Uncategorized
Israel Has the Legal Right — and Moral Responsibility — to Protect Itself From Terrorism and Jihadi Warfare
Greta Thunberg and UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese in an embrace with a Hamas terrorist in the artwork “Human Shields” by AleXsandro Palombo. Photo: Provided
In legal terms, intentional acts of injustice call for self-protection. Now faced with multiplying jihadi foes, the State of Israel has a corollary obligation to punish terrorist offenders.
It’s vital to note that a basic difference exists between terror violence (the crime) and Israel’s military response (the punishment). As a matter of international justice, this core difference is legally determinative and politically important.
There are pertinent details. By definition, terrorism is a crime under international law. A vulnerable state’s self-protective actions against terror crimes are law-enforcing. This assessment holds true as long as the terror-beleaguered state (here, Israel) responds with aptly-measured uses of force; i.e. — measures consistent with the codified and customary limitations of humanitarian international law.
During the Gaza War, some argued that the number of Palestinian deaths meant Israel violated the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. That is not true.
Whether Israel is operating against Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sunni Hamas in Gaza, or any other jihadi fighting forces based in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc., its operations intend to serve legitimate military objectives with minimum civilian harms.
To be sure, noncombatant harm can never be prevented altogether, especially when a perfidious enemy is hiding behind “human shields,” but Jerusalem does what it reasonably can do to keep collateral harms in check. Jerusalem — unlike its Islamist foes — displays no “criminal intent” (mens rea).
There is more. In its law-enforcing wars against jihadist terror, Israel acts on behalf of all law-observant countries. While this point has been difficult to acknowledge by those who focus only on the tangible effects of Israeli counter-terrorism, it is authoritatively supported by long-established global obligations. These are indispensable obligations of “mutual aid.”
By this fundamental principle, each state is required to assist other states imperiled by terror-violence. The most important historical figures in creating and explaining this requirement were Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (The Law of Nations, 1758) and English jurist William Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769). Subsequently, Blackstone’s Commentaries became the recognizable foundation of US criminal law.
The Palestinian terror crimes of October 7, 2023 — murder, rape, and hostage-taking — represent “Nuremberg-level” violations of humanitarian international law. Under compelling or “jus cogens” rules, all states — not just Israel — have a many-sided obligation to punish such criminals. Jurisprudentially, this obligation is “sacred;” it can never be diminished or removed for geo-political or “practical” reasons.
Principle 1 of The Nuremberg Principles (1950) stipulates unambiguously, “No crime without a punishment.”
Among other conclusions, there would have been no Gaza War and no Palestinian casualties if Hamas had not launched its October 7, 2023, criminal assault and war against Israelis and nationals of other assorted states.
What about Israeli “proportionality”? Under binding laws of war, and contrary to “common-sense” meanings, proportionality has nothing to do with inflicting symmetrical or equivalent harms.
Instead, it derives from a more basic legal principle, namely that belligerent rights always have variously specific limitations. If a “common-sense” definition of proportionality was authentically law-based, then America would have been the principal aggressor during World War II.
Unlike Israel, which expressly laments the collateral damage of its self-defense operations in Gaza and elsewhere, jihadi rocket fire and terror attacks are the relentless product of “criminal intent.” By unhidden design, jihadists aim to maim and kill Israeli noncombatants. In Jerusalem, this overtly criminal aim should now be re-imagined in tandem with growing jihadi access to drone weapons and incrementally/eventually to weapons of mass destruction.
It’s time for further legal details. Deception can be lawful in armed conflict, but Hague Regulations disallow placement of military assets or personnel in 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.
All anti-Israel combatants, including Palestinian insurgents alleging fighting for “self-determination,” are bound by the law of war. Among other things, this basic requirement can be found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. It can never be suspended or abrogated. Israel, too, is bound by the law of war, but its Gaza War actions that killed and injured Palestinian civilians did not violate those laws.
There is something markedly ironic. The alleged jihadi goal of Palestinian “self-determination” is founded on an intended crime — that is, total “removal” of the Jewish State by attrition and annihilation. This explicitly 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.”
In its 1974 plan, a clarifying sequence of Palestinian violence was specifically identified “…to start a Pan-Arab War to complete the liberation of the all-Palestinian territory” (Art. 8). Ironically, this was and still remains the annihilationist plan of more mainstream Palestinian terror groups than Hamas.
At some still-indecipherable point, Hamas or other jihadi criminal forces could launch mega-terror attacks on Israel. Such potentially “perfidious” aggressions could include chemical, biological, or radiological (radiation-dispersal) weapons. Foreseeable perils could also include a non-nuclear terrorist attack on the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona. There is already a documented history of enemy assaults against this plutonium-production facility, both by a state (Iraq, in 1991) and by a Palestinian terror group (Hamas, in 2014).
