Daily Alert Archives

Israel's Strike in Qatar Was Justified

(Daily Wire) Mark Goldfeder and Maj. (ret.) John Spencer - The UN Security Council has condemned Israel's strike last week against the leaders of Hamas in Qatar. However, this position is legally uninformed. Harboring a terrorist organization is an outright violation of binding international law, and any state that does so should expect an appropriate response. International law has acknowledged that if irregular forces caused destruction on a scale comparable to that of a regular army, those acts could be considered armed attacks. Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to inflict destruction on a massive scale, as seen in its October 7, 2023, massacre of Israeli civilians, its ongoing rocket fire, its continued holding of Israeli hostages, and its declared intent to repeat such attacks. By any reasonable military or legal standard, Israel has the right to target those directing such operations wherever they are located. After 9/11 in 2001, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373, stating that states must "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts" and must "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens." Countries around the world consistently rely on this doctrine to go after terrorists. Turkey has conducted operations in Iraq to go after the PKK. India cited it to justify surgical strikes within Pakistan to go after groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and France applied it to conduct operations against violent jihadist groups in Mali, Niger, and Chad. After 9/11, President Bush stated: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." President Obama repeatedly invoked the notion of denying terrorist groups safe havens when justifying U.S. strikes and operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Iraq. International law requires necessity and proportionality. Here, necessity is obvious because Qatar is not detaining Hamas leaders or halting their activities. Proportionality is satisfied, since these are precise, intelligence-driven strikes aimed not at Qatari civilians but at individuals orchestrating terrorist campaigns. In modern military terms, this is a textbook example of how a state can apply force in a manner that is both lawful and restrained, targeting the enemy while minimizing civilian harm. History shows that when states allow terrorist sanctuaries to fester, violence metastasizes. Israel's strike in Qatar is part of a long-established, legally grounded, and militarily necessary practice: denying safe haven to those who would continue to massacre innocents if left untouched. Mark Goldfeder is CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center and a law professor at Touro University. John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at West Point's Modern War Institute.
2025-09-18 00:00:00
Full Article