RSS
Israel Must Confront the Jihadist Desire for Immortality
Effective counter-terrorism is never just about strategy, tactics, or doctrine. Whatever an insurgency’s operational specifics, this area of national security planning should always remain starkly analytic and logic-centered. For Israel in the Islamic Middle East, this means a heightened conceptual awareness of death and “last things” as embraced by its jihadist foes.
It means, inter alia, that Israel’s counter-terrorism planners should continuously bear in mind the primacy of one consistently overlooked and underestimated form of power: the desire for immortality, or “power over death.”
Any promise of immortality is of course densely problematic. By definition, it lies beyond the boundaries of science and logic. How, then, should the desire of Israel’s terrorist adversaries for immortality be assessed by Israeli planners during the Gaza War?
Any such inquiry should begin with certain core questions. The principal query is this: How can one human being meaningfully offer eternal life to another? Reciprocally, it must also be asked: How can any terrorism-opposing state construct components of its national security program upon a determined enemy’s “hunger for immortality?” This phrase is taken from Spanish (Basque) philosopher Miguel de Unamuno’s classic treatise The Tragic Sense of Life (Del Sentimiento Tragico De La Vida; 1921). Unamuno would never, however, have been sympathetic to the twisted idea of a murderous faith-based “martyrdom.”
Though these questions are difficult, they have answers. Even in our age of incessant quantification and verification, there is something in our unreflective species that yearns not for reason-based clarity but for mystery and faith. In facing jihadist terrorist ideologies that promise the faithful eternal life, Israel must remain wary of projecting ordinary human rationality upon Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and others like them.
Projections of decision-making rationality usually make sense in world politics, but there are enough major exceptions to temper hopeful generalities. If Israel’s national decision-makers were to survey the current configuration of global jihadist terrorist organizations (both Sunni and Shiite) from an analytic standpoint, the nexus between “martyrdom operations” and “life everlasting” would be conspicuous. At that point, Israel’s security planners would be in a much better position to deter murderous hostage-takers and suicide-bombers, both in microcosm (individual human terrorists) and in macrocosm (enemy states that support terrorists).
In such time-urgent matters, there are corresponding and converging elements of law. Jihadist insurgents who seek to justify gratuitously violent attacks on civilians in the name of “martyrdom” are acting contrary to international law. All insurgents, even those who claim “just cause,” must still satisfy longstanding jurisprudential limits on permissible targets and on law-based levels of violence.
As a matter of binding law, such humane limits can never be tempered by claims of religious faith. Faith is never legally exculpatory.
According to authoritative jurisprudence, the relevant legal matters are not inherently complicated or bewildering. Under longstanding rules, even the allegedly “sacred” rights of insurgency must always exclude any deliberate targeting of civilians or any use of force to intentionally inflict unnecessary suffering.
Law and strategy are interrelated; but at the same time, they are analytically distinct. Regarding the Gaza War and effective counter-terrorism, the legal bottom line is clear: Violence becomes terrorism whenever politically animated insurgents murder (intentionally kill) or maim noncombatants, whether with guns, knives, bombs, automobiles, or anything else.
It is irrelevant whether the expressed cause of terror-violence is presumptively just or unjust. In the Law of Nations, unjust means used to achieve allegedly just ends are always violations of the law.
Sometimes, martyrdom-seeking terrorist foes such as Hamas advance a supposedly legal argument known as tu quoque. This historically discredited argument stipulates that because “the other side” is guilty of similar, equivalent, or greater criminality, “our” side is necessarily innocent of any wrongdoing. Jurisprudentially, any such disingenuous argument is always wrong and invalid, especially after the landmark postwar judgments of the Nuremberg (Germany) and Far East (Japan) tribunals.
For conventional armies and insurgent forces, the right to use military force can never supplant the rules of humanitarian international law. Such primary or jus cogens rules (rules that permit “no derogation”) are referenced as the law of armed conflict, humanitarian international law, or the law of war. Significantly, these terms apply to both state and sub-state participants in any armed conflict.
