RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law

Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack

People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
“The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
RSS
How Jewish Students Are Re-Drawing the College Map and Migrating to the South (PART ONE)
As campuses across the country reopen this Fall, the familiar rhythms of college life are returning. Freshmen are moving into dorms, quads are buzzing with activity, and families are sending their children off with hope and excitement.
This season of beginnings also coincides with the Jewish High Holy Days: a time of reflection, renewal, and community. For many Jewish families, the symbolism feels especially poignant this year.
Yet, beneath the surface of move-in day photos and holiday gatherings, something fundamental has shifted. This Fall marks a turning point. Jewish students are making different choices about where to study, and those choices are reshaping the very map of Jewish campus life.
For generations, ambitious Jewish families knew the path forward: aim for Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Yale — the elite colleges and universities of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. These schools were not just prestigious academic institutions. They were symbols of Jewish ascent in America, places where a community once shut out by quotas had built vibrant campus lives and become vital to the intellectual and cultural fabric of higher education.
That roadmap is now breaking down. Across Jewish day schools, synagogue youth groups, and Jewish and Zionist family dinner tables, a profound debate is unfolding. Parents and students are asking a new question: Should you still chase the Ivy League dream, hoping to carve out a space for Jewish identity on campuses increasingly hostile to open expression and Israel?
Or should you go where you can thrive, to universities that welcome you as a student and as a Jew, where you can build community and simply live without fear or exhaustion?
This is no longer an abstract conversation. It is being decided right now, as families fill out college applications and students begin their first weeks of classes.
The Atlantic recently captured this shift, documenting how Jewish students are leaving elite northeastern schools and heading south. Schools like Vanderbilt, Tulane, Emory, and the University of Florida are emerging as destinations of choice.
Vanderbilt’s Jewish population has grown significantly, with the school now serving more than 1,000 Jewish students, about 15% of undergraduates. Clemson’s Hillel has quadrupled in size. The University of Florida has seen a 50 percent surge in Jewish student participation since 2021. Southern Methodist University now appears to have more Jewish undergraduates than Harvard, per data from Hillel International.
Meanwhile, numbers at the other end of the pipeline tell an equally stark story.
Hillel International reports that the Jewish populations at Harvard, Columbia, Penn, and Cornell have declined in recent years. At Ramaz, a Modern Orthodox high school in New York, more than a dozen graduates would typically head to Columbia each year. This past year, it sent none.
These are not symbolic shifts. They represent a realignment of where Jewish families believe their children can be safe, flourish, and belong.
From Cultural Drift to Exodus
This transformation didn’t happen overnight. Even before the upheavals of the past two years, Jewish families were beginning to quietly reconsider the Ivies. In earlier research, I documented how many southern universities maintained a healthier civic culture than their northern counterparts: more ideologically diverse, less polarized, and more willing to foster real debate.
At the time, my argument was cultural rather than existential. Families weren’t worried about their children’s physical safety. They were simply looking for campuses where their kids could engage with ideas and people without suffocating monoculture. I warned that if elite northern schools failed to protect this balance, families would start looking elsewhere.
The events of October 7, 2023, and the wave of anti-Israel protests that followed, did not create this trend — but they dramatically accelerated it. At Cornell that October, a student posted death threats against Jewish students online. At Cooper Union, Jewish students locked themselves in the library while protesters pounded on the doors. What was once a quiet drift has become a visible exodus.
This year, Hillel’s survey of 427 Jewish parents conducted in March 2024 found that almost two-thirds had eliminated at least one college from their child’s list because of antisemitism concerns. Families are no longer only asking, “Will my child get in?” They are now asking, “Will my child be safe, welcomed, and able to thrive?”
The Experience on the Ground
The reasons for this shift are stark.
An ADL and Hillel International survey found that 83 percent of Jewish students have experienced or witnessed antisemitism since October 7, 2023. Two-thirds of Jewish students lack confidence in their university’s ability to prevent antisemitic incidents, and only about half feel comfortable with others on campus knowing their Jewish identity.
The American Jewish Committee’s 2024 State of Antisemitism report showed that 43 percent of Jewish students avoided expressing their views about Israel on campus or to classmates because of fears of antisemitism. Nearly one-third of Jewish students said they have felt uncomfortable or unsafe at a campus event because of their Jewish identity. Many now hide visible signs of Jewish identity — like Stars of David or Hebrew lettering — to avoid confrontation.
These numbers confirm the experience that many students have been living for months: Jewish identity is no longer neutral on many elite campuses. Being openly Jewish, or simply participating in Jewish communal life, now carries political baggage — and risk.
FIRE’s free-expression survey captures the chilling effect: before October 7, 13 percent of Jewish Ivy League students reported self-censoring multiple times a week. After October 7, that number spiked to 35 percent. Even after tensions eased, it settled at 19 percent, well above historical norms.
The message is unmistakable: Jewish students are not just encountering incidents of hostility. They are systematically adjusting how they speak, behave, and even appear in public. For many families, that is intolerable.
Southern Schools as Havens
The southern campuses now attracting Jewish students are not perfect, but they are different. They maintain a measure of ideological pluralism that has largely vanished at northern elite schools.
Administrators at universities like Vanderbilt and Washington University in St. Louis act quickly to enforce clear standards of conduct.
Vanderbilt’s leadership immediately suspended 27 students who occupied the chancellor’s office in March 2024, removing them from campus and making clear that disrupting university operations would have consequences.
These schools are also actively investing in Jewish life. Tulane’s undergraduate Jewish population now hovers around 30 percent, one of the highest in the country. Vanderbilt has added Hillel staff to meet the surge of prospective students. Kosher dining halls, Jewish studies programs, and strong Chabad houses signal that Jewish life is valued, not merely tolerated.
For students, this matters deeply. At these schools, they can attend Shabbat dinners without feeling like it’s a political statement. They can wear a kippah or a Star of David without worrying about being targeted. They can speak openly about Israel without calculating the social cost. They can simply be students.
This migration represents more than individual choices about college. It’s a verdict on what elite institutions have become and a bet on where excellence will emerge next. Jewish families aren’t just choosing different schools; they’re redrawing the map of American higher education itself.
But what does this mean for the universities being left behind? And can Jewish institutions rise to meet this moment of crisis and opportunity?
In Part 2, I examine how elite universities are responding to the exodus, why their efforts fall short, and what this historic realignment means for the future of both Jewish life and American higher education.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.