Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading

RSS

Rafael Lemkin’s Family Fights to Have Anti-Israel Group Stop Using Name of Famed Zionist Who Coined Term ‘Genocide’

Raphael Lemkin being interviewed on Feb. 13, 1949. Photo: Screenshot

The family of Raphael Lemkin — the Polish-born Jewish lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and helped draft the Genocide Convention after World War II — is taking legal action against a stridently anti-Israel group based in the US, accusing the nonprofit organization of corrupting his family name and legacy.

Joseph Lemkin, the cousin of Raphael Lemkin and closest living relative, confirmed to The Algemeiner that his family is initiating legal proceedings against the Pennsylvania-based Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, with the support of the European Jewish Association (EJA), to stop the misuse of his family name.

“From our perspective, the Lemkin Institute has no right to use his name. Their actions are completely opposed to what he stood for,” Lemkin told The Algemeiner, referring to his cousin. “He was a passionate Zionist who dedicated all his efforts and resources to one cause: the adoption of the Genocide Convention.”

Lemkin’s father was Raphael Lemkin’s first cousin, and he said the two men had a close relationship.

First reported by The Algemeiner, the institute has used the Lemkin name to advance an agenda of extreme anti-Israel activism, which Lemkin’s family called a “shameful betrayal” of their legacy.

Initially registered in Pennsylvania as a nonprofit organization in 2021, the institute received US federal tax-exempt status two years later.

Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the organization has shifted toward aggressive anti-Israel political advocacy, backing pro-Hamas campus protests and reaching millions on social media with posts that falsely accuse Israel of genocide.

Less than a week after the Oct. 7 atrocities, for example, the institute released a “genocide alert” calling the Palestinian terrorist group’s onslaught an “unprecedented military operation against Israel.”

Comparing Israel’s defensive military actions against Hamas to the Holocaust, the institute accused the Jewish state of carrying out a “genocide” against Palestinians — the very term Raphael Lemkin coined in 1943. Israel had not even launched its ground offensive in Gaza at the time of the social media posts.

Days later, the Lemkin Institute called on the International Criminal Court “to indict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the crime of #genocide in light of the siege and bombardment of #Gaza and the many expressions of genocidal intent.” Israel still had not initiated its ground campaign.

Since then, the organization’s vocal anti-Israel advocacy has continued unabated for the past two years, accusing the Jewish state of genocide and terrorism while largely staying silent about Hamas.

According to the Lemkin family, such statements distort history and undermine their legacy, but even more, they disrespect the memory of six million Jews.

“The institute has used this term to promote an inflammatory, antisemitic stance against Israel — completely contrary to the principles he stood for,” Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner, referring to his cousin.

“Astonishingly, they have even expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas — both internationally designated terrorist organizations — while smearing Israel,” he continued.

Now, legal steps are underway to hold the institute accountable, stop it from exploiting the Lemkin name to raise money, and end its Holocaust comparisons.

After first sending letters demanding that the institute change its name, the Lemkin family is now awaiting a response — and if no voluntary action is taken or Pennsylvania officials fail to intervene, the matter will be taken to court, Lemkin told The Algemeiner.

Beyond its communications with the institute, the EJA legal team also sent letters to Gov. Josh Shapiro and Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations regarding this issue.

“The Lemkin Institute, through its very name, as well as its marketing and other materials, represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology. In reality, the Lemkin Institute’s policies, positions, activities, and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system,” the letter reads.

“The Lemkin Institute is not authorized by Raphael Lemkin’s family, his estate, or any custodian of his legacy to rely upon his name for any purpose,” it continues. “The European Jewish Association and Mr. Lemkin’s family are outraged by the Lemkin Institute’s use of Mr. Lemkin’s name, especially in the context of the Lemkin Institute’s anti-Israel agenda.”

EJA Chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin has sharply condemned the institute’s actions and statements, saying it has “weaponized a sacred legacy against the very people it was meant to protect.”

“The Lemkin Institute was established to prevent genocide — not to distort its definition or fuel antisemitic tropes,” Margolin said in a statement.

Raphael Lemkin was born in Poland in 1900 and eventually escaped the Nazis to the US, where he joined the War Department, documenting Nazi atrocities and preparing for the prosecution of Nazi crimes at the Nuremberg trials. He dedicated much of his life to making the world recognize the horrors of the Holocaust and designating mass murder as a crime which could be prosecuted through international law. Forty-nine members of his family, including his parents, were killed in the Holocaust. He died in 1959.

A 2017 article by James Loeffler, who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, described what he called “the forgotten Zionism of Raphael Lemkin.” Loeffler noted that while “dead international lawyers rarely become celebrities,” Lemkin “has emerged as a potent symbol for activists and politicians across the world.”

Loeffler traced Lemkin’s work as an editor and columnist of a Jewish publication, Zionist World. “The task of the Jewish people is … [to become] a permanent national majority in its own national home,” Lemkin wrote in one such column.

“It is not enough to know Zionism,” Lemkin wrote in another column quoted by Loeffler. “One must imbibe its spirit, one must make Zionism a part of one’s very own ‘self,’ and be prepared to make sacrifices on its behalf.”

Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute, told the online news site EJewish Philanthropy that her organization was named after Lemkin to “bring his name back into public discourse” but “there was no clear person to contact” when naming the institute in 2021.

“We don’t want to cause unhappiness for anybody in the Lemkin family. We did ask to know what legal basis exists for the complaint, and we have not received any response to that specific question,” she added.

