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
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.