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
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Slams Mamdani For Defense of ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Slogan as Pressure Mounts on Presumptive Mayoral Nominee
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand speaks during the second night of the first Democratic presidential candidates debate in Miami, Florida, US Photo: June 27, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Segar.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has condemned presumptive New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani for his defense of the controversial phrase “globalize the intifada.”
During a Thursday appearance on Brian Lehrer’s WNYC radio show, Gillibrand called on Mamdani to distance himself from the phase, arguing that it endangers Jewish citizens of New York City. Gillibrand added that many of her Jewish constituents are “alarmed” at Mamdani’s defense of the slogan.
“As a leader of a city as diverse as New York City, with 8 million people, as the largest Jewish population in the country, he should denounce it,” she said. “That’s it. Period. You can’t celebrate it. You can’t value it. You can’t lift it up. That is the challenge that Jewish New Yorkers have had certainly since … Oct. 7. It is exactly what they have felt.”
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) , issued a statement urging all participant in the Big Apple’s mayoral race to forcefully condemn antisemitism and anti-Jewish rhetoric.
“At this time of record antisemitism, our country needs leaders at all levels who are unequivocal in condemning this oldest of hatreds,” Greenblatt said in a news release. “We call on all candidates not only to condemn and avoid using language that is harmful to the Jewish community, but also to disassociate themselves and publicly disavow it.”
Greenblatt stressed that the ADL will be “forthright in calling out antisemitism during this campaign season, whatever the source,” and called on candidates to lay out specific plans to support New York’s Jewish community.
New York City, home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, experienced a surge of incidents in 2024 alone, more than any other U.S. metropolitan area, according to ADL’s annual audit.
The organization pointed to phrases like “globalize the Intifada,” the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)” movement, and the slogan “From the River to the Sea” as examples of rhetoric that undermines Jewish safety and legitimacy. According to the ADL, such language invokes a decades-old history of attacks on Jews, denies the Jewish right to self-determination, and often serves to incite violence.
In addition to calling out antisemitic speech, the ADL is pressing candidates to explain how they will ensure the safety and security of the Jewish community while upholding their constitutional rights. This includes protecting the ability of Jewish New Yorkers to live, worship, work, and gather without fear of harassment, and to guard against the demonization of Jews, including Israelis.
“Antisemitic rhetoric should have no place in our electoral discourse,” Greenblatt said. “We need to know the specific plans of candidates to support the Jewish community. This is an issue for all candidates to explain in detail where they stand.”
Mamdani, a progressive representative in the New York State Assembly, has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani, but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has indicated interest in meeting with the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement.
The post Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Slams Mamdani For Defense of ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Slogan as Pressure Mounts on Presumptive Mayoral Nominee first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Rejects US Talks, Signals It May Block UN From Nuclear Sites as Trump Leaves Door Open to Future Bombings
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addresses a special session of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, June 20, 2025. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
Iran announced Friday that it will not engage in nuclear talks with the United States, rejecting a two-week deadline set by US President Donald Trump for renewed negotiations aimed at resolving the ongoing standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program.
In a televised speech, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned what he described as Washington’s “complicity in the Israeli regime’s war of aggression against Iran,” and slammed recent US military strikes as a betrayal of diplomacy and a blow to any prospects for dialogue.
“Americans want to negotiate and have sent messages several times, but we clearly said that as long as [the Israeli] aggression doesn’t stop, there’s no place for dialogue,” the top Iranian diplomat said in an address on state television.
“No agreement has been made on the restart of negotiations. There has not even been any talk of negotiations,” Araghchi continued. “The subject of negotiations is out of question at present.”
However, he reassured that Tehran remains committed to diplomacy, but the decision to resume negotiations with Washington must be carefully evaluated.
“It is still early to say that the conditions are right for negotiations,” Araghchi said.
Meanwhile, Trump said he would consider carrying out further strikes on Iran if US intelligence reveals new concerns about the country’s uranium enrichment program.
