political rhetoric. Because when we do that, we can see that there is no equivalence. It is those who have power — real power — who are making ours a more politically violent country.
The post Think the left is politically violent? Young Republicans have a wake-up call for you appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Families of Deceased US Hostages Still Held by Hamas in Gaza Call for Maximum Pressure to Ensure Return of Sons’ Bodies

Ronen and Orna Neutra, parents of US-Israeli citizen Omer Neutra who was killed during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, speak accompanied by their family, as Hamas continues to hold Omer’s body hostage in Gaza, at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, US, Oct. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
Despite widespread celebration over the release of the last 20 living Israeli hostages being held in Gaza, the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas has still not handed over the remains of 19 deceased hostages, including the bodies of two Americans with dual citizenship.
The families of Itay Chen, 19, and Omer Neutra, 21 — both American-Israeli dual citizens who were born in the US and served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) — are intensifying calls for the return of their sons’ remains more than two years after they were murdered during Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
“My son, Itay Chen, is still in Gaza and we have no confidence he will be returned soon, as the deal signed does not provide guarantees that all the hostages will return this week. And until he, and every last hostage, is home, our fight is not over,” Chen’s father, Ruby, wrote earlier this week in an op-ed for USA Today, referring to the US-brokered ceasefire and hostage-release deal that halted fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists from Gaza kidnapped 251 hostages and murdered 1,200 people during their Oct. 7 rampage. All the living hostages still in captivity were released on Monday as part of the ceasefire. However, the Palestinian terrorist group has still not handed over the remains of 19 out of the remaining 28 deceased hostages, violating its obligation under the agreement to release everyone who was abducted during the Oct. 7 atrocities.
Israel has demanded full compliance with the ceasefire, accusing Hamas of flouting its terms. Hamas claims the destruction of Gaza has made locating all the bodies unfeasible, saying that “significant efforts and special equipment” are necessary to continue the search.
“Israel has made this mistake before. Following previous wars, the government failed to bring home several captured soldiers, even when the world promised to help. Some of those soldiers’ remains have been lost forever. We cannot allow history to repeat itself,” Chen wrote.
Neutra’s father, Ronen, has expressed similar sentiments.
“I expect the United States to exert strong pressure on the mediators,” Neutra told Fox News Digital. “We’ve heard that Washington has spoken directly with Hamas in Egypt, and we demand full implementation of the agreement — or serious consequences: halting humanitarian aid, and stopping the movement of goods and people through the Rafah crossing.”
“Our expectation is for President Trump to ensure that the two American citizens still held by Hamas — our son Omer and Itay Chen — are brought home for burial,” he continued. “After two years of fighting for this, we deserve closure — and our son deserves proper burial in the land he loved and defended.”
Neutra added that he met with Trump on Monday and said the US president “assured us he would do everything to bring our children home.”
US Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) on Wednesday released a statement praising the release of the 20 living hostages while calling attention to the remaining captives in Gaza, adding that Israelis deserve both protection and honor in life and death.
“As we build on the progress we made with the first stage of the peace agreement between Israel and Hamas, I urge President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to keep applying pressure to fulfill the deal’s terms to return the remains of the deceased hostages still held in Gaza – especially the two Americans among them, Itay Chen and Omer Neutra,” Hoyer said.
Uncategorized
Oklahoma made Bibles mandatory in schools. The new superintendent is reversing course.
Oklahoma public schools will no longer require Bibles in classrooms or use a biblical curriculum, state superintendent Lindel Fields announced Thursday.
Fields’ predecessor, Ryan Walters, resigned last month following repeated controversy over his focus on culture war issues and accusations that his office television screened explicit images during a meeting with education officials. Walters had made Bible-centered instruction a hallmark of his tenure and mandated that every public school classroom in Oklahoma have a state-approved copy.
The directive drew lawsuits from faith leaders and parents who argued that the Bible mandate violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
Now, attorneys for the Oklahoma State Department of Education said they will notify the court of the reversal in policy and file a motion to dismiss. Opponents of Walters’ policies hailed the decision as a win for the separation of church and state.
“This is the right move,” said state Rep. Melissa Provenzano, a Democrat who represents Tulsa. “Religious guidance is deeply personal to every family. It belongs in the rightful hands of parents and guardians, not our public schools.”
The turnabout comes amid a growing push to infuse Christianity into public schools. Last November, a federal judge struck down a Louisiana law requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court. Similar lawsuits over a law requiring the Ten Commandments in schools are ongoing in Texas.
Walters, interviewed by the Forward last July, defended his policy as a way to teach the Bible in the context of history rather than as a religious text. He said biblical history could also be incorporated into subjects like art and mathematics.
“How do you cover the artwork and not mention the Bible when you’re looking at the Renaissance?” Walters said.
Walters, who is now working as CEO of the Teacher Freedom Alliance, an organization that opposes the influence of teachers’ unions, weighed in on the reversal with a post on X.
“I could not be more disappointed in the decision to move away from empowering our teachers in Oklahoma to use a foundational document like the Bible in the classroom,” Walters posted. “The war on Christianity is real.”
The post Oklahoma made Bibles mandatory in schools. The new superintendent is reversing course. appeared first on The Forward.