RSS
Israel Is Allowed to Target Hamas Terrorists; International Law Is Not a Suicide Pact
A home destroyed in Kibbutz Nir Oz in southern Israel during Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack that is featured in the film Kibbutz Nir Oz by “Uvda.” Photo: Screenshot
“Each state is expected to aid and enforce the law of nations, as part of the common law, by inflicting an adequate punishment upon the offenses against that universal law.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
Israel’s targeted killing of Hamas leader Marwan Issa in mid-March raises tactical and legal questions. Though it is unclear that such tactics can diminish tangible terror threats to Israel, there is also no reason to rule out their permissibility under international law. In the final analysis, such permissibility derives from the world legal system’s continuously anarchic structure and from the corresponding right of all nation-states states to protect their citizens from willful slaughter.
There are many clarifying details. By definition, world legal authority remains a fundamentally “self-help,” or vigilante system of justice. It is amid this perpetual global anarchy that every anti-terror government must systematically assess its strategic and tactical options. The victim of this necessary act (a targeted air attack) was a key Hamas planner of the October 7, 2024, assault on Israeli civilians, a murderous terror assault that combined the mass killing of noncombatants with the orchestrated rape of Israeli civilians.
Hamas, like Hezbollah, draws tangible support from Iran. A principal risk of leaving this insidious symbiosis unchallenged would be a direct Iranian attack on Israel that escalates incrementally into unconventional belligerency. Eventually, even if Iran were to remain non-nuclear, an intra-crisis search for “escalation dominance” by Israel and Iran could produce unprecedented nuclear conflict. This sui generis result could be produced suddenly, as a “bolt-from-the-blue,” or in variously hard to decipher increments. Initially, it could “present” as an Iranian use of radiation dispersal weapons (nuclear radiation rather than nuclear explosives), or as a conventional attack on Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona.
Under international law, which is binding upon all sovereign states, terrorism represents a crime that should be prevented and must be punished. As was learned originally from Roman law and Jewish law (Torah), a universal rule exists. This “peremptory” rule affirms the core principle of “No crime without a punishment,” or Nullum crimen sine poena. It can be discovered, among other sources, at the London Charter of August 8, 1945. This is the founding document of the post-war Nuremberg Tribunal.
In formal jurisprudence, terrorists are known as hostes humani generis, or “common enemies of humankind.” While the world legal system allows or even encourages certain insurgencies in matters of “self-determination,” there is nothing about these matters that can ever justify deliberate attacks on civilians. In this connection, it is important to remember that an integral part of all criminal law is the underlying presence of mens rea, or “criminal intent.”
On this point, there can be no reasonable comparison of Marwan Issa’s deliberate mass murder of Israeli noncombatants, and the unintended civilian harms now being suffered in Gaza. As a matter of law, responsibility for such ongoing harms falls entirely upon the “perfidious” behavior (i.e., “human shields”) of Hamas and Iran, and not on Israeli forces acting on behalf of legitimate self-defense.
Under the law of war, even where an insurgent use of force has supportable “just cause,” it must still fight with “just means.” Accordingly, the vapid phrase “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,” is never more than an empty witticism.
There is more. Ordinarily, assassination, like terrorism, is a crime under international law. Under certain conditions, however, the targeted killing of terrorist leaders can represent a life-saving and heroic example of indispensable law-enforcement. In a more perfect world legal system, perhaps, there could be no defensible justification for any violent self-help expressions of international justice. But this is not yet such a world.
In our self-defense oriented world legal order, the only state alternative to launching precise targeting actions against terrorists would be to allow incessantly escalating terror-violence against the innocent. Among pertinent clarifications, this is because terror-organizations like Hamas and terror-mentoring states like Iran harbor undisguised contempt for all ordinary legal expectations of criminal extradition. The formal term for this ignored expectation is “extradite or prosecute;” or aut dedere, aut judicare.
At first glance, to accept the targeted killings of terrorist leaders as law-enforcing remediation would seem to disregard the usual obligations of “due process.” Still, international relations are not overseen by the same civil protections offered by individual national governments, and terrorist leaders like Marwan Issa undertake barbarous attacks on men, women, and children with undisguised enthusiasm.
In the future, if Hamas and related terrorist criminals are effectively held immune by civilized states, indiscriminate attacks could exploit chemical, biological, or even nuclear elements. For the moment, a nuclear option would be limited to “only” a “dirty bomb” (radiation dispersal weapons), but this could change. To be sure, in the foreseeable future, Iran could fashion and deploy an authentic “chain-reaction” nuclear explosive.
