RSS
Israel Has a Legal Option to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons: The Use of Force
FILE PHOTO: Iranian demonstrators attend an anti-Israeli gathering in front of the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran, April 14, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Though Iran describes its drone and missile attack on Israel as “retaliation,” it is actually an act of aggression. If Iran were an already-nuclear enemy state, Israel’s capacity for lawful self-defense would be glaringly limited. But as Iran is still pre-nuclear, the Iranian aggression could prove net-gainful for Israel. In essence, this Iranian crime offers Israel an 11th hour opportunity to prevent enemy nuclearization. In formal legal terms, such opportunity falls under the heading of “anticipatory self-defense.”
To be sure, the tangible human and material costs to Israel of any further escalation could be very high, but fighting against a not-yet-nuclear enemy that initiated the aggression would represent Israel’s best chance to avoid an eventual nuclear war.
Among other derelictions, Tehran’s earlier assurance that its strike against Israel would be limited “to avoid escalations” was disingenuous. After all, during any crisis search for “escalation dominance” by an already-nuclear Israel and a not-yet-nuclear Iran, competitive risk-taking would favor the former.
Under authoritative international law, defensive first strikes or acts of “preemption” could be permissible in existential-threat circumstances. But even if resorts to anticipatory self-defense would be deemed lawful or law-enforcing, they could still prove unreasonably dangerous, strategically misconceived, tangibly ineffectual, and/or irrational. It follows, going forward, that Israel will need to evaluate all anticipatory self-defense options along the two discrete standards of law and strategy.
From the standpoint of international law, preemption could represent a fully permissible option. Though subject to important constraints and conditions, the right of “anticipatory self-defense” is well established. And while a “bolt from the blue” Israeli preemption against Iran could involve assorted difficulties, such difficulties are unlikely to apply in an ongoing conventional war. In this connection, Iran had repeatedly declared its intention to strike Israel as “punishment.”
In law, this declaration, now fulfilled, was an open admission of mens rea or criminal intent.
The right of self-defense by forestalling an attack appears in Hugo Grotius’ Book II of The Law of War and Peace in 1625. Recognizing the need for “present danger” and threatening behavior that is “imminent in a point of time,” Grotius indicates that self defense is to be permitted not only after an attack has been suffered, but also in advance, that is, “where the deed may be anticipated.” Or, as he explains a bit further on in the same chapter, “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill….”
A similar position was taken by Emmerich de Vattel. In Book II of The Law of Nations (1758), Vattel argues: “The safest plan is to prevent evil, where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor. It may even anticipate the other’s design, being careful, however, not to act upon vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run the risk of becoming itself the aggressor.”
Grotius and Vattel draw upon the early Jewish interpreters, although the latter speak more generally of interpersonal relations than about international relations. Additionally, the Torah contains a prominent provision exonerating from guilt a potential victim of robbery with possible violence if, in self defense, he struck down and if necessary even killed the attacker before he committed any crime. (Ex. 22:1).
Even if Iran were not in a condition of active belligerency with the Jewish state, an Israeli preemptive action could still be law-enforcing. Israel, in the fashion of every state under world law, is entitled to existential self-defense. Today, in an age of uniquely destructive weaponry, international law does not require Israel or any other state to expose its citizens to atomic destruction. Especially in circumstances where active hostilities are already underway — that is, during times of conventional warfighting — Israel’s legal right to attack selected Iranian nuclear facilities would be unassailable.
Under current conflict circumstances, an Israeli non-nuclear preemption would represent the best available way to reduce the risks of a regional nuclear war. If Israel waits until the next “ordinary” war with Iran, that recalcitrant foe could conceivably launch nuclear attacks. Even if a then-nuclear Tehran would strike first with conventional weapons, Israel could still have no meaningful tactical choice but to undertake a nuclear retaliation.
The right of anticipatory self defense has its modern origins in the Caroline incident, an event that concerned the unsuccessful rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada against British rule. Following this event, the serious threat of armed attack has generally been taken to justify a state’s militarily defensive action. In an exchange of diplomatic notes between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, then-US Secretary of State Daniel Webster outlined a framework for self defense which did not require an actual attack. In it, military response to a threat was judged permissible so long as the danger posed was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”
These are bewildering matters. What should Israeli planners conclude? The answer depends in part upon their view of Iran’s reciprocal judgments concerning Israel’s leaders. Do these judgments suggest a leadership that believes it can gain the upper hand with a nuclear counter-retaliation? Or do they suggest a leadership that believes such counter-retaliation would bring upon Israel variously intolerable levels of adversarial destruction?
