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
US Rep. Nick Langworthy Introduces Bill to Deport Foreign Students Who Support Terror Groups
US Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY). Photo: Michael Brochstein / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
US Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY) has introduced legislation to deport non-citizen students who support any US-designated terrorist group, arguing that these individuals have abused the “privilege” of seeking an education in America.
“It’s a privilege to come to America to learn at our institutions, NOT [sic] a right. The antisemitic actions that have threatened the safety of Jewish students must end,” Langworthy posted on X/Twitter on Tuesday. “That’s why I just reintroduced the Veto Your Visas Act, which ensures anyone here on a student visa who supports a Foreign Terrorist Organization will be deported. Whether it’s Mahmoud Kahlil or any other perpetrator of terrorist propaganda, you will be kicked out of our country.”
The legislation would mandate that colleges and universities alert the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) immediately if they learn that a student on an Exchange Visitor or Academic Student nonimmigrant visa has expressed support for an FTO. Additionally, the bill would mandate the US Secretary of State to cancel the student’s visa.
The legislation comes on the heels of the arrest of former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, who spearheaded raucous and destructive protests on Columbia’s campus against Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza. Khalil’s conduct caused the Trump administration to apprehend and attempt to deport him, although his lawyers are challenging the government in court. Khalil, a Palestinian activist raised in Syria, is a green card holder and a permanent US resident.
“I commend the Trump administration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on taking swift action against Khalil,” Langworthy said in a statement while announcing his legislation. “It is a privilege to come to the United States to study and learn — it is not a free pass to come here and spread hate and support terrorism. This legislation would ensure anyone here on a student visa who supports a Foreign Terrorist Organization will be deported, protecting our national security and making it clear we have zero tolerance for terrorism.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Vern Buchanan (FL), Brandon Gill (TX), Edwards (NC), Abraham Hamadeh (AZ), Paul Gosar (AZ), Pete Stauber (MN), and Daniel Webster ‘FL).
In the 17 months following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, universities across the US have experienced a surge in campus antisemitism. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Israel, hordes of students and faculty orchestrated protests and demonstrations condemning the Jewish state. Student groups at elite universities such as Harvard and Columbia issued statements blaming Israel for the attacks and expressing support for Hamas, a US-designated terrorist organization.
Many of these rowdy protests have been spearheaded by foreign students and professors on Visas or green cards. The destruction and violence caused by the unsanctioned demonstrations have drawn scrutiny toward universities that accept large numbers of students from foreign countries where terrorist groups are based or operate. In addition, legislators have increasingly condemned universities for accepting money from Qatar, a backer of Hamas.
Several high-profile universities have also come under fire for allegedly showing a significant level of tolerance for anti-Jewish sentiment festering on their campuses.
The post US Rep. Nick Langworthy Introduces Bill to Deport Foreign Students Who Support Terror Groups first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Four More Sentenced to Jail for Amsterdam Attack Against Israeli Soccer Fans
Israeli soccer fans under assault, near Amsterdam Central station, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Nov. 8, 2024, in this still image obtained from a social media video. X/iAnnet/via REUTERS
An Amsterdam court announced at a public hearing on Wednesday jail sentences, ranging from 11 days to three months, for four more perpetrators of the violent attack against Israeli soccer fans that took place in the streets of the Dutch capital last year.
The lengthiest sentence of three months, with the deduction of pre-trial detention, was given to a 27-year-old man who incited violence against Maccabi Tel Aviv fans on Nov. 7, 2024, with messages posted in a WhatsApp group chat that had thousands of members. He wrote “Dead Jew better than a living Jew” and messages about “Dirty cancer Jews.”
The court shared several other of his offensive messages, one of which included an image of Holocaust victim Anne Frank alongside the text “slaughter gas is for losers. I use Zyklon B,” referring to the deadly gas used in gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps. He had also shared an image of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler with the text “pull up pull up gas,” a drawing of Hitler with a swastika, and the message “Hamas Hamas all Jews on the gas.”
The 27-year-old also insulted Jews, made comments trivializing the Holocaust, and shared locations of “those Jews” so they would be attacked during the “Jew hunting” rampage that took place on Nov. 7. He even provided a time and location for attackers to gather and coordinate their assault, which took place in Amsterdam after Maccabi Tel Aviv competed against the Dutch team Ajax in a UEFA Europa League match. The court said he confessed to assisting in the violence carried out by dozens of anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian gangs.
Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were chased by assailants carrying knives and sticks, run over by cars, physically assaulted, and some were forced by their attackers to say “Free Palestine.” Amsterdam’s mayor called the attackers “antisemitic hit-and-run squads.”
A 32-year-old man, who founded the WhatsApp group where the attack was planned and promoted, was sentenced on Wednesday to six weeks in prison, minus the 26 days because of his pre-trial detention. He told attackers on the night of the premeditated and coordinated onslaught where and how they could escape police arrest, and where they could find Israelis to victimize.
