RSS
Israel’s Targeting of Hamas Commander Marwan Issa Was a Legal Operation
Palestinian fighters from the armed wing of Hamas take part in a military parade to mark the anniversary of the 2014 war with Israel, near the border in the central Gaza Strip, July 19, 2023. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Under authoritative international rules, Israel’s mid-March targeting of senior Hamas commander Marwan Issa was law-enforcing. Among other egregious crimes, Issa was a key planner of the October 7 rampage against Israeli civilians. Maj. Gen. Tamir Hayman, former chief of Israeli military intelligence, accurately described this Palestinian terrorist leader as Hamas’s “strategic mind.” To fully understand this law-based action, geopolitical context is necessary. In essence, the world legal structure compels a vigilante system of justice. It is against the background of continuing global anarchy that terror-beleaguered states must identify and operationally shape their counter-terrorism options.
Responding to intentionally indiscriminate, grand-scale Hamas violence, Israel’s terrorist-removing airstrike in March was an authentic act of law enforcement, one that precisely targeted Hamas commander Marwan Issa while he cowered in an underground Gaza compound. Faced with the persistent threat of Palestinian terrorism — a threat that could eventually escalate to include weapons of mass destruction — Israel has no reasonable choice but to eliminate Hamas leadership wherever deemed possible and cost-effective. This means a periodic resort to the targeting of terror-criminals.
Abandoning such a primary obligation would express more than an existential threat to Israel itself. It would also represent a potentially devastating threat to regional and even global security. An overriding example of such threat would be a direct Iranian attack on Israel that escalates into unconventional or nuclear war. Though Iran is pre-nuclear, any accelerating search for “escalation dominance” by Israel and Iran could still produce a nuclear conflict. This is because Iran already has access to radiation dispersal weapons and can already launch a conventional attack on Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor.
Under binding international law, terrorism represents a crime that must be prevented and punished. As we may learn from both Roman and Jewish law (Torah), a “higher law” obtains. This core rule affirms the immutable principle of “No crime without a punishment.” It can be found, among other valid sources, in the London Charter of August 8, 1945, the founding document of the historic Nuremberg Tribunal.
In law, terrorists are known as hostes humani generis or “common enemies of humankind.” While the world legal system allows certain insurgencies in matters of self-determination, there is nothing about such 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 question 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 civilian harms now being suffered in Gaza. As an unambiguous matter of humanitarian international law, responsibility for all these harms falls entirely upon the “perfidious” behavior (i.e., use of “human shields”) of Hamas and Iran. It does not fall on Israeli forces acting to support legitimate and indispensable rights of national self-defense.
Under the binding laws of war, even where an insurgent use of force has “just cause,” it must still wage its fight with “just means.” The phrase “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” is never more than an empty witticism. Jurisprudentially, this comparison contradicts the law.
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 necessary law enforcement. In our self-defense-oriented world legal system, the only alternative to states launching precise targeting actions against terrorists would be to allow incessant terror-violence against the innocent. This is because terror-organizations like Hamas and terror-mentoring states like Iran display undisguised contempt for all ordinary criminal law expectations of extradition. The formal term for this openly ignored expectation is “extradite or prosecute” or (for the lawyers) 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.” But international legal relations are not overseen by the same civil protections offered by individual national governments, and terrorist leaders like Marwan Issa orchestrate unspeakably brutal attacks on men, women and children with manifest enthusiasm. On October 7, 2023, Hamas attackers perpetrated the rape-mutilation of males as well as females, of children as well as adults. Let no one forget the details. This assault was not about Palestinian “sovereignty,” “national self-determination” or “statehood.” It was an expression of the visceral “joys” of pure barbarism.
If Hamas and related groups are held immune for their crimes by civilized states, terror attacks could escalate to 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 can change. In the foreseeable future, Iran could fashion and deploy an authentic chain-reaction nuclear explosive. In short order, such actions could spawn joint Iran-Hamas crimes against peace, crimes of war, and crimes against humanity.
The willfully indiscriminate nature of jihadist terrorist operations (not just Hamas) is well documented. The intentional blurring of lines between lawful and unlawful targets is rooted in certain generic principles of “holy war.” Several years ago, a recorded remark by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, then a prominent Muslim cleric in London, explained 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.”
