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
Syrian Leader al-Sharaa Holds Talks With Erdogan on Surprise Istanbul Visit
Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s interim president, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president, met during al-Sharaa’s first diplomatic trip since the fall of the al-Assad regime. Photo: Screenshot
i24 News – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was holding talks with Syrian counterpart Ahmed al-Sharaa in Istanbul on Saturday, local media reported. No further details were available.
This comes one day after the US administration of President Donald Trump issued orders that it said would effectively lift sanctions on Syria in order to help the country rebuild after a devastating civil war.
The Treasury Department issued a general license that authorizes transactions involving the interim Syrian government led by Al-Sharaa, as well as the central bank and state-owned enterprises.
The general license, known as GL25, “authorizes transactions prohibited by the Syrian Sanctions Regulations, effectively lifting sanctions on Syria,” the Treasury said in a statement.
Syria welcomed the sanctions waiver early on Saturday, which the Foreign Ministry called a “positive step in the right direction to alleviate the country’s humanitarian and economic suffering.”
Syria is keen on cooperating with other countries “on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs. It believes that dialogue and diplomacy are the best path to building balanced relations,” the ministry said in a statement.
The post Syrian Leader al-Sharaa Holds Talks With Erdogan on Surprise Istanbul Visit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘It Was Just An Accident’ by Iran’s Jafar Panahi Wins Cannes’ Top Prize
Director Jafar Panahi, Palme d’Or award winner for the film “Un simple accident” (It Was Just an Accident), reacts, during the closing ceremony of the 78th Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, May 24, 2025. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
Revenge thriller “It Was Just An Accident” by Iranian director Jafar Panahi, who was last at the Cannes Film Festival in person more than 20 years ago, won the Palme d’Or top prize on Saturday.
Panahi, who has been arrested several times for his filmmaking and was under a travel ban until recently, last attended the festival in person in 2003, when “Crimson Gold” was screened in the Un Certain Regard category.
“Art mobilizes the creative energy of the most precious, most alive part of us. A force that transforms darkness into forgiveness, hope and new life,” said jury president Juliette Binoche when announcing the award.
“It Was Just An Accident” follows Vahid, played by Vahid Mobasseri, who kidnaps a man with a false leg who looks just like the one who tortured him in prison and ruined his life.
Vahid sets out to verify with other prison survivors that it is indeed their torturer – and then decide what to do with him.
An emotional Panahi, wearing sunglasses on stage, thanked his cast and film crew during his acceptance speech.
The Grand Prix, the second-highest prize after the Palme d’Or, was awarded to “Sentimental Value” from acclaimed director Joachim Trier.
The jury prize was split between the intergenerational family drama “Sound of Falling” from German director Mascha Schilinski and “Sirat,” about a father and son who head into the Moroccan desert, by French-Spanish director Oliver Laxe.
Brazil’s “The Secret Agent” won two awards, one for best actor for Wagner Moura, as well as best director for Kleber Mendonca Filho.
“I was having Champagne,” said Mendonca Filho after he ran up to the stage to collect his award after celebrating Moura, who previously made a name for himself in hit TV series “Narcos.”
Newcomer Nadia Melliti took home best actress for “The Little Sister,” a queer coming-of-age story centered around the daughter of Algerian immigrants in Paris.
Belgium’s Dardenne brothers, who have the rare honor of already having won two Palme d’Or prizes, took home the award for best screenplay for their film “Young Mothers.”
Twenty-two films in total were competing for the prize at the 78th Cannes Film Festival, with entries from well-known directors Richard Linklater, Wes Anderson and Ari Aster.
Saturday’s closing ceremony officially ends the glamour-filled festival that began on May 13.
The post ‘It Was Just An Accident’ by Iran’s Jafar Panahi Wins Cannes’ Top Prize first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Admin From Revoking Harvard Enrollment of Foreign Students
US President Trump speaks to the media at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Washington, DC, April 21, 2025. Photo: Andrew Leyden/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
A US judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students, a policy the Ivy League school called part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to retaliate against it for refusing to “surrender its academic independence.”
The order provides temporary relief to thousands of international students who were faced with being forced to transfer under a policy that the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university called a “blatant violation” of the US Constitution and other federal laws, and said would have an “immediate and devastating effect” on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders.
“Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the 389-year-old school said in its lawsuit filed earlier on Friday in Boston federal court. Harvard enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in its current school year, equal to 27% of total enrollment.
The move was the latest escalation in a broader battle between Harvard and the White House, as Trump seeks to compel universities, law firms, news media, courts and other institutions that value independence from partisan politics to align with his agenda. Trump and fellow Republicans have long accused elite universities of left-wing bias.
Harvard has pushed back hard against Trump, having previously sued to restore nearly $3 billion in federal grants that had been frozen or canceled. In recent weeks, the administration has proposed ending Harvard’s tax-exempt status and hiking taxes on its endowment, and opened an investigation into whether it violated civil rights laws.
Leo Gerden, a Swedish student set to graduate Harvard with an undergraduate degree in economics and government this month, called the judge’s ruling a “great first step” but said international students were bracing for a long legal fight that would keep them in limbo.
“There is no single decision by Trump or by Harvard or by a judge that is going to put an end to this tyranny of what Trump is doing,” Gerden said.
In its complaint, Harvard said the revocation would force it to retract admissions for thousands of people, and has thrown “countless” academic programs, clinics, courses and research laboratories into disarray, just a few days before graduation. It said the revocation was a punishment for Harvard’s “perceived viewpoint,” which it called a violation of the right to free speech as guaranteed by the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
The Trump administration may appeal US District Judge Allison Burroughs’ ruling. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “unelected judges have no right to stop the Trump Administration from exercising their rightful control over immigration policy and national security policy.”
Since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, his administration has accused several universities of indifference toward the welfare of Jewish students during widespread campus protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Harvard’s court challenges over the administration’s policies stand in contrast to its New York-based peer Columbia University’s concessions to similar pressure. Columbia agreed to reform disciplinary processes and review curricula for courses on the Middle East, after Trump pulled $400 million in funding over allegations the Ivy League school had not done enough to combat antisemitism.
In announcing on Thursday the termination of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, effective starting in the 2025-2026 academic year, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.”
Harvard says a fifth of its foreign students in 2024 were from China. US lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns about the influence of the Chinese government on US college campuses, including efforts by Beijing-directed Chinese student associations to monitor political activities and stifle academic speech.
The university says it is committed to combating antisemitism and investigating credible allegations of civil rights violations.
HARVARD DEFENDS ‘REFUSAL TO SURRENDER’
In her brief order blocking the policy for two weeks, Burroughs said Harvard had shown it could be harmed before there was an opportunity to hear the case in full. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, scheduled hearings for May 27 and May 29 to consider next steps in the case. Burroughs is also overseeing Harvard’s lawsuit over the grant funds.
Harvard University President Alan Garber said the administration was illegally seeking to assert control over the private university’s curriculum, faculty and student body.
“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence,” Garber wrote in a letter on Friday to the Harvard community.
The revocation could also weigh on Harvard’s finances. At many US universities, international students are more likely to pay full tuition, essentially subsidizing aid for other students.
“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
Harvard’s bonds, part of its $8.2 billion debt pile, have been falling since Trump first warned US universities in March of cuts to federal funding.
International students enrolled at Harvard include Cleo Carney, daughter of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Princess Elisabeth, first in line to the Belgian throne.
The post Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Admin From Revoking Harvard Enrollment of Foreign Students first appeared on Algemeiner.com.