Connect with us

RSS

What the Law Actually Says About Targeting Jihadist Terrorists

Explosions take place on the deck of the Greek-flagged oil tanker Sounion on the Red Sea, in this handout picture released Aug. 29, 2024. Photo: Houthi Military Media/Handout via REUTERS

During the coming year, the United States, in occasional concert with Israel, must confront expanding terrorist threats. Topping pertinent concerns in Washington and Jerusalem will be an assortment of jihadi groups, some spawned by the al-Assad regime collapse in Syria and some by coinciding reconfigurations of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Houthi criminals. Also predictable are (1) strengthened and dispersed Fatah units beyond Judea/Samaria (West Bank); and (2) variously lethal synergies between criminal terrorist organizations that include al-Qaeda and ISIS remnants.

Under the protective tutelage of an American president, “We the People” are entitled to expect basic safety in world politics. At a minimum, we should all be able to assume that wider and consistently capable circles of public authority remain poised to thwart terror attacks.

In terms of United States law, the authoritative roots of core security assurances go back to 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Though likely unfamiliar to America’s current president and his senior defense advisors, Hobbes’ Leviathan was integral to the political thought of Thomas Jefferson. The erudite author of the Declaration was widely read by all categories of educated persons.

Regarding US counterterrorist preparation, America’s national security establishment must get ready for all contingencies, most plainly jihadi terrorists who seek “martyrdom.” This includes fashioning conceptual foundations for future Osama Bin-Laden “elimination-type” operations.

During the Obama years, one conspicuously major targeted killing of a jihadi terrorist was the September 2011 US drone-assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. That case was notably “special” in one generally overlooked or underestimated aspect: Jihadi al-Alwaki was born in New Mexico, and was therefore a US citizen. At the same time, despite the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protections regarding “due process,” it represented a tactical option that could sometime need to be repeated.

Here, a presumptively effective tactic would simultaneously undermine American law and justice.

What should be decided in Washington? Each and every trade-off option would be injurious. Even if we take with utmost seriousness Cicero’s reasonable injunction (“The safety of the people shall be the highest law”), it’s not clear which operational choices would best serve such indispensable “safety?”

What precise legal guidelines should Americans follow in these settings?

To respond properly, Trump and his designated counselors will need to inquire: “Is it sufficiently legal to target and kill jihadi terrorists if precise linkages between prospective targets and discernible attack intentions can be documented?”

To meaningfully answer this critical question, it will first be necessary for Trump’s national security officials to ask whether a proposed terrorist killing plan would be gainfully preemptive or just narrowly retributive. If the latter, a judgment wherein national self-defense was not in any way the underlying operational rationale, authoritative determinations of legality could become more problematic. It would not be sensible to launch risky defensive actions against terrorist adversaries solely because these actions could meet jurisprudential standards.

 It gets even more complicated.

Assassination is explicitly prohibited by US law. (See Exec. Order No. 12333, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1988), reprinted in 50 U.S.C.  Sec. 401 (1988)). Generally, it is also a crime under international law, which, though not widely understood, is part of American domestic law.

Still, at least in certain more-or-less residual circumstances, the targeted killing of jihadi terrorist leaders could be correctly excluded from ordinarily prohibited behaviors. Accordingly, such peremptorily protective actions could still be defended as permissible expressions of national law-enforcement.

A similar defense could sometimes be applied to the considered killing of terrorist “rank-and-file,” especially where such selective lethality had become part of an already-ongoing pattern of US counter-terrorism. Earlier, for example, the United States widened the scope of its permissible terrorist targeting in parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. This widened arc of permissibility — one which now modifies more stringent rules of engagement concerning human target identification — represented a byproduct of continuously developing drone technologies.

In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no need for any decentralized or “vigilante” expressions of international justice. Obviously, we don’t yet live in such an ideal world. Instead, enduring uneasily in an historically anarchic world order- – a context that international law professors prefer to call “Westphalian.”

