Uncategorized
Is This Really a ‘Peace’ Agreement? History Says No
An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
Whatever else is offered under the Israel-Hamas agreement, offering Palestinian statehood would undermine authoritative international law. To wit, beyond any reasonable doubt, both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas have been responsible for decades of barbarous anti-Israel terrorism. Moreover, the entities that operate this continuous criminality have never sought a Palestinian Arab state that would co-exist with the existing Jewish State. Always, its unhidden objective is to destroy Israel.
Corroborative evidence of this is abundant. In this “One-State Solution,” all of Israel would become part of “Palestine.” Already, on official PA and Hamas maps, all of Israel, not just Judea/Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza, is identified as “Occupied Palestine.” Cartographically, therefore, Israel has already been removed.
The PA and Hamas both remain clear about their commitment to terror-violence as the sole path to Palestinian “self-determination.” It follows that Palestinian prisoners now being exchanged for Israeli hostages will escalate criminal harms against the innocent. In all likelihood, the Trump-brokered agreement will set the stage for a force-multiplying encore of October 7 defilements. Significantly, previous prisoner releases by Israel produced new waves of anti-Israel terrorism.
In the future, what should Jerusalem say to new victim families of agreement-generated crimes?
Plausibly, over time, some freed terrorists will likely plan calibrated escalations to chemical, biological, or nuclear (radiation dispersal) terrorism. Also likely will be variously coordinated rocket attacks on Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona. Though generally forgotten, Hamas already launched such an attack in the past, but was not yet technically able to inflict serious levels of destruction. This earlier terrorist incapacity is rapidly disappearing.
Terrorism is a codified and customary crime under binding international law. Its explicit criminalization can be discovered at all listed sources of the UN’s Statute of the International Court of Justice. This signifies that whenever Palestinian jihadists claim the right to use “any means necessary” against an Israeli “occupation,” their arguments are unsupportable in relevant law.
After the “peace agreement,” the PA and Hamas will mirror their long-bloodied past. From the beginning, all supporters of Palestinian terror-violence against Israelis have maintained that the “sacred” end of Palestinian insurgency justifies the means. Leaving aside the everyday and ordinary ethical standards by which any such argument must be unacceptable, ends can never justify means under conventional or customary international law
Empty Palestinian witticisms notwithstanding, one person’s terrorist can never be another’s freedom-fighter.
While it is true that certain insurgencies can be lawful (for prominent example, “just cause” is at the heart of the US Declaration of Independence), even residually permissible resorts to force must conform to humanitarian international law. These resorts are distinction, proportionality, and military necessity — standards that were made applicable to insurgent armed forces by Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols to these Conventions.
Regarding the rule of “proportionality,” this does not demand equivalent or symmetrical force, only force that is measured against clearly-stated and legitimate goals.
Whenever an insurgent force resorts to unjust means, its actions become terroristic ipso facto. Even if ritualistic Palestinian claims of an Israeli “occupation” were reasonable, any corresponding right to oppose Israel “by any means necessary” would be false. Specifically, any openly unjust means would be an expression of criminal terrorism.
These unchallengeable or “peremptory” legal standards are also binding on all combatants by virtue of customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention (1907). This foundational rule, called the “Martens Clause,” makes all persons responsible for upholding the “laws of humanity” and the “dictates of public conscience.”
History deserves some pride of place. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, three years before there were any “occupied territories.” What, therefore, was the PLO attempting to “liberate” between 1964 and 1967? There can be only one logical answer.
In law, terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment. As punishers of “grave breaches” under our decentralized system of international law, a system created after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, all states are required to search out and prosecute, or to extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators. In no circumstances are states permitted to treat terrorists as “freedom fighters.”
There is more. States are never authorized to support terror-violence against other states, whether by direct action or by acting within protective terms of an international agreement. This is emphatically true for the United States, which identifies international law as the “supreme law of the land” at Article 6 of the Constitution and at assorted Supreme Court decisions. The American nation was formed by its Founding Fathers according to timeless legal principles of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries and the Hebrew Bible.
If the Trump-brokered Israel-Hamas agreement leads to Palestinian statehood, Israel could expect tangible enlargements of terror violence. And because some of the new state’s assaults on Israel would be ones of direct military action rather than insurgency, international law would identify these actions as “crimes of war.” Here, the only decipherable changes would be linguistic.
