RSS
Bombing Syrian Weapons Might Be Against International Law for Now — But It’s Morally Right
Rebel fighters holds weapons at the Citadel of Aleppo, after Syrian rebels announced that they have ousted Bashar al-Assad, in Aleppo, Syria, Dec. 9, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Karam al-Masri
Since the sudden fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Israel has been bombing Syrian military bases like there’s a going out of business sale. Israel’s air force carried out about 350 strikes in just 48 hours, destroying around 80 percent of Syria’s military. And Israel is not alone — the United States claims to have also attacked around 75 targets, and Turkey is said to be involved as well. The rationale is that the intentions of Syria’s new rulers are unclear, and this will prevent them from having access to weapons should they prove hostile.
Predictably, these strikes have been condemned as a violation of international law. The spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General called the decision to destroy chemical and other weapons a violation of Syria’s territorial integrity, and said the change of regime should not be used by other countries as an opportunity to encroach on Syrian territory. Various other countries also condemned these strikes as exploiting Syria’s instability and violating international norms.
They’re right about one thing. There’s no question these attacks are illegal.
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes clear that “self-defense if an armed attack occurs’” is the only justification for a country to use force absent authorization by the Security Council. While there is much debate about when a preemptive strike can be considered self-defense, it is generally agreed that in order to qualify, a preemptive strike must be aimed at preventing an imminent attack. The Syrian military equipment being bombed was sitting idle or in storage, currently not being used to threaten Israel or the US.
But here’s the other thing — while these attacks are illegal, they are also right.
The premise of these condemnations is that international law grants countries the right to arm themselves and form a military. One country cannot legally stop another from acquiring arms. This is considered a part of sovereignty. The Assad regime, by virtue of being Syria’s ruler, had the right to a military. Now the rebels, because they have chased out Assad and now form Syria’s government, are thereby entitled to a military too.
But shouldn’t there be some standards regarding who can possess weapons with vast destructive power?
In the United States, where gun ownership is a right, courts have still found that laws restricting felons from possessing firearms are reasonable and therefore pass Constitutional muster. This is because if someone has committed a felony in the past, there is increased risk they will use a gun for illegal purposes in the future. Shouldn’t we apply at least that same logic here?
The rebel organization responsible for overthrowing Assad is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). They are designated as a terror group in many Western countries due to their affiliation with Al-Qaeda.
Its leader fought against the US in Iraq and was a member of the Islamic State. HTS’ and other groups’ animosity towards Israel and the West, and their violent threats against both are well known. The United Nations has documented widespread human rights abuses in the territory under HTS control before it took over the rest of the country.
Many Western countries are hoping that HTS has turned over a new leaf, and now that it is governing all of Syria, it will live in peace with its neighbors and not repeat the previous regime’s atrocities. There is talk of lifting its terrorist designation if it takes steps in that direction.
Let’s hope that is what happens. But in the meantime, it makes sense not to allow them to possess advanced arms and maybe even chemical weapons.
Of course, countries can’t be permitted to bomb one another’s military equipment whenever they wish. If countries did that whenever they got the chance for the sole purpose of preventing unspecified, hypothetical future attacks, there would never be peace or security.
But international law is mistaken in immediately bestowing all the privileges of sovereignty onto an armed group just because it managed to seize territory with a permanent population, thereby qualifying as a state. A felon may be a US citizen, but they are still not allowed to possess a firearm. A rebel group that overthrows a government and takes over a country may thereby join the community of nations, but it should not be allowed to inherit a vast store of weapons until it proves it will handle them responsibly.
It’s important to note that it looks like the US and Israel have managed to conduct their Syria bombing campaigns without causing any loss of life. They may be legally in the wrong, but morally they’re in the right.
Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he writes about legal developments related to human rights issues of interest to the Jewish community. You can find him at https://hrhaggadah.com/.
