This is a good exposition of the law but conflict takes place in a war zone rather than a courtroom. Suffice it to say that you can’t deliberately target civilians nor can you take out a military object if the collateral damage is disproportionate to the object. Note that you have the right to use enough force to win. Ted Belman
By Guglielmo Verdirame, Department of War Studies, King’s College London, BBC
International law regulates the use of military force by states and the conduct of hostilities.
As in virtually every modern conflict, there is intense debate on the legality of the actions of the two sides involved here – Israel and Hamas.
Israel argues that its Operation Pillar of Defence is justified under the right of self-defence. This position has in principle been supported by various countries, including the US and EU member states.
Enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right of self-defence is accepted as a fundamental principle of international law. While aspects of this principle are disputed, it is universally agreed that a state can defend itself against an armed attack.
There is some debate as to the intensity that an armed attack should reach before a state can lawfully resort to self-defence. Most international lawyers would agree that rockets launched against civilians that disrupt the social life of part of a country constitute an armed attack for the purposes of Article 51.
Self-defence
A case for self-defence is sometimes contested on factual grounds, for example with the argument that it was the other side that attacked first. In this case, critics of the Israeli position also advance two legal arguments.
First, they argue that the right of self-defence should be invoked only against another state, but not against a non-state entity like Gaza. State practice, especially since the attacks of 11 September 2001, militates against this interpretation of self-defence.
Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are always banned under international law.
Secondly, some commentators maintain that Gaza is still subject to Israeli occupation because of the ongoing blockade, and that Israel cannot rely on self-defence in an occupied territory. Israel argues against this, pointing to its withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.
In a legal sense, “blockade” and “occupation” are concepts that have been understood in international law as distinct for some time. The conflation of the two is novel, and it runs into logical difficulties when its proponents characterise a ground operation as an “invasion”.
The right of self-defence is no blank cheque. International law allows states to defend themselves only with force that is necessary and proportionate.
A common misperception is that proportionality in self-defence means an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket, or a casualty for a casualty. This is not so: there is no place in international law for using force in revenge.
In some cases, a necessary and proportionate response will entail the use of greater military force than was involved in the original attack; in other cases, it will be possible for a country to defend itself effectively with less force.
The principle of self-defence belongs to the body of international law that regulates resort to force or “going to war” (often referred to by the Latin term jus ad bellum, that is “law to war”).
The other relevant body of international law regulates the conduct of hostilities once the conflict has started. It is known as the law of armed conflict (or the jus in bello that is “law in war”).
International law maintains a strict separation between these two bodies of law.
Starting a war off on the right side of the law does not give a state more rights in the conduct of hostilities than its enemies. It is possible for a state that resorted to force lawfully to commit unlawful acts in the course of an armed conflict – and vice versa.
Humanity
The law of armed conflict also limits the amount of force that states can lawfully use.
It is not easy to establish the facts during or after an armed conflict
A key principle is that of humanity: belligerents should always avoid unnecessary suffering.
The principle of humanity must however be balanced against the principle of military necessity.
The legal manual used by the British armed forces says that military necessity allows a state to use force, unless otherwise prohibited, which is
-
“required in order to achieve the legitimate purpose of the conflict, namely the complete or partial submission of the enemy at the earliest possible moment and with the minimum expenditure of life and resources”.
The argument that the Israeli bombardments are ineffective because they have so far failed to completely stop rocket attacks can cut both ways.
Strategically, it may identify a fundamental weakness in the Israeli response and suggest the pursuit of non-forcible alternatives. But, from a military necessity angle, it may justify an escalation in the force that Israel uses so as to achieve the objective of averting the attacks.
Of course, the fact that the law authorises a certain action does not make it wise in a political or strategic sense.
Distinction
A cornerstone in the law of armed conflict is the principle of distinction: parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians at all times.
Various specific rules flesh out the content of this principle. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are always banned. Attacks may be conducted against combatants or non-combatants who directly participate in hostilities, and against military objectives.
The principle of distinction also prohibits acts or threats of violence aimed at spreading terror among civilians, as well as attacks carried out with means which by their nature cannot target a specific military objective. The launching of missiles against southern Israel is said to breach distinction.
