Uncategorized
Israel Has the Legal Right — and Moral Responsibility — to Protect Itself From Terrorism and Jihadi Warfare
Greta Thunberg and UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese in an embrace with a Hamas terrorist in the artwork “Human Shields” by AleXsandro Palombo. Photo: Provided
In legal terms, intentional acts of injustice call for self-protection. Now faced with multiplying jihadi foes, the State of Israel has a corollary obligation to punish terrorist offenders.
It’s vital to note that a basic difference exists between terror violence (the crime) and Israel’s military response (the punishment). As a matter of international justice, this core difference is legally determinative and politically important.
There are pertinent details. By definition, terrorism is a crime under international law. A vulnerable state’s self-protective actions against terror crimes are law-enforcing. This assessment holds true as long as the terror-beleaguered state (here, Israel) responds with aptly-measured uses of force; i.e. — measures consistent with the codified and customary limitations of humanitarian international law.
During the Gaza War, some argued that the number of Palestinian deaths meant Israel violated the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. That is not true.
Whether Israel is operating against Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, Sunni Hamas in Gaza, or any other jihadi fighting forces based in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc., its operations intend to serve legitimate military objectives with minimum civilian harms.
To be sure, noncombatant harm can never be prevented altogether, especially when a perfidious enemy is hiding behind “human shields,” but Jerusalem does what it reasonably can do to keep collateral harms in check. Jerusalem — unlike its Islamist foes — displays no “criminal intent” (mens rea).
There is more. In its law-enforcing wars against jihadist terror, Israel acts on behalf of all law-observant countries. While this point has been difficult to acknowledge by those who focus only on the tangible effects of Israeli counter-terrorism, it is authoritatively supported by long-established global obligations. These are indispensable obligations of “mutual aid.”
By this fundamental principle, each state is required to assist other states imperiled by terror-violence. The most important historical figures in creating and explaining this requirement were Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (The Law of Nations, 1758) and English jurist William Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769). Subsequently, Blackstone’s Commentaries became the recognizable foundation of US criminal law.
The Palestinian terror crimes of October 7, 2023 — murder, rape, and hostage-taking — represent “Nuremberg-level” violations of humanitarian international law. Under compelling or “jus cogens” rules, all states — not just Israel — have a many-sided obligation to punish such criminals. Jurisprudentially, this obligation is “sacred;” it can never be diminished or removed for geo-political or “practical” reasons.
Principle 1 of The Nuremberg Principles (1950) stipulates unambiguously, “No crime without a punishment.”
Among other conclusions, there would have been no Gaza War and no Palestinian casualties if Hamas had not launched its October 7, 2023, criminal assault and war against Israelis and nationals of other assorted states.
What about Israeli “proportionality”? Under binding laws of war, and contrary to “common-sense” meanings, proportionality has nothing to do with inflicting symmetrical or equivalent harms.
Instead, it derives from a more basic legal principle, namely that belligerent rights always have variously specific limitations. If a “common-sense” definition of proportionality was authentically law-based, then America would have been the principal aggressor during World War II.
Unlike Israel, which expressly laments the collateral damage of its self-defense operations in Gaza and elsewhere, jihadi rocket fire and terror attacks are the relentless product of “criminal intent.” By unhidden design, jihadists aim to maim and kill Israeli noncombatants. In Jerusalem, this overtly criminal aim should now be re-imagined in tandem with growing jihadi access to drone weapons and incrementally/eventually to weapons of mass destruction.
It’s time for further legal details. Deception can be lawful in armed conflict, but Hague Regulations disallow placement of military assets or personnel in civilian areas. Related prohibitions of “perfidy” can be found at Protocol I of 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. These rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law.
All anti-Israel combatants, including Palestinian insurgents alleging fighting for “self-determination,” are bound by the law of war. Among other things, this basic requirement can be found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. It can never be suspended or abrogated. Israel, too, is bound by the law of war, but its Gaza War actions that killed and injured Palestinian civilians did not violate those laws.
There is something markedly ironic. The alleged jihadi goal of Palestinian “self-determination” is founded on an intended crime — that is, total “removal” of the Jewish State by attrition and annihilation. This explicitly genocidal orientation has its origins in the PLO’s “Phased Plan” of June 9, 1974.
In its 12th Session, the PLO’s highest deliberative body, the Palestinian National Council, reiterated the terror-organization’s aim “to achieve their rights to return, and to self-determination on the whole of their homeland.”