Continue Reading

RSS

China Expands Influence Campaign Targeting Israel as Way to Hurt US, Study Finds

Chinese and US flags flutter outside the building of an American company in Beijing, China, April 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tingshu Wang

China has increasingly used state media and covert campaigns to spread anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives in the United States, according to a new study.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, has released a report examining how China’s state media portrays Israel and the United States as solely responsible for the war in Gaza, depicting them as destabilizing actors while spreading anti-Israel and antisemitic messages.

“It is evident that China and its proxies play a significant role in the current wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the United States,” Ofir Dayan, a research associate in the Israel-China Policy Center at INSS, writes in the report.

According to Dayan, China’s dissemination of anti-Israel narratives is not intended to directly harm Israel but rather to undermine the US, while preserving its valuable diplomatic and economic ties with Jerusalem.

“Israel is used as a tool to advance Beijing’s claim that Washington destabilizes both the international system and the regions where it operates,” the report says.

While China’s primary aim is to target the United States, Israel ends up suffering “collateral damage” as a result, the study finds.

In advancing these objectives, INSS explains that China covertly conducts influence campaigns across the United States, promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives, including conspiracy theories about “Jewish control” of politics, the economy, and the media.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused China, along with Qatar, of orchestrating a campaign in Western media to “besiege” Israel by undermining its allies’ support.

There is “an effort to besiege — not isolate as much as besiege Israel — that is orchestrated by the same forces that supported Iran,” Netanyahu said, speaking to a delegation of 250 US state legislators at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

“One is China. And the other is Qatar. They are organizing an attack on Israel … [through] the social media of the Western world and the United States,” the Israeli leader continued. “We will have to counter it, and we will counter it with our own methods.”

According to the INSS report, China’s role in promoting anti-Israel activity in the United States is evident in the narratives it spreads — both publicly, through state-run media, and covertly, through targeted cyber operations.

For example, China Daily — the official news outlet of the Chinese Communist Party — has been openly critical of Israel since the start of the Gaza war, using its coverage to attack Washington and depict it as a destabilizing force fueling conflict worldwide.

The Chinese news outlet has also published articles contending that neither Israel nor the United States care about Gazans or Israeli hostages held by Hamas, accusing the US of instigating wars for domestic political gain, and attempting to create divisions in American society by portraying support for Israel as unpopular.

The study also explains how China exploited the wave of protests across US universities following the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, to deepen divisions within American society.

It portrayed anti-Israel protesters as calm and peaceful defenders of free expression, while depicting pro-Israel demonstrators as violent.

“Posts on heavily censored social media in China were even more blatant, and at times antisemitic, claiming that Israel controls the United States and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany,” the report says.

“Some referred to Israel as a ‘terrorist organization,’ while describing Hamas as a resistance organization and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories,” it continues.

In the past, the US State Department has accused China of promoting conspiracy theories and antisemitism within the United States.

China also carries out covert influence campaigns through targeted cyber operations, aimed in part at shaping Israel’s image in the United States and undermining US-Israel relations.

According to the study, China-linked cyber campaigns have used troll networks to spread malicious content about Israel, disseminating antisemitic messages to American audiences that falsely claim Jewish and Israeli control over US politics.

Continue Reading

RSS

US Lawmakers Slam Zohran Mamdani Over Pledge to Scrap IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

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

Two members of the US Congress on Wednesday slammed New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani after he pledged to abandon a widely used definition of antisemitism if elected.

Reps. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, and Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a joint statement that Mamdani’s plan to scrap the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is “dangerous” and “shameful.” The IHRA definition — adopted by dozens of US states, dozens of countries, and hundreds of governing institutions, including the European Union and United Nations — has been a cornerstone of global efforts to monitor and combat antisemitic hate.

“Walking away from IHRA is not just reckless — it undermines the fight against antisemitism at a time when hate crimes are spiking,” Lawler said in his own statement. Gottheimer echoed that concern, arguing that dismantling the definition “sends exactly the wrong message to Jewish communities who feel under siege.”

The backlash followed Mamdani’s comments last week to Bloomberg News in which he vowed, if elected, to reverse New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order in June adopting the IHRA standard. Mamdani, a democratic socialist and state assemblymember, argued that the IHRA definition blurs the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel and risks chilling free speech.

“I am someone who has supported and support BDS [the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel] and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he said at the time.

The BDS movement seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.

“Let’s be extremely clear: the BDS movement is antisemitic. Efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist are antisemitic. And refusing to outright condemn the violent call to ‘globalize the intifada’ — offering only that you’d discourage its use — is indefensible,” Lawler and Gottheimer said in their joint statement, referring to Mamdani’s recent partial backtracking after his initial defense of the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada.”

“There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan — it is hate speech, plain and simple,” the lawmakers continued. “Given the sharp spike in antisemitic violence, families across the Tri-State area should be alarmed. Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews.”

IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.

In a statement, the Mamdani campaign confirmed that the candidate would not use the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which major civil rights groups have said is essential for fighting an epidemic of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping across the US.

“A Mamdani administration will approach antisemitism in line with the Biden administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism — a strategy that emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue,” Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec told the New York Post.

Lawler and Gottheimer’s pushback comes as Congress debates the Antisemitism Awareness Act, legislation that would codify IHRA’s definition into federal law. Advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have urged lawmakers to back the measure, warning that antisemitic incidents have surged nationwide over the past two years and having a clear definition will better enable law enforcement and others to combat it.

For Mamdani, the controversy over the IHRA definition adds a new flashpoint to a mayoral campaign already drawing national attention. 

A little-known politician before this year’s Democratic primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the BDS movement. He has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.

Mamdani especially came under fire during the summer when he initially defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. However, Mamdani has since backpedaled on his support for the phrase, saying that he would discourage his supporters from using the slogan.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News