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
NYC ‘Dyke March’ Bans Zionists From Participating in Annual Demonstration
(Source: Reuters)
NYC Dyke March, a public demonstration held by members of the lesbian community in New York City, has banned self-proclaimed “Zionists” from its annual event, citing a desire to stand against the so-called “genocide” occuring in Gaza.
The group revealed in a statement that their decision to ban Israel supporters from their ranks came after multiple members dropped out of the organization due to differences in “political beliefs and values.” After engaging in discussions with frustrated members, the NYC Dyke March committee agreed to adopt “an explicitly anti-Zionist position.” The organization claims that it will “strengthen our commitment” to fighting against Israel and advocating on behalf of Palestinians.
Last year, the NYC Dyke March previously came under scrutiny after organizers settled on “genocide” as the theme of its 2024 event. In a statement, decrying “ethnic cleansing, violence, and dehumanization,” the organization compared the ongoing war in Gaza, to the mass slaughters occurring in Ethiopia, Myanmar, and Sudan.
The organization plans on recycling the same theme for this year’s march, titling it “Dykes Against Genocide.” The group released a statement clarifying that Jews are allowed to attend and condemned the Oct. 7 slaughters as a “senseless loss of life.” After an apparent uproar from its members, the organization deleted the post and wrote that the group “unapologetically stands in support of Palestinian liberation.” In addition, the group affirmed that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism and any language we put out which is not clearly opposed to a Zionist, imperialist agenda is harmful to us all.”
In the 17 months following the Hamas-led massacre of roughly 1200 people throughout Israel, the NYC Dyke March has produced numerous statements lambasting Israel and declaring “solidarity” with Palestinians amid their so-called “ongoing genocide.” The organization also accused Israel of engaging in supposed “pinkwashing” and “manipulative use of Jewish and queer identities,” with the aim of justifying its war efforts in Gaza.
Israel offers an expansive set of rights for members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transngender (LGBT) community, including recognition of same-sex marriages. Every year in June, Tel Aviv holds one of the largest LGBT Pride celebrations in the world. Meanwhile, members of the LGBT community are routinely imprisoned or murdered in other parts of the Middle East, including the Palestinian territories.
The NYC Dyke March’s announcement was met with widespread condemnation.
“You cannot exclude the majority of Jews and call yourself inclusive,” said the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in a post on X/Twitter, adding that the group “essentially equates Zionism with racism” in their announcement.
The post NYC ‘Dyke March’ Bans Zionists From Participating in Annual Demonstration first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Administration Planning $510 Million Cut to Brown University Budget, Report Says
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with journalists onboard Air Force One en route to Miami, Florida, U.S., April 3, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura
The Trump administration reportedly plans to terminate $510 million worth of federal contracts and grants awarded to Brown University, according to media reports.
Brown University’s failure to mount a satisfactory response to the campus antisemitism crisis, as well as its embrace of the diversity, equity, and, inclusion (DEI) movement — perceived by many across the political spectrum as an assault on merit-based upward mobility and causing incidents of anti-White and anti-Asian discrimination — prompted the alleged pending action by the federal government, according to the right-leaning outlet The Daily Caller.
The announcement comes as Brown scrambles to cover a $46 million budget shortfall and other universities across the country have faced similar funding cuts.
Brown University officials, however, denied that the university had received any directives from the Trump Administration.
“We have no information to substantiate these rumors,” Brown University provost Francis Doyle issued a statement. “We are closely monitoring notifications related to grants, but have nothing more we can share as of now.”
Meanwhile, Brown’s Jewish community rushed to the university’s defense, issuing a joint statement with the Brown Corporation which said that the campus is “peaceful and supportive campus for its Jewish community.”
The letter, signed by members of the local Hillel International chapter and Chabad on College Hill, continued: “Brown University is a place where Jewish life not only exists but thrives. While there is more work to be done, Brown, through the dedicated efforts of its administration, leadership, and resilient spirit of its Jewish community, continues to uphold the principles of inclusion, tolerance, and intellectual freedom that have been central to its identity since 1764.”