As was learned yet again on October 7, 2023, jihadist attackers include gratuitous murder in their primal or pre-civilizational ideologies. The bottom line is that jihadist belief systems embrace the sacrificial slaughter of “unbelievers.” For Hamas and related terror groups, “military objectives” normally include 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 “just cause,” they always display criminal intent or mens rea.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups remain dedicated to the primal idea that any peace agreement with Israel would represent an intolerable abomination to Islam. Facing these implacable enemies within the system of international law, Israel is entitled to the self-defending right to target terrorist leaders. Determining whether such remedies are militarily sound raises another question altogether.
In the final analysis, what is most noteworthy about the targeted killing of terrorist leaders like Marwan Issa is not its permissibility in law but its widespread unacceptability. Why is there a near-global unwillingness to endorse or merely acknowledge this established right?
International law is not a suicide pact. In current jurisprudence, an ancient principle still holds true: Ubi cessat remedium ordinarium, ibi decurritur ad extraordinarium, or “Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one.” It would be best, of course, if Israel didn’t have to resort to the targeted killing of terrorist adversaries, but in the present system of world law, this beleaguered country – which is smaller than Lake Michigan – has no choice.
Under international law, every state maintains the inherent right and corresponding obligation to protect its citizens from transnational criminal harms. In exceptional circumstances, this dual responsibility can extend to the targeted killing of terrorist leaders. If it were otherwise, world law would indeed be a suicide pact.
Under established international law principles governing insurgencies, the ends can never justify the means. A cause, even if it is arguably or seemingly legitimate, even if it is presumptively “sacred,” can never excuse premeditated violence against the innocent.
Furthermore: By the authoritative standards of contemporary international law, terrorists are akin to pirates in earlier times, subject to punishment (originally, hanging) by the first persons into whose hands they fall. At present, Hamas terrorists are international outlaws who fall within the operational scope of “universal jurisdiction.” This means, among other things, that any state can claim a valid right to arrest, prosecute and potentially target terrorist murderers even where there exist no geographic or citizen ties to the pertinent criminals.
In these matters, history warrants pride of place. Support for a limited right to the targeted killing of “common enemies of humankind” can be found in the classical writings of Aristotle, Plutarch and Cicero as well as in Jewish history. This history ranges from the Sicarii, who flourished at the time of destruction of the Second Temple, to the Lehi, who fought the British mandatory authority after World War II. If the worldwide community of states should ever choose to reject this right, it would then have to accept responsibility for any reciprocal violence launched upon innocent human beings.
The calculations are straightforward. Targeted killings, subject to applicable legal rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity, can on occasion offer the least unwelcome form of national self-protection. In such cases, especially where additional terror-crimes are still in the planning stage, the legal acceptability of violent self-help measures should be self-evident.
In our anarchic system of international law, this proposition lies beyond logical doubt. The world legal system is designed to protect everyone from foreseeable infringements of human rights and includes the corollary principle of universal cooperation.
In the best of all possible worlds, targeted killing would hold no defensible place in law-based counterterrorism. But we do not yet live in the best of all possible worlds, and the negative aspects of any such defensive action ought never to be evaluated apart from alternative policy consequences. 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), more violence and death would have been inflicted upon many innocent human beings.
In the end, counterterrorism should always be governed by both legal and tactical criteria of assessment. If the expected human costs of a targeted assassination appear calculably lower than the expected costs of all other plausible self-defense options, such an assassination must emerge as the rational and moral choice. However odious it might at first appear, targeted killing in these circumstances could offer Israel the least injurious path to civilian security from insidious terror-violence.
Prof. 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 (PM Sharon). His twelfth and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Israel’s Targeting of Hamas Commander Marwan Issa Was a Legal Operation first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Anti-Israel Rioters Attack Israeli Cruise Ship, Prevent Tourists From Disembarking in Greece
Greek riot police clash with pro-Palestinian protesters near the port of Rhodes during a demonstration targeting an Israeli cruise ship. Photo: Screenshot
Anti-Israel rioters on the Greek island of Crete have attacked an Israeli cruise ship, preventing tourists from disembarking in the latest incident targeting Israeli visitors in Greece.
The MS Crown Iris — operated by Israeli cruise line Mano Maritime — was targeted once again by pro-Palestinian activists this week.
On Thursday, Israeli tourists were physically assaulted and temporarily blocked from disembarking in Crete by about 25 protesters gathered at the island’s main port to demonstrate against the war in Gaza.
