RSS
The World Can’t Mourn Terrorists
Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal hugs senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh before leaving Gaza Strip, Dec. 10, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the Qatar-residing Hamas political leader and public face of the October 7th massacre perpetrators, has sent shockwaves throughout the Middle East and beyond.
As details emerge about the operation in Tehran, the global community is grappling with the immediate and long-term implications. Haniyeh’s killing comes in the immediate wake of another assassination, this one in Beirut, of Hezbollah’s military chief, Fuad Shukr, in a drone strike on a neighborhood that is the Iran-backed group’s stronghold in Lebanon.
Although Israel has long used assassination to deal with its enemies, the high-profile nature of Haniyeh’s assassination in particular raises significant questions about the ethics and effectiveness of targeted killings in modern warfare. Is assassination a legitimate tool of war? More importantly, does it ever achieve the desired result? How should leaders balance the moral imperatives of justice and security with the ethical constraints of their actions?
None of these questions are new, but even as the world braces for Iran’s threatened response to the elimination of a dear friend and ally on their sovereign territory, it is worth considering the ethics and efficacy of assassinating a sworn enemy if the opportunity presents itself.
Over the past few decades, international tendencies have leaned toward discouraging aggressive tactics against aggressor states, favoring appeasement and accommodation. The prevailing wisdom suggests that appeasement and accommodating aggressor demands leads to peace, or, more accurately, the absence of war. However, this approach is debatable as it often emboldens terrorist regimes like Iran and Gaza, raising critical questions about its effectiveness in promoting peace.
The renowned American military historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that “appeasement, in the long run, leads to greater conflict because it emboldens aggressors by rewarding their behavior. History shows that firm resistance and clear consequences for hostile actions are more effective in maintaining long-term peace.” Similarly, Edward N. Luttwak, in his book Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, notes that “the paradox of war is that it often takes the clear demonstration of strength and resolve to achieve peace.”
Historically, targeted assassinations have often had a significant impact on the outcome of a conflict. The US operation that killed Osama bin Laden not only disrupted al-Qaeda’s operations but also marked the beginning of the group’s decline. The program of targeted killings of other high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders severely crippled the organization, leading to its diminished global presence.
Similarly, the killing of ISIS leaders such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (who actually killed himself and his family to avoid being killed by the US Delta Force team sent to kill him) and his successor, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, played a crucial role in the group’s downfall.
These assassinations led to substantial disruptions in Islamist terrorist activities, including a significant reduction in suicide bombings and a shift to lower skill tactics. Over time, these targeted efforts contributed to the dismantling of Islamic terrorism’s organizational structure and capabilities. The constant fear of assassination forced al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders to be on the run, significantly undermining their operational effectiveness.
In a revealing 2015 New York Times article titled “Do Assassins Really Change History?”, Benjamin F. Jones and Benjamin A. Olken charted the history of assassinations over the past century and demonstrated that assassinations can change political systems, particularly when it comes to autocratic regimes.
They also found that assassinations definitely alter the course of conflicts, and although in moderate conflicts, assassinations tend to intensify violence, in intense conflicts they are more likely to bring about an end to the war.
Shortly after John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln in 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, later the prime minister of Great Britain, declared that “assassination has never changed the history of the world.” But while his statement is rhetorically compelling and often quoted, historical evidence suggests that assassinations have had profound, often positive, impacts on world history.
In Parshat Mattot, we encounter the commandment given to Moses to wage war against the Midianites: “Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites” (Num. 31:2). Rabbi Meir Leibush Weiser (“Malbim”), in his commentary on this verse, delves into the psychological and ethical aspects of the war that the Israelites were compelled to wage against the Midianites. He argues that they needed to confront and defeat the Midianites to regain their own moral strength and resolve. Killing the enemy that had so heinously targeted them was the only way for the Israelites to overcome the shame and guilt associated with their earlier failure to repel the Midianites.
Similarly, Rabbi Meir Simcha Hacohen of Dvinsk (“Meshech Chochma”) interprets the instruction to battle Midian as a crucial step in establishing a just and righteous society, suggesting that tolerating evil inevitably leads to its spread and dominance. By decisively confronting and eradicating the Midianite threat, brazenly and without mercy, the Israelites would demonstrate their dedication to creating a society based on divine justice and moral integrity.
The seminal commentator Don Isaac Abarbanel provides a historical and political context for the war against Midian. He explains that aggressively going after the Midianite threat was the only way to get rid of what would develop into a constant source of conflict and strife for the Israelites.
Abarbanel also emphasizes that acts of aggression against Midian were in fact defensive actions aimed at ensuring the long-term survival and prosperity of the Israelite nation. Waging war against Midian, using proactive decisive measures, was necessary to protect and preserve the nation against relentless threats.
The decision by Israel to target Haniyeh and Shukr, and the many other terrorist leaders who have been targeted and may yet be targeted, is the modern parallel to this divine directive. It is imperative to eliminate any source of ongoing violence and terror. By doing so, people’s lives will be saved.
Just as the ancient Israelites were commanded to confront the Midianites to preserve their community, modern leaders face the difficult task of confronting and neutralizing threats to ensure the safety and stability of their nations.
As always, the ancient wisdom of the Torah continues to illuminate our path, guiding us toward a more just and righteous world. By confronting evil head-on, we uphold the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct, ensuring that peace and order can prevail.
Haniyeh and Shukr epitomize evil, and they hinder the possibility of peace. The lessons from Parshat Mattot remind us that while leadership is fraught with challenges, especially in a time of war, it also offers unique opportunities to make the world a safer place for all of us. The killing of Ismail Haniyeh is the perfect example, and his death should be welcomed by all.
The author is rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post The World Can’t Mourn Terrorists first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.