There is one final observation. As the Israel-Hamas agreement coincides with President Trump’s new mutual security pact with Doha, Palestinian terrorists and war criminals who flee to Qatar would be granted immunity from law-based punishments. Very quickly, such immunization could lead Hamas and other jihadi fighters to implement new and more insidious cycles of terrorist assault. None of these agreement outcomes could reasonably be called “peace.”
Prof. Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law, nuclear strategy, nuclear war, and terrorism. In Israel, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018).
Uncategorized
Netherlands Boosts Security Funding for Jewish Institutions Amid Surge in Antisemitic Attacks
Police outside a Jewish school following an explosion that caused minor damages, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 14, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
The Netherlands is significantly boosting security funding for Jewish communities amid a relentless surge of antisemitic incidents, as synagogues, schools, and cultural institutions across the country face escalating threats and authorities move to reinforce protection in response to growing alarm.
During a parliamentary session on Tuesday, Dutch Justice and Security Minister David van Weel announced an additional €700,000 in the 2026 security budget to safeguard Jewish buildings and institutions nationwide, raising total annual funding to €2 million in response to a sustained wave of antisemitic incidents.
Van Weel explained these funds will support security at synagogues, Jewish schools, cultural institutions, and public events, noting that the existing €1.3 million allocation had already been exhausted in 2025, leaving dozens of applications unfunded, with further demand expected this year.
“The additional funding is intended to strengthen protection for the Jewish community and reinforce its sense of security,” the Dutch official said.
Het veiligheidsfonds voor Joodse scholen, instellingen en evenementen verhoog ik met €700.000 naar €2 miljoen per jaar.
Hiermee kunnen Joodse instellingen nog beter worden beschermd en hoop ik het veiligheidsgevoel van de Joodse gemeenschap in Nederland te versterken. pic.twitter.com/FhGnoE8eQl
— David van Weel (@ministerjenv) April 22, 2026
Van Weel’s announcement came in the wake of a series of antisemitic attacks last month, including small explosions at a synagogue in Rotterdam, a second blast two days later at a Jewish school in Amsterdam, and a third near a Zuidas office building housing the Bank of New York Mellon.
During Tuesday’s session, lawmakers also reviewed proposals from an antisemitism taskforce aimed at strengthening protections for Jewish students and staff in higher education, alongside broader measures to counter rising hate incidents on campuses.
Mirjam Bikker, leader of the ChristenUnie, a Dutch Protestant political party, called for the government to fully cover security costs at Jewish institutions, describing the current system — under which synagogues and schools are expected to fund their own protection — as “a fundamental reversal of responsibility.”
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, the Netherlands has seen a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to newly released figures, Dutch authorities reported antisemitism remained at alarmingly high levels across the country last year, with 867 registered cases in 2025 — virtually unchanged from the 880 incidents recorded the previous year.
Even though Jews make up less than 0.3 percent of the Dutch population, anti-Jewish hate crimes account for 26 percent of all discrimination cases.
Eddo Verdoner, the Dutch national coordinator for combating antisemitism (NCAB), said the data reflects a worrying normalization of antisemitic incidents.
“We have been recording hundreds of antisemitic incidents each year for years now. What I fear is that we are slowly getting used to figures that are unacceptable, that hatred is becoming the new normal,” Verdoner said in a statement.
Uncategorized
AIPAC Slightly More Popular Than Democratic Party, Poll Finds
Crews prepare the stage at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Brian Snyder
A new survey reveals that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, may be viewed more favorably than the Democratic Party itself amid ongoing debate over whether liberal candidates should continue engaging with the organization.
According to an April 2026 national survey conducted by Echelon Insights, AIPAC posts a net favorable rating that indicates the group is slightly more favorable than the Democratic Party. Per the poll, 18 percent of respondents view the organization positively and 25 percent view the organization negatively. Meanwhile, 27 percent have no opinion of the lobbying group.
Conversely, 42 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, according to the poll, and 52 percent have a negative opinion.
AIPAC and the Democratic Party therefore have net favorable ratings among the public of -7 and -10, respectively.
While Democrats remain one of the two dominant political coalitions in the United States, their favorability has been weighed down in part by intensifying internal divisions, including over US policy toward Israel. The liberal wing of the party has grown increasingly hostile toward the Jewish state amid the war in Gaza, with far-left members pushing the party to establish an anti-Israel posture and falsely accusing the Jewish state of committing “genocide” against Palestinians.
AIPAC, by contrast, occupies a different space in the public mind. As a single-issue advocacy organization focused on strengthening US–Israel relations, it does not carry the same ideological baggage or breadth of policy responsibility as a national party.
