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
Putin and Trump Do Not Support European-Ukrainian Temporary Ceasefire Idea, the Kremlin Says
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Photo: Reuters/Maxim Shemetov
The Kremlin said on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump do not support a European-Ukrainian push for a temporary ceasefire ahead of a settlement, and that Moscow thinks Kyiv needs to make a decision on Donbas.
Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said that a call between Putin and Trump lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes and took place at the request of Trump ahead of Trump’s meeting in Miami with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
“The main thing is that the presidents of Russia and the United States hold similar views that the option of a temporary ceasefire proposed by the Ukrainians and the Europeans under the pretext of preparing for a referendum or under other pretexts only leads to a prolongation of the conflict and is fraught with renewed hostilities,” Ushakov said.
Ushakov said that for hostilities to end, Kyiv needed to make a “bold decision” in line with Russian-US discussions on Donbas.
“Given the current situation on the fronts, it would make sense for the Ukrainian regime to make this decision regarding Donbas.”
Russia, which controls 90 percent of Donbas, wants Ukraine to withdraw its forces from the 10 percent of the area that Kyiv’s forces still control. Overall, Russia controls about a fifth of Ukraine.
Trump has repeatedly promised to end the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War Two and his envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner have been negotiating with Russia, Ukraine and European powers.
Ukraine and its European allies are worried that Trump could sell out Ukraine and leave European powers to foot the bill for supporting a devastated Ukraine after Russian forces took 12-17 square km (4.6-6.6 square miles) of Ukraine per day in 2025.
“Donald Trump listened attentively to Russian assessments of the real prospects for reaching an agreement,” Ushakov said.
“Trump persistently pursued the idea that it was really necessary to end the war as soon as possible, and spoke about the impressive prospects for economic cooperation between the United States and Russia and Ukraine that were opening up,” Ushakov said.
Uncategorized
Zelensky to Meet Trump in Florida for Talks on Ukraine Peace Plan
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 17, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump will meet in Florida on Sunday to forge a plan to end the war in Ukraine, but face differences over major issues, including territory, as Russian air raids pile pressure on Kyiv.
Russia hit the capital and other parts of Ukraine with hundreds of missiles and drones on Saturday, knocking out power and heat in parts of the capital. On Saturday, during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Nova Scotia, Zelensky called it Russia’s response to the US-brokered peace efforts.
Zelensky has told journalists that he plans to discuss the fate of eastern Ukraine’s contested Donbas region during the meeting at Trump’s Florida residence, as well as the future of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and other topics.
The Ukrainian president and his delegation arrived in Florida late on Saturday, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsya said on X.
RUSSIA CLAIMS MORE BATTLEFIELD ADVANCES
Moscow has repeatedly insisted that Ukraine yield all of the Donbas, even areas still under Kyiv’s control, and Russian officials have objected to other parts of the latest proposal, sparking doubts about whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would accept whatever Sunday’s talks might produce.
Putin said on Saturday Moscow would continue waging its war if Kyiv did not seek a quick peace. Russia has steadily advanced on the battlefield in recent months, claiming control over several more settlements on Sunday.
The Ukrainian president told Axios on Friday he hopes to soften a US proposal for Ukrainian forces to withdraw completely from the Donbas. Failing that, Zelensky said the entire 20-point plan, the result of weeks of negotiations, should be put to a referendum.
A recent poll suggests that Ukrainian voters may reject the plan.
Zelensky’s in-person meeting with Trump, scheduled for 1 p.m. (1800 GMT), follows weeks of diplomatic efforts. European allies, while at times cut out of the loop, have stepped up efforts to sketch out the contours of a post-war security guarantee for Kyiv that the United States would support.
On Sunday, ahead of his meeting with Trump, Zelensky said he held a detailed phone call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Trump and Zelensky were also expected to hold a phone call with European leaders during their Florida meeting, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian president said on Sunday.
STICKING POINTS OVER TERRITORY
Kyiv and Washington have agreed on many issues, and Zelensky said on Friday that the 20-point plan was 90% finished. But the issue of what territory, if any, will be ceded to Russia remains unresolved.
While Moscow insists on getting all of the Donbas, Kyiv wants the map frozen at current battle lines.
The United States, seeking a compromise, has proposed a free economic zone if Ukraine leaves the area, although it remains unclear how that zone would function in practical terms.
It has also proposed shared control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, where power line repairs have begun after another local ceasefire brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency said on Sunday.
