Navigating the Middle East from Israeli Waters: Terrorism, Survival, and International Law
As jihadist threats escalate and legal distortions proliferate, Israel must steer its course with both moral clarity and operational resolve—anchored in the rights of self-defense under international law
IDF soldiers carry the coffin of Israeli soldier, staff sergeant Yoav Raver who was killed in Gaza. Sde Warburg, Israel, June 8, 2025. REUTERS/Shir Torem
From the beginning, Israel’s ship of state has had to navigate rough waters. Now, “seas” of jihadi terrorism and Iranian nuclearization threaten to “sink” this “ship.” What should be done to keep the imperiled vessel afloat? A correct answer is required in both legal (international law) and operational terms.
For Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Houthis and other Islamist foes, “criminal intent” or mens rea is plain. For Israel, conspicuously, no such insidious intent even exists. Though Gaza’s civilians do not deserve to endure any harms of Israeli military action, the legal responsibility for such necessary action lies with the Palestinian side.
International law is not a suicide pact. As is the case for every state in world politics, Israel has an incontestable right to survive. In order to protect itself against the sorts of lascivious harms perpetrated on October 7, 2023, Jerusalem has a law-based obligation to “stay alive.” Unless jihadi terrorism is capably countered, it will only b e a matter of time before state-supported jihadi criminals resort to chemical, biological or radiological terrorism.
The “Islamic Resistance Movement” crimes of October 7, 2023 – murder, rape and hostage-taking – represent Nuremberg-level violations of humanitarian international law. Under “peremptory” or jus cogens rules, all states have an obligation to punish terror-criminals. It follows, among other things, that Israel’s indispensable efforts to counter jihadi terror activities benefit not only itself, but all other civilized nations.
There is more. Unlike Israel, Hamas fully intends to target, maim and kill noncombatants. Hamas leaders also deliberately seek the death of Palestinian noncombatants by Israeli military action, a grotesque objective ipso facto, but one that creates useful “martyrs” and keeps jihadist masterminds safe (and wealthy) in Qatar, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Even where an insurgency seemingly satisfies the criteria of “just cause,” it must still satisfy corollary expectations of “just means.” Whatever the cause, placing military terror assets amid Palestinian civilian populations represents a “perfidious” crime of war. Similarly, any taking of civilian hostages represents unpardonable jihadi criminality.
There is more. Deception can be lawful in armed conflict, but TheHague Regulations disallow any placement of military assets or personnel in populated 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, a principal jurisprudential source identified at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
All combatants, including Palestinian insurgents allegedly fighting for self-determination, are bound by the law of war. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. It cannot be suspended or abrogated.
Israel, too, is bound by the law of war, but the Gaza War is necessary to its survival. Under law, unintentional harms resulting from Israel’s actions are the exclusive responsibility of the perfidious terrorist belligerent and its state supporters. This identifies both the Hamas criminals who cower behind human shields and the nuclearizing Islamic Republic of Iran.
The openly-expressed Hamas goal of Palestinian self-determination is founded on an intended crime – removal of the Jewish State by attrition and annihilation. This literally 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 proposed sequence of Palestinian violence was plainly identified: FIRST, "to establish a combatant national authority over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated" (Art. 2); SECOND, "to use that territory to continue the fight against Israel" (Art. 4); and THIRD, "to start a Pan-Arab War to complete the liberation of the all-Palestinian territory” (Art. 8). Ironically, this was and remains the annihilationist plan of a more “mainstream” Palestinian terror group than Hamas, an organization that Hamas has always considered as too moderate.
For Israel, the core existential threat is no longer “Pan-Arab War.” At some still-ambiguous point, Hamas and other jihadi forces (plausibly, with Iranian support) could prepare to launch mega-terror attacks on Israel. Such potentially perfidious aggressions, unprecedented and in cooperation with allied non-Palestinian Jihadists (e.g., Shiite Hezbollah) could include chemical, biological or radiological (radiation-dispersal) weapons.
International law is not a suicide pact. Even amid long-enduring world-system anarchy, it offers a binding body of rules and procedures that permits any beleaguered state to accept its "inherent right of self-defense." But when Hamas celebrates the explosive "martyrdom" of manipulated Palestinian civilians and Palestinian leaders seek "redemption" (i.e., a presumed power over death) through the mass-murder of Jews (sometimes “Zionists”), the wrongdoers have no rightful claims to immunity.
Moreover, Hamas celebrations of “martyrdom” underscore the two-sided nature of Palestinian terror/sacrifice - that is, primal sacrifice of the reviled “Jew" and reciprocal sacrifice of the sacred “martyr." Significantly, this murderous reasoning is codified within the Charter of Hamas as a "religious problem."
In law, truth is exculpatory. Regarding the Gaza War, pertinent truth is unambiguous. Yet again, Israel is waging a no-choice war against an exterminatory foe, this time a jihadist terrorist organization that seeks annihilation for Israel, eternality for its “martyrs” and luxury-laden safety for its corrupt leaders. In assessing these circumstances, the international community should take more seriously the evident truth of jihadi lawlessness and the patent falsity of Israeli wrongdoing.
LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971). Born in Zürich at the end of World War II, he is the author of many books, monographs, and articles dealing with Israeli nuclear strategy. Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, he has lectured on this topic for over fifty years at leading universities and academic centers for strategic studies. Dr. Beres' twelfth book, Israel's Nuclear Strategy: Surviving amid Chaos, was published by Rowman and Littlefield, in 2016 (2nd ed., 2018). In December 2016, Professor Beres authored a monograph at Tel-Aviv University (with a special postscript by retired USA General Barry McCaffrey), Israel's Nuclear Strategy and American National Security. In 2003-2004, he was Chair of Israel’s “Project Daniel” (Iranian nuclear weapons/PM Ariel Sharon).