US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) on Tuesday called for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials.

Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of the US Congress, made the demand while accusing Israel of genocide after the Jewish state launched a military operation targeting Hamas in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, the Palestinian terrorist group’s last stronghold in the enclave.

“There is nowhere safe in Gaza,” Tlaib said in a statement. “I urge the ICC to swiftly issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and senior Israeli officials to finally hold them accountable for this genocide, as is obviously warranted by these well-documented violations of the Genocide Convention under international law.”

The US and Israel are not members of the ICC. Palestinian territories were given membership in 2015.

The ICC has reportedly considered warrants for Netanyahu and other members of his cabinet — the Israeli premier has characterized the possibility of an ICC arrest warrant as an “unprecedented antisemitic hate crime.” Some Republicans in the US Senate have responded with threats to impose sanctions on the ICC if it moved forward with the arrest warrants.

Tlaib, one of Israel’s harshest critics in Congress, also demanded that fellow lawmakers and US President Joe Biden halt all American military assistance to Israel.

“It is now more apparent than ever that we must end all US military funding for the Israeli apartheid regime, and demand that President Biden facilitate an immediate, permanent ceasefire that includes a complete withdraw of Israeli forces from Gaza, and the release of all hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians,” Tlaib said.

The Michigan Democrat did not mention Hamas once in her statement.

The terrorist group, which rules Gaza, launched the current war with its Oct. 7 invasion of the Jewish state. During their rampage across southern Israel, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped over 250 others as hostages.

Israel responded to the surprise onslaught with a military campaign in Gaza aimed at freeing the hostages and incapacitating Hamas to the point that it can longer pose a major threat to the Israeli people. Hamas leaders have pledged to carry out massacres against Israel like the one on Oct. 7 “again and again.”

Tlaib’s statement came as the Israeli military said it took operational control of the Palestinian side of Gaza’s southern Rafah Crossing, which borders Egypt, while targeting the Hamas terrorist group’s fighters and infrastructure.

The US has sought to pressure Israel to forgo a significant military operation in Rafah, citing the potential for civilian casualties; Jerusalem has countered that a ground offensive is necessary to eliminate Hamas’ remaining battalions in the southern Gaza city.

Experts have told The Algemeiner that Israel must operate in Rafah if the Jewish state wishes to achieve its war objective of eliminating the threat posed by the Palestinian terrorist group.

“Many of my colleagues are going to express concern and horror at the crimes against humanity that are about to unfold, even though they just voted to send Netanyahu billions more in weapons,” Tlaib said. “Do not be misled, they gave their consent for these atrocities, and our country is actively participating in genocide. For months, Netanyahu made his intent to invade Rafah clear, yet the majority of my colleagues and President Biden sent more weapons to enable the massacre.”

Last month, Biden signed a legislative package that included about $26 billion in aid for Israel. However, the Biden administration has also reportedly held up deliveries of ammunition and precision weapons to the Jewish state amid concern over Israel’s operation in Rafah and, more broadly, increasing opposition to the Israeli war effort against Hamas.

Tlaib has received bipartisan backlash for her fierce opposition to Israel, which she has previously compared with Nazi Germany, since the Gaza war began.

Last month, Tlaib received a wave of criticism for refusing to condemn anti-Israel protesters who chanted “death to America” and “death to Israel” during a rally in her district.

Two months earlier, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning Hamas’ use of sexual assault as a weapon of war during its Oct. 7 attack on Israel. It was a near-unanimous vote, with a single exception: Tlaib, who only voted “present,” arguing she could not support the measure because it did not also accuse Israel of using sexual assault as a weapon of war. Mounting evidence has documented Hamas’ systematic use of torture and sexual violence, including mass rape, against the Israeli people during the onslaught.

After Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre, Tlaib flew a Palestinian flag outside her home and seemingly blamed Israel for the attack, accusing the Jewish state of having an “apartheid system” that fosters “conditions that can lead to resistance.” Later, the lawmaker accused Biden of supporting a “genocide” against Palestinians because he voiced support for Israel’s right to defend itself.

In the following weeks, Tlaib falsely claimed on social media that Israel bombed the Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza as part of its military operations targeting Hamas, which rules the coastal Palestinian enclave. It turned out that a misfired Palestinian rocket from Gaza caused a widely reported explosion near the Al Ahli Hospital, according to intelligence from Israel and several Western governments. Experts agreed that Israel was not responsible, but Tlaib refused to recant her claim, arguing that “both the Israeli and United States governments have long, documented histories of misleading the public about wars and war crimes.”