A 22-year-old man was given one month in prison, with deduction for his pre-trial detention, for assisting in the violence. He shared on the WhatsApp group chat the location of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters and urged attackers to spread out in different locations around Amsterdam. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had demanded 12 months in prison for him, but the court ruled there was not sufficient evidence that he personally assaulted Israeli soccer fans.
The fourth suspect sentenced on Wednesday, a 26-year-old, chased a Maccabi Tel Aviv supporter and physically beat the victim with his belt. He also has a criminal record with previous violent crimes. However, he does not need to do any jail time for his actions. On Wednesday, he was sentenced to 30 days in prison, of which 19 days is suspended. Eleven days remain in his sentence, but because that is equivalent to his pre-trial detention, he does not need to spend any time in prison. He was also given a two-year probation period for public assault. On Tuesday night, the night before his sentencing, he was seen at an anti-Israel demonstration in Amsterdam Central Station, according to Dutch media.
Sentencing for the attack began in December 2024, when an Amsterdam court ruled five men would face penalties ranging from six months to one month in prison, and a work sentence of 100 hours. In total, nine people have now been prosecuted for the violence. Amsterdam police said they have 122 suspects in the case.
The Lawfare Project, an international Jewish civil rights organization legally representing more than 50 victims of the attack, previously lambasted the Dutch court for what they described as “light sentences” for the assailants.
The post Four More Sentenced to Jail for Amsterdam Attack Against Israeli Soccer Fans first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Calls for Global Siege on US, Israeli Embassies After Renewed Strikes in Gaza
Illustrative: Pro-Hamas demonstrators gather in the heavily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of Borough Park in New York City on Feb. 18, 2o25. Photo: Screenshot
Hamas has called for “mass demonstrations and a global siege on Israeli and American embassies around the globe,” according to Iranian state-run media, following Israel’s decision to resume military operations against the Palestinian terrorist group in Gaza after negotiations to extend a ceasefire failed.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Hamas urged the “Arabic and Islamic world” and “free people everywhere” to mobilize against “the Israeli regime’s resuming its US-backed war of genocide against the Palestinian territory.”
The group called for immediate pressure on both Israel and the United States “to end the ongoing military onslaught,” in Gaza, according to Iran’s Press TV.
“The fascist occupation government has resumed its barbaric aggression and genocide war against our people in Gaza, violating all human norms, values, and divine laws during the holy month of Ramadan,” the statement reads”
Iran is Hamas’s chief international backer, providing the Palestinian terrorist group with weapons, funding, and training.
Israel on Monday night began conducting “extensive” strikes against Hamas targets in Gaza, before resuming ground operations in the coastal enclave on Wednesday.
“This follows Hamas’s repeated refusal to release our hostages, as well as its rejection of all of the proposals it has received from US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and from the mediators,” the Israeli prime minister’s office said in a statement. “Israel will, from now on, act against Hamas with increasing military strength.”
In its own statement, Hamas called for mass demonstrations in cities worldwide and a coordinated siege of Israeli and American diplomatic missions “in response to the Israeli government’s resumption of its military aggression and its reversal of the ceasefire agreement, which has flouted all international and humanitarian laws and norms.”
The Palestinian Islamist group also urged demonstrators to raise Palestinian flags and mobilize resources in support of “the legitimate rights of Palestinians to freedom, independence, and an end to a simultaneous stifling blockade that the regime was enforcing against the coastal strip.”
“Let us unite all efforts at the Arab, Islamic, and international levels and be one voice against the Zionist aggression and the genocide war it is waging against more than two million Palestinians,” the statement read.
Israel recently imposed a total blockade on Gaza after the first phase of the ceasefire with Hamas expired without an agreement to extend the truce.
During the first phase, which began on Jan. 19, fighting ceased for six weeks as Hamas released 33 Israeli hostages (25 alive and eight deceased) in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom had been serving long sentences in Israeli prisons for terrorist activities.
The second phase was meant to include a complete Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza and the release of the remaining hostages taken by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists from Israel. However, negotiations faltered when Hamas rejected a US proposal, supported by Israel, to release additional hostages and extend the ceasefire while continuing to discuss a permanent resolution.
The US, Qatar, and Egypt have been trying to bridge the differences between the Islamic terrorist group and Israel to restart negotiations in order to release remaining hostages held in Gaza and lift the blockade.
On Tuesday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Jerusalem will not cease military operations against Hamas until all the hostages are returned.
“Hamas must realize that the rules of the game have changed, and if it does not immediately release all the hostages, the gates of hell will open, and it will find itself facing the full intensity of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in the air, sea, and land, until its complete elimination,” Katz said during a visit to the Tel Nof Airbase.
“We will not stop fighting until all the hostages are returned home and all threats to the southern residents are removed,” he added.
The post Hamas Calls for Global Siege on US, Israeli Embassies After Renewed Strikes in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login