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
Ireland Becomes First European Nation to Advance Ban on Trade With Israeli Settlements
A pro-Hamas demonstration in Ireland led by nationalist party Sinn Fein. Photo: Reuters/Clodagh Kilcoyne
Ireland has become 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.
On Wednesday, Irish Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Simon Harris announced that the legislation has already been approved by the government and will now move to the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade for pre-legislative scrutiny.
“Ireland is speaking up and speaking out against the genocidal activity in Gaza,” Harris said during a press conference.
The Irish diplomat also told reporters he hopes the “real benefit” of the legislation will be to encourage other countries to follow suit, “because it is important that every country uses every lever at its disposal.”
Today Ireland becomes the first country in Europe to bring forward legislation to ban trade with the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Ireland is speaking up and speaking out against the genocidal activity in Gaza.
Every country must pull every lever at its disposal. pic.twitter.com/Z4RTjqntEY— Simon Harris TD (@SimonHarrisTD) June 24, 2025
Joining a growing number of EU member states aiming to curb Israel’s defensive campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, 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.”
Once implemented, the law will criminalize the importation of goods from Israeli settlements into Ireland, empowering customs officials to inspect, seize, and confiscate any such shipments.
“The situation in Palestine remains a matter of deep public concern,” Harris said. “I have made it consistently clear that this government will use all levers at its disposal to address the horrifying situation on the ground and to contribute to long-term efforts to achieve a sustainable peace on the basis of the two-state solution.”
“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are illegal and threaten the viability of the two-state solution,” the Irish diplomat continued. “This is the longstanding position of the European Union and our international partners. Furthermore, this is the clear position under international law.”
Harris also urged the EU to comply with the ICJ’s ruling by taking a more decisive and “adequate response” regarding imports from Israeli settlements.
“This is an issue that I will continue to press at EU level, and I reiterated my call for concrete proposals from the European Commission at the Foreign Affairs Council this week,” he said.
Last week, Ireland and eight other EU member states — Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden — called on the European Commission to draft proposals for how EU countries can halt trade and imports with Israeli settlements, in line with obligations set out by the ICJ.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned the latest move by European countries, calling it “shameful” and a misguided attempt to undermine Israel while it faces “existential” threats from Iran and its proxies, including Hamas.
“It is regrettable that even when Israel is fighting an existential threat which is in Europe’s vital interest — there are those who can’t resist their anti-Israeli obsession,” the top Israeli diplomat said in a post on X.
It is regrettable that even when Israel fighting an existential threat which is in Europe vital interest – there are those who can’t resist their anti-Israeli obsession.
Shameful! https://t.co/lxm9qm8sM1— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) June 19, 2025
The post Ireland Becomes First European Nation to Advance Ban on Trade With Israeli Settlements first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Justice Department Warns of Threats to Jewish Targets as Concern Mounts Over Iranian Sleeper Cells
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei listens to the national anthem as Air Force officers salute during their meeting in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The US Department of Justice is closely tracking potential threats to the Jewish community nationwide amid growing concerns over Iranian sleeper cells launching attacks and fallout from recent American and Israeli military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
On Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi reiterated the Trump administration’s recent warnings about potential Iran-linked sleeper cells and domestic radicalization, following escalating tensions in the Middle East during the 12-day Iran-Israel war.
During her testimony on Capitol Hill, Bondi reassured lawmakers that all federal agencies are working around the clock to keep Americans safe and are closely monitoring any potential national security threats.
Sleeper cells are covert operatives or terrorists embedded in rival countries who remain dormant until they receive orders to act and carry out attacks.
“Iran, of course, is a threat. They have been a threat, and they always will be a threat to our country,” Bondi said in her testimony. “And we are working hand in hand with all of our agencies to protect Americans and to keep us safe.”
Tehran’s ability to coordinate or inspire attacks on American soil has long been a concern for US law enforcement and intelligence officials — a fear that only deepened after US President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020.
According to Janatan Sayeh, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based think tank, the threat from sleeper cells remains credible due to the Iranian regime’s ongoing desire to avenge Soleimani’s death.
“Tehran takes its reputation seriously and holds long-standing grudges,” Sayeh told The Algemeiner. “Its defeat in the recent 12-Day War, when top generals, nuclear scientists, and major nuclear infrastructure were lost, will likely deepen its motivation to retaliate, including the possibility of action on US soil.”
Last weekend, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a former member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with suspected Hezbollah ties, a former Iranian army sniper, and a terror watchlist suspect during a sweep targeting illegal Iranian migrants across the country. Both the IRGC and Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy based in Lebanon, are US-designated terrorist organizations.
When entering the US, Iranian migrants are flagged as “special interest aliens” and undergo heightened federal screening for possible terrorism ties, given Washington’s designation of Tehran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
In last weekend’s ICE operation, five of the 11 Iranians arrested had prior criminal convictions, including grand larceny as well as drug and firearm possession.
Bondi noted that the administration had arrested 1,500 undocumented Iranian immigrants in the US, saying she would discuss the issue further in a classified setting.
“Have they invaded our country? Absolutely,” Bondi said.
For decades, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah have established a strong foothold in the Western Hemisphere, leveraging alliances with governments such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to expand their influence and support terrorist operations and illicit activities.
