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
Hamas Says No Interim Hostage Deal Possible Without Work Toward Permanent Ceasefire
Explosions send smoke into the air in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the border, July 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
The spokesperson for Hamas’s armed wing said on Friday that while the Palestinian terrorist group favors reaching an interim truce in the Gaza war, if such an agreement is not reached in current negotiations it could revert to insisting on a full package deal to end the conflict.
Hamas has previously offered to release all the hostages held in Gaza and conclude a permanent ceasefire agreement, and Israel has refused, Abu Ubaida added in a televised speech.
Arab mediators Qatar and Egypt, backed by the United States, have hosted more than 10 days of talks on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce in the war.
Israeli officials were not immediately available for comment on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on a call he had with Pope Leo on Friday that Israel‘s efforts to secure a hostage release deal and 60-day ceasefire “have so far not been reciprocated by Hamas.”
As part of the potential deal, 10 hostages held in Gaza would be returned along with the bodies of 18 others, spread out over 60 days. In exchange, Israel would release a number of detained Palestinians.
“If the enemy remains obstinate and evades this round as it has done every time before, we cannot guarantee a return to partial deals or the proposal of the 10 captives,” said Abu Ubaida.
Disputes remain over maps of Israeli army withdrawals, aid delivery mechanisms into Gaza, and guarantees that any eventual truce would lead to ending the war, said two Hamas officials who spoke to Reuters on Friday.
The officials said the talks have not reached a breakthrough on the issues under discussion.
Hamas says any agreement must lead to ending the war, while Netanyahu says the war will only end once Hamas is disarmed and its leaders expelled from Gaza.
Almost 1,650 Israelis and foreign nationals have been killed as a result of the conflict, including 1,200 killed in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel, according to Israeli tallies. Over 250 hostages were kidnapped during Hamas’s Oct. 7 onslaught.
Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
The post Hamas Says No Interim Hostage Deal Possible Without Work Toward Permanent Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Marks 31st Anniversary of AMIA Bombing by Slamming Argentina’s ‘Baseless’ Accusations, Blaming Israel
People hold images of the victims of the 1994 bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community center, marking the 30th anniversary of the attack, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Irina Dambrauskas
Iran on Friday marked the 31st anniversary of the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires by slamming Argentina for what it called “baseless” accusations over Tehran’s alleged role in the terrorist attack and accusing Israel of politicizing the atrocity to influence the investigation and judicial process.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the anniversary of Argentina’s deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.
“While completely rejecting the accusations against Iranian citizens, the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns attempts by certain Argentine factions to pressure the judiciary into issuing baseless charges and politically motivated rulings,” the statement read.
“Reaffirming that the charges against its citizens are unfounded, the Islamic Republic of Iran insists on restoring their reputation and calls for an end to this staged legal proceeding,” it continued.
Last month, a federal judge in Argentina ordered the trial in absentia of 10 Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of orchestrating the attack in Buenos Aires.
The ten suspects set to stand trial include former Iranian and Lebanese ministers and diplomats, all of whom are subject to international arrest warrants issued by Argentina for their alleged roles in the terrorist attack.
In its statement on Friday, Iran also accused Israel of influencing the investigation to advance a political campaign against the Islamist regime in Tehran, claiming the case has been used to serve Israeli interests and hinder efforts to uncover the truth.
“From the outset, elements and entities linked to the Zionist regime [Israel] exploited this suspicious explosion, pushing the investigation down a false and misleading path, among whose consequences was to disrupt the long‑standing relations between the people of Iran and Argentina,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said.
“Clear, undeniable evidence now shows the Zionist regime and its affiliates exerting influence on the Argentine judiciary to frame Iranian nationals,” the statement continued.
In April, lead prosecutor Sebastián Basso — who took over the case after the 2015 murder of his predecessor, Alberto Nisman — requested that federal Judge Daniel Rafecas issue national and international arrest warrants for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over his alleged involvement in the attack.