In its 1974 plan, a clarifying sequence of Palestinian violence was specifically identified “…to start a Pan-Arab War to complete the liberation of the all-Palestinian territory” (Art. 8). Ironically, this was and still remains the annihilationist plan of more mainstream Palestinian terror groups than Hamas.
At some still-indecipherable point, Hamas or other jihadi criminal forces could launch mega-terror attacks on Israel. Such potentially “perfidious” aggressions could include chemical, biological, or radiological (radiation-dispersal) weapons. Foreseeable perils could also include a non-nuclear terrorist attack on the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona. There is already a documented history of enemy assaults against this plutonium-production facility, both by a state (Iraq, in 1991) and by a Palestinian terror group (Hamas, in 2014).
International law is not a suicide pact. When jihadists celebrate the explosive “martyrdom” of manipulated Islamic civilians and when Islamist leaders seek “redemption” (i.e., “power over death”) through the mass-murder of “Jews,” the wrongdoers have no correct claims to immunity from law-based punishment.
Under international law, terrorists are considered hostes humani generis or “common enemies of humankind.” Among other things, this most egregious category of criminality invites punishment wherever the wrongdoers can be found. Concerning their required arrest and prosecution, all pertinent jurisdiction is “universal.”
What next? In all law, truth is exculpatory. Regarding the Gaza War, that conflict is anything but over. Hamas and other jihadist forces are already rearming and President Trump’s so-called international stabilization force is effectively a protracted cover for Israel’s jihadi enemies. Taken as a whole, the American president’s “peace” is merely a bitter self-parody.
In the end, Hamas and other jihadists argue they are fighting a “just war” and entitled to employ “any means necessary.” Under authoritative international law, however, even if a war is determinedly “just,” it must still be fought with determinedly “just means.” In this binding jurisprudence, ends can never justify means. Under no circumstances can there ever be law-based justifications for terror-violence.
We should recall 18th century Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel’s still-valid declaration in The Law of Nations: “An intentional act of injustice is an injury. A nation has therefore the right to punish it. … This right … is derived from the right of self-protection.”
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
UN Official Speaks at Same Event in Qatar as Hamas Leader, Iranian Foreign Minister
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
A United Nations official who has been criticized for using her role to denigrate Israel spoke at the same event in Qatar over the weekend as a senior Hamas official and Iran’s top diplomat.
The Al Jazeera Forum, which took place over the weekend in Qatar, featured speakers including Hamas former leader and current senior figure Khaled Meshaal, Iran’s foreign minister, and Francesca Albanese — the UN’s notoriously controversial special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories.
Writer and Open Source Intelligence researcher Eitan Fischberger noted that Albanese, whose job centers around human rights, would be speaking at the same event as the leader of Hamas — the terrorist organization that has ruled Gaza since 2006 and committed the October 7 attack on Israel — and Iran’s foreign minister — who is part of the regime that reportedly killed tens of thousands of civilians while they were protesting against the government.
And Albanese was not the only speaker whose professional focus is on human rights but ended up speaking at a conference with some of the world’s most notable human rights abusers. According to the Al Jazeera Forum website, a former prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a professor of international law, and a humanitarian and climate activist also spoke at the event. Additionally, at least one American professor — who teaches at the University of Maryland, College Park — spoke at the forum.
While Albanese spoke at the event, she discussed Israel being a “common enemy of humanity.”
EMBED https://x.com/HillelNeuer/status/2020454512356376911?s=20
The Anti-Defamation League responded to her appearance and comments at the forum, writing, “When will the world stop allowing Albanese to dress up hateful bias against Jews, Israel and endorsement of terrorism, as righteous indignation? ADL has long been calling for Albanese to be found in breach of the UNHRC code of conduct and to be separated from her mandate.”
The Israeli Director of the Digital Diplomacy Bureau wrote that “the mask is finally off” and that there is “No need for satire – reality writes it better.”
Albanese’s appearance at a conference with a Hamas leader is the latest chapter of her extensive history of using her role at the UN to denigrate Israel and seemingly rationalize Hamas’ attacks on the Jewish state.