International law is not a suicide pact. When jihadists celebrate the explosive “martyrdom” of manipulated Islamic civilians and when Islamist leaders seek “redemption” (i.e., “power over death”) through the mass-murder of “Jews,” the wrongdoers have no correct claims to immunity from law-based punishment.
Under international law, terrorists are considered hostes humani generis or “common enemies of humankind.” Among other things, this most egregious category of criminality invites punishment wherever the wrongdoers can be found. Concerning their required arrest and prosecution, all pertinent jurisdiction is “universal.”
What next? In all law, truth is exculpatory. Regarding the Gaza War, that conflict is anything but over. Hamas and other jihadist forces are already rearming and President Trump’s so-called international stabilization force is effectively a protracted cover for Israel’s jihadi enemies. Taken as a whole, the American president’s “peace” is merely a bitter self-parody.
In the end, Hamas and other jihadists argue they are fighting a “just war” and entitled to employ “any means necessary.” Under authoritative international law, however, even if a war is determinedly “just,” it must still be fought with determinedly “just means.” In this binding jurisprudence, ends can never justify means. Under no circumstances can there ever be law-based justifications for terror-violence.
We should recall 18th century Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel’s still-valid declaration in The Law of Nations: “An intentional act of injustice is an injury. A nation has therefore the right to punish it. … This right … is derived from the right of self-protection.”
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
Iran appoints AMIA bombing suspect to National Security Council
(JTA) —
For the second time this year, Iran has named a wanted suspect in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires to a top security role.
A spokesman for the Islamic Republic’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said Monday that Mohsen Rezaei had resigned as an adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, and would assume the role of secretary of Iran’s powerful Supreme National Security Council. Rezaei is a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Rezaei is wanted by Argentina and is subject to an Interpol Red Notice issued at Argentina’s request over his alleged role in the 1994 attack, which killed 85 people and remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentina’s history.
Earlier this year, Ahmad Vahidi, another suspect in the AMIA case and also the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, was appointed IRGC commander.
In a landmark ruling in 2024, an Argentine court held Iran and its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, responsible for the bombing, setting the stage for international legal action.
In June 2025, Argentina’s federal judiciary ordered that 10 Iranian and Lebanese suspects accused in connection with the deadly 1994 AMIA bombing be tried in absentia. Rezaei and Vahidi are among them.
The eight other suspects accused by the late AMIA special prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, are: former Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahijan, former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, former Iranian ambassador Hadi Soleimanpour, former Iranian cultural attache in Buenos Aires Mohsen Rabbani and former Iranian diplomat Ahmad Reza Asghari, as well as suspected Hezbollah operatives Salman Raouf Salman, Abdallah Salman and Hussein Mounir Mouzannar.
The post Iran appoints AMIA bombing suspect to National Security Council appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel and AIPAC on the ballot in the Minnesota Senate and U.S. House races
(JTA) — A pair of Democratic primaries in Minnesota on Tuesday are among a string of high-profile battles between progressive and moderate candidates, where Israel and the pro-Israel lobby serve as key wedge issues.
The state’s highest-profile race is the U.S. Senate primary between Rep. Angie Craig, who has been endorsed by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, and Lieutenant Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who says she would reject AIPAC’s money and accuses Israel of committing a genocide.
The most recent data gathered in late July through early August has Craig with a 2-percentage point lead, within the 5.3% margin of error. Another poll, conducted in late July by a group supporting Flanagan, shows her with a 14-point lead. The Democratic nominee, whether it be Flanagan or Craig, is expected to win the general election in November.
The race, and the candidates’ sparring over AIPAC, comes as the lobby and Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have become increasingly unpopular among Democratic voters. Israel is also an issue in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in neighboring Wisconsin taking place on Tuesday.
Flanagan has referred to Craig as “AIPAC’s candidate” in the Senate race, which prompted Craig to distance herself from the group’s spending during a TV debate in June.
“AIPAC has not contributed at all, the PAC, to my Senate campaign,” said Craig, whose wife, Cheryl Greene, is Jewish. “Not one penny.”
Flanagan countered that, while AIPAC itself has not donated to Craig’s campaign, it has held fundraisers for the four-term congresswoman. AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment.
Just last week in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, progressive Abdul El-Sayed defeated the moderate Rep. Haley Stevens, whose AIPAC endorsement was the frequent target of opposition attacks.
Flanagan has drawn the support of American Priorities, a pro-Palestinian super PAC that aims to counter AIPAC. The group spent about $54,000 on ads boosting her candidacy, according to FEC filings.
Flanagan’s platform includes blocking offensive weapons sales to Israel — a position that all but seven Senate Democrats voted for in April — and advancing a two-state solution that “allows for a secure Israel and Palestinian self-determination.”
Craig, who also backs a two-state outcome, voted against the recent amendment proposed by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie that would have halted $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel.
