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
Antisemitism at European Universities Has Created ‘Climate of Fear,’ New Report Finds
Krakow, Poland, October 5: Pro-Palestinian activists in front of the Institute of Sociology at Jagiellonian University in Kraków. Photo: Artur Widak via Reuters Connect
Antisemitism on European university campuses rivals what has ensued in the US since the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, fostering a “climate of fear” for Jewish students, according to a new report by two Jewish groups and a German watchdog.
B’nai B’rith International, the European Union of Jewish Students, and democ, a Berlin-based organization of academics and media professionals, on Tuesday published a comprehensive report titled “A Climate of Fear and Exclusion: Antisemitism at European Universities.”
“When Jewish students fear being violently harassed on campus, when in the most prestigious universities Jewish students might find swastikas or death threats on their personal property, when they are not allowed access to spaces and events due to their presumed Zionism — the free speech argument is a canard,” B’nai B’rith director of European Union affairs Alina Bricman said in a statement. “The lack of action on the part of academic institutions is shameful.”
The document recounts a slew of incidents that took place at the most prestigious higher education institutions across the continent, including Cambridge University, the University of Amsterdam, and Delft University of Technology. Some were perpetrated by extreme anti-Zionist groups tied to terrorist organizations while others struck as random acts of hatred, terrorizing in themselves for intimidating Jewish members of the campus community.
At the University of Strasbourg, someone assaulted a group of Jewish students while shouting “Zionist fascists”; the University of Vienna hosted an “Intifada Camp,” a pro-Hamas encampment; at the Free University of Brussels campus in Solbosch, a pro-Hamas group illegally occupied an administrative building and renamed it after a terrorist. Throughout Europe, anti-Zionists damaged property to the tune of hundreds of thousands of Euros, desecrated Jewish religious symbols, graffitied Jewish students’ dormitories with swastikas, and carried out gang assaults on Jewish student leaders.
In many cases, university leaders acceded to the demands of these pro-Hamas activists and terminated partnerships with Israeli institutions, as happened in Belgium.
“By renouncing limited partnerships with Israel, the authorities not only gave in to political pressure but also endangered freedom of expression and the diversity of ideas on their campuses,” the report’s authors wrote. “This attitude, far from protecting academic values, allowed ideologies to take precedence over fundamental principles of research and academic freedom.”
It continued, “These events are not isolated acts. They reflect a climate of siege-like hostility towards Israel that now permeates Belgium, from the media to universities, from the north to the south, from the right to the left. The Palestinian cause has gradually become the core of a genuine ‘civil religion’ or ‘secular religion.’”
The situation calls for a prompt defense of the university’s values, as well as the universal principles Europe claims to hold.
“The documentation gathered in this report makes it clear that we are dealing with highly coordinated, transnational networks that operate as part of a global movement,” said Grischa Stanjek, co-executive director of democ. “They strategically disguise an antisemitic agenda in the language of human rights to gain legitimacy. University leaders are making a grave mistake if they treat these events as local flare-ups instead of what they are: calculated manifestations of a global, anti-democratic campaign.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Synagogue in Chile Vandalized With Antisemitic Graffiti, Prompting Outrage, Investigation
The gate of Santiago’s Bikur Cholim Synagogue defaced with red paint and antisemitic graffiti, including a poster targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Screenshot
Chile’s authorities launched an investigation after a synagogue in Santiago was defaced with antisemitic graffiti and slogans, an act that has sparked outrage in the local Jewish community.
On Friday night, the gate of Santiago’s Bikur Cholim Synagogue was vandalized with red paint and a poster depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a bullet hole in his forehead.
An unknown individual spray-painted antisemitic slogans, including “If you keep silent, you’re part of genocide,” an apparent reference to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
Israeli Ambassador to Chile Peleg Lewi condemned the outrage, noting that antisemitic incidents are rare in the country.
Vandalizacion y ataques a Sinagogas anoche en Santiago !
Estoy seguro que @GobiernodeChile luchará contra el antisemistismo en Chile! pic.twitter.com/feWR09cny1— פלג לוי – Peleg Lewi (@peleg_lewi) August 23, 2025
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Lewi explained, Chile has seen only a few minor antisemitic incidents — a stark contrast to other countries around the world, which have experienced a surge in anti-Jewish hate crimes.
He also stressed the importance of maintaining calm and warned against bringing the Middle East conflict into Chile.
Local authorities have launched an investigation into the vandalism, but no arrests have been made so far.
The Jewish Community of Chile denounced the incident, stressing that such antisemitic acts cannot be accepted or tolerated.
“Acts of hatred cannot be downplayed, normalized, or justified by political or ideological slogans; they must be forcefully and universally condemned,” the group said in a post on X.
“Chile is a country that values freedom of worship, and that means we must respect, care for, and protect one another, regardless of our beliefs,” the statement read. “Vandalism of a holy site is not just an attack on a community but on the coexistence and peace of the entire country.”
Condenamos rotundamente el ataque a una sinagoga de Santiago. Lamentablemente no es la primera vez que ocurre.
Los actos de odio no pueden ser relativizados, normalizados o justificados bajo consignas políticas o ideológicas: deben ser condenados con fuerza y de manera… pic.twitter.com/CTAHqDs6yh
— Comunidad Judía de Chile (@comjudiachile) August 24, 2025
Alberto van Klaveren, Chile’s Foreign Minister, also condemned the vandalism of the Bikur Cholim Synagogue.
“No expression of hatred or violence can be normalized; there is no argument that justifies intimidation or discrimination,” Klaveren said in a post on X. “The only way to express dissent in a democracy is through open and respectful dialogue.”