Zelensky, whose past meetings with Trump have not always gone smoothly, worries along with his European allies that Trump could sell out Ukraine and leave European powers to foot the bill for supporting a devastated nation, after Russian forces took 12 to 17 square km (4.6-6.6 square miles) of its territory per day in 2025.
Russia controls all of Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, and since its invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago has taken control of about 12 percent of its territory, including about 90 percent of Donbas, 75 percent of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and slivers of the Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions, according to Russian estimates.
Putin said on December 19 that a peace deal should be based on conditions he set out in 2024: Ukraine withdrawing from all of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, and Kyiv officially renouncing its aim to join NATO.
Ukrainian officials and European leaders view the war as an imperial-style land grab by Moscow and have warned that if Russia gets its way with Ukraine, it will one day attack NATO members.
The 20-point plan was spun off from a Russian-led 28-point plan, which emerged from talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev, and which became public in November.
Subsequent talks between Ukrainian officials and U.S. negotiators have produced the more Kyiv-friendly 20-point plan.
Uncategorized
Central African Republic Votes, Russia Ally Touadera Seeks Third Term
People wait to cast their vote at a polling station during the presidential election in Bangui, Central African Republic, December 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/ Leger Serge Kokpakpa
Central African Republic President Faustin-Archange Touadera is seeking a third term on Sunday as the chronically unstable country holds national elections, touting security gains made with the help of Russian mercenaries and Rwandan soldiers.
The 68-year-old mathematician oversaw a constitutional referendum in 2023 that scrapped the presidential term limit, drawing an outcry from his critics who accused him of seeking to rule for life.
A Touadera victory – the expected outcome – would likely further the interests of Russia, which has traded security assistance for access to resources including gold and diamonds. Touadera is also offering access to the country’s lithium and uranium reserves to anyone interested.
Polling stations opened on time at 6 a.m. (0500 GMT) in the capital, Bangui, a Reuters witness said. They were due to close at 6 p.m. (1700 GMT), with provisional results expected by January 5. Nearly 2.4 million people were registered to vote.
Casting her ballot in Bangui, shopkeeper Beatrice Mokonzapa said women had “suffered greatly” during Central African Republic’s years of conflict but that the situation had improved.
“We have security today. I hope it continues. And for that, President Touadera is best placed to guarantee our security,” she said.
SIX OPPONENTS CHALLENGE TOUADERA
The opposition field of six candidates is led by two former prime ministers, Anicet-Georges Dologuele and Henri-Marie Dondra, both of whom survived attempts by Touadera’s supporters to have them disqualified for allegedly holding foreign citizenship.
Though both men remain on the ballot, Touadera is still seen as the favorite given his control over state institutions and superior financial resources, analysts say.
In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, Dondra said the playing field was “unbalanced” and that he had been unable to travel as widely as Touadera to campaign. He nevertheless predicted he would have a strong showing.
The challenges to the candidacies of Dologuele and Dondra “aligned with an apparent pattern of administrative manoeuvring that has disproportionately impeded opposition politicians while favouring the ruling United Hearts Party,” Human Rights Watch said last month.
Voting in the capital early on Sunday, teacher Albert Komifea said he wanted a change, without specifying who he had backed.
“They did everything they could to prevent the opposition from campaigning effectively, in order to reduce their chances,” he said. “But the ballot box will confirm that change is now.”
RUSSIA AND RWANDA REINFORCE TOUADERA
In 2018, CAR became the first country in West and Central Africa to bring in Russia’s Wagner mercenaries, a step since also taken by Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
Two years later, Rwanda deployed troops to shore up Touadera’s government as rebel groups threatened the capital and tried to disrupt the 2020 elections, ultimately preventing voting at 800 polling stations across the country, or 14% of the total.
The country is more secure now after Touadera signed several peace deals with rebel groups this year.
But those gains remain fragile: Rebels have not fully disarmed, reintegration is incomplete, and incursions by combatants from neighboring Sudan fuel insecurity in the east.
Beyond the presidential contest, the elections on Sunday cover legislative, regional and municipal positions.
If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, a presidential runoff will take place on February 15, while legislative runoffs will take place on April 5.
Pangea-Risk, a consultancy, wrote in a note to clients that the risk of unrest after the election was high as opponents were likely to challenge Touadera’s expected victory.
A smooth voting process could reinforce Touadera’s claim that stability is returning, which was buttressed last year with the U.N. Security Council’s lifting of an arms embargo and the lifting of a separate embargo on diamond exports.
In November, the U.N. Security Council extended the mandate of its peacekeeping mission. The US opposed the decision, calling for a shorter extension and a handover of security to Bangui.