In a statement explaining her vote, Craig panned Netanyahu and the war in Iran, but wrote that the amendment would endanger Israelis and American troops and allies in the region. After the vote, Flanagan wrote, “A vote to send $3.3 billion of taxpayer money to fund additional weapons of war to Benjamin Netanyahu is unconscionable. Enough.”
Craig has the endorsement of a number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. She is also endorsed by lobbying group Democratic Majority for Israel, former Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg, and Minneapolis’ Jewish mayor, Jacob Frey, who rose to national prominence for his response to the deadly results of the deployment of immigrant enforcement officials in his city.
Flanagan has drawn endorsements from a swath of major progressive figures including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and outspoken pro-Palestinian Reps. Ro Khanna of California and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. Flanagan is also endorsed by the state’s Democratic Party affiliate, the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.
On Sunday Sanders posted on X,”There is a reason why the super PACs and billionaires are flooding Minnesota with $20 million to defeat Peggy Flanagan. Same thing as Michigan. They do not want somebody in the Senate who will stand up for the working class.”
Spending by political action committees affiliated with AIPAC has also come to the fore in the Democratic primary race for the House seat that Craig is vacating.
The most moderate of the three leading candidates is State Sen. Matt Klein, who has expressed support for the U.S.-Israel relationship and is endorsed by DMFI. Last-minute spending by outside groups has sparked accusations that AIPAC is indirectly involved.
“AIPAC is coming after me,” said former Lakeville mayor Matt Little, one of Klein’s opponents, in a video.
Klein’s two opponents — Little and state Rep. Kaela Berg — both accuse Israel of committing a genocide, and have both speculated that AIPAC is behind some of the Klein spending.
Berg supports placing conditions on U.S. aid to Israel and halting weapons sales, and Little says the U.S. must end all military aid and weapons sales to the country. On the policy page of his campaign website, Little refers to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack as “an act of wanton slaughter against innocent civilians” and says that people should condemn “the anti-Semitism that followed.”
Berg is listed as “primary approved” by the liberal Jewish Middle East advocacy group J Street, while Little has been boosted by American Priorities, which has spent about $64,000 in his favor. He is also endorsed by the DFL and Congressional Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The latest polling in the district — conducted at the end of May by a group that favors Klein — found Little leading Klein with a 7-percentage point lead, and Berg trailing by another 3 points. 39 percent of voters were undecided, and Little and Klein were about even after voters received more information about the three candidates.
Craig has declined to endorse any of the candidates to replace her.
The post Israel and AIPAC on the ballot in the Minnesota Senate and U.S. House races appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham wins runoff slot
(JTA) — South Carolina Sen. Darline Graham and a second Republican candidate will advance to a special primary runoff in two weeks, when voters will decide which GOP candidate might take the vacant seat of her late brother Lindsey Graham.
Just over an hour after polls closed, at about 8:15 pm, the Associated Press declared that Darline Graham would advance to a runoff election, noting that “one additional candidate will also advance.” At that point Graham had secured 32.6% of the vote, with 39% of ballots counted.
Graham was up against nine fellow Republicans, with her biggest competition including U.S. House Reps. Ralph Norman and Russell Fry, who were closely vying for the second spot in the runoff at the time of the AP’s call. In South Carolina, the top contender would have needed to win a majority of votes in order to avoid the two-candidate runoff, scheduled for August 25.
In the November general election, the winner will face Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who is unlikely to prevail in this solidly Republican state.
Tuesday’s race marked the second time in two months that GOP voters came to the polls to select a Senate candidate, and now they will need to do so a third time. Longstanding Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top ally of Israel in the U.S. Senate and supporter of military action against Iran. won the original primary in June but died suddenly from an aortic dissection on July 11.
Graham, who was 71 years old, served 23 years in the Senate and eight in the U.S. House. He was a member of the Senate’s Armed Services and Budget committees and had traveled to Israel about a dozen times since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
Heading into Tuesday’s primary, analysts expressed no doubt that the winner would be pro-Israel. They stressed, however, that matching Graham’s level of foreign policy experience and focus on Israel, a place he often visited, would be a formidable task.
“Whoever wins this is going to be an ally of Israel,” Christopher Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in the lead-up to the race. “The question is whether they will be the champion for Israel that Lindsey Graham was.”
A few days after Graham’s death, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, appointed Darline Graham to complete the late senator’s term. Despite having minimal policy experience, such as a past role on the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, she earned President Trump’s support and soon declared her candidacy in the full race.
While 10 candidates were running in the Tuesday primary, only about two others were considered serious competition for Graham, Norman and Fry: businessman Mark Lynch and Mark Sanford, whose governorship was plagued with scandals and who briefly ran against Trump in the 2020 presidential primaries.
The post Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham wins runoff slot appeared first on The Forward.