There is more. The willfully indiscriminate nature of jihadist terrorist operations (not just Hamas) is well documented. Such intentional blurring of the lines between lawful and unlawful targets is rooted in certain generic principles of “holy war.” Several years ago, an oft-repeated remark by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, then a prominent Muslim cleric in London, explained core doctrinal linkages between Islamic terror and “holy war:”
Said the Sheikh, “We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever (a Jew or Christian) has no value. It has no sanctity.”
International law is not a suicide pact, especially when an adversary remains indifferent to its unassailable claims.
As was learned yet again on October 7, 2023, jihadist attackers add gratuitously barbarous effects to their corrosive primal ideologies. At “bottom line,” these are belief systems that gleefully embrace the sacrificial slaughter of “unbelievers.” To wit, for Hamas and related terror groups, “military objectives” have “normally” included elementary schools, bomb shelters, ice-cream parlors, civilian bus stops, and elderly pedestrians. In law, these perpetrators ought never to be called “militants.” Whatever their alleged cause, they are criminals of the irredeemably worst sort.
There is a related point. Though jihadists may call themselves “martyrs,” the personal death such terrorists seem anxious to suffer is presumptively just a transient inconvenience on the path to “paradise” and immortality. As this path is “glorious,” these jihadists are not “merely” aspiring mass murderers. They are also consummate cowards.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other terror groups remain dedicated to the idea that any peace agreement with Israel must represent an intolerable abomination to Islam. Facing these implacable enemies within a self-help system of international law, Israel deserves the self-defending right to target refractory terrorist leaders. Determining whether such self-help remedies are also militarily sound raises another question altogether.
In the final analysis, what is most noteworthy about the targeted killing of terrorist leaders is not its permissibility in law, but the widespread global unwillingness to endorse or even acknowledge this critical right.
In current jurisprudence, an ancient principle still holds true: Ubi cessat remedium ordinarium, ibi decurritur ad extraordinarium — “Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one.”
Under international law, every state maintains the inherent right and corollary obligation to protect its citizens from transnational criminal harms. In exceptional circumstances, this dual responsibility can extend to the targeted killing of terrorist leaders. Otherwise, on its face, world law would in fact be a suicide pact.
Targeted killings, subject to applicable legal rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity, could sometimes offer the least unwelcome form of national self-protection. In such cases, especially where additional terror-crimes are still in a planning stage, the legal acceptability of violent self-help measures is greater ipso facto. In our continuously anarchic system of international law, this proposition is beyond any logical doubt. The world legal system is designed to protect us all from foreseeable infringements of human rights. Ironically, however, this same decentralized system still has no independent means to meet such a primary obligation.
In the best of all possible worlds, targeted killing could expect no defensible place in law-based counter-terrorism. But we do not yet live in the best of all possible worlds, and the negative aspects of any such action ought never to be evaluated apart from alternative policy outcomes. If Israel had chosen not to target Marwan Issa so as not to injure the sensibilities of “civilized nations” (a phrase codified at article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice), it would have brought extensive injury to many innocent human beings.
Counter-terrorism should always be governed by rational and justice-oriented decision-making processes. If the expected costs of a targeted assassination appear lower than the expected costs of all other plausible self-defense options, such a self-defense operation must emerge as the patently rational choice. However odious it might first appear in vacuo, targeted killing in such circumstances could offer a beleaguered state the least injurious path to security from terrorist criminality.
Inevitably, targeted killings, even of Hamas leaders like Marwan Issa, will elicit righteous indignation from many quarters. For now, however, the philosophic promise of centralized international law remains far from being realized, and continuously beleaguered states such as Israel will need to consider multiple operational choices. In facing such bewildering choices, states would soon discover that all viable alternatives to targeted-killing also include violence, and that these alternatives could plausibly exact a much larger human toll.
Sir William Blackstone’s 18th century Commentaries, the foundation of United States jurisprudence, explain that because international law is an integral part of each individual state’s “common law,” all states are “expected to aid and enforce the law of nations.” This must be accomplished “by inflicting an adequate punishment upon the offenses against that universal law.” Derivatively, by its precisely targeted removal of Hamas terrorist leader Marwan Issa, Israel acted not in violation of the law of nations, but in its indispensable enforcement. Presently, this neglected clarification of global justice should not be undervalued or overlooked.