Brown Divest Coalition — an anti-Zionist group which recently saw its campaign for the university to adopt the boycott, divest, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel defeated by the Brown Corporation — weighed in too, denouncing the reported cut as “a means of suppressing all forms of popular dissent to the renewed violence of the US war machine abroad.” US Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) also criticized the move, accusing the administration “of a broader pattern of behavior…that will negatively impact communities across the country and lead to layoffs, restrict research, and more.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the Trump administration is following through on its threats to inflict potentially catastrophic financial injuries on colleges and universities deemed as soft on antisemitism or excessively “woke.” The past six weeks has seen the policy imposed on elite universities including Harvard and Columbia, rattling a higher education establishment that has for better and worse operated for decades with little interference from the federal government even as it polarized the public and contributed to a growing sense that elites are contemptuous of Americans who live outside of their cultural enclaves.
In March, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the cancellation of $400 million in federal contracts and grants for Columbia University, a measure that secured the school’s acceding to a slew of demands the administration put forth as preconditions for restoring the money. Later, the Trump administration disclosed its reviewing $9 billion worth of federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard University, jeopardizing a substantial source of the school’s income over its alleged failure to quell antisemitic and pro-Hamas activity on campus following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Princeton University saw $210 million of its federal grants and funding suspended too, prompting its president, Christopher Eisgruber to say the institution is “committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.”
Additionally, 60 universities are being investigated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights over their handling of campus antisemitism, a project that will serve as an early test of the administration’s ability to perform the essential functions of the agency after downsizing its workforce to increase its efficiency.
One of those universities, Northwestern University, on Monday touted its progress in addressing campus antisemitism, noting that it has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, a reference tool which aids officials in determining what constitutes antisemitism, and begun holding “mandatory antisemitism training” sessions which “all students, faculty, and staff” must attend.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Trump Administration Planning $510 Million Cut to Brown University Budget, Report Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Belgium Joins Hungary in Rejecting ICC Warrant Against Netanyahu, Signaling Shift in International Stance
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem, Feb. 16, 2025. Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/Pool via REUTERS
Belgium announced it would not enforce the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza, should he visit Brussels—marking a significant shift from the government’s previous policies.
In an interview with Belgium’s VRT broadcaster on Thursday, Prime Minister Bart De Wever was asked about Hungary’s decision to not act on the ICC warrant against Netanyahu during the Israeli leader’s visit to Budapest this week.
“To be completely honest, I don’t think we would either,” De Wever said during the interview.
“There is such a thing as realpolitik, I don’t think any European country would arrest Netanyahu if he were on their territory. France wouldn’t do it, and I don’t think we would, either.”
As Hungary welcomed Netanyahu to Budapest with full military honors on Thursday, ignoring the ICC arrest warrant against him, the country also announced its decision to withdraw from the international court.
After their meeting, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said he believes the ICC is “no longer an impartial court, not a court of law, but a political court.”
“I am convinced that this otherwise important international judicial forum has been degraded into a political tool, with which we cannot and do not want to engage,” Orban said during a press conference.
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and now-deceased Hamas terror leader Ibrahim al-Masri (better known as Mohammed Deif) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza war.
The ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for starvation in Gaza and the persecution of Palestinians — charges vehemently denied by Israel, which until a recently imposed blockade had provided significant humanitarian aid into the enclave throughout the war.
Israel also says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, despite Hamas’s widely acknowledged military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
Belgium’s center-right government, led by De Wever’s National Flemish Alliance party, took power this year after defeating a left-wing coalition led by the Socialist Party, known for its anti-Israel stance.
Under the previous government, Belgium joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Since December 2023, South Africa has been pursuing its case at the ICJ accusing Israel of committing “state-led genocide” in its defensive war against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
Last year, Belgium’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Petra De Sutter, said, “War crimes and crimes against humanity cannot go unpunished,” referring to the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu.
“Europe must comply. Impose economic sanctions, suspend the Association Agreement with Israel and uphold these arrest warrants,” De Sutter wrote in a post on X.
In line with this position, former Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said in November that Belgium would “assume its responsibility” towards the ICC, emphasizing that “there can be no double standards.”
After the ICC’s decision to issue the warrants, several countries, including Hungary, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, France, and Italy, have said they would not arrest Netanyahu if he visited.
Germany seems to have a conflicting stance on this matter. During a press conference, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he could not imagine the ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu being executed during a potential visit to Berlin.
However, Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, criticized Hungary’s refusal to enforce the arrest warrant against the Israeli leader this week.
“This is a setback for international criminal law,” Baerbock said during a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.
“In Europe, no one is above the law. And this applies to all areas of law,” she said.
The post Belgium Joins Hungary in Rejecting ICC Warrant Against Netanyahu, Signaling Shift in International Stance first appeared on Algemeiner.com.