“Sure, without question, absolutely,” Trump said Friday during a press briefing when asked if a second wave of bombings was possible.
During his speech, he also addressed the recent American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, acknowledging that the damage was significant but adding that the regime is still assessing its full extent.
For its part, US intelligence officials have reported that Tehran’s nuclear sites were “severely damaged” during the American airstrikes last weekend.
Araghchi’s comments came as he met on Friday with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas in Geneva — marking their first meeting since the Iran-Israel war began.
Europe is actively urging Iran to reengage in talks with the White House in an effort to avert any further escalation of tensions.
In a post on X, Araghchi also announced that Iran may reject any requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, to visit the country’s nuclear sites.
He said this latest decision was “a direct result of [IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi]’s regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency — a full decade ago — already closed all past issues.”
“Through this malign action, he directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA BoG [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” the Iranian top diplomas said in a post on X.
“In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has additionally failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi continued.
The Parliament of Iran has voted for a halt to collaboration with the IAEA until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed.
This is a direct result of @rafaelmgrossi‘s regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency—a full decade ago—already…
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 27, 2025
Iran’s critique of Grossi comes as the Iranian parliament voted this week to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi wrote in his post on X.
The post Iran Rejects US Talks, Signals It May Block UN From Nuclear Sites as Trump Leaves Door Open to Future Bombings first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Argentina to Try Iranian, Lebanese Suspects in Absentia Over 1994 AMIA Bombing in Historic Legal Shift
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
A federal judge in Argentina has ordered the trial in absentia of ten Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of orchestrating the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center 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 country’s deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.
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.
This legal action marks a significant departure from Argentina’s previous stance in the case, under which the Iranian leader was regarded as having diplomatic immunity.
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.
Thursday’s ruling marks the first time Argentina will try suspects in absentia, following a legal change in March that lifted the requirement for defendants to be physically present in court.
This latest legal move comes amid a renewed push for justice, with President Javier Milei vowing to hold those responsible for the attack accountable.
Among those accused of involvement in the terrorist attack are Ali Fallahijan, Iran’s intelligence and security minister from 1989 to 1997; Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister; Mohsen Rezai, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps between 1993 and 1994; and Hadi Soleimanpour, former Iranian ambassador to Buenos Aires.
Also implicated are former Al Quds commander Ahmad Vahidi; Iranian diplomat Ahmad Reza Asghari; Mohsen Rabbani, the former cultural attaché at Iran’s embassy in Argentina; and Hezbollah operatives Salman Raouf Salman, Abdallah Salman, and Hussein Mounir Mouzannar.
According to Judge Rafecas, the defendants were declared in contempt of court years ago, remain fully informed of their legal standing, and have consistently disregarded multiple extradition requests.
He said that trying the suspects in absentia would give the courts a chance to “at least uncover the truth and piece together what happened.”
This latest decision acknowledges “the material impossibility of securing the defendants’ presence and the nature of the crime against humanity under investigation,” Rafecas said.
“It is essential to proceed … to prevent the perpetuation of impunity,” he continued.
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 has refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.
To this day, the decades-long investigation into the terror 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.
Last year, Argentina’s second-highest court ruled that the 1994 attack in Buenos Aires was “organized, planned, financed, and executed under the direction of the authorities of the Islamic State of Iran, within the framework of Islamic Jihad.” The court also said that the bombing was carried out by Hezbollah terrorists responding to “a political and strategic design” by Iran.
The court additionally ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1992 truck bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people and injured 200 others.
Judges determined that the bombing of the Israeli Embassy was likely carried out in retaliation for then-President Carlos Menem’s cancellation of three agreements with Iran involving nuclear equipment and technology.
The post Argentina to Try Iranian, Lebanese Suspects in Absentia Over 1994 AMIA Bombing in Historic Legal Shift first appeared on Algemeiner.com.