The post Bombing Syrian Weapons Might Be Against International Law for Now — But It’s Morally Right first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Administration Impounds $250 Million From UCLA, Citing Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump points a finger as he delivers remarks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, DC, US, July 31, 2025. Photo: Kent Nishimura via Reuters Connect
The Trump administration has confiscated a nine-figure sum in federal funds from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), citing numerous complaints of antisemitism on the campus — some of which the institution recently settled in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit.
The federal government impounded, according to various reports, some $250 million to punish the university’s alleged exposing Jewish students to discrimination by refusing to intervene when civil rights violations transpired or failing to correct a hostile environment after the fact. The move comes only a couple days after UCLA agreed to donate $2.33 million to a consortium of Jewish civil rights organizations to resolve an antisemitism complaint filed by three students and an employee.
On Thursday, UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk, a descendant of Jews who left Germany in the 1930s, said the loss off funds is “a loss for America” while arguing that it will not help in addressing antisemitism.
“With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives of and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty, and staff. In its notice to us, the federal government claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons,” Frenk wrote in a message to the campus community. “This far-reaching penalty of defunding live-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.”
He continued, “We share the goal of eradicating antisemitism across society. Antisemitism has no place on our campus, nor does any form of discrimination. We recognize that we can improve, and I am committed to doing so. Confronting the scourge of antisemitism effectively calls for thoughtfulness, commitment, and sustained effort — and UCLA has taken robust actions to make our campus a safe and welcoming environment for all students.”
Many antisemitic incidents occurred at UCLA before the institution was ultimately sued and placed in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
Just five days after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, as previously reported by The Algemeiner, anti-Zionist protesters chanted “Itbah El Yahud” at Bruin Plaza, which means “slaughter the Jews” in Arabic. Other incidents included someone’s tearing a chapter page out of Philip Roth’s 2004 novel The Plot Against America, titled “Loudmouth Jew,” and leaving it outside the home of a UCLA faculty member, as well as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) staging a disturbing demonstration in which its members cudgeled a piñata, to which a picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face was glued, while shouting “beat the Jew.”
Later, pro-Hamas activists erected a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on campus during the final weeks of the 2024 spring semester and chanted “death to the Jews,” set up illegal checkpoints through which no one could pass unless they denounced Israel, and ordered campus security assigned there by the university to ensure that no Jews entered it. UCLA allegedly refused to clear the encampment despite knowing what was happening there, prompting allegations that it allowed a “Jewish Exclusion Zone” on its property. The antisemitism complaint that was settled earlier this week argued that the university violated its own policies as well as “the basic guarantee of equal access to educational facilities that receive federal funding” and other equal protection laws.
On Tuesday, the university announced that it agreed to pay $6.45 million in total to settle the lawsuit.
“Antisemitism harassment and other forms of intimidation are antithetical to our values and have no place at the University of California,” UC Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly said in a statement. “We have been clear about where we have fallen short, and we are committed to doing better moving forward. Today’s settlement reflects a critically important goal that we share with the plaintiffs: to foster a safe, secure, and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensure that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere on campus.”
On the same day, the US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division ruled that UCLA’s response to antisemitic incidents constituted violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
“Our investigation into the University of California system has found concerning evidence of systemic antisemitism at UCLA that demands severe accountability from the institution,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. “This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: the [Department of Justice] will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Michigan Senate Candidate Sits Down for Interview With Anti-Israel Streamer
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed Launches Bid (Source: WLNS 6 News/Youtube)
Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat running for the US Senate in Michigan, recently appeared on the platform of controversial anti-Israel social media personality Hasan Piker, raising questions about the candidate’s positions on the Jewish state.
El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, is mounting a 2026 progressive campaign for the open Senate seat in Michigan. His appearance on Piker’s stream, which aired on YouTube and Twitch, covered a range of topics from health care to foreign policy. But his decision to appear on a stream by Piker, who has an extensive history of repudiating Israel and defending the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, has drawn scrutiny.
