Israel's Major Wars and the Legal Aspects of Coming into Possession of the Territories - by Eli. E Hertz

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. All of Israel’s wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.

Eli. E Hertz..
Mythsandfacts.org..
05 September '19..

About six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting, then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN’s 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs rejected.

The Jewish state not only survived, it came into possession of territories – land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.

In the first critical weeks after the British left the region and Israel declared its independence, the combined Arab armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen,2 aimed at a small Jewish militia with three tanks and five artillery pieces. Israel had no air force, and until arms were rushed in from abroad and a regular army could be organized, it relied on the only strength it had: 70 years of social solidarity inspired by the Zionist endeavor.

Israel’s citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.

The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders’ rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews, and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.

There were over 6,000 Israelis killed and over 15,000 wounded as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.

B'Tselem and the Distortion of International Law in Gaza - by Johnny Green

B’Tselem and their ilk are attempting to twist international law without conceding the complexity of the applicable rules and while preventing productive debate. In this instance, B’Tselem has demonstrated the degree of fanaticism and dogmatism in which they are immersed.

Johnny Green..
Algemeiner.com..
17 May '18..

The Israeli organization B’Tselem recently called for Israeli soldiers to disobey orders on the Gaza frontier and refrain from using live fire against attempted infiltration and terrorist acts. A formal “opinion” published by the Israel Democracy Institute lends support to B’Tselem. Another organization filed a petition with the Israeli Supreme Court, alleging that the IDF rules of engagement permitting the use of live fire on the Gaza border are illegal under international law.

These three examples and others like them all share a similar premise: international law permits the use of lethal force only as a response to direct mortal peril or against armed targets. This categorical claim represents a radical and distorted interpretation of international law that directly contradicts basic concepts in the laws of armed conflict.

International law is of course ambiguous and complex, yet certain principles are easy enough to define. So what does the law actually say?

The law distinguishes between civilians and combatants. While enemy combatants can be targeted with very few limitations, civilians are protected by an array of provisions and restrictions. However, the law withdraws these protections and in effect defines a civilian as a “combatant” for all intents and purposes when a civilian engages in “direct participation in hostilities.”

This is a rather generic and obscure term, but its outcome is clear: a civilian who directly participates in hostilities loses their legal protection, becomes an enemy “combatant,” and thus serves as a legitimate military target.

Luckily, the International Committee of the Red Cross published a useful guide summarizing many aspects of this critical distinction with the catchy title of “Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law.” One would not suspect the Red Cross to be a lenient interpreter of the laws of war or easily relinquishing civilian wartime protections.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Good question. Why is the Red Cross holding seminars for Hamas?

...The Times article goes on to describe the three-day seminar that the Red Cross conducted for Hamas last month. It included role-playing and case studies, noting that "one exercise involved an armed group firing on an invading tank from the garden of a civilian home near a hospital." How educational! Mamadou Sow, head of Red Cross operations in Gaza, breezily noted to the Times that earlier this year, when he presented Hamas leadership with a critique of their conduct during last summer's Gaza war, they "welcomed it" and "indicated that they are a learning organization." The article does not indicate whether Sow was able to maintain a straight face while uttering such inanity.

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/JPost..
19 August '15..

This past Sunday, The New York Times ran a story encapsulating all that is wrong with the Western world's approach to extremist Islamic fundamentalism.

In a report appearing in its first section, the paper revealed a startling bit of news: "Red Cross offers workshops in international law to Hamas."

That's right. The global institution, which claims that it works "to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles," is busying conducting seminars for terrorists in Gaza on how they can be, umm, more humanitarian when attacking Israel.

What's next? Teaching table manners to the Taliban? The Times article goes on to describe the three-day seminar that the Red Cross conducted for Hamas last month. It included role-playing and case studies, noting that "one exercise involved an armed group firing on an invading tank from the garden of a civilian home near a hospital." How educational! Mamadou Sow, head of Red Cross operations in Gaza, breezily noted to the Times that earlier this year, when he presented Hamas leadership with a critique of their conduct during last summer's Gaza war, they "welcomed it" and "indicated that they are a learning organization."

The article does not indicate whether Sow was able to maintain a straight face while uttering such inanity.

But lest you suspect that Hamas' indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets at Israel may indicate that it is somewhat indifferent to the value of human life, Red Cross leaders went out of their way to stress that "they have seen an increasing commitment from Hamas leaders and linemen alike" to respect international humanitarian law.

