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
Mamdani Says He Will Discourage Use of ‘Globalize the Intifada,’ Reaffirms Commitment to Anti-Israel Movement
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
Facing mounting pressure from Jewish community leaders, business executives, and fellow Democrats, New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani has moved to clarify his stance on the controversial slogan “globalize the intifada,” signaling he will discourage its use while continuing to back the broader anti-Israel movement it represents.
In a closed-door meeting this week with over 100 business leaders organized by the Partnership for New York City, Mamdani said he will not use the phrase himself and will urge allies to stop using it as well, attendees told multiple news outlets. The candidate, a democratic socialist and state assemblyman from Queens, emphasized that while the slogan has become a flashpoint, his commitment to the Palestinian movement remains unchanged.
The slogan, which gained traction at pro-Palestinian protests worldwide amid the Israel–Hamas war in Gaza, has been criticized by many Jewish New Yorkers who associate it with calls for violence against Jewish and Israeli civilians. “Intifada,” Arabic for “uprising,” is widely known from two bloody periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. Many observers have argued that calls to “globalize the intifada” will encourage activists to take up political violence worldwide, especially against the Jewish community and supporters of Israel.
“I heard from Jewish New Yorkers who told me that phrase brings up very real fear,” Mamdani reportedly said in the meeting. “That’s not the intention I want to convey.”
Nonetheless, Mamdani was clear that he does not view “globalize the intifada” as inherently violent. Instead, he said it symbolizes a transnational protest against what he calls Israeli “apartheid.” He described it as a call for political pressure, boycott movements, and international solidarity, not physical confrontation.
Last month, Mamdani defended the phrase “globalize the intifada” by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
Mamdani’s attempt to reframe the slogan has drawn mixed reactions. Some Democratic leaders have said the clarification doesn’t go far enough.
High-profile Democrats in the US Congress from New York such as Rep. Ritchie Torres, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand have all urged Mamdani to condemn the slogan, arguing that the phrase has violent connotations.
New York City’s Jewish community, already alarmed by a rise in antisemitic incidents since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel, has expressed deep concern over Mamdani’s embrace of language they consider inflammatory. Leaders from groups such as the UJA-Federation and the Anti-Defamation League have called on him to unequivocally disavow the slogan.
Mamdani’s team has pushed back against claims that the phrase advocates violence, pointing to other progressive politicians who have used similar language in solidarity with Palestinian movements. In recent days, his campaign has worked to strike a more conciliatory tone, especially in conversations with Jewish leaders and the business elite.
During the private gathering, which reportedly included executives from Pfizer, Uber, major real estate firms, and banking institutions, Mamdani reiterated policy goals that have rattled the city’s corporate class: tax hikes on high earners, rent freezes, and public investment in city-run grocery stores. He also emphasized his opposition to police budget increases, while pledging to expand mental health crisis response programs as an alternative.
While many attendees remain skeptical of Mamdani’s politics, several expressed cautious optimism after the event.
Mamdani is expected to hold additional meetings with labor unions, faith groups, and small business owners in the coming weeks as he attempts to broaden his coalition ahead of November’s general election. With incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo both running as independents, the race remains hotly contested, although Mamdani is generally considered the frontrunner in the largely Democratic city.
The post Mamdani Says He Will Discourage Use of ‘Globalize the Intifada,’ Reaffirms Commitment to Anti-Israel Movement first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
AMIA Bombing: The Hate That Terrorized Jewish Argentines 31 Years Ago is Just as Present Today
People hold images of the victims of the 1994 bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community center, marking the 30th anniversary of the attack, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Irina Dambrauskas
This Friday, July 18, marks 31 years since an Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist drove a van packed with explosives into the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish Community Center building in Buenos Aires.
The attack murdered 85 people, and injured more than 300. Now, three decades later, the world still remains subject to the reach of Iranian-backed terrorism.
