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.
RSS
Belgian Prime Minister Shows Solidarity With Jewish Community, Calls for Caution on Palestinian State Recognition

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever attends a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured), at the Chancellery, in Berlin, Germany, Aug. 26, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Annegret Hilse
Amid rising antisemitism across Europe and increasing hostility toward Israel from several European governments, Prime Minister Bart De Wever expressed Belgium’s sympathy and respect for the Jewish community this week, honoring the millions of victims of the Holocaust.
During his trip to Berlin on Tuesday, De Wever visited the Holocaust Memorial and left a moving message in its guestbook.
“On behalf of the Belgian government and all people and communities living together in peace in Belgium, I express my deepest sympathy and my respect,” the Belgian leader wrote in a note in German.
“We will remember all the victims. I stand here humbly at this place of remembrance. The Jewish community will always have a home in Europe,” he continued.
Rabbi Menachem Margolin, chairman of the European Jewish Association (EJA), commended De Wever’s remarks and his support for the Jewish community, highlighting his leadership as a model.
“We sincerely thank Prime Minister De Wever for his moving message in Berlin. At a time when antisemitism is once again spreading across Europe, his clear and unwavering statement that the Jewish community will always have a home here is deeply important,” Margolin said in a statement.
“Such leadership not only honors the memory of the six million victims of the Holocaust but also strengthens the sense of security and belonging for Jews in Belgium and across the continent,” he continued.
“We also commend the Prime Minister’s principled leadership on Israel, where he consistently calls for security guarantees and a realistic path to peace. His voice carries moral weight in Europe, and we deeply appreciate it.”
During a visit to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, Belgian Prime Minister @Bart_DeWever left an important message in the guestbook. Written in German, his note expressed Belgium’s sympathy and respect for the Jewish community and commemorated the millions… pic.twitter.com/ZcuEfKCavi
— EJA – EIPA (@EJAssociation) August 26, 2025
During his visit to Berlin, De Wever met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to discuss the recent push by several European countries to recognize a Palestinian state at next month’s UN General Assembly.
At a joint press conference, De Wever stressed that recognizing a Palestine state is only meaningful under strict conditions, warning that doing so without such guarantees would be “pointless and even counterproductive.”
“Hamas must disappear completely, there must be a credible Palestinian Authority, an agreement must be reached on borders, and Israel must receive security guarantees. Without that, recognition makes no sense,” De Wever said.
In Belgium, De Wever’s more cautious approach to Palestinian statehood and support for Israel have fueled clashes within the government, with Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot threatening to block government initiatives if the coalition continues to hinder a firmer stance on Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state.
“If there is no stronger tone within the government regarding the human rights violations committed by the Israeli government, or if no measures are taken in favor of recognizing Palestine, a major crisis is looming,” Prévot said during an interview with De Standaard.
RSS
Amid War, Olim-Owned Businesses in Jerusalem Thrive, Showcasing Resilience, Community Spirit

Olim gather at JFK Airport, ready to board a charter flight to Israel and begin their new lives in the Jewish state. Photo: The Algemeiner
JERUSALEM — Despite the strains of war and the obstacles of starting over in a new country, businesses in Jerusalem owned by Jewish immigrants are thriving — a testament to resilience, Zionist commitment, and the power of community.
New immigrants, or olim, who make aliyah to Israel face steep challenges even in times of peace, navigating strict regulations, endless permits, and financial hurdles, though the Israeli government offers some support and incentives to promote new businesses.
Aliyah refers to the process of Jews immigrating to Israel, and olim refers to those who make this journey.
In recent years, the road has become even more difficult for entrepreneurs, first with the economic disruption of COVID-19 and now amid the uncertainty of the war in Gaza.
For many olim, launching a business in Israel is about more than entrepreneurship — it’s a way to start a new life, serve their country, build a community, and make a meaningful impact.
Last week, 225 new olim arrived in Tel Aviv on the first charter aliyah flight since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Nefesh B’Nefesh (NBN) — a nonprofit that promotes and facilitates aliyah from the US and Canada — brought its 65th charter flight from New York, which The Algemeiner joined.
Founded in 2002, NBN helps olim become fully integrated members of Israeli society, simplifying the immigration process and providing essential resources and guidance.
In partnership with Israel’s Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, the Jewish Agency for Israel, Keren Kayemeth, and the Jewish National Fund, NBN has helped nearly 100,000 olim build thriving new lives in Israel.
Eager to start their next chapter in Israel, these immigrants bring fresh ideas, culinary creativity, and cultural richness, strengthening the country’s social fabric every day.
Originally from New Orleans, Louisiana, Diana Shapira brought her passion for baking and warm hospitality to Israel, turning her aliyah dream into a popular destination for both locals and tourists.
She and her husband created Infused JLM, located near Jerusalem’s Mahaneh Yehuda Market, blending American and Israeli culture and creating a space that brings people together.
“We want people to see that an oleh’s dream can happen,” Shapira told The Algemeiner. “Even without family and facing many challenges, starting a business in Israel is possible — especially when you have the support of the community.”
“Before we made aliyah, so many people told us it was a bad financial decision. But you have to push past the doubt and keep striving,” she continued.
Another olim-owned business located in Jerusalem, Power CoffeeWorks, has become a favorite destination for coffee enthusiasts across the city.
Owned by Stephanie and Brandon, who made aliyah from Cape Town, South Africa, in 2016 with their four children at the time (now seven), the couple has turned their venture into a hub for coffee lovers and a gathering place for the community.
“We made aliyah because we believed Israel was the best place to raise our children,” Stephanie told The Algemeiner. “Despite all the challenges along the way, it has been an incredible journey.”
Crave, another oleh-owned restaurant in Mahaneh Yehuda, has gained increasing attention with its strictly kosher gourmet street food, blending American, Mexican, and Asian flavors in a way that hasn’t been seen before.
American-born Yoni Van Leeuwen, who made aliyah more than 20 years ago with his wife and eight children, views food not just as a business, but as a way to bring cultures and communities together.
Following the Oct. 7 atrocities, the war in Gaza dealt a harsh blow to Israeli businesses, forcing many to cut hours, adapt operations, and manage shortages.
Yet these olim-owned establishments have shown resilience, proving that passion, creativity, and commitment to the Zionist dream can overcome even the toughest challenges.
Whether by serving comfort food, offering a safe space for neighbors, or organizing fundraisers for soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon, these business owners described a spirit of perseverance deeply rooted in Jewish history.
RSS
Police in England Investigate Air Rifle Attack Against Jewish Teenager, Swastika Spray Painted at Rabbi’s Home