All relevant calculations assume rationality. In the absence of calculations that compare the costs and benefits of strategic alternatives, what will likely happen between Israel and Iran would remain a matter of conjecture. The prospect of non-rational judgments in this relationship is always plausible, especially as the influence of Islamist/Jihadist ideology remains strongly determinative among Iranian decision-making elites.
Iran’s attack on Israel is anything but a lawful retaliation.
Under all pertinent international law, Iran’s attack represents an overt act of aggression, but one that now also leaves Jerusalem with a not-to-be ignored opportunity to preemptively destroy selected Iranian military targets. Such a non-nuclear preemption opportunity could express the optimal way to prevent future and irremediably destructive nuclear aggressions from Iran.
While Israel’s active defenses have been remarkably successful against the Iranian missile and drone attacks, more offensive measures will be required. It could never be sufficiently purposeful or law enforcing for Israel to confine its reaction to the current Iranian attacks to passive strategies of interception. Above all other strategic considerations, the Iranian attacks, whether halted or ongoing, offer Israel a life-saving opportunity to avoid later preemptions against an already-nuclear enemy.
“The safety of the People,” observed ancient Roman philosopher Cicero, “is the highest law.” Now, the safety of the People of Israel could best be served by waging a just war against a pre-nuclear Iran. Though such a war might still involve significant human and material costs, it would be substantially less catastrophic than war between two already-nuclear powers. This is the case even if an Iran that had crossed the nuclear threshold was verifiably “less powerful” than a nuclear Israel. In any pertinent nuclear conflict scenario, even a “weaker” Iran could wreak intolerable harms upon Israel.
All things considered, if an ongoing or future war with Iran is inevitable, it would be much safer for Jerusalem to proceed as the sole nuclear combatant. Accordingly, this is not a moment for Israeli strategic thinking to become confused or shortsighted. Calculating that immediate war curtailment is necessarily the best available option would subject Israel to future instances of existential harm. This could include a full-scale nuclear war.
The author is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of twelve major books dealing with international relations, military strategy and world affairs. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland on August 31, 1945, and lectures and publishes widely on issues of terrorism, counter-terrorism, nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres’ latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed. 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post Israel Has a Legal Option to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons: The Use of Force first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Scottish First Minister Faces Backlash Over Anti-Israel Stance as Jewish Community Warns of Rising Antisemitism
Palestinian supporters protesting outside a Scotland vs. Israel match at the a UEFA Women’s European Qualifiers at Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland on May 31, 2024. Photo: Alex Todd/Sportpix/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Scottish First Minister John Swinney is facing fierce backlash after nearly 3,000 signatories accused his government’s anti-Israel stance of fueling antisemitism and endangering Jewish communities across Scotland.
Last week, Swinney announced that his government would halt new public contracts with arms companies supplying Israel, saying that “in the face of genocide, there can be no business as usual.”
In response to this latest anti-Israel move, the organization Scotland Against Antisemitism (SAA) sent Swinney a letter urging him to retract his “inflammatory language.”
“For the Scottish government to endorse this modern-day blood libel will not save a single innocent life in Gaza, but it will embolden those who now use the language of genocide to justify the harassment and intimidation of Jews here in Scotland,” the letter reads
The group also urged Swinney to engage with Scotland’s Jewish community and implement concrete measures to protect their safety amid a rising wave of anti-Jewish hate crimes and antisemitism.
“As you are no doubt aware, our small and increasingly vulnerable community is living in an extraordinarily hostile environment, one that has only worsened since Oct. 7,” SAA wrote in the letter, referring to the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel in 2023.
According to the group, Jews comprise less than one percent of Scotland’s population, yet they were the victims of roughly 17 percent of all religiously motivated hate crimes last year.
“That figure alone should be a matter of national shame,” SAA wrote.
Read our full letter to @scotgov and @ScotGovFM and sign here; https://t.co/J7KsOmaidJ pic.twitter.com/1oMpToxN0U
— Scotland Against Antisemitism (@SAA_scotland) September 4, 2025
Swinney’s announcement came after the Scottish Parliament voted to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly this month, joining a growing number of Western countries supporting such an initiative.
“Scotland stands proudly in solidarity with the people of Gaza in the face of genocide,” Swinney wrote in a post on X after the motion was passed.
I am proud that @ScotParl has overwhelmingly voted to call for the recognition of the State of Palestine.