Repeatedly, however, and without a scintilla of law-based evidence, supporters of Hamas terror-violence against Israeli noncombatants insist that “the ends justify the means.” Leaving aside the ethical standards by which any such argument should be dismissed on its face, ends can never justify means in the law of armed conflict. There can be no defensible ambiguity regarding such a conclusion.
The witless banalities of politics ought never be taken to accurately represent the expectations of binding law. In such universal law, whether codified or customary, one person’s terrorist can never be another’s “freedom-fighter.” Though it is correct that certain insurgencies can sometimes be judged lawful or even law-enforcing, allowable resorts to force must always conform to humanitarian international law.
Whenever an insurgent group resorts to unjust means, its actions constitute terrorism. Even if adversarial claims of a hostile controlling power were plausible or acceptable (e.g., relentless Palestinian claims concerning an Israeli “occupation”), corollary claims of entitlement to “any means necessary” would still remain false. Recalling Hague Convention No. IV: “The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.”
What about Israeli attacks on Gaza? Though Israel’s ongoing bombardments of Gaza are producing many Palestinian casualties, the legal responsibility for these harms lies entirely with Hamas “perfidy,” or what is more colloquially called Hamas’s use of “human shields.”
It is also noteworthy that while Palestinian casualties are unwanted, inadvertent, and unintentional, Israeli civilian deaths and injuries are always the result of Palestinian terrorist criminal intent or “mens rea.” In law, there is a great difference between deliberately murdering innocent celebrants at an Israeli music festival and the lethal consequences of indispensable Israeli counter-terrorist operations in Gaza.
International law is not an intuitive or subjective set of standards. Such law always has determinable form and content. It cannot be casually invented and reinvented by terror groups to justify their interests. This is especially true when their inhumane terror-violence intentionally targets a designated victim state’s most fragile and vulnerable civilians.
National liberation movements that fail to meet the test of just means can never be protected as lawful or legitimate. Even if the law were to accept the questionable argument that relevant terror groups had fulfilled all valid criteria of “national liberation” (e.g., Iran-supported Hamas or Hezbollah), these groups would still not satisfy the equally significant legal standards of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
These enduring critical standards were specifically applied to insurgent or sub-state organizations by Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and by the two 1977 Protocols to these Conventions.
Standards of humanity remain binding upon all combatants by virtue of the broader norms of customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. This rule, commonly called the “Martens Clause,” makes “all persons” responsible for the “laws of humanity” and for associated “dictates of public conscience.” There can be no exceptions to this universal responsibility based upon a presumptively “just cause.”
Under international law, terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation in both apprehension and punishment. As punishers of grave breaches under international law, all states are expected to search out and prosecute or extradite terrorists. Under no circumstances are states permitted to regard terrorists as law-abiding “freedom fighters.” This ought to be kept in mind by states that routinely place their own presumed religious and geopolitical obligations above the common interests of binding law.
The United States incorporates international law as the supreme law of the land in Article 6 of the Constitution, and Israel is guided by the immutable principles of a Higher Law. Fundamental legal authority for the American republic was derived largely from William Blackstone’s Commentaries, which in turn owe much of their clarifying content to jus cogens principles of Torah.
Ex injuria jus non oritur. “Rights can never stem from wrongs.” The labeling by jihadist adversaries of Israel of their most violent insurgents as “martyrs” should have no exculpatory or mitigating effect on their terrorist crimes. As a practical problem, of course, these faith-driven foes are animated by the most compelling form of power imaginable. This is the power of immortality or “power over death.”
For Israel, a primary orientation of law-based engagement in counter-terrorism should always take close account of enemy attraction to “last things.” Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’s observation that “an immortal person is a contradiction in terms” lies beyond intellectual challenge, but jihadist promises of “power over death” still remain supremely attractive to terrorists. It follows that Israeli counter-terrorist planners ought to focus more directly on the eschatology of its Gaza War terrorist adversaries.
For the foreseeable future, Hamas “martyrs” will present an incrementally existential threat to Israel. If these barbarous criminals should ever get their hands on fissile materials, however, this threat could become more immediately existential. Hamas would not require a chain-reaction nuclear explosive but only the much more accessible ingredients for a radiation dispersal device.