The rioters, waving Palestinian flags and holding banners falsely accusing Israel of genocide, clashed violently with police who were trying to secure a safe passage for the Israeli tourists.
As Israeli tourists tried to disembark, they were attacked by the demonstrators, who threw rocks and metal bars, forcing many to retreat back onto the ship.
After those who first tried to leave the ship were physically assaulted, police advised everyone to return onboard, as protesters appeared to be blocking all exits from the port.
The port then closed its gates, and all passengers returned to the ship while authorities worked to regain control of the situation.
Greek riot police intervened, using pepper spray to disperse the crowd and detaining four protesters, but some passengers were still injured during the incident.
This latest attack marks the third incident in a month in which anti-Israel protesters have targeted Israeli tourists and attempted to boycott the Mano Maritime cruise line.
Greece’s Minister of Citizen Protection, Michalis Chrysochoidis, condemned these targeted attacks, vowing that anyone who tries to prevent a foreign national from legally entering the country will “face prosecution, arrest, and then criminal proceedings under the anti-racism law.”
Las month, approximately 1,600 Israeli passengers expecting a peaceful stop on their cruise were unable to disembark from a ship docked on the island of Syros after a pro-Palestinian protest erupted at the port, raising safety concerns.
Around 300 demonstrators had gathered at the dock to protest against the war in Gaza, while Syros Port Authority police guarded the area and intervened to prevent violence until the ship departed.
Amid the large anti-Israel protest, the cruise company chose to divert the ship to Limassol, Cyprus.
In videos circulating on social media, protesters were seen waving Palestinian flags and holding banners with slogans such as “Stop the Genocide” and “No AC [Air Conditioning] in Hell,” while chanting antisemitic slogans.
In a similar incident, pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with Greek riot police on the island of Rhodes as they attempted to block a Mano Maritime cruise ship from docking at the island’s main port.
More than 600 passengers were set to disembark when tensions escalated and brief clashes broke out as authorities worked to control the protest.
According to videos circulating on social media, riot police can be seen confronting a group of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered near the dock, who shouted slogans such as “Freedom for Palestine.”
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents have surged to alarming levels across Europe.
These incidents appear to be the latest in an increasing wave of anti-Jewish hate crimes that Greece and other countries have experienced in recent months.
On Friday, a group of Israeli tourists from London were thrown out of a Greek taverna and called “baby killers” after a dispute with the pro-Palestinian restaurant owner.
Last month in Athens, a group of pro-Palestinian activists vandalized an Israeli restaurant, shouting antisemitic slurs and spray-painting graffiti with slogans such as “No Zionist is safe here.”
The attackers also posted a sign on one of the restaurant’s windows that read, “All IDF soldiers are war criminals — we don’t want you here,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
In June, an Israeli tourist was attacked by a group of anti-Israel activists after they overheard him using Google Maps in Hebrew while navigating through Athens.
When the attackers realized the victim was speaking Hebrew, they began physically assaulting him while shouting antisemitic slurs.
RSS
‘Nothing Less’: Trump Presses for $500 Million Settlement With Harvard University
US President Donald Trump gestures during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Aug. 26, 2025. Photo: Jonathan Ernst via Reuters Connect
US President Donald Trump has said that Harvard University must pay a minimum $500 million penalty as part of a settlement to restore $3 billion in federal contracts and research grants his administration impounded from the school’s coffers earlier this year.
Trump insisted on “nothing less” in remarks to Education Secretary Linda McMahon during a cabinet meeting held on Tuesday. “They’ve been very bad. Don’t negotiate,” he added.
The comments came just two and a half months after McMahon, representing the Trump administration, hinted at the possibility of reaching a deal with Harvard and unfreezing the federal funds. Speaking to Bloomberg, the education secretary said that Harvard was “making progress” and “already put in place some of the things that we have talked about in our negotiations with Columbia” University, which included some wish-list reforms for which conservatives have spent decades advocating.
At the time, Harvard had filed suit against the administration, seeking a summary judgement which ruled that the funds confiscation was arbitrary and skipped key steps the government must take before taking such an action. The New York Times reported that Harvard expressed interest in paying $500 million to settle the matter, and university officials had begun dismantling initiatives and making other changes to reverse an impression that the institution is doctrinally far left and anti-Zionist.
In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Harvard Crimson, even suggested that Harvard is willing to found a “new conservative research institute.”
