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
Somalia’s South West State Says It Has Severed Ties With the Federal Government
FILE PHOTO: Somalia’s presidential candidate of South West state Abdiaziz Hassan Mohamed speaks inside the Somali Parliament house in Mogadishu, Somalia April 30, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Feisal Omar/File Photo
Somalia’s South West state said on Tuesday it was suspending all cooperation and relations with the government in Mogadishu, the latest sign of strain in the Horn of Africa country’s fragile federal system.
At a press conference, South West officials accused the federal government of arming militias and trying to unseat the state’s president, Abdiaziz Hassan Mohamed Laftagareen. Somalia’s defense and information ministers did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
Disputes over constitutional changes, elections and the balance of power between Mogadishu and regional administrations repeatedly open up political fault lines in Somalia. The South West administration says relations with Mogadishu worsened after the federal government pushed through constitutional amendments opposed by some state leaders.
Travel agencies told Reuters on Tuesday that commercial flights between Mogadishu and Baidoa, the administrative capital of South West state, had been halted. Humanitarian flights, including for United Nations operations, were continuing. Baidoa, which lies about 245 km (150 miles) northwest of Mogadishu, is a politically and militarily sensitive city because it hosts federal troops, regional security forces and international humanitarian operations in a zone affected by drought, conflict and displacement.
The Mogadishu government’s relations with other states have also been fraught. Somaliland declared independence in 1991 and has long been outside Mogadishu’s control. The administration of semi-autonomous Puntland said in March 2024 it would no longer recognize the federal government until disputed constitutional amendments were approved in a nationwide referendum.
Semi-autonomous Jubbaland suspended ties with Mogadishu in November 2024 in a dispute over regional elections.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran Sees Control of Strait of Hormuz as Victory Over US, Israel
An LPG gas tanker at anchor as traffic is down in the Strait of Hormuz, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Shinas, Oman, March 11, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Benoit Tessier/File Photo
i24 News – Iran is showing no indication it is ready to end the war with the United States and Israel, as officials say Tehran is relying on its control over the Strait of Hormuz to increase global economic pressure and strengthen its position.
According to regional officials cited by The Washington Post, Iran is rejecting diplomatic efforts to identify an off-ramp and instead escalating attacks on neighboring countries. An Iranian diplomat said the strategy is to “make this aggression super expensive for the aggressors,” as Tehran faces sustained military pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz remains central to Iran’s calculations. The waterway carries roughly one-fifth of global fuel shipments, and its partial closure has disrupted energy markets. US President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour deadline for Iran to reopen the route, warning of further escalation if it does not comply.
Iranian officials and diplomats said the leadership views its ability to maintain pressure through the strait as a short-term success, even as infrastructure damage mounts. “They don’t feel any pressure to negotiate,” one European diplomat based in the Gulf said, adding that Iran sees its influence over oil markets as a form of leverage.
At the same time, efforts to mediate a ceasefire have so far failed. Officials from Qatar and Oman approached Iran last week, but Tehran said it would only engage if US and Israeli strikes stopped first. An Iranian diplomat said the country would not accept a “premature ceasefire” and is seeking guarantees, including compensation and commitments to prevent future attacks.
The war has already caused significant damage. The Pentagon says more than 15,000 targets have been struck across Iran, while Iranian authorities report over 1,200 civilian deaths. The conflict has also expanded regionally, with Iranian strikes targeting energy infrastructure in Gulf states following attacks on its own facilities.
Despite mounting losses, analysts say Iran’s leadership believes prolonging the conflict could shift pressure onto Washington and its allies through rising energy prices and regional instability. “We’re still on an escalatory path,” said Alan Eyre, a former US official, adding that Tehran is attempting to “up the costs” rather than move toward negotiations.
Uncategorized
Persistent Iran War, Energy Price Surge Set to Sway Wavering Stocks
Stock ticker. Photo: Ahmad Ardity/Wikimedia Commons.