In a worst-case scenario, the use of a primitive nuclear device by Hamas or Hezbollah could spur Iran to enter into direct military conflict with Israel. At that point, Israeli policy considerations of “last things” could become all-important and determinative. For Israel, the primary battlefield will always be intellectual, not territorial. A jihadist enemy that links terror-violence against the innocent to delusionary promises of immortality poses a potentially irremediable threat.
Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue and the author of many books and articles on terrorism and international law. His latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd ed., 2018). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Israel Must Confront the Jihadist Desire for Immortality first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Sens. Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham Unveil New Resolution Demanding Iran ‘Dismantle’ Nuclear Program
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
US Republican Sens. Tom Cotton (AK) and Lindsey Graham (SC) on Thursday unveiled a new resolution demanding Iran completely “dismantle” its nuclear program.
The resolution was introduced as the Trump administration continued to engage in talks with Iran to negotiate a deal to curb the latter’s nuclear activity, which Western countries believe is ultimately geared to build nuclear weapons. Iran has claimed its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes.
“Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon; that’s off the table,” Graham said during a press conference on Thursday.
The resolution calls on the White House to pursue the “complete dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, cautioning that Tehran would use a nuclear warhead to “carry out one of the most extreme religious ideas on the planet” — a reference to the Islamist ideology of Iran’s rulers.
The senators called on their colleagues in Congress to support the resolution.
Graham warned that if Iran, a predominately Shi’ite country under its current theocratic system, ever acquired a nuclear weapon, then the Sunni Arab countries of the Middle East would then attempt to obtain one themselves, sparking “a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” Graham also cautioned that Iran would use a nuclear weapon as an “insurance policy” and a tool to destroy its enemies, including Israel. The senator demanded that Iran completely scrap its nuclear program, arguing that anything short of “complete dismantlement” would be “non-negotiable.”
“The ayatollah [Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei,] and his henchmen are virtual religious Nazis,” Graham said. “They openly talk about destroying the state of Israel. They write it on the side of their missiles, and I believe them.”
Graham claimed that Iran has likely enriched enough uranium to produce at least six nuclear weapons.
The South Carolina senator predicted that Iran would also use nuclear bombs to “take over” Muslim holy sites and push the United States out of the Middle East.
“A nuclear Iran makes for a far more dangerous world,” Cotton said.
Cotton argued that Iran would use the security provided by a nuclear weapon to aggressively advance its terrorism campaigns throughout the globe. The senator cited several terror attacks tied to Iran, including the assassination attempt against US President Donald Trump last year. Cotton also cited Iran’s continued operation of proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis — all internationally designated terrorist organizations backed by Tehran.
The Arkansas senator added that an Iranian nuclear weapon would present “an existential threat to our good friend Israel,” which Iran’s leaders regularly threaten to destroy.
Israel has been among the most vocal proponents of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that the US should pursue a “Libyan option” to eliminate the possibility of Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon by overseeing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and the dismantling of equipment.
Both Graham and Cotton stated that they would be supportive of Iran obtaining a true civilian nuclear energy program. However, the senators argued that allowing Iran to enrich uranium or maintain centrifuges itself would inevitably lead to Tehran building a nuclear weapon.
As the US continues to negotiate a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the Trump administration has drawn criticism from some traditional allies who fear the White House could make too many concessions to Tehran. Critics have argued that elements of Trump’s negotiations with Iran mirror parts of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the 2015 deal which placed temporary restrictions on ‘nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of major international sanctions.
The 2015 deal, which the Obama administration negotiated with Iran and other world powers, allowed Iran to enrich significant quantities of uranium to low levels of purity and stockpile them. It did not directly address the regime’s ballistic missile program but included an eight-year restriction on Iranian nuclear-capable ballistic missile activities. Trump withdrew the US from the accord during his first presidential term in 2018, arguing it was too weak and would undermine American interests.
The White House has also received scrutiny from other Republicans in Congress. In a comment posted on X/Twitter, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, lamented, “Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the president terrible advice.” Urging the White House to reverse course, Cruz added that Trump “is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that.”
Trump has threatened military strikes, additional sanctions, and tariffs if an agreement is not reached to curb Iran’s nuclear activities. However, when asked by a reporter on Wednesday whether his administration would allow Iran to maintain an enrichment program as long as it doesn’t enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, Trump said his team had not decided. “We haven’t made that decision yet,” Trump said in the White House. “We will, but we haven’t made that decision.”