In 2024, the UN launched a probe into Albanese’s conduct over allegedly accepting a trip to Australia funded by pro-Hamas organizations. UN Watch explains that in “November 2023, Ms. Albanese conducted a lobbying trip to Australia and New Zealand in which she did not conduct any investigation pursuant to her mandate. Contrary to her denials and those by the UN, this report documents how the trip was partially funded by ‘external’ groups, most likely pro-Hamas lobby groups in those countries.”
Also in 2024, Albanese claimed Israelis were “colonialists” who had “fake identities.” Previously, she defended Palestinians’ “right to resist” Israeli “occupation” at a time when over 1,100 rockets were fired by Gaza terrorists at Israel. Last year, US lawmakers called for the firing of Albanese for what they described as her “outrageous” antisemitic statements, including a 2014 letter in which she claimed America was “subjugated by the Jewish lobby.”
Albanese’s anti-Israel comments have earned her the praise of Hamas officials in the past.
In response to French President Emmanuel Macron calling Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel the “largest antisemitic massacre of the 21st century,” Albanese said, “No, Mr. Macron. The victims of Oct. 7 were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israel’s oppression.”
Video footage of the Oct. 7 onslaught showed Palestinian terrorists led by Hamas celebrating the fact that they were murdering Jews.
Nevertheless, Albanese has argued that Israel should make peace with Hamas, saying that it “needs to make peace with Hamas in order to not be threatened by Hamas.”
When asked what people do not understand about Hamas, she added, “If someone violates your right to self-determination, you are entitled to embrace resistance.”
Uncategorized
Somalia Warns Israel Against Military Base in Somaliland, Signs Defense Pact With Saudi Arabia
Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud delivers the opening keynote speech during the 17th Al Jazeera Forum, themed ”The Palestinian Cause and the Regional Balance of Power in the Context of an Emerging Multipolar World,” in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 7, 2026. Photo: Noushad Thekkayil/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has warned Israel against establishing a military base in the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, as Mogadishu bolsters strategic ties with Middle Eastern states amid mounting regional tensions.
At the Al Jazeera Forum in Doha on Saturday, Mohamud sounded the alarm over a potential Israeli military foothold in the Horn of Africa, while once again condemning Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as a “blatant breach of international law.”
Somaliland, which has claimed independence for decades in East Africa but remains largely unrecognized, is situated on the southern coast of the Gulf of Aden and bordered by Djibouti to the northwest, Ethiopia to the south and west, and Somalia to the south and east.
During Saturday’s event, Mohamud insisted that an Israeli military base in Somaliland would offer no real defensive benefit and would primarily serve as a springboard for foreign interventions.
“A base is not a tourist destination — it is a military facility, and military means either attack or defense,” he said during a speech. “There is no part of Somalia that Israel has any need to defend.”
“We will fight to the full extent of our capacity,” Mohamud continued. “We will confront any Israeli forces that enter, because we oppose this and will never allow it.”
For years now, Somalia has hosted military facilities for foreign powers, including Turkey and Egypt.
Mohamud’s remarks came after Israel last year became the first country to officially recognize the Republic of Somaliland as an independent and sovereign state — a move expected to reshape regional power dynamics as the two governments deepen political, security, and economic cooperation.
At the time, regional powers — including Egypt and Turkey — condemned Israel’s diplomatic move, saying it undermined Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
According to experts, the growing Israel-Somaliland partnership could be a “game changer” for Israel, boosting the Jewish state’s ability to counter the Yemen-based Houthi terrorist group while offering strategic and geographic advantages amid shifting regional power dynamics.
Unlike most other states in the region, Somaliland has relative security, regular elections, and a degree of political stability — qualities that make it a valuable partner for international allies and a key player in regional cooperation.
“Israel’s interference in Somalia’s sovereignty will not be tolerated,” Mohamud said during his speech. “The African continent rejects any attempts to change borders through military force or unilateral actions.”
In a move to strengthen its defense capabilities amid increasing regional instability, Somalia signed a defense cooperation pact with Saudi Arabia on Monday, aimed at enhancing military ties and providing advanced technology and training for the Somali National Army.
According to officials from both countries, the deal is intended to safeguard the Red Sea, a strategic corridor between the Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal that has increasingly drawn the attention of Gulf states.
Even though the newly signed memorandum is not a mutual defense treaty, Somali officials say it sets the stage for deeper military cooperation — a move analysts say has gained momentum following Israel’s recognition of Somaliland.
