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
US Immigration Judge Rules Palestinian Columbia Student Khalil Can Be Deported
Mahmoud Khalil speaks to members of media about the Revolt for Rafah encampment at Columbia University during the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza, in New York City, US, June 1, 2024. Photo: Jeenah Moon via Reuters Connect
A US immigration judge ruled on Friday that Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, allowing President Donald Trump’s administration to proceed with its effort to remove the Columbia University student from the United States a month after his arrest in New York City.
The ruling by Judge Jamee Comans of the LaSalle Immigration Court in Louisiana was not a final determination of Khalil’s fate. But it represented a significant victory for the Republican president in his efforts to deport foreign pro-Palestinian students who are in the United States legally and, like Khalil, have not been charged with any crime.
Citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Trump-appointed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined last month that Khalil could harm American foreign policy interests and should be deported for his “otherwise lawful” speech and activism.
Comans said that she did not have the authority to overrule a secretary of state. The judge denied a motion by Khalil’s lawyers to subpoena Rubio and question him about the “reasonable grounds” he had for his determination under the 1952 law.
The judge’s decision came after a combative 90-minute hearing held in a court located inside a jail complex for immigrants surrounded by double-fenced razor wire run by private government contractors in rural Louisiana.
Khalil, a prominent figure in the anti-Israel student protest movement that has roiled Columbia’s New York City campus, was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, holds Algerian citizenship and became a US lawful permanent resident last year. Khalil’s wife is a US citizen.
For now, Khalil remains in the Louisiana jail where federal authorities transferred him after his March 8 arrest at his Columbia University apartment building some 1,200 miles (1,930 km) away. Comans gave Khalil’s lawyers until April 23 to apply for relief before she considers whether to issue a deportation order. An immigration judge can rule that a migrant cannot be deported because of possible persecution in a home country, among other limited grounds.
In a separate case in New Jersey, US District Judge Michael Farbiarz has blocked deportation while he considers Khalil’s claim that his arrest was made in violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for freedom of speech.
KHALIL ADDRESSES THE JUDGE
As Comans adjourned, Khalil leaned forward, asking to address the court. Comans hesitated, then agreed.
Khalil quoted her remarks at his hearing on Tuesday that nothing was more important to the court than “due process rights and fundamental fairness.”
“Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process,” Khalil said. “This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, a thousand miles away from my family.”
The judge said her ruling turned on an undated, two-page letter signed by Rubio and submitted to the court and to Khalil’s counsel.
Khalil’s lawyers, appearing via a video link, complained they were given less than 48 hours to review Rubio’s letter and evidence submitted by the Trump administration to Comans this week. Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil’s lead immigration attorney, repeatedly asked for the hearing to be delayed. Comans reprimanded him for what the judge said was straying from the hearing’s purpose, twice saying he had “an agenda.”
Comans said that the 1952 immigration law gave the secretary of state “unilateral judgment” to make his determination about Khalil.
Khalil should be removed, Rubio wrote, for his role in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
Rubio’s letter did not accuse Khalil of breaking any laws, but said the State Department can revoke the legal status of immigrants who could harm US foreign policy interests even when their beliefs, associations or statements are “otherwise lawful.”
After Comans ended the hearing, several of Khalil’s supporters wept as they left the courtroom. Khalil stood and smiled at them, making a heart shape with his hands.
Khalil has said criticism of the US government’s support of Israel is being wrongly conflated with antisemitism. His lawyers told the court they were submitting into evidence Khalil’s interviews last year with CNN and other news outlets in which he denounces antisemitism and other prejudice.
His lawyers have said the Trump administration was targeting him for protected speech including the right to criticize American foreign policy.
“Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent,” Van Der Hout said in a statement after the hearing.
The American immigration court system is run and its judges are appointed by the US Justice Department, separate from the government’s judicial branch.
The post US Immigration Judge Rules Palestinian Columbia Student Khalil Can Be Deported first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Releases Video of Israeli-American Hostage Held in Gaza
FILE PHOTO: Yael, Adi and Mika Alexander, the family of Edan Alexander, the American-Israeli and Israel Defense Forces soldier taken hostage during the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, pose for a photograph during an interview with Reuters at the Alexander’s home in Tenafly, New Jersey, U.S., December 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephani Spindel/File Photo
Hamas on Saturday released a video purportedly of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, who has been held in Gaza since he was captured by Palestinian terrorists on October 7, 2023.
In the undated video, the man who introduces himself as Edan Alexander states he has been held in Gaza for 551 days. The man questions why he is still being held and pleads for his release.
Alexander is a soldier serving in the Israeli military.
The edited video was released as Jews began to mark Passover, a weeklong holiday that celebrates freedom. Alexander’s family released a statement acknowledging the video that said the holiday would not be one of freedom as long as Edan and the 58 other hostages in Gaza remained in captivity.
Hamas has released several videos over the course of the war of hostages begging to be released. Israeli officials have dismissed past videos as propaganda that is designed to put pressure on the government. The war is in its eighteenth month.
Hamas released 38 hostages under a ceasefire that began on January 19. In March, Israel’s military resumed its ground and aerial campaign on Gaza, abandoning the ceasefire after Hamas rejected proposals to extend the truce without ending the war.
Israeli officials say that campaign will continue until the remaining 59 hostages are freed and Gaza is demilitarized. Hamas insists it will free hostages only as part of a deal to end the war and has rejected demands to lay down its arms.
The US, Qatar and Egypt are mediating between Hamas and Israel.
The post Hamas Releases Video of Israeli-American Hostage Held in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS
Demonstrators hold signs and pictures of hostages, as relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas protest demanding the release of all hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Itai Ron
i24 News – A source familiar with the ongoing negotiations for a hostage deal confirmed to i24NEWS on Friday that some progress has been made in talks, currently taking place with Egypt, including the exchange of draft proposals. However, it remains unclear whether Hamas will ultimately accept the emerging framework. According to the source, discussions are presently focused on reaching a cohesive outline with Cairo.
A delegation of senior Hamas officials is expected to arrive in Cairo tomorrow. While there is still no finalized draft, even Arab sources acknowledge revisions to Egypt’s original proposal, reportedly including a degree of flexibility in the number of hostages Hamas is willing to release.
The source noted that Hamas’ latest proposal to release five living hostages is unacceptable to Israel, which continues to adhere to the “Witkoff framework.” At the core of this framework is the release of a significant number of hostages, alongside a prolonged ceasefire period—Israel insists on 40 days, while Hamas is demanding more. The plan avoids intermittent pauses or distractions, aiming instead for uninterrupted discussions on post-war arrangements.
As previously reported, Israel is also demanding comprehensive medical and nutritional reports on all living hostages as an early condition of the deal.
“For now,” the source told i24NEWS, “Hamas is still putting up obstacles. We are not at the point of a done deal.” Israeli officials emphasize that sustained military and logistical pressure on Hamas is yielding results, pointing to Hamas’ shift from offering one hostage to five in its most recent agreement.
Negotiators also assert that Israel’s demands are fully backed by the United States. Ultimately, Israeli officials are adamant: no negotiations on the “day after” will take place until the hostage issue is resolved—a message directed not only at Hamas, but also at mediators.
The post Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.