Double Standards and Delusional Warfare

...The West expects Israel to live up to impossible moral standards that it does not set for anyone ‎else -- not even for itself. The West's own moral standards are clearly flexible and can be ‎lowered when reality requires it. Only Israel is supposed to live up to the impossible standard of ‎that delusional concept of humane warfare, according to which no civilians are ever hurt and ‎no blood is ever spilled. ‎

Judith Bergman..
Israel Hayom..
12 August '15..

The double standard to which Western countries hold Israel is well-known. Not just from the ‎endless condemnation of Israel at the U.N., but because an official representative of one of the ‎largest Western blocs of nations, EU Ambassador to Israel Jesper Vahr, made a now-‎infamous statement last year during a panel discussion on relations between Israel and Europe. ‎

‎"Israel should insist that we discriminate, that we apply double standards, this is because you are ‎one of us," Vahr said. "Israel should want to be held to European standards, not Middle Eastern ‎ones. So I think you have the right to insist that we apply double standards and put you to the ‎same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context."‎

This is an extremely common sentiment, certainly not reserved for Europe, and one that ‎journalists in the mainstream media are not shy to use as an "excuse" for subjecting Israel to a ‎kind of scrutiny that practically everyone else on the planet is exempted from. ‎

It is therefore worthwhile to look at the moral standards that the West holds itself up to. Certainly, if the West claims that all it is doing is to hold Israel to its own moral standards, it is relevant to ask whether the West lives up to those standards itself.‎

On Aug. 3, the British newspaper The Guardian reported, under the headline "Hundreds of ‎civilians killed in U.S.-led airstrikes on ISIS [Islamic State] targets," "credible reports" of at least 459 non‎combatant deaths, including 100 children, in 52 airstrikes. The "credible reports" were collected ‎by a new project, run by journalists, which calls itself "Airwars." On its website, Airwars claims ‎to be "a collaborative, not-for-profit transparency project aimed both at tracking and archiving ‎the international air war against Islamic State, in both Iraq and Syria. With a dozen nations ‎reportedly bombing -- along with the air forces of Iraq, Iran and Syria -- there is a pressing public ‎interest need for independent, trustworthy monitoring."‎

The U.S. led coalition has launched over 5,700 airstrikes at Islamic State targets in the campaign, which ‎has lasted almost one year.‎

The point here is not to question the legitimacy of destroying Islamic State -- which is more than overdue ‎‎-- although one can certainly question whether the air campaign serves any purpose other than ‎easing the bad conscience of the West in the face of the mass rape and executions by the organization of ‎civilians in the territories that they have captured. ‎

The point is that the West has killed thousands of civilians by way of collateral damage in the ‎various military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001. It has killed hundreds, if not ‎thousands, of civilians in the so-called "drone wars" that the U.S. (primarily under President Barack ‎Obama) has been, and still is, conducting in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. And ‎now it turns out that at least 459 civilians have been killed in strikes against Islamic State. ‎

What this means is that the West does not even come close to meeting the high moral standards ‎that it sets for Israel. When Vahr nonchalantly stated that he thought Israel ‎should "have the right to insist that we apply double standards and put you to the same ‎standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context" he conveniently "forgot" this ‎small detail. ‎

Three Alternative Reports Challenging the U.N. Gaza Probe

Ahead of its release, three significant competing documents have just been published, posing a serious challenge to the UN commission, whose members lack any background or expertise on the laws or conduct of war:

The report on Gaza by a group of
global military leaders, publicized by
UN Watch on Friday, became the top
story in Israel.

UN Watch Briefing..
Latest from the United Nations..
Vol. 538 | June 16, 2015..

The formal debate will take place on Monday, June 29th, but no one knows precisely when the much-discussed report of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict will be made available online.

Ahead of its release, three significant competing documents have just been published, posing a serious challenge to the UN commission, whose members lack any background or expertise on the laws or conduct of war:

• The Israeli foreign ministry released a 277-page report that details with photo and other evidence how Hamas used schools, hospitals and UN facilities as launching points from which to fire rockets at Israel, turning their own population into human shields and targets.

• A mission by global military leaders has found that Israel went out of its way to minimize civilian casualties and observe international law during last summer's crackdown in Gaza, even to the point of costing the lives of its own soldiers. The preliminary findings by the international military experts, publicized by UN Watch on Friday, had been submitted in May to the UN inquiry.

• UN Watch and NGO Monitor have just published a new book that documents missing dimensions in UN and other partisan investigations of the Gaza conflict. Written by a group of experts, the book reveals how rockets and missiles are produced and imported by Gaza terrorist organizations, the financing of Hamas in violation of international law, and Hamas' abuse of international humanitarian aid.