But when does an object become a legitimate military target?
International law defines military objectives as “objects which… make an effective contribution to military action… and whose total or partial destruction… offers a definite military advantage”.
Rocket launchers and ammunition depots are in this category. Problems arise with so-called dual-use targets, such as the Serbian TV station bombed by Nato during the 1999 Kosovo War and the media building targeted by Israel in the course of Operation Pillar of Defence.
Proportionality
What about a building which contains a military objective, such as a rocket launcher, but which also houses civilians?
An accusation levelled against Hamas is that it endangers its own civilians
This example illustrates the importance of another pillar of the law of armed conflict: the principle of proportionality. Whenever there is a risk of loss of civilian life or damage to civilian property, belligerents are required to balance the anticipated military advantage with the risks posed to civilians and their property.
In some cases this may mean – as the former president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, wrote in one of her judgements – that “even a legitimate target may not be attacked if the collateral civilian casualties would be disproportionate to the specific military gain from the attack”.
An attacker is also under a duty to call off an attack immediately if, in the course of it, it realizes that civilians would face excessive risk.
An attacker targeting military objectives in a densely populated area like Gaza must do everything feasible to verify the nature of the targets and avoid errors.
The practice of dropping leaflets or calling residents before a bombing is presented by Israel as evidence of its efforts to comply with these rules, although critics reply that these methods are not always effective and do not in any event prevent the destruction of civilian property.
Obligations
A frequent accusation levelled against Hamas is that it deliberately endangers its own civilians by placing military objectives in their midst.
This is certainly a serious breach of the laws of armed conflict, but it does not mitigate Israel’s obligation to continue to take all necessary precautions to minimise loss of civilian life.
All modern armed forces, including the Israel Defense Forces, have specialists on the law of armed conflict who are involved in the approval of targets.
Ultimately, the legality of a particular targeting decision will often depend on who is right about what happened. Was there a genuine military objective? Was it possible in the circumstances to hit that target while avoiding any loss of civilian life? What did the attacker know or should have known?
Establishing these facts during an armed conflict, or in its aftermath, is no easy feat.
However, when the attacker deliberately targets civilian objects, there is no version of the facts capable of justifying his actions under the laws of armed conflict.
The legal regulation of war is a sombre affair. This is an area of the law where starry-eyed idealism may be counter-productive.
It is better to remind ourselves that during an armed conflict, the law can at best reduce suffering but never eliminate it; and that wars, even those fought with a scrupulous observance of all the rules in the book, are always a scourge.
Guglielmo Verdirame is professor of International Law at the Department of War Studies and Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.
@ WB: WB, I can be emailed at allenhertz@hotmail.com
@ Allen Z. Hertz:
Mr. Hertz: How can I contact you privately?
@ Allen Z. Hertz:
Fooled you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Homey Bee: Though I did previously reply to an anonymous comment from “Honey Bee,” you are now commenting as “Homey Bee,” not “Honey Bee.” This now is my first reply to a comment from an anonymous commentator called “Homey Bee.”
@ Allen Z. Hertz:
Dpm’t patronize me Mr. Hertz, Iam a carnivorous killer bee.
@ Honey Bee:
Jews know too well right without might.
Mr Hertz, probably i did something wrong and the link i posted is incorporated in the whole paragraph of my reply to you.
@ Allen Z. Hertz:
Great post Mr Hertz, the one in your site on proportionality. I have made a moral argument here (in Israpundit) but it is not as professional as yours – still, it’s good philosophy.
Your site is great, and i will certainly be visiting the “Jewish aboriginal rights to Israel”, for i have noticed that lots of anti-Israel commentators always bring up the justified (to their minds) reaction of Palestinians to “occupation”. I always beat such claims on account of the two peace offers of 2000 and 2008 that israel made and Palestinians rejected, plus the Gaza disengagement that was met with rocket fire: so, my argument goes, it is not that Palestinians are occupied people which constitutes the reason of the conflict, but that Jihadi pride cannot swallow coexisting as equals with former dhimmis. I was able to silence some of them on this account, so i had no motivation to search deeper for something that establishes Israel’s right to the land (i know the basics of Israel’s right, but i cannot enter a debate on an issue i do not feel 100% capable of defending, it would be a disservice to the idea i am trying to protect if i loose the public debate on someone who is more knowledgeable, albeit wrong. But now that i have one more resource, i’ll look into that – never hurts to be able to take on anti-Israel propaganda on more than one counts.
