The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense
Abraham Bell, JCPA
-
* International law authorizes Israel to initiate military countermeasures in Gaza. If Gaza is properly seen as having independent sovereignty, Israel’s use of force is permissible on the grounds of self-defense. If Gaza is properly seen as lacking any independent sovereignty, Israel’s use of military force is permissible as in other non-international conflicts.
* The rule of “distinction” includes elements of intent and expected result: so long as one aims at legitimate targets, the rule of distinction permits the attack, even if there will be collateral damage to civilians. The rule of “proportionality” also relies upon intent. If Israel plans a strike without expecting excessive collateral damage, the rule of proportionality permits it. Israeli attacks to date have abided by the rules of distinction and proportionality.
-
* Israel’s imposition of economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip is a perfectly legal means of responding to Palestinian attacks. Since Israel is under no legal obligation to engage in trade of fuel or anything else with Gaza, or to maintain open borders, it may withhold commercial items and seal its borders at its discretion.
* The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt. None of Israel’s actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.
* There is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of a state party to the convention and the occupier “exercises the functions of government” in the territory. Gaza is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government in the territory.
* The fighting in Gaza has been characterized by the extensive commission of war crimes, acts of terrorism and acts of genocide by Palestinians, while Israeli countermeasures have conformed with the requirements of international law. International law requires states to take measures to bring Palestinian war criminals and terrorists to justice, to prevent and punish Palestinian genocidal efforts, and to block the funding of Palestinian terrorist groups and those complicit with them.
Since Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, Palestinian groups including Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Resistance Committees have launched thousands of rocket attacks at Israel. All the attacks have been on civilian targets, with no more than a handful of possible exceptions. The brunt of the Palestinian assault has been borne by the town of Sderot. The attacks have killed several residents and injured dozens, struck houses and public buildings like kindergartens, and so traumatized residents that three-quarters of all Sderot children between the ages of 7 and 12 suffer from post-traumatic anxiety. CONTINUE
Perhaps it might be a good idea for Avi Bell and others in his field to arrange a tutorial seminar for our legal beagle Supreme court. I would suggest that this take place sooner than later in light of the latest enlightened ruling by our esteemed High Court who continue to issue anti |Jewish and Israeli rulings to whit:
Supreme Court defeats Jews
The anti-Semites forming Israeli Supreme Court upheld petitions by ultra-left self-hating Jews, and ordered Israeli government to restore fuel supply to Gaza to the comfortable level of 2,200 tons per week.
Israeli Supreme Court remained unconcerned with several issues:
1. Wellbeing of Jews in Sderot, Negev, and Ashkelon. Hamas which showers them with rockets was duly elected by Gaza’s civilians.
2. Lack of jurisdiction. The blockade is part of the war effort. By the same token, Israeli Supreme Court can rule the 1967 preemption illegitimate or start legally managing any other war.
3. Judicial precedents. The same Supreme Court routinely denies petitions by conservative Jews on the grounds that government’s decisions are political and as such fall beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
4. Diplomatic situation. Israel fully disengaged from Gaza, and control of border crossings doesn’t mean that Israel still occupies Gaza. Besides, Gaza has an alternative supply route from Egypt.
5. The common sense which argues against supplying fuel to the country that shells your territory.
Why doesn’t the Supreme Court rule against the Arab oil boycott of Israel?
Israeli Supreme Court operates on the fictional judicial maxim, Let justice triumph even if that makes Rome fail.
Comment by yamit82 — January 28, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
I am in total agreement with you, Yamit, it is mind boggling how the Israeli Supreme Court totally disregards International Law and with what chutspa.
Dr. Bells’ very enlightening article is a “must read” for our “respectable” High Court Justices and I have taken the liberty to add it as an attachment in an e-mail to the PM’s office requesting a reply from the Ministry of Justice as to why they choose to ignore these laws.
Comment by mike packer — January 28, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Online Payday Loan…
Marvelous online pay day loans that is snappy and untroublesome to apply for before you absolutely call for cash….
Trackback by Online Payday Loan — February 5, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
[...] The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense was described by Abraham Bell in his article on International Law and Gaza. Dr. Avi Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He clearly advised that Israel has the right of self defense and described the law as it pertains. [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Bomb Gaza. Win the War. — February 27, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
[...] lawyer’s perspective what the Geneva Conventions say and what they mean and when they apply. The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense by Araham Bell and Bomb Gaza, Win the War describes the law. I also wrote to our consul general [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Michael Ignatieff in the lion’s den — April 14, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
[...] therein are entirely at variance with the interpretation of the law used by the Commission Members. The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense was described by Abraham Bell in his article on International Law and Gaza. Dr. Avi Bell is a member [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Israel is not guilty as charged. — September 15, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
[...] therein are entirely at variance with the interpretation of the law used by the Commission Members. The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense was described by Abraham Bell in his article on International Law and Gaza. Dr. Avi Bell is a member [...]
Pingback by A SELF SERVING INTERPRETATION OF LAW TO ENSURE ISRAEL´S GUILT « 4international — September 17, 2009 @ 1:46 pm