A Middle East crisis that has convulsed markets should remain the focal point for Wall Street in the near term, as investors stay glued to developments in Iran and the fallout from surging energy prices.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran stretches to three weeks, an over 40% jump in oil prices is driving worries about higher inflation and stagnating economic growth.
Inflationary concerns on Friday were prompting markets to rule out any equity-friendly interest rate cuts this year, which investors previously had been counting on, with futures trading instead suggesting modest chances of hikes in 2026. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell expressed deep uncertainty at the US central bank’s meeting on Wednesday about how the crisis would factor into the economy, muddying its ability to forecast conditions ahead.
US stocks suffered sharp declines to end the week. The benchmark S&P 500 stock index posted its fourth straight weekly decline and hit a six-month low, while the Nasdaq Composite ended down nearly 10% below its October all-time high.
Middle East tensions escalated this week. Iran attacked energy facilities across the region following Israel’s strike on its gas field, while officials told Reuters on Friday that the US military is deploying thousands of Marines to the Middle East.
“This is a situation that’s so fluid,” said Chris Fasciano, chief market strategist at Commonwealth Financial Network. “We could have a resolution in the next week or it could go on for some time. And the longer it goes on, you start to think about the impacts it could have on the US economy.”
WATCHING OIL, STOCKS’ ‘ORDERLY’ REACTION
Swings in crude prices have rippled through asset classes. US crude settled around $98 a barrel on Friday, while Brent ended around $112. In addition to the attacks on energy infrastructure, traffic has stalled in the Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes.
The 20-day correlation between the S&P 500 and US crude stood at -0.89 late on Friday, according to LSEG data, a strong inverse relationship that showed they have tended to move in opposite directions.
“If you’re a trader, you watch oil prices because I do think that that’s generally giving the leading indicator as to how the financial markets are viewing the outlook for the conflict,” said Eric Kuby, chief investment officer at North Star Investment Management Corp.
The S&P 500 energy sector, which includes shares of oil companies, has gained since crude prices began to spike in late February, but the group accounts for less than a 4% weight in the benchmark index.
The latest declines left the S&P 500 down 6.8% from its record closing high set in late January. The pullback has mostly lacked the chaotic quality of the abrupt equity slide last April following President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement that set off broad economic worries, Fasciano said.
“This has been fairly orderly, which I think is an encouraging sign,” Fasciano said. “And I think it’s because the underlying fundamentals for corporate America are still fairly robust and are offering some support.”
TREASURY YIELDS, MARKET TECHNICALS ALSO IN FOCUS
Fast-climbing Treasury yields, driven higher by the energy price spike and caution from global central banks, were looming as a risk factor for stocks. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield was last at 4.38% on Friday, its highest level since last summer.
Keith Lerner, chief investment officer at Truist Advisory Services, said he was watching whether the 10-year Treasury yield sustainably rises above 4.3%, which could increase pressure on stocks, while he was also eyeing 4.5% as a key level.
“Rates going higher means borrowing costs are somewhat higher. And then that could actually slow the economy,” Lerner said. “At some point, if they keep going higher, then the relative attractiveness of (bond) yields becomes more attractive relative to equities.”
Stocks were also around key technical levels. The S&P 500 on Thursday closed below its 200-day moving average — a closely watched long-term trendline — for the first time since May. With another decline on Friday, the index ended at its lowest point since September and fell below November lows that strategists had also identified as worrisome levels.
Reports on manufacturing, services activity and consumer sentiment highlight a relatively light week ahead for US economic data. A major energy conference in Houston that will feature top global industry executives could draw Wall Street’s attention.
Events in Iran were likely to loom largest. In a note on Thursday morning, analysts at UBS Global Wealth Management said the latest developments were “pushing markets to price in a higher risk of prolonged conflict, deeper infrastructure damage and higher-for-longer crude prices.”
“While a less damaging outcome in the Strait of Hormuz remains possible, recent events have narrowed that path and heightened the risk of continued volatility,” the UBS analysts said.