At some still-indeterminable point, terrorist escalations could lead to instances of chemical, biological or nuclear attack. These unprecedented attacks (ones that are sui generis in law) might be undertaken by assorted sub-state adversaries or by certain “hybrid” combinations of state and sub-state foes. Ironically, in the policies of US ally Israel, dominant concerns have centered on Iran-Hezbollah and Iran/Hamas combinations. Here, an evident irony stems from the fact that one Iranian surrogate (Hezbollah) is Shiite while the other (Hamas) is Sunni.

In our persistently anarchic and prospectively chaotic world legal system, assorted jihadi leaders are already responsible for the mass killing of noncombatant men, women, and children of many different nationalities. It follows that wherever such leaders are not suitably “terminated” by the United States or Israel in the tumultuous Middle East, egregious terror crimes will almost certainly continue and be left unpunished.

Any impunity would be inconsistent with the universal legal obligation to punish international crimes, a jus cogens or peremptory obligation reaffirmed at the original Nuremberg Tribunal and in the subsequent Nuremberg Principles.

Inevitably, complex considerations of law and tactics will intersect and inter-penetrate. In this connection, the glaring indiscriminacy of most jihadist operations is rarely if ever the result of adversarial inadvertence. Typically, it is the intentional outcome of violent terrorist inclinations, unambiguously murderous ideals that lay embedded in the jihadist terrorist leader’s operative views of insurgency.

For jihadists, there can never be meaningful distinctions between civilians and non-civilians, between innocents and non-innocents. For these active or latent terrorist murderers, all that really matters are unassailably immutable distinctions between Muslims, “apostates” and “unbelievers.”

As for the apostates and unbelievers, it’s quite simple. Their lives, believe the jihadists, have no value. Prima facie, they have no immunizing sanctity. In law, both international and national, every government has the right and obligation to protect its citizens against external harms.

Usually, assassination is a certifiable crime under international law. Yet, in our essentially decentralized system of world law, extraordinary self-help by individual states is often necessary, and more-then-occasionally the only real alternative to passively sufferance of terror crimes. In the absence of particular targeted killings, terrorists would continue to create havoc against defenseless civilians almost anywhere of their choosing and with unjust impunity.

A basic difficulty is that jihadi terror criminals are usually immune to the more orthodox legal expectations of extradition and prosecution (aut dedere, aut judicare). This is not to suggest that the targeted killing of terrorists will always “work” — there is literally nothing to support the logic of any such suggestion — but only that disallowing such killing ex ante might not be operationally gainful or legally just.

If carried out with aptly due regard for pertinent “rules,” targeting terrorist leaders could remain consistent with the ancient legal principle of Nullum crimen sine poena, “No crime without a punishment.” Earlier, this original principle of justice had been cited as a dominant rationale for both the Tokyo and Nuremberg war crime tribunals. Subsequently, it was incorporated into customary international law, an authoritative source of law identified inter alia at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

 By both the codified and customary standards of contemporary international law, all terrorists are hostes humani generis, or “common enemies of humankind.” Still, choosing precisely which terrorists ought to be targeted remains a largely ideological rather than jurisprudential matter.

Overall, in his consideration of assassination or targeted-killing as counter-terrorism, President Trump should consider the clarifying position of 18th century Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his most famous work, The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law (1758): “The safest plan is to prevent evil where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor.”

Even earlier, the right of self-defense by forestalling an attack had been asserted by the foundational Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, in Book II of The Law of War and Peace (1625). Recognizing the need for what later jurisprudence would reference as threatening international behavior that is “imminent in point of time,” Grotius indicated that self-defense must be permitted not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance, where “the deed may be anticipated.”

Further on, in the same chapter, Grotius summarized: “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.” Interestingly, Vattel, Pufendorf and Grotius were all taken into primary account by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence.

International law is not a suicide pact. “Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one.”

Donald Trump is obligated to comply with the rules and procedures of humanitarian international law, yet he must also bear in mind that jihadist enemies will remain unaffected by these or any other jurisprudential expectations. Assassination and broader forms of preemption may sometimes be not only allowable under binding international law, but indispensable.

Conversely, there are occasions when strategies of assassination could be determinedly legal but be operationally ineffectual. Recalling the close connections between international law and US law — connections that extend to direct and literal forms of “incorporation” – -an American president can never choose to dismiss the law of war on grounds that it is “merely international.”Always, President Trump should consider decipherable connections between targeted killings, counter-terrorism, and United States Constitutional Law.

