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
Israeli-Organized Music Festival in Portugal Canceled Amid BDS Threats
Supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign. Photo: Alex Chis.
An Israeli-organized music festival set to open in Portugal today was canceled after one of the latest anti-Israel campaigns by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement pressured local authorities to intervene.
“It is with the heaviest of hearts that we announce the cancellation of Anta Gathering,” the organizers of the five-day music festival wrote in a social media post on Instagram. “You came to celebrate life, music, and connection — and instead we find ourselves forced to cancel. This is heartbreaking for us, and we are still processing the shock.”
On Wednesday, organizers said they were expecting final approval for the event, but the local municipality informed them that additional regulations still needed to be met. According to a festival spokesperson, organizers tried to postpone the festival to secure the necessary permits after encountering unexpected regulatory hurdles.
“The reason is clear: in the last days we faced a well-funded and orchestrated BDS campaign built on lies and hatred,” the organizers, brothers Shahar and Dean Bickel, wrote.
“For months, they worked to sabotage our vision, spreading disinformation fueled by money and nationalism. Their goal was never about music or community, but only to divide, intimidate, and cause pain,” the statement reads.
“The damage has been devastating and made it impossible to move forward,” it continued.
The organizers have launched a GoFundMe campaign to help cover the losses.
According to local media, pro-Palestinian organizations, notably BDS Portugal, have made threats against the local municipality, with activists pressuring officials to block the festival’s permits and warning artists from attending.
However, even with all permits in place — including police and safety approvals, cleared health inspections, booked artists, and waiting audiences — the local municipality informed organizers just 24 hours before opening that the festival could not proceed.
“Not because of safety. Not because of logistics. But because of hate based on nationality,” the organizers said in a statement.
“This is not just about a festival. This is about the right to create without fear. It is about protecting culture from being destroyed by prejudice,” the statement reads.
In a post on social media, BDS Portugal admitted to threatening several of the participating artists, prompting some to cancel their appearances. The group also claimed the festival is being organized by Israeli soldiers who “took part in the genocide.”
Given the unexpected cancellation, the festival is facing significant financial challenges — from supplier payments and booked artist flights to legal costs and ticket refunds — with losses already exceeding €50,000.
“Every contribution, small or big, makes a difference — helping us cover debts, refunds, and keep the dream alive,” the organizers said.
“This is not the end. Anta is about love, freedom, and community — and no campaign of hate will ever destroy that. With your support, we will heal, rebuild, and dance together again,” the statement reads.
This five-day electronic music festival is organized by two Israeli brothers, Shahar and Dean Bickel, and brings together 100 artists from around the world and more than 800 participants.
According to a festival’s spokesperson, Shahar Bickel served two weeks of reserve duty in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) at the start of the war in Gaza but never left Israel’s borders, while his brother Dean did not serve in the army.
RSS
Iran and Terrorism: Empty Gestures or Genuine Change?
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
In a world grappling with persistent threats of terrorism and financial crimes, the international community must not be swayed by superficial gestures.
While Tehran’s recent ratification of the Palermo Convention against transnational organized crime may seem like a step in the right direction on the surface, it is likely a calculated move designed to distract from the regime’s continued and unwavering support for global terrorism.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reportedly plans to meet with Tehran’s bureaucrats to review whether the Islamic Republic of Iran has complied with its action plan to be removed from its blacklist.
However, the global financial watchdog must resist the temptation to remove Tehran from the list, because the Islamic Republic fundamentally remains committed to funding terrorism and engaging in illicit financing. To remove Tehran would be to ignore a mountain of evidence that supports this unequivocal fact.
In fact, removing Iran would endanger the integrity of the international financial system.
For years, the Islamic Republic has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism. No single treaty that Iran may ratify can disguise this fact.
The regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has a long and bloody history of plotting assassinations on American soil and overseas, targeting high-profile figures like President Donald Trump, journalists, dissidents, and ordinary citizens. This is not the conduct of a state genuinely committed to combating organized crime. It is the action of a rogue regime that uses terror as a primary tool of its foreign policy.
The recent move by Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council to ratify the United Nations’ Palermo Convention — after years of refusing to do so — is a classic example of Tehran’s diplomatic gamesmanship.
Tehran understands its presence on the FATF blacklist has crippled its economy, It is desperate for a reprieve. However, the regime has refused to ratify the most crucial of the FATF-required treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT).
By refusing to do so, Tehran is signaling its intention to continue funding terrorist proxies including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Nor has Iran abandoned the facilitation network it has provided to Al-Qaeda. While Tehran may one day feel compelled to ratify the CFT for economic reasons, removing it from the blacklist should take place only if commensurate conduct changes on the terrorism front — and that change is sustained.
The international community has already witnessed the devastating consequences of Iran’s terror financing. The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was inspired, funded, and enabled by Tehran. The regime’s support for the Houthis in Yemen has destabilized the region and disrupted global trade, costing the United States and its allies billions of dollars. Tehran’s backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon threatens the security of Israel and the stability of the entire Middle East. Iran should not be welcomed back into the global financial fold until it changes its conduct, not merely purports to agree to an item on a technical checklist.
The FATF has a clear mandate: to protect the global financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. To fulfill this mandate, it must hold Iran to the same standard as every other nation. This means insisting on full and unconditional compliance with all FATF requirements, including the ratification of the CFT and demonstrable adherence to its principles. There can be no exceptions, carve-outs, or special treatment for a regime that has blatantly and repeatedly violated international law and circumvented sanctions.