Western countries believe Iran’s nuclear program is ultimately meant to build nuclear weapons. However, Iran has claimed that its program is for civilian energy purposes.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to close to weapons grade at some of its nuclear facilities.
The UK, France, and Germany said in a statement at the time that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
The post US Sens. Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham Unveil New Resolution Demanding Iran ‘Dismantle’ Nuclear Program first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Prevost Surprises as First US Pope, Takes Name Leo XIV
Newly elected Pope Leo XIV, Cardinal Robert Prevost of the United States appears on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, at the Vatican, May 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane
Cardinal Robert Prevost, a long-time missionary in Latin America, was elected as the surprise choice to be the new leader of the Catholic Church on Thursday, becoming the first US pope and taking the name Leo XIV.
Pope Leo appeared on the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica after white smoke billowed from a chimney atop the Sistine Chapel, signifying the 133 cardinal electors had chosen him as a successor to Francis, who died last month.
“Peace be with you all,” he told the cheering crowd, speaking in fluent Italian. He also spoke in Spanish during his brief address but did not say anything in English.
Prevost, 69 and originally from Chicago, has spent most of his career as a missionary in Peru and has dual Peruvian nationality. He became a cardinal only in 2023. He has given few media interviews and is known to have a shy personality.
President Donald Trump swiftly congratulated him on becoming the first US pope. “What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!”
However, the new pope has a history of criticizing Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s policies, according to posts on the X account of Robert Prevost.
Massimo Faggioli, an Italian academic who has followed the papacy closely, suggested the tenor of the Trump presidency might have influenced the cardinals to choose a pope from the US, who could directly rebut the president.
“The international upheaval of the rhetoric of the Trump presidency, paradoxically, made possible the impossible,” said Faggioli, a professor at Villanova University in the US.
“Trump has broken many taboos, the conclave now has done the same — in a very different key.”
PRAISE FROM PERU
The appointment was welcomed by the Peruvian president Dina Boluarte.
“His closeness to those most in need left an indelible mark on the hearts of Peru,” her office said in a post on X.
Prevost becomes the 267th Catholic pope following the death of Francis, who was the first from Latin America and who ruled for 12 years.
Francis had widely sought to open the staid institution up to the modern world, enacting a range of reforms and allowing debate on divisive issues such as women’s ordination and better inclusion of LGBT Catholics.
Leo thanked Francis in his speech and repeated his predecessor’s call for a Church that is engaged with the modern world and “is always looking for peace, charity and being close to people, especially those who are suffering.”
He had not been seen as a frontrunner and there was a brief moment of uncertainty when his name was announced to the packed St. Peter’s Square, before people started to clap and cheer.
Unlike Francis, who spurned much of the trappings of the papacy from the day he was elected in 2013, Prevost wore a traditional red papal garment over his white cassock as he first appeared as Leo XIV.
SNAP, a US-based advocacy group for victims of clerical sex abuse, expressed “grave concern” about his election, renewing accusations that Prevost failed to take action against suspected predatory priests in the past in Chicago and in Peru.
“You can end the abuse crisis — the only question is, will you?” it said in a statement addressed to the new pope.
In an interview with the Vatican News website in 2023, Prevost said the Church must be transparent and honest in dealing with abuse allegations.
CHICAGO CELEBRATES
A crowd of clergy and staff members at Chicago’s Catholic Theological Union erupted in a joyful cheer as Pope Leo walked out onto the Vatican balcony, some four decades after he graduated from the South Side school.
It was an “explosion of excitement and cheers that went up in the room … many of us were just simply incredulous and just couldn’t even find words to express our delight, our pride,” said Sister Barbara Reid, president of the theology school.
Pope Leo graduated from the school in 1982 with a master’s degree. Reid called Leo intellectually brilliant, saying he has an extraordinarily compassionate heart.
“It’s an unusual blend that makes him a leader who can think critically, but listens to the cries of the poorest, and always has in mind those who are most needy,” she said.