So indecorous was Tlaib’s conduct that in November her colleagues in the House voted to censure her for “promoting false narratives” regarding Hamas’ Oct. 7 invasion of the Jewish state and for “calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Tlaib’s close ally in the House — Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), another vocal opponent of Israel — may also be censured for remarks concerning Israel and Gaza. House Republicans have said they are preparing to formally censure Omar over her recent comments at Columbia University, where she said that “we should not have to tolerate antisemitism or bigotry for all Jewish students — whether they are pro-genocide or anti-genocide.” Critics have argued that Omar’s claim that Jews are “pro-genocide” was antisemitic.

“It’s just unacceptable, so I want to take a bold stand,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) told reporters on Tuesday, explaining that he’ll pursue censure against Omar. He predicted that many Democrats would support his resolution.

The post Rashida Tlaib Demands Court Issue Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Other Israeli Officials first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The members of the progressive caucus in the US House of Representatives, known as “The Squad,” have recently coalesced around support for the “peaceful” antisemitic protests engulfing college campuses.

The Squad hears “ceasefire” when “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the River to the Sea” are chanted. They are pandering to the students who are currently calling for a Palestine “free” of Jews, and who believe their ideology that everything in the United States — and globally — is about race and an “oppressor vs. oppressed” ideology.

The litmus test for all progressive policies is that they must advance “racial justice and equity” (The House Progressive Promise). Members of the Squad justify their anti-Zionist position by falsely accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state.” This accusation is a lie, but it squares nicely with the objective of the progressive platform which is to advance their particular version of racial justice and equity — which means the demonization of whomever they deem to be “white” and “powerful.”

Members of the Squad believe that their commitment to “dismantle the systems of oppression and discrimination that allow racism to persist” obligates them to oppose Israel.

The following is a statement that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) made on October 8, 2024, while Hamas sadists were still on a killing rampage in Israel and Hamas rockets were reigning down on Israeli towns:

The path to that future must include lifting the blockade, ending the occupation, and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance. The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege, occupation, and apartheid makes no one safer. No person, no child anywhere should have to suffer or live in fear of violence. We cannot ignore the humanity in each other. As long as our country provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.

I believe professor and diversity advocate Mona Khoury-Kassabri, the Vice President for “Strategy and Inclusion” at Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, may have a different viewpoint concerning Congresswoman Tlaib’s libelous accusation that Israel is an apartheid state, as would the Arab-Israeli doctors who are studying and practicing medicine in Israel, all Arab citizens who have equal rights and serve in the Knesset and Supreme Court, and many others.

Israel is not an apartheid state. For just the beginnings of proof, you can look here.

New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), probably the most well-known member of the Squad, hurried up to Columbia to give her support to the students of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment who demanded that Columbia University divest from all things Israel.

The following are the first two of five demands the Columbia University Apartheid Divest Organization made to the administration of Columbia (cuapartheiddivest):

Divest all of Columbia’s finances, including the endowment, from companies and institutions that profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine. Ensure accountability by increasing transparency around financial investments.
Sever academic ties with Israeli universities, including the Global Center in Tel Aviv, the Dual Degree Program with Tel Aviv University, and all study-abroad programs.

The protestors refuse to let anyone speak who disagrees with these views. In effect, they are demanding that their free speech rights are respected while calling on the silencing of Jewish and pro-Israeli voices.

The intent of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is to de-legitimize Israeli scientists, artists, politicians, entrepreneurs, athletes, farmers, industrialists, doctors, and professors — irrespective of their politics or views — and to de-legitimize the State of Israel itself.

The logic of the BDS movement is that isolating and suffocating Israeli society will create immense pressure that forces Israel to retreat to the geography of the 1967 borders — and eventually collapse upon itself. Of course, an isolated and weakened Israel will be far less likely to make any concessions because it will be unable to take the risks associated with ceding more autonomy over more land and resources to the Palestinian people. The anti-Zionist policies voiced by the student protestors, and supported by the Squad, will lead to more death and destruction in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank — not less.