Tehran’s diplomatic overtures are nothing but a smokescreen. As long as the regime continues to fund terrorism, plot assassinations, and destabilize the Middle East, it must remain on the FATF blacklist. The security of the United States and its allies, and the integrity of the global financial system, depend on it. The message to Tehran must be clear: words are not enough. Its actions and malign conduct must change.
Saeed Ghasseminejad is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Toby Dershowitz is managing director at FDD Action, FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy. FDD Action is a non-partisan 501(c)(4) organization established to advocate for effective policies to promote US national security and defend free nations. Follow the authors on X @SGhasseminejad and @tobydersh.
RSS
From Sacred to Strategic: Hamas Turns Civilian Infrastructure Into Targets
Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard on the day of the handover of hostages held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
Two weeks ago, the IDF revealed a chilling incident: Hamas operatives posed as World Central Kitchen aid workers, wearing yellow vests and using WCK-branded vehicles. WCK swiftly confirmed that the imposters had no affiliation — that this was terrorism hiding in humanitarian garb.
Then, earlier this week, Israel struck Nasser Hospital in Southern Gaza — not randomly, cruelly or without reason, but because Hamas was using the hospital to operate surveillance cameras to track IDF movements.
A tragic battlefield misstep occurred when tank fire was used to disable those cameras instead of drones, killing 6 Hamas terrorists who were either operating or near the targeted cameras, but also resulting in unintended civilian casualties. This outcome was tragic — but sadly predictable.
This is the logic of Hamas’ strategy: weaponize Gaza’s hospitals, schools, mosques, and aid centers, force civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, and then broadcast them as evidence of Israeli atrocity.
Hospitals: Protected — Until Abused
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) stands firm: during a war, hospitals may not be targeted — unless they are being used for military purposes. Hamas’ use of these sites as command or surveillance posts nullifies their protection.
Mosques and Schools: Sacred — Until Militarized
Houses of worship and schools are also granted special status under IHL. But that protection dissolves once they are used for military advantage — a tactic Hamas consistently employs, turning places of worship into weapons depots and schools into hideouts.
Humanitarian Aid: Safe — Until Exploited
Under IHL, even aid workers can become legitimate targets when Hamas impersonates them. The WCK incident not only endangered genuine aid efforts, but it also weaponized the trust people place in humanitarian organizations, and eroding that trust endangers aid workers everywhere in Gaza.
This Is Calculated — Not Casual
These are not random errors — they are deliberate Hamas strategies: embed fighters and military and tactical equipment in civilian infrastructure, provoke strikes, and unleash graphic narratives. The recent hospital strike and the WCK impersonation reflect this grim choreography.
A Double Standard with Deadly Consequences
When US or UK forces faced civilian casualties in Mosul or Aleppo, the world understood the moral complexity caused by ISIS embedding itself among civilians and fighting in civilian clothes.
But when Israel confronts Hamas — whose tunnel networks under hospitals and all other civilian infrastructure in Gaza rival entire urban subway systems — the narrative is nearly monolithic: Israel is the villain.
This is the double standard defined in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
No Safe Haven for Gaza Civilians
Hamas’ cynical human shield strategy and its use of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure as cover is enhanced as a tactical tool by the actions of Gaza’s Arab neighbors.
In Syria and Ukraine, civilians fled across borders to safety in Jordan, Poland, Turkey.
In fact, in every war in modern history, civilians have left combat zones to go to neighboring non-hostile countries.
But after October 7, Egypt and Jordan closed their borders, citing political fears. That leaves Gaza civilians trapped — forced to rely on limited “humanitarian zones” Israel sets up — zones Hamas routinely targets and even tries to stop Gazans from entering.
The result: Israel is held to an impossible standard: avoid civilian casualties even when terrorists hide themselves and their military and tactical infrastructure next to, among, and beneath them, while Gaza’s Arab neighbors are held to no standard of refuge for their fellow Arabs whatsoever.
Casualty Figures — Propaganda Masquerading as Data
To make matters worse, most media outlets parrot casualty numbers from Hamas’ so-called “Health Ministry.”
The Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers lump together civilians, combatants, natural deaths, and even those killed by Hamas’ own misfired rockets. For years before October 7th, between 5,000 and 7,000 people in Gaza died from natural causes. Meanwhile, at least 15% to 25% of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s rockets fall short, killing Gazans.
And Hamas routinely kills Gazans it decides are “collaborators” with Israel. All these deaths — along with the death of Hamas fighters — are aggregated in Hamas’s “death tolls” for the October 7th war it started.
Yet the narrative advanced by major media outlets and on social media paint every death as of a civilian killed by Israel. This is propaganda masquerading as data.
Conclusion: Accountability, Not Convenient Narratives
Hamas will continue to weaponize its own civilians — and civilian spaces — if excuses remain for its behavior. Only when the global dialogue refuses to blame Israel for the foreseeable results of Hamas’ human-shield warfare can moral clarity return.
The responsibility lies — with Hamas, not Israel — to stop turning Gaza’s hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure generally into strategic targets. Let’s call this what it is: terrorism hiding behind civilian facades. Until the world stops tolerating and even rewarding Hamas’ cynical human shield tactics, they will continue.
Micha Danzig is a current attorney, former IDF soldier & NYPD police officer. He currently writes for numerous publications on matters related to Israel, antisemitism & Jewish identity & is the immediate past President of StandWithUs in San Diego and a national board member of Herut.