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, Professor Beres was Chair of Project Daniel. His twelfth and latest book is titled Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post Israel Is Allowed to Target Hamas Terrorists; International Law Is Not a Suicide Pact first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Pro-Hamas Activists, Groups Turn Against Progressive Lawmakers, Allies as Anti-Israel Movement Shows Cracks
Pro-Hamas activists gather in Washington Square Park for a rally following a protest march held in response to an NYPD sweep of an anti-Israel encampment at New York University in Manhattan, May 3, 2024. Photo: Matthew Rodier/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
A slew of anti-Israel groups and activists have turned on left-wing Democratic lawmakers and allies, dismissing them as “enemies” and calling into question their support and loyalty to the Palestinian cause.
In recent weeks, anti-Zionist organizations and public figures have taken to social media to lash out at high-profile left-wing politicians and activists for criticizing their methods of opposing the Jewish state. Staunchly anti-Israel groups such as Within Our Lifetime (WOL) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have expressed outright indignation at allied lawmakers and activists for suggesting their extreme, sometimes violent tactics are counterproductive and risk cannibalizing the movement against the Jewish state.
SJP, which promotes anti-Israel propaganda on college campuses, lambasted US Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) for criticizing a mob of pro-Hamas protesters who demonstrated outside an exhibition in New York City that commemorates the victims of the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack at the Supernova music festival in southern Israel. The group asserted that any public disapproval of pro-Palestinian activists is tantamount to enabling “genocide” in Gaza, the Palestinian enclave ruled by the Hamas terrorist group.
“We are not loyal to our oppressors; elected officials who choose to enable genocide, endorse the architects of said genocide, or otherwise stand in the way of Palestinian liberation will face the political consequences of those choices,” SJP wrote.
“Figures like AOC and Jamaal Bowman have utility insofar as they leverage their positions within the belly of the beast to shield the masses and our righteous struggles for liberation, directly challenge white supremacist power structures, and stand firmly against Zionism and all manifestations of US imperialism,” SJP continued. “Without these tangible actions, we regard these elected officials as our enemies.”
Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman have been among the US Congress’s most vocal critics of Israel, falsely accusing the Jewish state of “genocide” and “white supremacy,” relentlessly castigating its American supporters, and claiming that the charge of antisemitism has been weaponized for political purposes.
However, their anti-Israel comments and policy proposals haven’t seemingly gone far enough for SJP, which has been behind many of the pro-Hamas demonstrations that devastated universities this past academic year.
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), an organization that promotes the eradication of Israel and Zionism as its central goal, similarly condemned Bowman and Ocasio-Cortez for not taking maximalist stances against the Jewish state. The group criticized the two lawmakers for “sanctioning Palestinian resistance” by voting in favor of a resolution which strengthens the authority of the US president to levy sanctions against entities that use human shields in conflict. Hamas has been widely criticized for its military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks against Israel.
WOL also blasted the two lawmakers for perpetuating “debunked Zionist propaganda about sexual violence” by voting in favor of another resolution that condemned Hamas’ systematic use of rape and other forms of sexual violence against Israeli women during its Oct. 7 onslaught.
Nerdeen Kiswani, the founder of WOL and a prolific organizer of anti-Israel demonstrations, reprimanded Ocasio-Cortez for calling out her group’s protest of the exhibit honoring victims of the Nova Music Festival massacre.
“You are a genocide apologist,” Kiswani wrote, dismissing the display as a “zionist [sic] exhibit used to manufacture consent for genocide.”
“You are worse than any openly fascist politician. At least we know they are our enemies. Liberals like you will smile in our face as you lie to and backstab our communities,” Kiswani continued.
The WOL leader then fired shots at US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), the first Palestinian American woman elected to Congress, for issuing a statement criticizing protests of Bowman’s reelection campaign rally. The congresswoman wrote that members of WOL harbor “unrealistic expectations of political perfection.”
“You think we care about Palestinians who repeat Zionist agenda and lies? Unfortunately Rashida Tlaib repeated the lies about Palestinians committing sexual violence on Oct. 7, the same lies used to manufacture consent for genocide. She needs to be called out too,” Kiswani wrote.
Kiswani also took aim at Rafael Shimunov, a Jewish activist and leader of the anti-Israel organization IfNotNow, for criticizing WOL’s decision to protest a rally supporting Bowman’s failed reelection campaign.
“Weren’t you already called out for being a liberal Zionist? Do you need to be dog walked again?” Kiswani wrote.
“Do you really think Palestinians have so little agency that we wouldn’t on our own volition protest politicians backing genocide Joe who we’ve chanted against for months?” Kiswani continued, using a nickname that pro-Hamas activists have given to US President Joe Biden due to his overall support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Beyond Congress, even avowed anti-Israel activists who have been at the front lines of the movement against the Jewish state have come under fire.
Ali Abunimah, director of the anti-Israel outlet Electronic Intifada, attacked Women’s March leader and progressive activist Linda Sarsour for criticizing the divisive tactics of pro-Palestinian organizations.