Under US law, we are bound to inquire, should an American president ever be authorized to order the extra-judicial killing of a United States citizen — even one deemed an “enemy combatant” — without meaningful reference to “due process of law?” On its face, any affirmative response to this query would be difficult to defend under the US Constitution.

Operational approval would need to be based upon a reasonably presumed high urgency of terror threat. Any such allegedly “authorized” targeted killing of US citizens would express potentially irremediable tension between indissoluble citizen rights and peremptory requirements of public safety. Going forward with obligatory counter terrorist preparations, the US president will need to keep this firmly in mind.

US policy on assassination or targeted killing will have to reflect a very delicate balance. Most important, in any such calculation, will be the protection of civilian populations from jihadist terror-inflicted harms. In those circumstances where harms would involve unconventional weapons of any sort — chemical, biological or nuclear — the legal propriety of targeting jihadists could be patently obvious (per Cicero, above) and “beyond reasonable doubt.”

In sum, for both the United States and Israel, legal assessments of targeted killing ought never be undertaken apart from correlative operational expectations. This means that before any “extraordinary remedies” should be applied, these measures would be not only legally correct, but tactically cost-effective. In the end, as we may finally be reminded by Cicero in The Laws, “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.”

Louis René Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). His twelfth book, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy, was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2016. A version of this article was originally published by Jewish Business News.

The post What the Law Actually Says About Targeting Jihadist Terrorists first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 76
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Doorstep Postings: The premier who got elected ‘For the People’ has morphed into ‘Dougie for You’

This is the 2025 Ontario provincial election preview edition of Doorstep Postings, the periodic political commentary column written by Josh Lieblein for The CJN.

If you’re tired of Canadian elections that have Seinfeld‘s show-about-nothing quality, this writ period is definitely for you. In fact, expectations for the month leading up to the Feb. 27 provincial election in Ontario has the distinct air of an episode of Nathan for You, masterminded by Vancouver’s virtuoso of the socially awkward deadpan, Nathan Fielder.

Fielder expands a bit he developed on the CBC as an incompetent millennial business consultant who offers terrible ideas to floundering businesses which fail spectacularly. The genius of the show is that it makes a clear distinction between Nathan Fielder, actor, and the “Nathan” who comes up with the doomed business ideas. We see “Nathan” realize that his actions are causing more harm than good, but any attempts he makes to atone for his mistakes mostly just lead to things getting worse. He did, however, start a legitimately successful jacket business focused on Holocaust awareness where you traded in jackets made by another company that for some reason paid tribute to a genocide denier.

The Fielderesque plan put forth by Doug Ford’s consultants is a rebrand of our bumbling Preem as Captain Canada, the fighting-est First Minister in the Dominion. Looking like a small-town-Ontario granddad in his too-small ‘Canada Is Not For Sale’ baseball cap, the Dougster plans to storm Washington, D.C., under cover of a much more interesting and consequential federal Liberal leadership race to plead Ontario’s case before bemused U.S. lawmakers. Where he goes, the Queen’s Park Press Gallery will not be able to follow—or so Doug hopes.

A few headwinds threaten to snow Ford’s plan under, though First of all, this election will be held in the depths of winter, something that hasn’t happened in 40 years. It’s also an early election, which is something Ontario campaign strategists have been warning against ever since David Peterson tried it back in 1990, and paved the way for Bob Rae. (If you’re starting to get the impression that Ontario is in the state it’s in because our top political minds are still superstitious over things that they lived through decades ago, you’d be right.) When asked if it’s time for a change in government, voters agree with that sentiment by a margin of 3 to 1.

Worse than any of these credulous portents of doom for Ford’s fortunes is the fact that most voters are genuinely sick of the guy in the same way that most bystanders on Nathan for You understand that Nathan doesn’t know what he’s doing and the ideas he presents are deeply stupid. Jewish voters haven’t forgotten that Ford’s government has been mostly talk and no action on security at community buildings and protests crossing the line. You’ve also got issues that matter to you (but not to the government) no matter which community you align with: housing, healthcare, transit, scandals. 