Thank you very much for the link, i appreciate it.
@ Honey Bee: Honey Bee, I agree with you that nobody likes to lose and that victory is sweet. But at the same time, it is good to have something to say, because –practically speaking– international law is akin to an ongoing discussion about rights, in which every country and NGO has its lawyers, and every law professor an opinion. Even victorious countries have an awful lot to say about international law, which is normally an appeal to the conscience and/or the self interest of the other players in the global game. You are right in saying that power in all its manifestations plays the biggest role in international relations. However, there is also some place for discussion and the presentation of arguments. And sad to say, the Israel government has not always found it convenient to provide all the international arguments that it could easily adduce. Moreover, the friends of Israel have often been too shy about making the moral and legal case for Israel. May Israel always be strong and victorious! But simultaneously, may Israel always speak clearly with persuasive arguments that appeal to the conscience and/or self-interest of others!
@ Allen Z. Hertz:
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
I heartily agree — there is a duty to speak out, inter alia, because if we remain silent, there is always some danger that others might suppose that we agree with the never ending war against Judaism, Jews, the Jewish People and Israel. For this reason, I spend some time and energy developing my website “audi alteram partem” (hear the argument of the other side) which can be found at http://www.allenzhertz.com There, I publish or republish a variety of my writings about the history of international law, antisemsitsm, and Israel. For example, I have an October 2011 posting entitled “Jewish Aboriginal Rights to Israel” that deals head on with the issue of the fundamental justice of Israel’s creation.
@ Joe Hamilton:
Sherman’s march through Georgia ended the Civil War. Jackson “Shoot them all and G-d sort them out”.
@ Steve4peace:
IN Texas you come to my door to harm or mine I shoot you dead. No cops[out here there are none] no mess, no lawyers, no problem
@ WB: Replying to WB, you say “I personally don’t see a moral or legal obligation to help them accomplish self-government.” Actually, there may be precisely some such legal obligation in the Oslo Accords and related agreements. However, that is certainly not what I have written above. Rather, I refer to the moral and legal consequences of the key political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples, where self-identification is the primary criterion. Although the primary purpose of Arab self-identification as “Palestinian” may well be to kill the Jews and grab the land between the Jordan River and the Sea, we are probably required to accept their new (circa 1960 CE) general self-identification as “the Palestinian People.” And, if there is such a newly self-identified Palestinian People, it logically does have claims to self-determination, independence and territory. But, that is very far from the end of the story, because the Jewish People has prior aboriginal, treaty and self-determination rights. In this context, the Palestinian People lacks a moral or legal right to wage a decolonization war against the Jewish People and Israel, inter alia because the Jewish People’s aboriginal rights certainly include “the right to life.” Namely, Jews have a a moral and legal right to live safely in the “national home for the Jewish People” that stretches from the Jordan River to the Sea, as specifically recognized in a series of declarations, resolutions and treaties from 1917 to 1923. Simultaneously, one People lacks a right to rule over another People. Thus, a full-and-final peace treaty agreed “today” would probably have to waive most Jewish aboriginal and treaty rights with respect to land “now” mostly inhabited by Palestinians, wishing to live in a new Palestinian State. By the same principle, such a treaty would probably have to include within Israel land “now” mostly inhabited by Jews. If so, there would be no “legal” requirement to compensate a new Palestinian State for Israel’s retention of some territory beyond the 1949 armistice demarcation lines (ADL). Firstly, the 1949 armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan explicitly say that the ADL are without prejudice to a final political settlement. Secondly, no Arab government has ever recognized the ADL as the legitimate and permanent borders of the Jewish State. Thirdly, the peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) indicate as Israel’s international borders, not the ADL, but rather to the west the old Sinai boundary with Egypt, and to the east the Jordan River. Fourthly, the Jewish People’s aboriginal, treaty and self-determination rights are so fundamental that they probably outweigh anything that might be said on behalf of the current legal status of the ADL. A full-and-final peace treaty could also draw on Jewish aboriginal and treaty rights to include one or more specific paragraphs ensuring that Jews have free and secure access to certain religious sites, sacred to Judaism