Home
Archives
Jerusalem Center Homepage
View the current issue
Jerusalem Center Videos
Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(National Review) David French - When it comes to Hamas, "restraint" is Israel's choice - one it may make for tactical and strategic reasons of its own. The actual law of war would allow Israel to invade Gaza, utterly destroy Hamas, and occupy Gaza City until Israel's safety is ensured. Firing 600 rockets at civilian targets in a neighboring country is an act of war. It's an attack by an army against a nation-state, and as such it grants the nation-state the authority under the international law of armed conflict not just to disable the specific military assets used to carry it out but to destroy those who carried it out. For example, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America had the right not just to sink the Japanese fleet but to defeat Japan's military, invade its sovereign territory, and overthrow its government. Similarly, when America and its allies launched their war against the ISIS caliphate, they had the right not just to destroy ISIS military assets but to take ISIS territory. Moreover, a terrorist army cannot lawfully protect itself from destruction by blending in with civilian populations, fighting from civilian structures, or using civilians as human shields. Hamas violates every single one of these commands. Nations have a right to defend themselves, and that right of self-defense is not abrogated when an opponent fights dirty. Think of it like this: If an army tried to march into Philadelphia behind a wall of women and children, the citizens of Philadelphia would not have to surrender if fighting meant killing those human shields. Instead, they could fight back and then hold war-crimes trials against the attackers for the resulting civilian deaths. The world holds Israel to a standard of military restraint that it applies to no other military force on the planet. If Israel used American rules of engagement, the devastation in Gaza would be orders of magnitude greater than anything we've yet seen. 2019-05-08 00:00:00Full Article
Firing 600 Rockets at Civilian Targets Is an Act of War
(National Review) David French - When it comes to Hamas, "restraint" is Israel's choice - one it may make for tactical and strategic reasons of its own. The actual law of war would allow Israel to invade Gaza, utterly destroy Hamas, and occupy Gaza City until Israel's safety is ensured. Firing 600 rockets at civilian targets in a neighboring country is an act of war. It's an attack by an army against a nation-state, and as such it grants the nation-state the authority under the international law of armed conflict not just to disable the specific military assets used to carry it out but to destroy those who carried it out. For example, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America had the right not just to sink the Japanese fleet but to defeat Japan's military, invade its sovereign territory, and overthrow its government. Similarly, when America and its allies launched their war against the ISIS caliphate, they had the right not just to destroy ISIS military assets but to take ISIS territory. Moreover, a terrorist army cannot lawfully protect itself from destruction by blending in with civilian populations, fighting from civilian structures, or using civilians as human shields. Hamas violates every single one of these commands. Nations have a right to defend themselves, and that right of self-defense is not abrogated when an opponent fights dirty. Think of it like this: If an army tried to march into Philadelphia behind a wall of women and children, the citizens of Philadelphia would not have to surrender if fighting meant killing those human shields. Instead, they could fight back and then hold war-crimes trials against the attackers for the resulting civilian deaths. The world holds Israel to a standard of military restraint that it applies to no other military force on the planet. If Israel used American rules of engagement, the devastation in Gaza would be orders of magnitude greater than anything we've yet seen. 2019-05-08 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
|
Search:
|