However, as the war in Gaza deteriorated the popularity of Israel within the Democratic base, AIPAC became the target of scrutiny by party activists seeking to isolate the Jewish state. In primary competitions across the country, Democratic contenders have scrambled to distance themselves from AIPAC, oftentimes publicly vowing not to accept any funding or assistance from the group.
Yet the polling from Echelon Insights suggests that this elite-level conflict has not translated into widespread public backlash against the organization itself, with 57 of respondents saying they either never heard of the group or have no opinion of it.
Indeed, although AIPAC has become unpopular, polling suggests that the organization has low salience with the general public. Few voters have strong opinions about it compared to other issues, suggesting that outsized attention has been given by progressive politicians and activists to the lobbying group.
Little evidence indicates that affiliation with AIPAC is an electoral liability within Democratic primaries. In March, several anti-Israel candidates lost to AIPAC-backed opponents, including Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller successfully winning the Illinois 2nd Congressional District race and former Rep. Melissa Bean winning the contest for the Illinois 8th Congressional District.
Uncategorized
Israel Estimates US Blockade of Strait of Hormuz to Slash Iran Oil Exports by 80%
A vessel at the Strait of Hormuz, off the coast of Oman’s Musandam province, April 12, 2026. Photo: REUTERS
As Iran struggles to rebuild damaged military and energy infrastructure amid the current ceasefire, Israel estimates that a US naval blockade of Iranian ports will slash the regime’s oil exports by roughly 80 percent, nearly severing one of Tehran’s last remaining economic lifelines.
According to Israeli security assessments, the US closure of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global energy chokepoint through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes — triggered an immediate and dramatic collapse in Iran’s revenue that will lead to a loss of more than $1 billion a month, Walla reported.
US President Donald Trump has claimed the regime is losing about $500 million a day as a result of the blockade. Some experts, such as Miad Maleki of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, have put the figure at roughly $450 million lost in daily economic activity for Iran.
Regardless of the specific amount, given that energy exports remain the backbone of the regime’s economy, what is left of oil revenues now amounts to little more than a fragile lifeline keeping Tehran temporarily afloat as financial pressure continues to mount.
Even with the naval blockade in place, Iranian authorities have managed to maintain a limited flow of exports by transporting oil from inland production fields to the Gulf of Oman through the multi-billion-dollar Gura–Jask pipeline, an overland route that moves roughly 300,000 barrels per day to global markets.
Israeli officials assess that the blockade and resultant shortfall for Tehran could set off a chain reaction of disruptions, including the shutdown of entire segments of the oil industry.
They also point to severe damage across Iran’s petrochemical and defense sectors, which together have cost an estimated 100,000 jobs at multiple levels, arguing that the cumulative impact is pushing the Iranian regime into a corner.
After repeated efforts to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, the Trump administration escalated pressure on Tehran earlier this month by imposing a naval blockade on vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports through the Strait of Hormuz, aiming to force a deal that would bring an end to the conflict.
Since the start of the war earlier this year, Iran has used control over the Strait of Hormuz as a major source of leverage, militarizing the waterway and sharply restricting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most critical shipping corridors.
Iran has also signaled it intends to maintain control over the strategic shipping lane even after the war ends, potentially imposing transit fees framed as compensation for wartime damage.
After Trump extended the ceasefire indefinitely on Tuesday to allow for renewed diplomatic efforts, it now remains to be seen whether Iran will agree to return to negotiations, as questions persist over whether both sides can bridge widening differences to restart talks.
According to The New York Times, US officials previously proposed a 20-year halt to Iranian uranium enrichment, which Iranian negotiators countered with a five-year suspension that Washington rejected. The White House has also reportedly insisted that Iran dismantle major enrichment sites and surrender more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.
Even as the regime faces one of its most severe economic crises in decades, Iranian authorities have continued pouring billions into rebuilding military and nuclear infrastructure and supporting regional proxy forces, prioritizing strategic confrontation with Israel over urgent domestic needs such as the country’s worsening water crisis.
The regime has spent billions of dollars supporting its terrorist proxies across the Middle East and operations abroad, with the Quds Force, Iran’s elite paramilitary unit, funneling funds to the Lebanese group Hezbollah, in defiance of international sanctions.
According to the US Treasury Department, Iran provided more than $100 million per month to Hezbollah in 2025, with $1 billion representing only a portion of Tehran’s overall support for the terrorist group, using a “shadow financial system” to transfer funds to Lebanon.