for more than two millennia. This might have some impact in Jerusalem and in one or more other places west of the Jordan River. Finally, the Jewish People’s aboriginal, treaty and self-determination rights combine to argue for significant safeguards to ensure that a new Palestinian State could never be a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel. Because the Jewish People remains a vulnerable aboriginal minority in the Muslim and Arab Middle East, a full-and-final peace treaty would probably need to have a number of effective stipulations for Jewish security. And, such safety measures should probably embrace both significant military provisions and an article unequivocally recognizing the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as the Jewish State, i.e. as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People in a part of its aboriginal homeland. Does all or part of this trouble you? If so, don’t lose any sleep, because there is close to zero likelihood that the Palestinians would ever accept the foregoing requirements which, inter alia, imply that any new Palestinian jurisdiction would have to be: (a) without control of its own airspace; (b) like Costa Rica without an army; and (c) like Switzerland without the right to make military alliances with other countries.
Allen Z. Hertz Said:
Please elaborate on this.
COMMENT: I personally don’t see a moral or legal obligation to help them accomplish self-government. The entire enterprise is a fraud. We have 63 years of hard evidence that respecting their “honor and dignity” has only made them lust for more. They don’t want to live as equals. They want to dominate everything. They want to eliminate all of us who won’t accept dhimmitude (like their ancestors forced on us). They’ll leave a few token Jews here and there, and allow a few Jewish business to keep providing the critical services they need and can’t seem to learn how to do for themselves. Having compassion for them and capitulating to their demands, even minor ones, has been and always will be a mistake.
Israel made Gaza Judenrein and allowed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas operation to establish itself as the de facto military/police ruler of Gaza. The Hamas operation in Yesha focused on the educated classes, business owners, social service and educational bureaucracies (including UNRWA), and eventually got control of the religious bureaucracies. The Gaza and Yesha operations will converge (it’s likely this has already taken place in private). I suspect that all the alleged hostility between Hamas and Fatah has been a ruse (like Sadat’s pretending to be at odds with the Russians while actually getting ready for a massive invasion).
Israel is now facilitating a public image and legal transformation of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas. With a few exceptions here and there, Hamas isn’t described as the murderous Islamic jihad organization they really are. No mention is made of their historical connection with the Nazis, and those who try to connect these important historical dots are ridiculed and marginalized. Instead, a huge effort is being made to present them as a respectable and reasonable group of people with whom we can negotiate and whom we can trust (at least as long as a hudna).
Now more than ever — international law is akin to an ongoing discussion about rights in which every government and NGO has its lawyers, and every law professor an opinion. And today, there is certainly lots of “manufacturing” of alleged new norms of public international law. For example, the “proportionality” doctrine is regularly distorted and willfully misrepresented.
Proportional to what? The doctrine of proportionality does not require some sort of a balance between the number of Israel and Hamas dead, or some general equivalence between the deeds of Hamas and those of the Israel government. Rather, in the context of international humanitarian law, there must be proportionality between what the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) actually do and what, from a military optic, would be reasonably required to prevent the firing of Hamas rockets at Israel civilians and soldiers. For example, if the IDF would be reasonably able to prevent the firing of those Hamas rockets via measures short of carpet bombing, the IDF are legally obliged to use those less drastic means likely to be kinder to civilians in Gaza.
Sacrifice Israel civilians and soldiers? International law certainly does not require the Israel government to sit back and accept the firing of rockets at Israel civilians and soldiers, just because measures to prevent that firing would likely result in some collateral civilian injury and death in Gaza. And here the reasoning is obvious: There are circumstances in which the Israel government has urgently to choose between (A) some Israel deaths (civilian and military) resulting from Hamas missiles hitting Israel; and (B) some Hamas deaths (civilian and military) from Israel preventive measures. In this context, the Israel government has to opt for (B) to prevent (A). Any other decision would irrationally privilege the lives of Arabs in Gaza over those of civilians and soldiers in Israel.