The two did not talk in depth about Israel or the ongoing war in Gaza during the interview. However, Piker stated that anti-Israel politicians can now succeed in American politics as opposed to previous generations, pointing to the ascendance of New York City Democratic mayoral primary winner Zohran Mamdani, who has made activism against the Jewish state a cornerstone of his political career. Piker encouraged El-Sayed not to “back away” from condemnations of Israel, claiming that “a lot of people agree” with the far left on the issue.
Piker has an extensive history of repudiating Israel as an “apartheid state” and defending atrocities committed against its civilians. In a 2024 livestream, Piker minimized sexual assaults committed against Israeli women at the hands of Hamas, saying “it doesn’t matter if rapes f—king happened on Oct. 7.” He has also defended violence by both Hamas and the Houthis, a Yemen-based Islamist terror group, as legitimate “resistance,” and said he doesn’t “have an issue with” Hezbollah, which pummeled Israel with an unremitting barrage of missiles and rockets from southern Lebanon in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on the Jewish state.
El-Sayed has also positioned himself as a fierce critic of Israel. The progressive champion was a prominent supporter of the “Uncommitted movement,” a coalition of Democratic officials which refused to support the 2024 Kamala Harris presidential campaign over her support for Israel. However, El-Sayed later clarified that he would support Harris over Donald Trump in the general election.
El-Sayed has been especially critical of Israel’s war in Gaza. On Oct. 21, 2023, two weeks after the Hamas slaughter of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel, the progressive politician accused Israel of “genocide.” He also compared Israel’s defensive military operations to the Hamas terrorist group’s conduct on Oct. 7, writing, “You can both condemn Hamas terrorism AND Israel’s murder since.”
In comments to Politico, El-Sayed criticized Democrats’ handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that they should become the “party of peace and justice” and said that they “ought not to be the party sending bombs and money to foreign militaries to drop bombs on other people’s kids in their schools and their hospitals.” He called on Democrats to stop supporting military aid for Israel, saying “we should be spending that money here at home.”
RSS
German Foreign Minister Tones Down Palestinian Recognition Talk on West Bank Trip
Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul gestures next to a member of clergy during the visit to the town of Taybeh, a Christian village in the West Bank, Aug. 1, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ali Sawafta
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul sought to tone down previous comments about his country’s position on Palestinian statehood during a trip to the West Bank on Friday, saying Germany had no immediate plans to recognize a Palestinian state.
Wadephul’s comment followed sharp criticism from Israeli officials over his earlier suggestion, before he left for the trip, that Germany could respond to any unilateral Israeli actions with recognition of a Palestinian state.
Far-right Israeli government minister Itamar Ben-Gvir had written on X: “80 years after the Holocaust, and Germany returns to supporting Nazism.”
After meeting Israel’s foreign minister, prime minister, and president on Thursday evening, Wadephul explained on Friday that Germany did not plan to recognize a Palestinian state immediately, “as that is one of the final steps to be taken” as part of a two-state solution.
Wadephul’s attempt to clarify his remarks highlights Germany’s longstanding difficulty in taking a clear position on the issue, caught between growing international pressure on Israel amid the Gaza war and Germany’s own post-Holocaust commitment to ensuring Israel’s security.
He called on Israel to ensure safe access for United Nations agencies to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, saying the current restrictions were worsening the crisis.
“The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza must end now,” Wadephul said, stressing that aid distribution through the UN needed to resume without obstacles.
He said Germany would provide an additional 5 million euros ($5.7 million) to the UN World Food Program to support bakeries and soup kitchens and fund a field hospital in Gaza City.
Asked about Israeli concerns that aid could be diverted by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Wadephul acknowledged that misuse could not be fully ruled out but said it was no reason to block relief efforts.
“The best way to prevent Hamas from misusing supplies is to deliver more aid and ensure full coverage for the population,” he said.