The demands of the protestors also don’t include one word about the Israeli and American hostages that Hamas is currently torturing, or the 1,200 people massacred intentionally on October 7. They are ignoring Hamas and Palestinian terrorism — which are the primary cause of the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza. Protestors marching for the “global intifada” have decided that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate act of resistance.

If they’re serious about what they believe, any non-Jewish progressive politician besides Ritchie Torres (D-NY) should step up to the bullhorn and address the students who are in a rage about the death and destruction in Gaza, and explain how and why the commitment of Hamas to slaughter Jews from “the river to the sea” is absolutely evil and not progressive.

Charles A. Stone is a Professor at Brooklyn College, CUNY.

The post Where Are the Progressive Politicians Standing Up to the Jew Hatred on Campus? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Israel’s nuclear posture remains “deliberately ambiguous.” In the past, this stance appears to have been sensible, even incontestable. Today, however, during a continuing Gaza War and following unprecedented missile aggressions from Iran, it requires fundamental reconsideration. In essence, there are compelling reasons to argue that Israel’s traditional “bomb in the basement” posture is no longer tenable.

There are clarifying particulars. A prudent nuclear posture for Israel should necessarily be based upon calculable assessments of all plausible options. At a minimum, any cost-effective changes of Israeli nuclear ambiguity would need to be readily identifiable but also not be gratuitously provocative. For a time, such changes might need to remain implicit in the small country’s codified military doctrine.

Israel, after all, is less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan.

A comprehensive Israeli strategic doctrine represents the general framework from which any specific posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity or selective nuclear disclosure would be extracted. More precisely, the principal importance of Israeli nuclear doctrine lies not only in the several ways that it can animate, unify, and optimize the state’s armed forces, but also in the more-or-less efficient manner in which it could transmit cautionary messages to enemy state Iran and sub-state surrogate Hamas.

Understood in terms of Israel’s many-sided strategic policy, any continuous across-the-board nuclear ambiguity could have existential consequences. This is because effective deterrence and defense policies call for a military doctrine that is at least partially recognizable by adversary states and terrorist proxies. Today, as Israel decides on whether to re-ignite a multi-front war with Iran — a war that could prove indispensable to preventing Iranian nuclear weapons — such “wise counsel” is conspicuously urgent.

For Israel, any ultimate and durable military success against Iran must lie in credibly-layered nuclear deterrence options, never in nuclear war-fighting. Recalling ancient Chinese military thought offered by Sun-Tzu in The Art of War, “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” Soon, in the overriding matter of nuclear deterrence, Israeli decision-makers will need to acknowledge that there are occasions when too much further secrecy would degrade the country’s national security.

Israel’s nuclear weapons should always be oriented to deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post. Nuclear weapons can succeed only in their calculated non-use. By definition, once they have been used for actual battle, nuclear deterrence will have failed, perhaps irremediably. Once they were used in any possible form, tactical or strategic, all traditional meanings of “victory” would immediately become moot.

Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture could have certain counter-terrorism benefits, but only with direct regard to Iran. Reciprocally, allowing itself to be weakened by Iran-backed terrorists (Sunni or Shia) could enlarge Israel’s existential vulnerabilities to the Islamic Republic. In evaluating such perplexing interconnections, Israeli planners will have to devote continuous attention to all possible synergies and “force multipliers.”

The original Cold War is over; still, “Cold War II” is underway between the United States, Russia, and (this time) China. If Iran is allowed to become nuclear, Israel’s deterrence relationship with Iran would never be comparable to what earlier was obtained between the US and the USSR. In such unique or sui generis circumstances, any unmodified continuance of total nuclear ambiguity could cause an already-nuclear Iran to underestimate or overestimate Israel’s nuclear retaliatory capacity. Either kind of misestimating could lead to catastrophic war.

The world is a system. Accordingly, various uncertainties surrounding Israel’s nuclear posture could lead other enemy states to reach similar kinds of misunderstanding. For example, Israel’s willingness to make good on any threatened nuclear retaliation could sometime be taken as inversely related to weapon system destructiveness. Ironically, therefore, if Israel’s nuclear weapons were thought “too destructive,” they might not deter.