On Sunday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) warned that the incident in Chile was the latest reminder that antisemitism remains a global threat.
“No synagogue should ever be vandalized,” the statement read.
RSS
Trump Admin Reviewing Visas of ‘Terrorist Sympathizers’ Set to Appear at Palestinian Conference in Detroit
Marco Rubio speaks after he is sworn in as Secretary of State by US Vice President JD Vance at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
The Trump administration is reviewing and may block the visa applications of speakers scheduled to appear at the People’s Conference for Palestine in Detroit, Michigan later this week over links to terrorism, The Algemeiner has learned.
A spokesperson for the US State Department told The Algemeiner that officials have “noted” the gathering, set to take place from Aug. 29-31, and will closely monitor visa applications for invited international speakers, citing a preponderance of “terrorist sympathizers” on the program’s lineup.
“Given the public invite lists seems to include a number of terrorist sympathizers, we are going through and ensuring all international speakers slated to attend the conference are being placed on a ‘look out’ status for visa applications, so we are alerted if a request is submitted and can ensure they are appropriately processed,” the spokesperson said.
“In every case, we will take the time necessary to ensure an applicant does not pose a risk to the safety and security of the United States and that he or she has credibly established his or her eligibility for the visa sought, including that the applicant intends to engage in activities consistent with the terms of admission,” the spokesperson added.
The conference will feature dozens of radical anti-Zionist activists, academics, artists, and political organizers, including US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Tlaib’s appearance at last year’s iteration of the People’s Conference for Palestine sparked intense backlash, with critics pointing out the event’s connections to Wisam Rafeedie and Salah Salah, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an internationally designated terrorist organization.
The conference is convened by a coalition that includes the Palestinian Youth Movement, Al-Awda: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, among others. Several of these groups have maintained ties with PFLP, openly supported boycott efforts against Israel, and called for an arms embargo in the wake of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas. The programming highlights sessions on “Documenting Genocide” and “Breaking the Siege,” rhetoric that critics argue mischaracterizes Israel’s actions as it seeks to defend itself against terrorist attacks following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
The Detroit gathering is expected to attract thousands of attendees, with dozens of speakers and activists scheduled to participate. Among the roster are well-known anti-Israel figures such as Linda Sarsour, Miko Peled, and Chris Smalls. Sarsour has erroneously compared Zionism to “white supremacy in America” and accused Israel of perpetuating “Jewish supremacy.”
Arabs comprise about 21 percent of Israel’s population and include full rights of citizenship, including the ability to serve in parliament and on the Supreme Court as well as the ability to protest openly against the government.
The planned presence of several foreign terror sympathizers has sparked outrage among observers.
Abed Abubaker, a self-described “reporter” from Gaza, is expected to make a physical appearance at the Detroit conference. Abubaker has repeatedly praised the Hamas terrorist group as “resistance fighters” on social media and won a “journalist of the year” award from Iran’s state-controlled media outlet PressTV. In a January 2025 post, he showered praise on long-time Hamas leader and Oct. 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar, saying that the terrorist’s “love of resistance and land is seen very clearly.” In a March 2025 post, Abubaker posted that international supporters of the Palestinian cause should “attack your governments.” He also defended Hamas’s murdering of dissidents, saying that the victims were “collaborating” with Israel.
Some of the speakers have been convicted and imprisoned in Israel for terrorist activity.
Omar Assaf, a former member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and Lama Ghosheh, a Palestinian journalist from East Jerusalem, are scheduled to speak at the conference. Assaf spent eight years in jail for his role in the DFLP, which was previously a US-designated terrorist group, and Ghosheh received a three-year sentence from an Israeli court in 2023 for inciting violence and praising terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.
Mosab Abu Toha, a Gaza-born writer, is also set to appear at the conference. Abu Toha’s social media posts reveal he has denigrated the Israeli hostages held in Gaza, denied the murder of the Bibas children, and spread fake news and antisemitic remarks. In other posts, he referred to Israeli soldiers as “killers” and criticized international media for “humaniz[ing]” them.
Perhaps most striking, Hussam Shaheen was slated to speak at the conference. He spent 27 years in prison for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder but was released earlier this year as part of a temporary Israel-Hamas ceasefire that saw Palestinian prisoners released in exchange for Israeli hostages. However, Shaheen’s name no longer appears on the list of speakers on the conference’s website.
US-based speakers also have extremist associations. Hatem Bazian, for example, co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that has become notorious for intimidating Jews on university campuses, as well as American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), a nonprofit he now chairs which has sponsored a series of anti-Israel protests following Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. Bazian works as a senior lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley. On Tuesday, The Algemeiner reported on recent comments by Bazian in which he accused Jews of exploiting antisemitism to make money and claimed that Israel wants to conquer most of the Middle East, including Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam.
The event will also host Mahmoud Khalil, one of the leaders of the anti-Israel encampment movement at Columbia University. Khalil rose to national prominence after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him in March for what the Department of Homeland Security alleged to be leading “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.” Khalil, who became a permanent US resident last year, was released from detention in June when a federal judge ordered his release. The activist also drew scrutiny last month after he refused to condemn Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities during a CNN interview.
Since returning to the White House earlier this year, the Trump administration has launched an overhaul of the US visa system, part of what officials describe as an effort to root out individuals sympathetic to terrorism or those espousing antisemitic views. The sweeping measures include expanded social media vetting for new applicants, continuous monitoring of the 55 million current visa holders, and the revocation of thousands of student visas.
Panels at this week’s conference in Detroit will touch on subjects such as US military aid, legal accountability, and grassroots organizing, all presented through an anti-Israel lens, according to the event website.