Friday night saw a string of swastika vandalism resulting in four reports, including from Rabbi Bentzion Alperowitz, a Chabad leader who discovered the Nazi symbol spray painted in black on his home’s white wall as he left for synagogue the next morning with his two young daughters. Photo: Screenshot
Multiple antisemitic incidents reported this past weekend targeted the Jewish community of Bournemouth in the southern region on the coast of the United Kingdom.
On Saturday afternoon, a driver stopped to harass and yell obscenities at two pedestrians before shooting one, a Jewish teenage boy, in the forehead with an air rifle and fleeing. The victim suffered swelling but has otherwise recovered.
“Detectives are leading the investigation to locate the occupants of the vehicle and to establish the full circumstances of the incident,” a spokesman for Dorset Police said. “The incident is being treated as a hate crime. Officers are engaging with the local community and carrying out patrols in the area. We would encourage anyone with information or concerns to please speak with an officer.”
Rabbi Alan Lewis, who leads the Bournemouth Hebrew Congregation, said that “the young man who was shot is a religious Jew who was wearing a skull cap. It was very obvious he was Jewish. Then several people living on Manor Road woke up to find that swastikas had been painted on their homes. The homes had a mezuzah outside, so it was obvious that Jewish people lived there.”
Friday night saw a string of swastika vandalism resulting in four reports, including from Rabbi Bentzion Alperowitz, a Chabad leader who discovered the Nazi symbol spray painted in black on his home’s white wall as he left for synagogue the next morning with his two young daughters.
“We will continue to live as proud Jews here in Bournemouth … I want to encourage everyone to do exactly the same,” Alperowitz said. “This is not the Bournemouth I know. Bournemouth is a kind, beautiful place and I feel this is still the truth for the vast majority of people here.”
Other members of the Jewish community came to assist the rabbi with removing the graffiti.
“[The] good news is that by the time you’re watching this video our wall will have been cleaned, thanks to some amazing people from the community, who came around to help clean it,” Alperowitz said.
Author Dov Forman wrote that “on Saturday morning, my friend Rabbi Benzion Alperowitz of Bournemouth Chabad walked outside to find a swastika on his home. Antisemitism is alive on our streets, yet it is too often excused and ignored. But it will not break us. We will continue to live proudly as Jews.”
Law enforcement has reportedly stepped up patrols in the town’s Jewish neighborhoods which include an estimated 2,000 people.
On Monday, the Community Security Trust (CST), an organization focused on monitoring antisemitic threats in the UK, released a statement saying that it was “appalled by a series of anti-Jewish hate crimes in Bournemouth over the weekend. These are abhorrent acts of racism that are deeply distressing for the Jewish community and should alarm everybody. We are supporting the local Jewish community and working with Dorset Police to assist their investigation. We urge anyone with information about these incidents to contact the police and CST.”
CST released a report of antisemitic incidents in the UK during 2024, finding 3,528 — the second highest ever — showing an 18-percent decrease from the all-time high of 4,296 in 2023.
Earlier this month, CST released a separate report noting the group recorded 1,521 antisemitic incidents in the UK from January to June of this year. It marks the second-highest total of incidents ever recorded by CST in the first six months of any year, following the first half of 2024 in which 2,019 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel.
“These hateful attacks on people and property in Bournemouth are extremely concerning. We have been informed that the police are investigating and hope that the perpetrators will be arrested and face the full force of the law,” Andrew Gilbert, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said in a statement.
Maurice Michaels, who served as rabbi at Bournemouth Reform Synagogue, said that the community felt “very pressurized and anxious.” He added, “We’re getting terrified calls from people across the UK asking, ‘Is this really happening in Bournemouth?’ I’d never go out wearing my usual skull cap, I don’t show outward signs of being Jewish. I know community members who have even removed their mezuzah from their front door.”
Michaels described the antisemitic crimes as “a measure of what’s going on across the country, demonstrations where people cover their faces. They don’t want to be recognized because they know what they’re doing is wrong. We do the best we can to secure our safety. But when people attack our homes, when they shoot pellets — it gets to a point where it’s no longer a manageable situation. We’re frightened.”