Backed by Tehran with an estimated $700 million in annual funding, Hezbollah is regarded by experts as the world’s most technically sophisticated terrorist organization, although the group suffered severe losses during its war with Israel last year. Active in at least 15 US cities, the Islamist movement was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group prior to 9/11.
“While the [Iranian] regime often tries to obscure its role to deflect responsibility, that effort doesn’t always succeed, especially given how deeply Israel has penetrated its intelligence apparatus,” Sayeh told The Algemeiner.
“To hedge against these vulnerabilities, Tehran has strengthened ties with Western criminal networks. This allows the regime to distance itself from the assassination and terror plots it orchestrates,” he continued.
Following the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, law enforcement agencies across the country have ramped up surveillance of Iran-backed operatives amid growing fears of retaliation.
Beyond facilitating illicit financing, these operatives act as sleeper agents, poised to carry out terrorist attacks on US soil on behalf of Iran if given such an order.
According to NBC News, Iranian officials warned Trump during last week’s G7 summit that they would deploy “sleeper cells” to carry out attacks on American soil if Washington decided to strike.
Although no specific or credible threats have yet emerged, US Customs and Border Protection says the threat of sleeper cells has “never been higher.”
But this is far from a recent development. It’s an ongoing pattern, with Iranian and Hezbollah agents repeatedly documented over the past two decades surveilling and collecting intelligence on multiple targets throughout the US.
“Tehran has a record of using Iranian nationals to carry out assassination plots and attacks inside the United States,” Sayeh told The Algemeiner. “These operations are typically run by either the Ministry of Intelligence or the IRGC, often through coordination between specialized departments.”
One notable case is the foiled 2011 plot in which US authorities uncovered an Iranian plan to assassinate the then-Saudi ambassador to the US by bombing Café Milano, a Washington, DC restaurant frequented by American officials.
In May 2023, the Justice Department announced that Alexei Saab, 46, was sentenced to 12 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for receiving military-type training from Hezbollah, marriage fraud, and making false statements.
In 2000, Saab entered the United States, where he lived while remaining a Hezbollah operative who “continued to receive military training in Lebanon and conducted numerous operations.” According to law enforcement and Saab’s own admission, he surveilled various “soft targets” in the US for potential future attacks.
One Hezbollah operative told the FBI during interviews in 2016 and 2017 that if the US and Iran went to war “the US sleeper cell would expect to be called upon to act.” That operative, Ali Mohamed Kourani, and another Hezbollah member were carrying out preoperational surveillance for potential Hezbollah attacks in the US and Panama, according to federal prosecutors.
The post US Justice Department Warns of Threats to Jewish Targets as Concern Mounts Over Iranian Sleeper Cells first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Leaders Push US Congress to Bolster Antisemitism Protections Amid Rising Anti-Jewish Violence
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul lays flowers in honor of shooting victims Israeli Embassy workers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, US, May 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Hundreds of Jewish leaders from across the US gathered in Washington, DC on Wednesday with a clear and urgent message to lawmakers that Jewish communities in the United States are under threat and need stronger federal protection.
Nearly 400 advocates representing more than 100 Jewish communities participated in the two-day United for Security Emergency Leadership Mission in the nation’s capital, holding more than 200 meetings with members of Congress and their staff. The mission, organized by the Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, comes amid a rise in domestic antisemitism and increased tensions between Israel and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter urged American officials to take a hard line as talks with Iran are set to resume.
“The basis of any agreement pursued with Iran has to be there is no more attempt to annihilate the Jewish state, the Jewish people,” Leiter said during remarks at the Hilton in Washington.
Much of the mission focused on concerns regarding domestic antisemitism. Organizers say Jewish Americans have faced a surge of threats since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault on Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza, with attacks and harassment targeting synagogues, schools, and community centers across the country. Data indicates that antisemitic attacks have surged across the US since the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel.
The meeting also comes one month after the fatal shooting of Israeli Embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in Washington, D.C. The pair was targeted by a pro-Palestinian activist after exiting an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. Milgrim’s father has suggested that the pair might have been saved had there been more security at the venue.
“Had there been more security at the event where Sarah and Yaron were tragically murdered, had there been more security outside, watching the crowd, I feel that it possibly could have identified the shooter pacing back and forth and possibly disarmed him,” Bob Milgrim told the Jewish delegation on Wednesday.
Advocates are calling on Congress to adopt a six-point federal policy plan that includes raising the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $1 billion annually, providing support for private security costs, expanding FBI counterterrorism resources, and enhancing federal aid to local law enforcement. The plan also calls for stronger enforcement of hate crime laws and new efforts to regulate online hate speech and violent incitement.
“We are here to speak with one voice,” said Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America. “We know there are many things on the nation’s agenda, but we must insist that the safety and security of the Jewish community and the battle against domestic terror be at the very top.”
“Support for Israel’s security is not a partisan issue. It is a moral imperative, a strategic interest and a Jewish responsibility,” added William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents. “Support for Israel is not negotiable, Jewish safety in America is not optional, and the silence in the face of antisemitic incitement, whether it comes from Iran’s Ayatollahs or American campuses, is unacceptable.”
The mission brought together more than 50 national organizations in what participants described as an unprecedented show of unity. Organizers said the gathering reflected a growing sense of alarm over the safety of Jewish communities at home and abroad.
The post Jewish Leaders Push US Congress to Bolster Antisemitism Protections Amid Rising Anti-Jewish Violence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.