Scotland stands proudly in solidarity with the people of Gaza in the face of genocide. pic.twitter.com/UyLXpitPWk
— John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) September 3, 2025
The government’s increasingly hostile stance toward Israel has drawn sharp criticism from members of Scotland’s Jewish community.
On Monday, a Scottish government spokesperson confirmed that Swinney met with members of the Jewish community following their request for assurances about their safety in Scotland.
“As the first minister made clear in setting out his statement to Parliament, the Scottish government deeply values our relationship with Scotland’s Jewish community and it is vital that they feel safe and supported,” the statement read. “There can be no place for antisemitism or hatred of any kind in Scotland.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), a UK-based charity, has released new research conducted by YouGov which showed that those characterized as embracing “entrenched” antisemitic attitudes in the UK had grown to 21 percent, the highest figure on record, showing a jump from 16 percent in 2024 and 11 percent in 2021.
The poll found that nearly half of Britons (45 percent) said Israel treats Palestinians like the Nazis treated Jews, up from 33 percent last year, and with 60 percent of young adults agreeing.
A striking 20 percent of young voters said that Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish state, while 31 percent disagreed. Similarly, 19 percent of British young adults justified Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities.
The data came after CAA earlier this year released a separate report revealing the extent of antisemitism experienced by the Jewish community across the UK.
In the past two years, half of Jews have considered leaving Britain due to rising antisemitism following the Oct. 7 atrocities, a figure that climbs to 67 percent among those aged 18 to 24.
According to the poll, 58 percent of British Jews choose to conceal their Judaism to avoid antisemitism, and 43 percent say they do not feel welcome in the UK.
In Scotland, almost 20 percent of Jews said they would not report an antisemitic hate crime to law enforcement, with almost two-thirds doubting that such acts would be prosecuted.
More than 80 percent of British Jews believe authorities are not doing enough to combat antisemitism. Three-quarters also voiced dissatisfaction with the way police have handled anti-Israel protests.
According to additional data provided by the Community Security Trust (CST), a nonprofit charity that advises Britain’s Jewish community on security matters, there were 1,521 antisemitic incidents in the UK from January to June of this year. It marks the second-highest total of incidents ever recorded by CST in the first six months of any year, following the first half of 2024 in which 2,019 antisemitic incidents were recorded.
In total last year, CST recorded 3,528 antisemitic incidents for 2024, the country’s second worst year for antisemitism and an 18 percent drop from 2023’s record of 4,296.
In one of the latest instances of antisemitism, two Jewish comedians were dropped from a major arts and culture festival in Edinburgh after staff cited “safety concerns” over their pro-Israel views.
RSS
Spain Follows Slovenia in Threatening to Withdraw From 2026 Eurovision Song Contest if Israel Participates
Yuval Raphael from Israel with the title “New Day Will Rise” on stage at the second semi-final of the 69th Eurovision Song Contest in the Arena St. Jakobshalle. Photo: Jens Büttner/dpa via Reuters Connect
Spanish Culture Minister Ernest Urtasun has joined Slovenia’s national broadcaster in threatening to withdraw their country’s participation in the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) if Israel is not banned because of its military actions in the Gaza Strip during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.
Urtasun appeared Monday morning on the Spanish news show “La hora de La 1 on TVE” and reminded viewers that in May, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called on the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organizes the ESC, to ban Israel from the international competition. Urtasun said on Monday that if Israel participated in the ESC “and we fail to expel it, measures will have to be taken,” as cited by the Spanish daily newspaper La Vanguardia. He said he believes Israel’s participation in the contest cannot be normalized and tolerated.
Urtasun, who is also a spokesperson for Spain’s left-wing alliance Sumar, additionally denied that it is antisemitic to denounce the so-called “genocide” taking place in Gaza and described Israel as a “genocidal government.” He also said he feels pride over Israel’s decision to ban Spanish Deputy Prime Minister and Labor Minister Yolanda Díaz and Minister of Childhood and Youth Sira Rego from entering the Jewish state because of their antisemitic statements and criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the sanctions early Monday against the Spanish politicians because of their “anti-Israel and antisemitic” comments and “support for terrorism and violence against Israelis.” Spain has condemned the move in a released statement. Sanchez is a longtime critic of Israel, and last year called for Israel to be excluded from all international cultural events, including the Eurovision, because of its military campaign targeting Hamas terrorists in Gaza.
Spain’s national broadcaster RTVE will ultimately make the final decision regarding Spain’s withdrawal from the ESC.