Just last month, as an American Jewish Committee (AJC) Project Interchange delegation of Consuls General was ending their visit to Israel, our group (including one of the authors of this op-ed, Brandon) abruptly received an alert: an Iranian-made Houthi missile was headed for our area and we needed to seek shelter immediately. Once the AJC group had returned from Israel, millions of Israelis were forced into bomb shelters as the Iranian regime launched hundreds of ballistic missiles at civilian targets across the country. Scenes of blown out and destroyed buildings, eerily reminiscent of the AMIA bombing, were once again seared into memory.
The other author of this op-ed, Jacques, is an Argentine Jew. For him, the AMIA bombing — and the ensuing decades long fight for justice — continues to hit close to home. The bombing shattered more than the AMIA building — it shattered the Argentine Jewish community and its sense of security.
Jacques’ family lived in fear that they too could be the next victims of terror. The AMIA bombing was the single worst act of terrorism against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, a distinction surpassed only by the Iranian regime-backed Hamas slaughter on October 7, 2023.
To this day, those who planned the AMIA bombing are still walking free. In 2024, in a long overdue step, Argentina’s highest federal court officially held the Iranian regime — the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism — responsible. While this is a key step toward accountability for the Iranian regime’s actions and justice for AMIA’s victims, there is still work to be done.
Following last month’s preemptive military action from both the United States and Israel against Iran’s nuclear program — a regime that has consistently declared, “Death to America, Death to Israel” — Argentine President Javier Milei offered a rare moment of moral clarity in an otherwise foggy global response. In declaring that Israel was “saving Western civilization,” he named what too many other leaders refuse to admit — that Iran’s terrorism knows no borders.
But missiles and bombs are not the only threats we face. As in the case of AMIA, the Iranian regime’s and Hezbollah’s activities started with calls to target Jews worldwide. Terror grows in atmospheres where antisemitism is abided.
In sensing the urgency to act to curb rising antisemitism, last year, on the eve of the 30th commemoration of the AMIA bombing, Buenos Aires hosted the signing of the new Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism, which to date has been signed by 36 countries, including the United States and Argentina.
The current global rise in antisemitism is especially alarming in the United States. While antisemitism has historically emerged from the far-right and far-left, it is the fusion of far-left ideology and Islamist rhetoric that has been driving much of the recent violence. Consider the recent D.C. shooting after an American Jewish Committee event outside the Capitol Jewish Museum, when the killer proclaimed, “I did it for Palestine” or the assailant in Boulder, Colorado, who threw Molotov cocktails at a rally of Jews calling for the release of the hostages while shouting, “End Zionists.”
Elected leaders must act and speak out with moral clarity – especially in New York, home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. There were a record 345 reported antisemitic incidents in 2024 according to the NYPD, more than all incidents against other minority groups combined. And these were just the incidents that were officially reported.
These statistics are entirely unacceptable. Staying silent when antisemitic phrases like “globalize the intifada” are used — an expression that is nothing more than incitement — legitimizes violence. Suicide bombings were the defining feature of the Second Intifada — and of the AMIA bombing itself. It is no wonder that the Jewish community feels more apprehensive with this rhetoric.
Thirty-one years after the AMIA bombing, the lesson remains brutally clear: when terrorists are not prosecuted, they are emboldened. When hateful rhetoric is tolerated, violence follows. When antisemitism is qualified or grouped together with other forms of hate, the call to protect Jewish lives is cheapened. Words may not pull the trigger, but they load the gun.
In the absence of justice, terrorism reigns free without consequence. Silence is complicity. As citizens of the two countries with the largest Jewish populations in North America and South America respectively, we are calling on our neighbors, friends, and leaders to draw a clear line: there can be no tolerance for antisemitic hate, and no haven for those who preach or perpetrate violence on Jews.
The time to stand up is now.
Brandon Pinsker is the Associate Director of the American Jewish Committee office in New York.
Jacques Safra is a Board Member of AJC New York and AJC’s Arthur and Rochelle Belfer Institute for Latino and Latin American Affairs (BILLA).
The post AMIA Bombing: The Hate That Terrorized Jewish Argentines 31 Years Ago is Just as Present Today first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
EU Rejects Sanctions on Israel Amid Diplomatic Battle, PA Condemns Decision as ‘Shocking and Disappointing’
European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas speaks to the media as she arrives at the 5th EU-Southern Neighbourhood Ministerial meeting in Brussels, Belgium, July 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
Israel welcomed the European Union’s decision not to pursue punitive action against the Jewish state over the war in Gaza, calling it “an important diplomatic victory” as some member states push to undermine Jerusalem’s military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in the war-torn enclave.