The trouble is that nobody is interested in really challenging Doug and his questionable assertions that he’s listening to Ontarians, much like the businesses that are questionably being “helped” by Nathan. Unions are trying to outdo one another putting together lame attack ads that the cast of This Hour Has 22 Minutes would probably scoff at as being too cheesy and poorly acted. The NDP saw how badly the Liberals got creamed by the voters for obsessively talking about highways during the last election and decided to lead off by talking about nationalizing the 407. The Liberals are standing up for substandard Canadian internet by demanding that Doug cancel a deal with Elon Musk’s Starlink in light of his recent Nazi-adjacent salute at Trump’s inauguration. 

Nathan Fielder made the wise decision to end Nathan for You in 2017, after four seasons. But even though we’ve been watching the Ford family circus for decades in Toronto, and the joke has long ceased to be funny, nobody seems to know how to get this show off the air. Ford’s nephew Michael announced that his health wouldn’t allow him to continue with the charade. It was also revealed that proudly anti-Israel MPP Sarah Jama had been lobbying to be let back into the NDP fold after that party’s decision to boot her for comments made in the aftermath of Oct. 7. Why she thought that the party would trust her at this juncture is a question we’ll never get a real answer to. 

As for the Liberals, the most notable Ford-buster they’ve got is Jason Cherniak, the candidate in Aurora-Oak Ridges-Richmond Hill who’s best known amongst partisans of a certain vintage as the webmaster of Liblogs—a counterpoint to Blogging Tories, who influenced the ascent of the modern Conservative Party of Canada while not having to change out of their pyjamas. Back in the days of Web 1.0, Cherniak managed to convince Official Ottawa to take him seriously as a key online organizer for onetime federal party leader Stephane “Very Seriously, A Carbon Tax” Dion based on a talent for stringing together a few lines of partisan gloss with a low-effort YouTube video or two. (They’d never fall for something like that today!) He’s Nathan Fielder if Nathan had decided to put his energy into shaming B’nai Brith for being too partisan in support of Stephen Harper. 

Ford may believe that he is actually standing up to Trump and fighting, however imperfectly, on behalf of the province he governs. His performance, as wooden as it may be, is a lot more convincing than that of his opponents, who manage to seem even more checked out than he is and repeat the same points about his corporate buddies as last time while not being able to settle on whether he’s a murderclown or just in over his head. There is an honest and heartfelt critique to be made of the man, one that might even make him think twice about the ruse he is perpetuating, but so long as the rest of us are obsessed with norms and their lack if observance, Ford can continue to flout them as he sees fit—all while claiming that, like Nathan Fielder, he is the one and only leader for You.

Josh Lieblein can be reached at joshualieblein@gmail.com for your response to Doorstep Postings.

The post Doorstep Postings: The premier who got elected ‘For the People’ has morphed into ‘Dougie for You’ appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 11
Continue Reading

RSS

Students and survivors gather at Baycrest to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day  

As Holocaust denial and distortion becomes a growing concern in Canada, a group of Toronto high school students marked the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by sharing the stories of Holocaust survivors.

Grade 12 students from Toronto’s Crestwood Preparatory College observed International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Jan. 27, with a presentation at Baycrest, a Toronto healthcare and research centre for seniors. There they recounted the harrowing stories of survivors they had previously interviewed in person to an audience of about 150 people, including other students, educators and the survivors themselves.

Daniel Markusson, one of the presenters, acknowledged that the opportunity to hear first-hand accounts of the Holocaust has become increasingly rare.

“It was a really impactful experience to hear these stories directly from the survivors,” Markusson told The Canadian Jewish News. “You can watch documentaries or read books, but speaking to someone in person brings a whole new level of understanding.”

Markusson presented the story of survivor Judy Schachter, who he met with his classmates prior to the event. Born in 1936, Schachter grew up in the city of Humenne, in eastern Slovakia. Her early life, described as happy and nurturing, was shattered by the antisemitic policies of Jozef Tiso, an acolyte of Hitler and president of the First Slovak Republic from 1939 to 1945. As deportations to Auschwitz began, Schachter’s family fled to the Tatra Mountains, where they endured extreme cold, starvation and the constant fear of discovery.