Meanwhile, the director of Slovenia’s national broadcaster, RTVSLO, has announced that it will likely withdraw from the contest next year if Israel participates. Ksenija Horvat recently said that RTVE has reached out to EBU several times with concerns pertaining to Israel’s participation in the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest and next year’s competition.
RTVSLO called for the expulsion of Israel from Eurovision 2025 and Horvat sent a letter to members of the EBU’s executive board that RTVSLO shared online in May about Israel’s participation in next year’s competition.
“We sent some very specific questions and proposals, just like last year,” Horvat said recently. “Last year we were more or less ignored. This year is basically the same. So, we realistically think that we will not be able to go to the Eurovision Song Contest. If we won’t be able to reach an appropriate system of participation, we will not be there.”
Even the winner of last year’s Eurovision, Austrian singer JJ, has said that he wants Israel to be banned from the Eurovision next year. The 70th Eurovision Song Contest will be held in May 2026 at the Wiener Stadthalle in Vienna, Austria.
The EBU recently extended its penalty-free withdrawal deadline for broadcasters to mid-December, not long after the EBU’s General Assembly will convene and likely discuss Israel’s participation in next year’s competition.
Ahead of last year’s Eurovision, more than 70 former contestants, as well as public broadcasters around the world, called for the EBU to ban Israel from the competition. When the contest ended, and Israel finished in second place, Spain’s RTVE demanded an audit of the voting system after Israel was a favorite in the popular vote. The director of the competition and EBU’s executive supervisor of the ESC both denied accusations that voting was rigged in any way in favor of Israel.
RSS
Jewish Voice for Peace Members Form New, More Radical Anti-Zionist Student Group
Pro-Hamas protesters led by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) demonstrate outside the New York Stock Exchange on Oct. 14, 2024. Photo: Derek French via Reuters Connect
Some college students affiliated with Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), an anti-Israel organization that has helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, have announced that they are forming a new group, citing dissatisfaction with what they described as JVP’s insufficient efforts to “dismantle Zionism.”
The students announced on social media on Sunday the formation of the Anti-Zionist Jewish Student Front, an organization which they claim will take a more adversarial stance toward Zionism on campus.
“We work to dismantle Zionism in its entirety by confronting Zionist institutions on campus, to struggle for divestment, and to pursue the criminalization of Zionism as a white supremacist weapon of war,” the Anti-Zionist Jewish Student Front wrote on Instagram.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Anti-Zionist Jewish Student Front (AJSF) (@antizionistjewishstudentfront)
The group characterized the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel as a form of legitimate “resistance” and declared the Israeli military response as a “horrific expansion of the Zionist project” and a supposed “genocide.”
“In one month, we also mark two years of the strongest sustained resistance by the might of Palestinian journalists, doctors, men, women, and children, refusing to abandon national liberation and continuously defying vicious onslaught, backed by American dollars,” the group continued.
The Anti-Zionist Jewish Student Front claimed that it adheres to the Thawabit, a Palestinian nationalist framework that includes the so-called “right of return” for millions of Palestinians and their descendants to Israel, claims to Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, and explicit support for so-called “resistance” against the Jewish state. Palestinian leaders and activists have described the Thawabit as a set of principles aimed at eliminating Israel and establishing a Palestinian state in its place.
Anti-Israel protests and antisemitism on university campuses exploded in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, amid the ensuing war in Gaza. During this period, JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a leader of the anti-Israel movement.
Despite JVP’s name, a poll released earlier this year found that the vast majority of American Jews believe that anti-Zionist movements and anti-Israel university protests are antisemitic. The findings — part of a survey commissioned by The Jewish Majority, a nonprofit founded by a researcher whose aim is to monitor and accurately report Jewish opinion on the most consequential issues affecting the community — also showed that Jews across the US overwhelmingly oppose the views and tactics of JVP.
Meanwhile, StandWithUs (SWU), an organization which promotes a mission of “supporting Israel and fighting antisemitism,” released a report in January examining how the farl-eft JVP organization “promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories” and even partners with terrorist organizations to achieve its “primary goal” of “dismantling the State of Israel.”
According to the report, JVP weaponizes the plight of Palestinians to advance an “extremist” agenda which promotes the destruction of Israel and whitewashes terrorism, receiving money from organizations that have ties to Middle Eastern countries such as Iran.
JVP, which has repeatedly defended the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, argued in a recently resurfaced 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians.
Critics of the organization often point out that many JVP chapters do not have a single person of Jewish faith. The organization does not require a Jewish person to found a chapter and has even helped orchestrate anti-Israel demonstrations in front of synagogues.