Since 2006, Argentine authorities have sought the arrest of eight Iranians — including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who died in 2017 — yet more than three decades after the deadly bombing, all suspects remain still at large.
In a post on X, the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations (DAIA), the country’s Jewish umbrella organization, released a statement commemorating the 31st anniversary of the bombing.
“It was a brutal attack on Argentina, its democracy, and its rule of law,” the group said. “At DAIA, we continue to demand truth and justice — because impunity is painful, and memory is a commitment to both the present and the future.”
31 años del atentado a la AMIA – DAIA. 31 años sin justicia.
El 18 de julio de 1994, un atentado terrorista dejó 85 personas muertas y más de 300 heridas. Fue un ataque brutal contra la Argentina, su democracia y su Estado de derecho.
Desde la DAIA, seguimos exigiendo verdad y… pic.twitter.com/kV2ReGNTIk
— DAIA (@DAIAArgentina) July 18, 2025
Despite Argentina’s longstanding belief that Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah terrorist group carried out the devastating attack at Iran’s request, the 1994 bombing has never been claimed or officially solved.
Meanwhile, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement and refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.
To this day, the decades-long investigation into the terrorist attack has been plagued by allegations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, cover-ups, and annulled trials.
In 2006, former prosecutor Nisman formally charged Iran for orchestrating the attack and Hezbollah for carrying it out.
Nine years later, he accused former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner — currently under house arrest on corruption charges — of attempting to cover up the crime and block efforts to extradite the suspects behind the AMIA atrocity in return for Iranian oil.
Nisman was killed later that year, and to this day, both his case and murder remain unresolved and under ongoing investigation.
The alleged cover-up was reportedly formalized through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2013 between Kirchner’s government and Iranian authorities, with the stated goal of cooperating to investigate the AMIA bombing.
The post Iran Marks 31st Anniversary of AMIA Bombing by Slamming Argentina’s ‘Baseless’ Accusations, Blaming Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jordan Reveals Muslim Brotherhood Operating Vast Illegal Funding Network Tied to Gaza Donations, Political Campaigns
Murad Adailah, the head of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, attends an interview with Reuters in Amman, Jordan, Sept. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jehad Shelbak
The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the Arab world’s oldest and most influential Islamist movements, has been implicated in a wide-ranging network of illegal financial activities in Jordan and abroad, according to a new investigative report.
Investigations conducted by Jordanian authorities — along with evidence gathered from seized materials — revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood raised tens of millions of Jordanian dinars through various illegal activities, the Jordan news agency (Petra) reported this week.
With operations intensifying over the past eight years, the report showed that the group’s complex financial network was funded through various sources, including illegal donations, profits from investments in Jordan and abroad, and monthly fees paid by members inside and outside the country.
The report also indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken advantage of the war in Gaza to raise donations illegally.
Out of all donations meant for Gaza, the group provided no information on where the funds came from, how much was collected, or how they were distributed, and failed to work with any international or relief organizations to manage the transfers properly.
Rather, the investigations revealed that the Islamist network used illicit financial mechanisms to transfer funds abroad.
According to Jordanian authorities, the group gathered more than JD 30 million (around $42 million) over recent years.
With funds transferred to several Arab, regional, and foreign countries, part of the money was allegedly used to finance domestic political campaigns in 2024, as well as illegal activities and cells.
In April, Jordan outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s most vocal opposition group, and confiscated its assets after members of the Islamist movement were found to be linked to a sabotage plot.
The movement’s political arm in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front, became the largest political grouping in parliament after elections last September, although most seats are still held by supporters of the government.
Opponents of the group, which is banned in most Arab countries, label it a terrorist organization. However, the movement claims it renounced violence decades ago and now promotes its Islamist agenda through peaceful means.
The post Jordan Reveals Muslim Brotherhood Operating Vast Illegal Funding Network Tied to Gaza Donations, Political Campaigns first appeared on Algemeiner.com.