Better the wicked die than the innocent! Exactly in connection with the use of deadly force in self-defense, the ancient Rabbis argued that morally it is better for the wicked to die than for the innocent to perish. And make no mistake — from a moral perspective, Hamas also tends to implicate the adult population of Gaza in its war crimes. The civilian adult population of Gaza is probably — directly or indirectly — to some degree morally complicit in the willful aggression of Hamas, which some governments classify as a terrorist organization. The Arabs of Gaza supported Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections and likely continue to back Hamas today. Moreover, pollsters tell us that Gaza’s adult population specifically endorses the notion of targeting Israel civilians, which is a war crime.
Self-defense a fundamental right? There is simply no rule of either morality or law saying that a State is precluded from using force in self-defense, which is truly a fundamental principle of morality, natural law and public international law. The State has a moral and legal right to use force in self-defense, even though that recourse to force is likely to cause some collateral civilian injury and death. And never forget that, with respect to Gaza, the Israel government acts not by way of retaliation or punishment, but for prevention, i.e. to stop the launching of the Hamas missiles and thus to prevent more Israel civilians and soldiers from being killed.
Okay to kill Israel civilians to decolonize? Nor can the Hamas war crime of intentionally targeting Israel civilians be justified by an alleged Palestinian right of “resistance,” i.e. an alleged right to wage a war of national liberation against Israel. Even if we accept the false hypothesis of such a Palestinian right to wage a decolonization war, that right would not extend to the intentional, indiscriminate targeting of Israel’s civilian population, which would still remain a war crime.
Is Israel colonial? Turning from hypothesis to history — Israel is not “colonial” in character. See in this connection at http://www.allenzhertz.com an October 2011 posting entitled “Jewish Aboriginal Rights to Israel.” Of all extant Peoples, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be aboriginal to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. There, some Jews have lived in each year since the ethnogenesis of the self-identified “Jewish” People in the 6th century BCE.
Around a half-century ago, for the first time, a specific Arab population chose to generally self-identify as “the Palestinian People.” This probably means that the newly self-identified Palestinian People now has some claims to self-determination, territory and independence. But such “Palestinian” claims do not automatically cancel the prior rights of the Jewish People. Rather, there is an urgent need to respect the honor and dignity of both Peoples. Today, there is also a clear moral and legal obligation to “peacefully” effect a juridical reconciliation of Palestinian self-determination rights with the aboriginal, treaty and self-determination rights of the Jewish People. For this reason, the newly self-identified Palestinian People lacks a right to wage a war of decolonization against the older Jewish People, whose presence in the Jewish aboriginal homeland is both moral and lawful.
The last sentence should read ” Israel should start using terms such as anti-Semitic, or worse to describe the vicious media bias against Israel.
This total nonsense of proportionality is just another device used by the anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who are disappointed Hitler did finish off all of the world’s Jews. As I’ve said, if Israel was not the Jewish national homeland, no one would mention proportionality when a country defends its’ citizens. If Israel needed ,in order to destroy Hamas for good, to inflict large numbers of collateral casualties , they would have total justification for inflicting however many civilians casualties on the Fakestinians in Gaza ‘because to quote a famous US Civil War General William Sherman ” War means killing . It can be refined” i.e. fought under rules as if it were some sporting event. I will borrow a tactic black American politicians and opinion leaders. When they want to silence legitimate criticism of black behavior or that of their enablers in the unAmerican democrat party they reflexively call those who criticize them”racists” . I would call anyone news organization who use the absurd ,ridiculous concept of proportionality anti-Semites and neo-Nazis. even believe it is more acceptable way of weakening Israel. I believe it may be a code word indicating Jew hatred. Israel will never get anywhere by being “nice” to nations and individuals who despise them. I truly believe Israeli leaders should start calling heads of state such as the vile worm who is the leader of Turkey as many uncomplimentary names as possible such as anti-Semite , Neo-Nazi and Muslim supremacist. Being nice only makes Israeli leaders appear weak in eyes of non Jews. They should also attack the incredibly bias news organizations such as BBC, NBC, CBS and the NYT anti-Semites and worse.