“Calling us ‘purists’ or accusing us of ‘demanding perfection’ from ‘progressives’ who pander to ‘Israel’ devalues lives of Palestinian genocide victims. These ‘progressives’ reap huge rewards from being ‘pro-Palestine’ while doing NOTHING to actually help Palestinians. Enough!” Abunimah wrote.
Sarsour has been among the most prominent anti-Israel voices in the US for several years.
Meanwhile, Abunimah has repeatedly called for the destruction and replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. He regularly accuses Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza and “apartheid” in the West Bank. Abunimah has also compared Israel to Nazi Germany, posting on X/Twitter that “supporting Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”
Abunimah has dismissed Zionism as “one of the worst forms of antisemitism in existence today,” disregarding the fact that the vast majority of Jews self-identify as Zionist and believe in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state in the ancient homeland of the Jewish people.
The post Pro-Hamas Activists, Groups Turn Against Progressive Lawmakers, Allies as Anti-Israel Movement Shows Cracks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Over 300 Social Media Influencers Unite to Strategize on Combating Antisemitism, Misinformation About Israel
Bravo TV host Andy Cohen (far right) hosting a discussion with (from left) Joseph Yomtoubian, Melinda Strauss, and Lynn Shabinsky. Photo: Ohad Kab
More than 300 leading social media influencers gathered in New York City for a two-day event that organizers described as the largest global influencer summit against antisemitism, misinformation, and hate.
The summit “Voices for Truth: Influencers United Against Antisemitism” took place on Sunday and Monday at The Glasshouse in New York City and was hosted by the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) in collaboration with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Center for Jewish Impact, and The Jewish Agency for Israel. A diverse group of influencers — including chefs, cookbook authors, artists, musicians, and athletes — united to share their experiences with antisemitism and strategize on how to use their online presence to fight hatred.
Since the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack in Israel, many Jewish influencers have faced an increase in antisemitic bullying across all social media platforms and have also lost brand partnerships and contracts for standing in solidarity with Israel and the Jewish community. Nevertheless, these influencers continue to use their platforms to raise awareness about antisemitism, to express solidarity with Israel, and to counter misinformation about Israel and the Jewish people.
At the two-day summit, attendees included US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), rapper Kosha Dillz, professional basketball player Ryan Turrell, reality star and entrepreneur Julia Haart, Holocaust survivor Tova Friedman, dancer and activist Montana Tucker, and judoka Yael Arad, who was Israel’s first ever Olympic medalist.
Grammy-nominated reggae singer and songwriter Matisyahu, who released a song in March about antisemitism, joined a discussion on stage about antisemitism impacting his career before performing live for the audience. The “Jerusalem” singer talked about being dropped by his manager and having a number of his scheduled concerts cancelled after he expressed solidarity with Israel following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.
During the summit there were other discussions on stage about debating misconceptions and misinformation regarding the ongoing Israel-Hamas war; building interfaith alliances; “navigating the science of social media to maximize impact”; being “united in diversity” with Jews of color; and “fighting antisemitism with comedy,” the latter of which featured comedians Yechiel Jacobs, LE Steiman, and Josh Zilberberg. Pro-Israel student activists participated in a panel discussion about fighting antisemitism on college and university campuses, and Zionist LGBTQ+ community members led a discussion titled “Proud in Pride: Breaking Down the Queers for Palestine Movement.”
At the event’s opening gala on Sunday night, New York City Mayor Eric Adams talked about the need to stop college campuses from “breeding hatred” against Jews and the dangerous dark corners of social media, where antisemitism and misinformation flourish and “truth no longer matters.” He also told the influencers in the audience they have the means to change history.
“You are now on the precipice to decide which direction we’re going in move in, not only as a country but as a globe. You only have to pick up your device to change the course of history,” said Adams. “This is your moment to use the tools you have — your platforms. Your platforms can actually change the course of what we are experiencing across the globe. There’s no room for hate in this city [or] on our globe and together we can turn it around.”
“Doesn’t matter where you go, where you come from,” he added. “If you wear a hijab or yamulke, kufi, turban … doesn’t matter where you go to worship or pray or not at all. It doesn’t matter. I know we are members of the greatest race alive, and that’s the human race. Let’s lift each other up.”
Bravo producer and television and radio host Andy Cohen spoke at the opening gala about being a “proud American Jew” and told the crowd: “For me, flying the flag of who I am culturally is the greatest thing I can do right now and and I think continuing to celebrate what we love about being Jewish is actually more of a political statement than people realize. Many of you have large social media platforms, and that just by representing Jewish culture with pride to your followers, you will have a far-reaching impact more than you may even realize.”