THE NAME LEO
The last pope to take the name Leo led the Church from 1878-1903. Leo XIII was known for his devoted focus to social justice issues, and is often credited with laying the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching.
Prevost has attracted interest from his peers because of his quiet style and support for Francis, especially his commitment to social justice issues.
Prevost served as a bishop in Chiclayo, in northwestern Peru, from 2015 to 2023.
Francis brought him to Rome that year to head the Vatican office in charge of choosing which priests should serve as Catholic bishops across the globe, meaning he has had a hand in selecting many of the world’s bishops.
The post Prevost Surprises as First US Pope, Takes Name Leo XIV first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Warns of ‘Severe Consequences’ for Houthis, Vows to Defend Itself After US Cuts Deal With Terror Group
Smoke rises in the sky following US-led airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen, Feb. 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Adel Al Khader
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Thursday warned that the Houthis would “suffer severe consequences” if the Yemeni terrorist group continued to attack Israel, emphasizing the Jewish state’s capability to defend itself following US President Donald Trump’s unexpected deal with the Iran-backed rebel militia.
“Israel must be capable of defending itself against any threat or enemy,” Katz wrote in a post on X. “This has been the case throughout many challenges in the past and will remain true in the future.”
“I also warn the Iranian leaders who finance, arm, and operate the Houthi terrorist organization: the balance of power has shifted, and the Axis of Evil has collapsed,” the top Israeli defense official added. “What we did to Hezbollah in Beirut, to Hamas in Gaza, to Assad in Damascus, and to the Houthis in Yemen, we will also do to you in Tehran.”
Katz continued, “We will not allow anyone to harm Israel; and those who do will suffer severe consequences.”
On Sunday, the Houthis, an internationally designated terrorist group, declared they would impose a “comprehensive” aerial blockade on Israel, targeting the country’s airports in retaliation for the Israeli military’s expanded operations in Gaza.
Claiming solidarity with Palestinians in the war-torn enclave, the Iran-backed group took responsibility for a missile strike near Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, marking the latest in a series of attacks.
While Israel’s missile defense systems have intercepted most strikes from Yemen, Sunday’s missile was the first in a series launched since March to bypass the country’s defense capabilities, following a drone strike on Tel Aviv last year.
Alongside Hezbollah and Hamas, Houthi rebels are a key part of Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and the United States.
On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to retaliate against the Yemeni terrorist group, reaffirming that the Jewish state will defend itself against any threat.
“Israel will defend itself by itself,” Netanyahu said in a video posted on social media. “If others join us — our American friends — all the better. If they don’t, we will still defend ourselves on our own.”
In response to the Houthis’ latest attack, Israeli forces launched major strikes on the Yemeni port of Hodeidah and the international airport in Yemen’s capital Sanaa, both facilities crucial to the Iran-backed terrorist group’s ability to operate.
The strikes came as Houthi officials revealed that their agreement with Washington to cease targeting US maritime activity in the Red Sea did not include any commitment to stop attacking Israel or ships linked to the Jewish state.
لقطات جديدة للغارات الجوية الإسرائيلية التي أصابت مطار صنعاء الدولي في اليمن. pic.twitter.com/DlzAqg5xES
— الأحداث العالمية (@NewsNow4USA) May 6, 2025
Since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023, the Houthis — whose slogan is “death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory to Islam” — have targeted over 100 merchant vessels in the Red Sea with missiles and drones, causing a massive disruption of global trade.
During an Oval Office appearance on Tuesday, Trump announced that the US would halt airstrikes on the Yemeni terrorist group after it agreed to stop attacking American ships — an agreement that ended weeks of escalating tensions with the Iran-backed group and, according to US and Israeli officials, was made without prior notice to Jerusalem.
Since launching its current operation in Yemen, known as Operation Rough Rider, on March 15, the US military says it has struck over 1,000 targets, killing hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous group leaders.
After Trump announced the deal with the Iran-backed terrorist group, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei praised “the end of the US aggression” on Yemen and thanked Oman for its efforts in mediating the ceasefire agreement.
The post Israel Warns of ‘Severe Consequences’ for Houthis, Vows to Defend Itself After US Cuts Deal With Terror Group first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login