@ the phoenix:
the phoenix Said:
I wish i could insert an emoticon bursting out of laughter!!!
the phoenix Said:
Absolutely on the same page.
The reason i am asking is that i enter the anti-Israel debates in mainstream blogs and if the principle of proportionality is suspended under the circumstances i describe, then it is one more argument against those commentators that present Israel as a moral monster. I can argue in favor of Israel’s moral right to act in violation of the principle of proportionality (i have done so in Israpundit, too), but if Israel has every legal right too to consider this principle suspended, then we have one more argument against the anti-Semitic slanderers.
the phoenix Said:
I disagree with that: if dedicated volunteers, well-versed in pro-Israel talking points, enter the internet debates all over the West, we can turn western hearts and minds to recognize the obvious moral right of Israel to defend herself. Imagine ten thousand of us, coordinating through the Internet, to be doing this day-in day-out.
Part of the western anti-Semitism is due to ignorance: all too often Israel is presented in the mainstream Media in the way your joke described.
But if people start getting informed (and the comment sections of mainstream blogs are a great pool of people who can be addressed, engaged and, hopefully, influenced) the Media will have to adapt to the new expectations of their audience: if people have become more informed about Israel, then the Media will not be able to present slanted views against israel – for fear of loosing their audience.
Many still forget that the SD and the “oil men” direct the foreign policy in the US, GB and Fr. Oil is also the reason why Norway can afford to thumb its nose to the Jews and IL and why oil dependent-countries care not to antagonize the Muslim oil producers. This is also why the EU countries oppose no or very little resistance to the Muslim invasion.
Oil is used as a weapon to destroy the West. Where are the laws against economic warfare, against economic blackmail?
Does Guglielmo Verdirame have a response?
Guglielmo Verdirame analysis focus almost exclusively on IL since the Muslims do not abide by the international law but the Qur’an and Sharia and hadiths.
So this represents more fuel against the Jews.
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
no disrespect whatsoever meant dionissis, but WHY bother with such innane problems?
we all agree that the bastards should be shot/obliterated/ whatever, take your pick.
we all agree that NO MATTER WHAT israel would be condemned…
should i continue? or we’re on the same page?
perhaps i’ll best illustrate with the following little story. enjoy:
An Israeli is on vacation and is visiting a zoo in England when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage.
Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The Israeli runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the Israeli brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.
A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says to the Israeli: ‘Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I’ve seen a man do in my whole life.’
The Israeli replies, ‘Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.’
The reporter says, ‘Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed.
I’m a journalist, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page.
So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?’
The Israeli replies, “I serve in the Israeli army and I vote for the Likud.”
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the Israeli buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
RIGHT-WING ISRAELI ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
That pretty much sums up the media’s approach to Israel these days
Following up on Laura’s comment, i would like to address a question to anyone who is educated in Law:
Is the principle of proportionality still applicable when the civilians have been put in harm’s way deliberately?
If yes, then Hamas could store each missile or each rocket in a distinct house. Six thousand, say, missiles in six thousand homes. On the face of it, the killing of a family is disproportional if the objective is to neutralize only one missile.
But this, as Laura pointed out, would ensure that Israel has not the right to destroy the weapons, and, effectively, is deprived of her right to self-defence.
Someone once said: ‘All is fair in love and war’…that is unless it’s Israel trying to protect its land & people. Today’s sense of ‘fairness’ by the nations is directed only towards those who have been declaring since the end of WW2 that they intend ‘to finish off what Hitler started.’ That genocidal Arab Moslem (& perhaps also Christian) purpose is either ignored by the world or silently approved of. You can tell who the latter are…those who demand Israel ‘restrain’ its right to self-defence to the point of tying our soldiers/airmen/sailors hands behind their backs. Don’t tell me that busybody slobs like Madam Ashton, whatsizname UN Sec.