“Be proud of being Jewish and don’t shy away from showing it publicly,” the host of “Watch What Happens Live” added. “And sometimes the simplest displays or gestures are the strongest and most effective.”
Cohen also moderated a panel discussion at the summit about using social media to combat hate and foster understanding. When he asked one of the panelists, influencer Lynn Shabinsky, about losing thousands of social media followers after sharing content that called for the release of the Hamas hostages, Shabinsky replied, “We don’t need them. We’re here as people. We need to survive. The money will come later.”
The summit further drew attention to the hostages still being held captive by Hamas terrorists since Oct. 7 by welcoming rescued hostages to the stage as well as a survivor of the Nova music festival massacre, Natalie Sanandaji. She shared her first-hand account of surviving the Nova massacre and the importance of resilience in the face of hate. Sanandaji additionally presented Tucker with the CAM Impactful Activism Award.
“Jews today have a voice, we are strong, we are powerful, and we are resilient,” Tucker said in her acceptance speech. “We are fortunate to have social media to use our platforms to reach people all the around the world. We have experienced brand deals fall through, death threats, but we’ll continue to fight every single day, and we will not give up.”
The summit ended on Monday night with a call to action that encouraged attendees to continue using their social media platforms to educate, inspire, and combat antisemitism.
“We live in a world in which lies become truth, truth becomes a lie, victims become aggressors, and aggressors become victims,” said Israeli Consul General in New York Ofir Akunis. “But know this: Those who started this war will be defeated. We will not be victims of violence anymore. Enough. Enough.”
“This is our chance to make a difference. To stand up for Jewish people and our values and the protection of minorities,” said CAM CEO Sacha Roytman. “To stand by is not an option anymore. Bring back activism and community leadership as a way of life.”
The post Over 300 Social Media Influencers Unite to Strategize on Combating Antisemitism, Misinformation About Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor
The “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Columbia University, located in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on April 25, 2024. Photo: Reuters Connect
Students of the Union Theological Seminary (UTS), an affiliate school of Columbia University, are pushing the institution to hire an academic who was just terminated for defending the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
Dr. Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor in modern Arab studies who defended Hamas after the terrorist group slaughtered over 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 others during its Oct. 7 onslaught, was reportedly relieved of his duties at Columbia University as of Sunday. Following Abdou’s firing, UTS students circulated a petition calling on the seminary to extend the anti-Israel academic an offer of employment.
“We condemn Columbia University’s efforts to stifle any mobilization around [the Palestinian] cause and its repressive, anti-Palestinian victimization of Dr. Abdou,” the petition reads.
“We ask the UTS administration to hire Dr. Abdou for the 2024-2025 academic year,” the petition continues.
During a US congressional hearing on campus antisemitism in April, Columbia President Minouche Shafik promised lawmakers that the university would terminate Abdou at the conclusion of the school year, citing his repeated public endorsements of violence against Israel and endorsement of terrorist groups.
During a Jan. 5 interview with Revolutionary Left Radio, Abdou heaped praise on Hamas, referring to the terrorist organization as a “resistance” and dismissed criticism of the terrorist organization as “white supremacy.” In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, many pro-Palestinian groups have similarly defended Hamas a a “resistance” group and referred to the Oct. 7 atrocities as “self-defense.”
On Jan. 16. the Columbia Middle East Institute tapped Abdou to serve as lead instructor for a course on “Decolonial-Queerness & Abolition.” According to the course description, students analyzed “Euro-American informed modernity animated by (neo)liberal-Enlightenment values (free will/humanity, secularism, racial capitalism)” and “contemporary conceptualizations of family, kinship, and friendship in Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities within the context of settler-colonial societies (as the U.S./Canada) as well as in postcolonial nations and regions (as Southwest Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) that arguably never underwent adequate decolonization.”
Abdou faced intense criticism after a student recorded and circulated a course lecture in which he denounced Israel as a “settler colonial” entity that was inspired by American-style beliefs on private property, gender, and sexuality.
Following Shafik’s congressional testimony, Abdou claimed that the Columbia president “lied” about his firing and accused her of “misrepresenting” his opinions. He reiterated his support for Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are backed by Iran.
Abdou’s public support for terrorism has caused a firestorm of controversy with Columbia students and alumni, calling into question the university’s commitment to fostering a tolerant and safe environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
Abdou indicated gratitude for the petition on X/Twitter, saying that he is “indebted for this generous initiative.” He called on his supporters to sign and spread the petition “as far [and] as wide as possible.”
The post Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.