However, Harvard university’s president, Alan Garber, deluged by inquiries from Harvard faculty outraged at the prospect of settling with the Trump administration, later proclaimed that the Times had reported fake news and that he intended to continue on fighting the government in court.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Harvard Crimson reported, noting that the Times had defended the veracity of its report. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
The conflicting headlines highlighted the competing objectives Garber is being forced to choose between — rescuing Harvard from a perilous fiscal situation or placating its left-leaning faculty, 94 percent of whom donated to Democratic candidates in 2024, as reported by the Crimson.
In July, a Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed that 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration and 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering DEI programs. Additionally, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking institutional recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
At the same time, Harvard will see annual budget shortfalls of $1 billion if the if the Trump confiscations remain in effect, according to the Wall Street Journal, a loss the university is offsetting by enacting “contingency preparations” predicated on amassing $1 billion in debt with help from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Analysts have told The Algemeiner that Harvard’s immense wealth, powered by a $53 billion endowment valued higher than the gross domestic product of countries such the Kingdom of Bahrain and Bolivia, can sustain its borrowing in the short term but not in perpetuity.
“If Harvard is willing to mortgage its real estate or use it as collateral, it can borrow money for a very long time,” National Association of Scholars president Peter Wood told The Algemeiner in April. “But it could destroy itself that way.”
On Friday, Asaf Romirowsky, a Middle East expert and president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), said Harvard should make a deal, arguing that would be in the interest of both the school and the country.
“Universities have begun to rapidly adapt to the new realities. One change being made by universities is increased hiring of Title VI coordinators to handle civil rights complaints,” he said. “Beyond the cosmetic, the US desperately needs to reevaluate what a university is and what it is for. Five decades of universities striving for relevance has had the effect of politicizing the humanities and social sciences.”
He continued, “As faculties have become politically monolithic, students interested in exploring traditions and themselves have been alienated, causing a feedback loop of shrinking disciplines and intensifying politics.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, and Others Join Gaza Film as Executive Producers Before Venice Premiere
Brad Pitt attends the “F1: The Movie” European premiere in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Maja Smiejkowska
Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, and other high-profile figures in the Hollywood film industry have joined the Gaza-based drama “The Voice of Hind Rajab” as executive producers ahead of its world premiere at the 82nd Venice International Film Festival, Deadline reported.
“The Zone of Interest” director Jonathan Glazer is also joining the film as an executive producer as well as “Roma” director Alfonso Cuaron. Meanwhile, Dede Garner and Jeremy Kleiner from Pitt’s production company Plan B. Britain’s Film4 and the Saudi Arabian state-owned MBC Studio are also supporting the film, according to Deadline.
Written and directed by Tunisian filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania, “The Voice of Hind Rajab” focuses on the real-life death of six-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, who was trapped in a car that had allegedly come under fire by Israeli military forces in the Gaza Strip in January 2024 and later found dead. Israel claimed its military troops were not in the area at the time. The movie is based on real audio recordings of Rajab’s calls to Red Cresent volunteers, who tried to keep her on the line and get an ambulance to help her. Her death sparked global outrage including at Columbia University, where anti-Israel students broke into the academic building Hamilton Hall and symbolically renamed it as Hind’s Hall in April 2024.
“The Voice of Hind Rajab” will premiere at the Venice Film Festival on Sept. 3 before making its North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival.
“I cannot accept a world where a child calls for help and no one comes,” Ben Hania said in a released statement. “That pain, that failure, belongs to all of us. This story is not just about Gaza. It speaks to a universal grief. And I believe that fiction (especially when it draws from verified, painful, real events) is cinema’s most powerful tool. More powerful than the noise of breaking news or the forgetfulness of scrolling. Cinema can preserve a memory … May Hind Rajab’s voice be heard.”
Ben Hania’s film “Four Daughters” was nominated for an Oscar last year and her previous project, “The Man Who Sold His Skin,” was selected as the Tunisian entry for best international feature film at the Academy Awards in 2021.
The 82nd Venice Film Festival opened on Wednesday, almost six weeks to the second anniversary of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7 2023, that resulted in the murder of 1,200 people while 251 were taken as hostages back to Gaza. The festival ends Sept. 6.
Hundreds of Italian and international artists signed an open letter calling on the Venice Film Festival to condemn what they claim is Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Israel has adamantly denied the charge, noting it’s targeting a terrorist group in Gaza that tries to embed itself among the civilian population to create more casualties.