RSS
The Targeted Killing of Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar Was Completely Legal
Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar looks on as Palestinian Hamas supporters take part in an anti-Israel rally over tension in Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque, in Gaza City, Oct. 1, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
In assessing Israel’s targeted killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, two separate but overlapping standards should be applied: legal and operational. Though these kinds of operations may not necessarily diminish long-term terror threats, the argument favoring their lawfulness is unassailable. This argument stems from the anarchic structure of world politics and the corresponding right of states to protect their citizens from criminal slaughter.
World legal authority remains a “self-help” system of justice. Accordingly, it was an act of law-enforcement that successfully eliminated Hamas mastermind Yahya Sinwar. “The safety of the people,” we may learn from Roman philosopher Cicero, “shall be the highest law.”
Under international law, which is binding on all sovereign states, terrorism represents a crime that should be prevented and must be punished. Rooted in ancient Jewish law (the Torah) as well as Roman law, a universal rule now prevails: “No crime without a punishment.” It can be verified, among other sources, at the London Charter (Nuremberg Tribunal) of August 8, 1945.
In formal jurisprudence, terrorists are known as hostes humani generis or “common enemies of humankind.” While the world legal system allows or even encourages certain insurgencies on matters of “self-determination,” there is nothing about these matters that can ever justify deliberate attacks on civilians. An integral part of all criminal law is the relevance of mens rea or “criminal intent.”
There can be no reasonable comparisons of Sinwar’s deliberate mass murder of Israeli noncombatants and the unintended civilian harms suffered by Palestinians in Gaza.
As a matter of law, responsibility for such ongoing harms falls on the “perfidious” behavior (i.e., “human shields”) of Hamas, not on Israeli forces acting on behalf of legitimate self-defense. Under the law of war, even where an insurgent use of force has supportable “just cause,” it must still fight with “just means.” In the case of jihadist terror crimes against Israel, there is further reason for legitimate doubt about a “just” Palestinian cause.
At first, to accept the targeted killings of terrorist leaders as law-enforcement could appear to disregard the usual legal obligations of “due process.” But world politics are not overseen by the same civil protections offered by national governments. Left unchallenged as individuals, terrorist criminals like Sinwar would launch persistent attacks on men, women, and children with a law-mocking impunity.
The willfully indiscriminate nature of Hamas terrorist operations is well documented. Such intentional blurring of lines between lawful and unlawful targets is rooted in the generic principles of “holy war.” An oft-repeated remark by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, a formerly prominent Muslim cleric, explained core doctrinal linkages between Islamist terror and jihad. Said the Sheikh without apology: “We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever [a Jew or Christian] has no value. It has no sanctity.”
International law is not a suicide pact. As was clarified on October 7, 2023, jihadist attackers add gratuitously barbarous effects to primal ideologies. At “bottom line,” their belief systems gleefully embrace the slaughter of “unbelievers.” Though chest-thumping Hamas criminals call themselves “martyrs,” the death they seem anxious to suffer is just a transient inconvenience on the “sacred path” to eternality.
There is more. Hamas and other terror groups remain dedicated to the idea that any peace agreement with Israel represents an intolerable abomination to Islam. Facing such implacable enemies within a self-help system of international law, Israel deserves the self-defending right to target refractory terrorist leaders. Determining whether such self-help remedies are militarily sound, however, raises another question altogether. What is most noteworthy about the targeted killing of terrorist leaders like Sinwar is not its inherent permissibility in law, but a widespread unwillingness to acknowledge this critical right of self-defense.
Under the international law principles governing insurgencies, ends can never justify the means. A cause, even if it is arguably just, can never excuse unjust means against the innocent.
By the authoritative standards of contemporary jurisprudence, terrorists are comparable to pirates, subject to punishment (originally, hanging) by the first persons into whose hands they fall. Presently, terrorists remain international outlaws who fall within the operational scope of “universal jurisdiction.” This means that any state can reasonably claim a valid right to arrest, prosecute and target the offenders.
In this connection, even if the IDF fighters who killed Sinwar were unaware that he was the actual target of their “in progress” operation, the fact that the operation was part of a broader and ongoing military attempt to remove him signals a law-enforcing killing. Prima facie, Israel’s entire “Swords of Iron” war centers on terrorist “decapitation.” Unambiguously, Sinwar was “head of the snake.”
History warrants some additional pride of place. Support for a limited right to the targeted killing of “common enemies of humankind” can be found in classical writings of Aristotle, Plutarch, and Cicero — and specifically in Jewish philosophy. This philosophy ranges from the Sicarii (who flourished at the time of destruction of the Second Temple) to Lehi (who fought the British mandatory authority after World War II).
Sometimes, targeted killings, subject to applicable legal rules, could offer the least injurious form of national self-protection. In cases where mass-destruction terror-crimes might be contemplated, the legal acceptability of violent self-help measures would be far greater ipso facto. In our continuously anarchic system of international law, this proposition assuredly lies “beyond any reasonable doubt.”
Counterterrorism should always be governed by rational and justice-oriented decision-making processes. If the expected costs of a targeted assassination appear lower than the expected costs of all other plausible self-defense options, such an operation must emerge as the patently correct choice. However odious it might first appear in vacuo, targeted killing in such circumstances would offer a beleaguered state like Israel the most discriminate path to security from terrorist criminality.
Sir William Blackstone’s 18th century Commentaries (the founding document of United States law) explain that because international law is an integral part of each individual state’s “common law,” all states are “expected to aid and enforce the law of nations.” This obligation should be accomplished “by inflicting an adequate punishment upon the offenses against that universal law.” Derivatively, therefore, by its removal of Hamas terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar, Israel acted not in violation of the law of nations, but in its indispensable enforcement.
Recalling Cicero in The Laws: “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.”
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, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018).
The post The Targeted Killing of Hamas Leader Yahya Sinwar Was Completely Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.