“Hearing her experiences made me realize how critical it is to preserve these stories,” Markusson said. “It’s our responsibility to combat Holocaust denial and distortion.”

Another Crestwood student, Chaeni Lee, recounted the story of Peter Hajnal, who survived as a child in Hungary. After being sent to a children’s shelter, Hajnal endured harsh treatment and the loss of his younger brother. “Hearing Peter’s story reminded me of my grandmother’s experiences during the Korean War,” Lee said during her presentation. “It’s a reminder that trauma stays with people forever, even from when they’re young.”

Sydney Ross, another Crestwood student, shared the story of Martha Shemtov, who was a hidden child during the Holocaust. Ross described how Shemtov’s mother threw her off a train bound for a concentration camp, saving her life. Shemtov was later hidden and raised by a Catholic family until she was reunited with her father after the war. Reflecting on the harrowing account, Ross said, “Hearing these stories made me realize how much courage it took to survive and how important it is for us to share their voices. It’s a responsibility we can’t take lightly.”

Engaging younger generations

Holocaust survivor Judy Schachter, whose story was shared at the event, expressed gratitude for the students’ willingness to listen. “It’s hard to convince those who deny or distort history,” she told The Canadian Jewish News. “But projects like this give me hope that the lessons of the Holocaust won’t be forgotten.”

Schachter also spoke candidly about the challenges of addressing Holocaust denial. “You have to have receptive ears to receive that, and right now I think that that segment of the population really doesn’t want to hear it, so I almost wouldn’t even waste my time talking to them,” she said.

“I feel a deep responsibility to share my story, and I’m grateful for this particular school that they’re willing to listen.”

Baycrest’s Holocaust Resource Program, which helped plan the student presentation, offers consultation, counselling, and educational services for clients, families, and survivors in the Jewish community at Baycrest and in other long-term care facilities. Staff with specialized expertise run ongoing support groups for survivors and children of survivors.

Anne Max, a Baycrest social worker and a key member of the Holocaust Resource Program, highlighted how the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and rising antisemitism in Canada have deeply affected survivors.

“Everything we’re seeing that happens in the Middle East and in our streets (in Canada) is a huge trigger for survivors and their children,” Max told The Canadian Jewish News. “It has unleashed a lot of people’s feelings about what happened to them during the war.”

Max said events like the presentation at Baycrest are so important, providing survivors with a platform to share their stories and help younger generations understand the importance of combating hate.

Holocaust education programs are essential for younger generations who will eventually lose access to first-hand accounts, said Cyrelle Muskat, director of Quality, Systems, and Wellness at Baycrest.

Muskat’s grandmother, who recently died, was a survivor of Auschwitz. “A couple of years ago she made a point to do a Zoom meeting with a Jewish day school to share her story,” Muskat said. “More and more survivors are feeling that (sharing their story) is their mission.”

Denial and distortion on the rise

Recent studies have revealed alarming gaps in Holocaust awareness among Canadians, particularly younger generations, and a growing susceptibility to misinformation about one of history’s darkest chapters. The findings highlight an urgent need for education to address not only historical ignorance but also antisemitic attitudes.

A survey conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute in 2024 revealed that one in six Canadians aged 18 to 24 believed the Holocaust was exaggerated. This view was linked to an increased likelihood of antisemitic feelings and behaviours, according to the study. The findings also revealed that 22 per cent of Canadians under 25 rely primarily on online sources for Holocaust information, which may contribute to the spread of misinformation.

A 2019 study by the Azrieli Foundation and the Claims Conference found that 22 percent of Canadians under 34 had either not heard of the Holocaust or were unsure what it was. Nearly half of respondents—49 percent—could not name a single concentration camp or ghetto, despite over 40,000 such sites operating during the Second World War. In addition, 23 percent of Canadians believed that substantially fewer than six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, while 24 per cent were uncertain about the death toll.

Preserving living history

Crestwood’s Oral History Project has become a cornerstone of the school’s commitment to historical education and remembrance. The initiative began as a way to preserve the personal stories and artifacts shared by speakers visiting Masters’ classes. Originally, it started as a family history project, with students and their families contributing personal and community histories.