Gen. and all the other Israel-hating, Arab-Terror-loving ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’ crackpots who demand the world BDS (boycott, disengage, sanction) every aspect of Israeli life – from campuses, theatrical groups, to exports – don’t secretly dream of helping the Arabs massacre each and every Israeli – men, women, old and young, yes even the very, very young…! They are our enemies just as much as those who arm themselves with deadly weapons to use against us whenever they feel like it.
@ terence:
Instead it caters to the needs of hamas.
America doesn’t have to help Israel, but at least stop impeding Israel from defending itself and defeating its enemies. The problem is that the U.S. government involves itself and consistently does so to the detriment of Israel.
This is absurd. This standard of fighting ensures the jihadists will always place their rocket launchers and fire them within civilian areas knowing they can kill Israelis unimpeded. This is an impossible standard ensuring Israel can never defend itself, which is precisely the point.
@ Steve4peace:
As has been quite obvious for many decades America has the last word when it comes to the Israel- Pals dispute. We can shout from the rooftops at the top of our lungs that fact is unalterable. Apparently the U.S. has other fish to fry besides catering to Israel’s needs.
In the 2008-9 offensive, N.Y. mayor Bloomberg asked: if there was a man trying to bust in your door threatening to kill you and you called the police, would you want them to send one cop so that the response would be proportional or would you want them to send as many cops as possible to stop the guy? Who cares about proportionality when someone is trying their damnest to kill you? Enough of the legalistic crap! Hamas needed to be beaten to a pulp because to let them live means that more Israelis will die. They will be back again and again, each time better armed and better supported by a sick world that cheers them on. It is this same sick world that forced the Israelis to hold back.
And what is the proper way to measure proportionality? In this war, Hamas fired around 1500 missiles at Israeli civilians and Israel fired around 1500 missiles at Hamas terrorists in return. In pure numbers, the response was proportional. In terms of morality and the commission of war crimes, Hamas fought disproportionately, targeting citizens while the Israelis went after military installations.
Further, although accurate final numbers seem to be elusive, it appears that less than one Palestinian citizen was killed for each combatant while in Israel, Hamas murdered 4 civilians for one soldier. Is that not disproportionate?
Where are the cries from the hypocrites of 2008-9 who could not sharpen the blades of their guillotines fast enough or tie the slip knots onto their heavy ropes quickly enough as they accused Israel of disproportionality? And where the hell is Goldstone?
Joe Hamilton said:
Expressed with Clarity & Accuracy.
There is an old Jewish Adage- “Soff Gannav L’Tliyya” which basically means that the criminal eventually meets his end – On The Gallows!
This is bulls–t. Anyone who believes there are rules and laws governing how war is conducted is a fool. The only rules which apply to a nation at war are: 1.destroy the war making ability of the opponent by any means necessary and 2.eliminate any other methods the opponent has to harm citizens and/or the general interests of your nation,also by any means necessary. Of course, Israel, due to its’ pseudo-ally the United States which really has been more of an enemy of Israel,has never been allowed to truly defend itself. Of course, the enemies of Israel such as Little Britainstan and the US deliberately killed millions of civilians in World War I and especially World War II. The RAF were too cowardly to bomb Germany by day during WWII. Therefore, they engaged in only night bombing which they admit only accomplished killing civilians since the technology to hit any specific target at night during WWII didn’t existence. The US due to the extreme difficulty the slipstream winds over Japan could not could hit targets with any accuracy during WWII. Therefore, General Curtis LeMay the US Air Force commander switched to dropping napalm on clearly civilian areas. The results included the firestorm in Tokyo in March 1945 which killed 100,000 civilians in one night. The US completely destroyed a number of Japanese cities. To illustrate the destruction the incredibly hypocritical US government inflicted on Japan, when Generals McArthur and LeMay arrived in Japan to begin occupation of Japan, they had great difficulty finding the city of Yokohama which had a population of 1 million in 1941. They finally realized there was no city of Yokohama except for 2 blocks of buildings due to indiscriminate bombings by the US. Yet, the muslim beast Obama and his anti-Semitic Secretary of State are hysterical because Israel destroyed a small number of buildings in Gaza.