Uncategorized
‘Every Jew Will Die’: German Synagogue Receives Threatening Letter With Gun Cartridge
Illustrative: The exterior of the main synagogue in the German city of Munich. Photo: Reuters/Michaela Rehle
German authorities have opened an investigation into a death threat mailed to the Jewish Community of Munich and Upper Bavaria (IKG) amid an ongoing rise in antisemitism across Germany.
The package, received by the IKG’s community center and the Ohel Jakob Synagogue on Thursday, contained a cartridge for a handgun and a note which included such intimidations as “all the Jews belonged shot” and “every Jew will die … I will cause all the deaths.”
The Bavarian police’s Criminal Department 4 launched a probe into the incident.
Munich’s leading synagogue has previously implemented security protocols for incoming packages.
“Every shipment is controlled. In this case, it immediately became apparent that the letter had a problematic content,” Vice President Yehoshua Chmiel told the Jüdische Allgemeine newspaper. “The escalation goes on and on … We receive a lot of threats. But a letter with a real cartridge is new.”
“We feel let down,” he added. “There are no acts against antisemitism. There are speeches, but they don’t help us.”
Ludwig Spaenle, who serves as the Bavarian state government’s commissioner against antisemitism, called the hate crime “evil and inhumane” before encouraging law enforcement in their investigation.
This latest incident comes as Jews in Germany are already on edge amid a relentlessly hostile climate.
In the city of Potsdam just outside Berlin, for example, members of the Jewish community have begun expressing second thoughts about a multi-year plan to develop a kindergarten out of fear that it could become a prime target for terrorists.
Evgueni Kutikow, chairman of the Jewish Community of Potsdam, said to Märkische Allgemeine that worries about antisemitism had grown and that “one mother called me crazy when I asked her if she would enroll her child in a Jewish daycare center.”
Kutikow has resisted canceling the kindergarten’s construction, however.
“As things stand now, I’m skeptical. But I’m also not prepared to abandon the project,” he said. “We don’t live in a bubble — we see what’s happening around us and across the world.”
Last month saw two antisemitic hate crimes in Germany targeting Andreas Büttner, the commissioner for antisemitism in the state of Brandenburg in northeastern Germany.
On Jan. 5, the Brandenburg state parliament received a death threat against him. The note warned, “we will kill you” and included an inverted red triangle, a symbol used by the Islamist terrorist group Hamas to designate targets.
This messaging mirrored an arson attack against a shed on Büttner’s property days earlier, when investigators also discovered inverted red triangles. Israeli Ambassador to Germany Ron Prosor posted on X at the time explaining that “attacks on those who think differently and attempted murder: That is what the Hamas triangle stands for — in Gaza as in Brandenburg. And the hatred of Israel goes hand in hand with hatred of our democracy. The rule of law must smash these terrorist organizations — and indeed, before they strike again.”
Following the attack, Büttner stated that “the symbol sends a clear message. The red Hamas triangle is widely recognized as a sign of jihadist violence and antisemitic incitement.” He added that “anyone who uses such a thing wants to intimidate and glorify terror. This is not a protest; it is a threat.”
On Jan. 13, another antisemitic act contributed to the growing climate of fear.
Police arrested an unnamed, 32-year-old man in Giessen in an attack on a synagogue. A judge would place him on a psychiatric hold, suspecting mental illness had contributed to his actions.
The suspect allegedly pushed over boxes which contained papers and then set them on fire outside the synagogue. A prosecutor’s statement read that “thanks to the swift intervention of a passerby, the fire was quickly brought under control, preventing the flames from spreading to the residential building and the synagogue.”
Police also believe the man performed a Nazi salute outside the synagogue that evening.
The commissioner to combat antisemitism in the German state of Hesse sounded the alarm after the arson attack, warning that it reflects a “growing pogrom-like atmosphere” threatening Jewish life across the country.
Germany, like most Western countries, has experienced a surge in antisemitic incidents over the past two years, following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
According to official German government figures, antisemitic crimes jumped from 2,641 in 2022 to 6,236 in 2024, an increase of 136 percent.
“We are witnessing a growing number of antisemitic incidents. Ninety years ago, that hatred marked the beginning of the end,” Daniel Günther, the minister-president of Schleswig-Holstein, a state in northern Germany, said in a statement last month following the vandalism of a Holocaust memorial at a local synagogue in Kiel. “That is precisely why we cannot tolerate a single incident today. Every act must be investigated and punished under the rule of law.”