“When I started this project over 20 years ago, most students had grandparents who lived through the war,” said Scott Masters, the Crestwood history teacher who spearheaded the program. “That’s no longer the case, so this project helps build those connections for a new generation.”

As part of the oral history project, Masters and his students have digitized photos and mementos from interviewees, preserving them as historical documents. These records, along with individual interviews, are accessible on the project’s webpage, where visitors can search for specific topics—such as survivors from Theresienstadt or veterans who served on D-Day—and listen to personal accounts.

This archive, which contains over 1,000 interviews—including nearly 300 with Holocaust survivors—ensures these stories are preserved for future generations. 

“It’s about showing the personal side of modern history,” Masters explained. “These stories make history tangible and help us understand the human experiences behind the events.”

The post Students and survivors gather at Baycrest to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day   appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 45
Continue Reading

RSS

Israel’s UN Ambassador Reaffirms Imminent Ban of UNRWA Operations Over Hamas Ties

Ambassador Danny Danon, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, looks on as he speaks to members of the press about the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, at the UN headquarters in New York City, US, Sept. 4, 2024. Photo: Reuters

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon reaffirmed on Tuesday that the controversial UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees and their descendants will face an imminent ban from Israel over its ties to the Hamas terrorist group.

“Within 48 hours, the State of Israel will cease its cooperation with UNRWA,” Danon told the UN Security Council, referring to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. “UNRWA must cease its activities and evacuate all its facilities in Jerusalem.”

The public announcement came after Israel passed legislation in October banning UNRWA from operating within Israeli territory and prohibiting any Israeli authority from engaging with the agency.

Israel followed up on the legislation this past week, issuing a directive to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres demanding that UNRWA cease all activities in East Jerusalem by Jan. 30.

“This decision was driven by UNRWA’s constant refusal to address the widespread infiltration of its ranks by Hamas and other terrorist organizations,” Danon added in his remarks on Tuesday.

The Israeli government and research organizations have publicized findings showing numerous UNRWA-employed staff, including teachers and school principals, are active Hamas members, some of whom were directly involved in the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023 massacre across southern Israel, while many others openly celebrated it.

On Tuesday, Danon said that UNRWA will be banned from “maintaining any representative, office, service or activity within” Israel and the Jewish state will “terminate all collaboration, communication, or contact with UNRWA or anyone operating on its behalf.”

The ambassador asserted that the decision was “necessary” due to UNRWA’s decision to pursue “political agendas, neglect, and cover-ups over humanitarian principles.” Moreover, Danon contended that UNRWA has “failed to benefit the people who were supposed to benefit from their services.”

Israel has maintained that the agency still employs some 450 terrorist operatives in Gaza, even after firing several over their alleged involvement in Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks on southern Israel. Many countries, including the US, paused funding to UNRWA amid allegations that the agency aided Hamas terrorists. UNRWA employs 14,000 staff members in Gaza. 

UNRWA officials have denied the agency’s complicity in the Oct. 7 massacre and argued their aid work in Gaza is crucial to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in the war-torn enclave.

“In two days, our operations in the occupied Palestinian territory will be crippled,” UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini told the 15-member UN Security Council on Tuesday. “Full implementation of the Knesset [Israeli parliament] legislation will be disastrous.”

However, US officials said that the UN is “exaggerating” the impact of Israel’s decision.

“UNRWA exaggerating the effects of the laws and suggesting that they will force the entire humanitarian response to halt is irresponsible and dangerous,” US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the Security Council on Tuesday.

“What is needed is a nuanced discussion about how we can ensure that there is no interruption in the delivery of humanitarian aid and essential services,” she said. “UNRWA is not and never has been the only option for providing humanitarian assistance in Gaza.”

Experts have told The Algemeiner that UNRWA fosters new generations of terrorists, in part through school curricula that promotes hatred of both Jews and Israelis.

Danon argued that the Jewish state should not be forced to collaborate with an organization that compromises its national security and that it will continue to pursue partnerships with humanitarian groups that are not tied to terrorists.

The post Israel’s UN Ambassador Reaffirms Imminent Ban of UNRWA Operations Over Hamas Ties first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 41
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News