On Tuesday, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas announced that the bloc would not impose sanctions on Israel, following a meeting of EU foreign ministers to address the issue.
In a post on X, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar praised the news as the result of a “complex, grueling, and multi-front diplomatic battle.”
“The attempt to impose sanctions on a democratic country defending itself against efforts to destroy it is outrageous,” the top Israeli diplomat said, expressing gratitude to Israel’s allies in Europe who helped block the punitive measures.
ישראל עומדת מזה קרוב לשנתיים במערכה צבאית במספר חזיתות. אבל היא עומדת גם במערכה מדינית מורכבת, מפרכת ורבת חזיתות.
היום השגנו הישג מדיני חשוב כשעלה בידנו להדוף את כל סוגי הניסיונות האובססיביים של מספר מדינות לנקוט סנקציות נגד ישראל באיחוד האירופי. אותן מדינות לא הציעו, למשל,… pic.twitter.com/j4ivwv2WUF— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) July 15, 2025
Speaking at a press conference following the Brussels meeting, Kaja Kallas noted “positive signs” in Israel’s progress toward fulfilling last week’s agreement with the EU to increase humanitarian access to Gaza, while emphasizing that “more concrete steps” remain necessary.
The top EU diplomat stated that the bloc will carefully watch Israel’s execution of the agreement — which aims to open additional crossings, increase aid and food shipments, support critical infrastructure repairs, and protect aid workers.
According to Kallas, if Israel fails to follow through on the agreed measures, the bloc will reconsider imposing punitive actions against Jerusalem, with an update on its compliance to be presented at the next foreign ministers’ meeting in two weeks.
“We will keep these options on the table and stand ready to act,” Kallas said.
During this week’s meeting, the bloc discussed 10 potential measures against Israel over alleged violations of human rights commitments under the EU-Israel Association Agreement — a pact governing the EU’s political and economic ties with the Jewish state — such as suspending trade-related deals and imposing arms embargoes.
Despite efforts by some European countries to undermine Israel’s defensive campaign against Hamas in Gaza, there was not enough support within the EU to take any action, as Jerusalem still retains significant backing among member states.
In an interview with Euronews, the Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Minister, Varsen Aghabekian Shahin, condemned the EU’s decision not to take action against Israel, describing it as “shocking and disappointing.”
“These violations have been unfolding in front of everybody’s eyes. The whole world has been seeing what is happening in Gaza. The killing. The atrocities, the war crimes, the weaponization of food, the killing of people queuing to get a pack of flour,” Shahin said.
This latest anti-Israel initiative follows a recent EU-commissioned report accusing Israel of committing “indiscriminate attacks … starvation … torture … [and] apartheid” against Palestinians in Gaza during its military campaign against Hamas, an internationally designated terrorist group.
According to the report, “there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations” under the 25-year-old EU-Israel Association Agreement.
While the document acknowledges the reality of violence by Hamas, it states that this issue lies outside its scope — failing to address the Palestinian terrorist group’s role in sparking the current war with its invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Israeli officials have slammed the report as factually incorrect and morally flawed, noting that Hamas embeds its military infrastructure within civilian targets and Israel’s army takes extensive precautions to try and avoid civilian casualties.
Following calls from a majority of EU member states for a formal investigation, last month’s report builds on Belgium’s recent decision to review Israel’s compliance with the trade agreement, a process initiated by the Netherlands and led by Kallas.
Last month, Ireland became the first European nation to push forward legislation banning trade with Israeli communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, an effort officials say is meant “to address the horrifying situation” in the Gaza Strip.
Ireland’s decision comes after a 2024 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal.
The ICJ ruled that third countries must avoid trade or investment that supports “the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
The post EU Rejects Sanctions on Israel Amid Diplomatic Battle, PA Condemns Decision as ‘Shocking and Disappointing’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.