Stay informed of the latest from the United Nations by visiting www.unwatch.org/

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter, 

.

An astounding sentence and question on Israeli war ethics and moral responsibility

Yes. "Indeed, it raises questions regarding Israel’s moral responsibility toward its own soldiers and civilians. Clearly, Israel’s first obligation is to its own civilians before the noncombatants on the enemy side, many of whom support Hamas and its goals." And the answer?

Four-year-old Daniel Tregerman who
was killed when by a mortar fired from 
near an UNRWA facility in Gaza 
.

LOTL..
15 June '15..

In yesterday's Jerusalem Post Editorial: Israeli war ethics (14 June '15) an extremely troubling question is raised,  yet left unanswered. While the entire piece should be read in order to have the full context, the following should truly concern anyone who has given thought to where we have arrived.

A group of senior military and diplomatic experts recently provided evidence that the Jewish state has managed to handle a very difficult moral dilemma surprisingly well during last summer’s conflict between Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Members of the mission included former NATO Military Committee Chairman Gen. (ret.) Klaus Naumann of Germany; former Italian foreign minister Giulio Terzi; former US State Department ambassador at large for war crimes issues Pierre-Richard Prosper; and the former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp. 

Rules that protect Hamas killers while placing in danger Jewish children

...You can count on Israel continuing to uphold high standards of conduct in which every effort will be made to spare innocent lives. But so long as terrorists are using UN buildings as launching pads for attacks on Jewish children, the IDF will have no choice but to shoot back. If that generates more UN reports and unfair criticism, so be it. No rule that gives a terrorist impunity to shoot at children should be treated as sacrosanct.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
04 May '15..

Last week the United Nations issued a report on Israel’s attacks on UN facilities in Gaza during last summer’s war. As I noted at the time, that even though the purpose of the exercise was to attack Israel and undermine its right to self-defense, even the UN report admitted that Hamas was storing weapons at schools run by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) and that Hamas fighters were firing rockets and other weapons at Israeli targets from the vicinity of these places. Though there were examples of Israeli fire hitting civilians taking cover in UN shelters at the height of the fighting, these damning admissions raised questions about how the rules of war can possibly apply to a situation where armed killers who are themselves firing at Israeli civilians are using Palestinian civilians as human shields. This point was made today at a conference in Israel by the former head of the Israel Defense Forces. To make this point clear, retired General Benny Gantz recalled one incident that didn’t make it into the UN report in which a Palestinian mortar killed a four-year-old Israeli boy. According to Gantz the shell that took his life was fired from a United Nations building. The question the general raised is of what use are such rules if they serve to protect Hamas killers while placing in danger Jewish children?

The UN report gave Israel credit for the fact that incidents in which the Israel Defense Forces’ fire was deemed to be unjustified or wrongful due to the impact on civilians resulted in investigations and/or prosecutions of those involved. But it what failed to grasp was that two factors undermined most of the criticisms of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. One is that widespread infiltration of UNRWA by Hamas personnel who use UN facilities as storage depots. The other is the fact that the Hamas government of Gaza systematically exploits civilian buildings that are treated as off limits to Israeli fire for military purposes.

As Gantz detailed, it was well known, even during the war, that the Hamas leaders who were directing the rocket attacks on Israel were doing from the safety of hospital buildings. It was also clear throughout the campaign that Hamas was firing the thousands of rockets that were shot at Israeli cities from the immediate environs of shelters, schools and hospitals.

The IDF did its best to avoid hitting civilian targets and though there were casualties, the chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey later noted that the conduct of the Israelis was exemplary, undermining much of the unfair criticisms of the war put forward by both the Obama White House and the State Department. But while the Israelis were subjected to a double standard not applied to any other modern combatant, it’s worth asking whether we need to think again about a code of military conduct that says a sovereign nation is obligated to let terrorists shoot at children so long as they are around a building that is designated as off-limits.

Were the world prepared to let Israel go into Gaza and capture these terrorists and the government in whose name they operate, it might be possible to say that there is no need to think about rules. But we know this isn’t so. The leaders of Gaza were able to sit out the war inside hospitals secure in the knowledge that the Israelis wouldn’t shoot at their hideouts or attempt to root out this criminal conspiracy. Indeed, the Hamas-run independent Palestinian state in all but name knows that operates with impunity and need never fear that the Israelis will seek to destroy it.