Any continuing Israeli posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity could cause terrorist-mentoring Iran to overestimate the first-strike vulnerabilities of Israel’s nuclear forces. This could be the result of a too-rigorous silence concerning measures of protection deployed to safeguard Israel’s nuclear weapons and infrastructures. Alternatively, such an over-estimation could represent the product of Israeli doctrinal opacity regarding the country’s potential for defense, an absence of transparency that would be wrongly interpreted as fragile or “porous” ballistic missile defense.

Though any such Iranian conclusion would seem preposterous after Israel’s extraordinary recent success at active defense, anything less than a 100% probability of interception would be inadequate vis-a-vis Iranian nuclear attacks.

To deter an enemy state attack or post-preemption retaliation against Israel, Jerusalem must always prevent a rational aggressor, via threats of unacceptably damaging retaliation or counter-retaliation, from deciding to strike first. Understood in such a “classic” context, Israel’s national security should now be sought by convincing a presumptively rational Iranian attacker that the costs of any considered attack on Israel would exceed the expected benefits.

Assuming that Iran values its national self-preservation more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences, and that it would always choose rationally among all alternative options, that enemy state will refrain from launching any attack on an Israel that is believed willing and able to deliver unacceptably damaging reprisals.

The “bottom line” should be clear in Jerusalem. Israel’s security posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity is outdated and dangerous. With Israel’s operational nuclear forces and doctrine kept locked away in its metaphoric “basement,” Iran could conclude, rightly or wrongly, that a first-strike attack or post-preemption reprisal against Israel would be rational and cost-effective. But if relevant Israeli doctrine were made more obvious to Tehran, Israel’s nuclear forces could more reliably serve their existential security functions.

Another critical success factor of Israeli nuclear doctrine is “presumed willingness.” How can Israel convince Iranian decision-makers that it possesses the resolve to deliver an appropriately destructive retaliation or counter retaliation? The answer to this core question lies in antecedent strategic doctrine, in Israel’s estimated strength of commitment to carry out such an attack and in the tangible nuclear ordnance that would likely be available.

Any continued ambiguity over Israel’s nuclear posture could create the erroneous impression of a state that is unwilling to retaliate. Conversely, any doctrinal movement toward some as-yet-undetermined level of nuclear disclosure could heighten the impression that Israel is actually willing to follow-through on its pertinent nuclear threats.

What if Iran were ultimately allowed to become nuclear? To be deterred by Israel, a newly-nuclear Iran would need to believe that a critical number of Israel’s retaliatory forces could survive an Iranian first-strike and that these forces could not subsequently be prevented from hitting pre-designated targets in Iran. Concerning the “presumed survivability” of Israeli nuclear forces, continued sea-basing (submarines) by Israel would be self-evidently gainful.

If carefully articulated, expanding doctrinal openness or selective nuclear disclosure would represent a rational and plausibly imperative option for Israel. The operational benefits of such an expanding doctrinal openness would accrue from certain deliberate flows of information concerning Israeli weapons dispersion, multiplication or hardening of nuclear weapon systems and other technical weapon features. Most importantly, doctrinally controlled and orderly flows of information could serve to remove any intermittent or lingering Iranian doubts about Israel’s nuclear force capabilities and intentions. At some point, if left unchallenged, such doubts could undermine Israeli nuclear deterrence with unprecedented suddenness and lethality. This is the case, moreover, whether Iran were pre-nuclear or already-nuclear.

A summarizing thought dawns. As Israel confronts a state enemy that would best be countered while still in its pre-nuclear form, Jerusalem should understand that avoiding active warfare with Iran need not be in Israel’s best security interests. Ipso facto, if Israel could fight a law-based and comprehensive war against a still pre-nuclear Iran, it could plausibly avoid a nuclear war in the future. Under authoritative international law, such a defensive war could represent a fully permissible expression of “anticipatory self-defense.”

Looking ahead, Israel must do whatever possible and lawful to prevent a nuclear Iran. In this genuinely existential obligation, a pronounced shift in strategic posture from deliberate nuclear ambiguity to selective nuclear disclosure would represent Israel’s most expressly rational decision. By drawing upon such “wise counsel,” Israel could prudently plan for a no-choice war against a still non-nuclear Iranian foe.

The author is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of twelve major books dealing with international relations, military strategy and world affairs. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland on August 31, 1945, and lectures and publishes widely on issues of terrorism, counter-terrorism, nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres’ latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed. 2018).  A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.

The post On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous first appeared on Algemeiner.com.