In his September 24 speech at the United Nations, President Obama spoke passionately in favor of a Palestinian state. In this connection, his plea for full Palestinian independence strongly reinforced an earlier action by the UN General Assembly. Lamentably, to be sure, on November 29, 2012, the UNGA – without any expressed regard for the governing Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934) – had enthusiastically upgraded the Palestinian Authority to the status of a “nonmember observer state.”
Among other things, this elevated status will allow the Palestinian Authority to bring certain alleged criminals (read “Israelis”) before the International Criminal Court at The Hague. In other words, it will provide the PA with official cover for transforming a thoroughly crude geopolitics into law.
Reciprocally, however, any impermissible uses of insurgent force by assorted Palestinian factions, even if now cumulatively and officially called “Palestine,” would still be classified as criminal.
Moreover, these egregious Palestinian resorts to violence would still be an expression of terrorism. From the beginning, supporters of Palestinian terror-violence against Israelis have insisted that the preferred ends of that insurgency, Palestinian “independence,” necessarily justify any means, including recurrent attacks upon defenseless Israeli civilians. Nonetheless, as Obama’s UN speech conveniently neglected to mention, in jurisprudence the ends can never be invoked to justify the means. Rather, universally core philosophical, religious, and legal principles of humankind, principles identified as peremptory under international law, have long stipulated that intentional violence against the innocent is always repugnant, and therefore always prohibited.
Despite the apparent ease with which television “experts” discuss the subject, international law is not self-explanatory. As in the case of any formal and complex body of disciplined knowledge, therefore, some actual and industrious study of pertinent jurisprudence is required. A layperson is generally no more qualified to offer snap judgments on what is permissible or impermissible under international law, than he or she would be suited to evaluate alternative techniques of brain surgery.
In law, one man’s terrorist can never be another man’s freedom fighter. Although fashionable to repeat at cocktail parties and gatherings of sclerotic university professors, this facile expression remains little more than an empty witticism. It is true that certain insurgencies can sometimes be judged lawful (this is, after all, a manifestly founding principle of the United States Declaration of Independence), but even these selectively permissible resorts to force must still conform to humanitarian international law.
Whenever an insurgent group resorts openly to unjust means, e.g., shooting Israeli civilians in buses, schools, or restaurants, their actions are always “terrorism.” Even if ritualistic Palestinian claims of a hostile Israeli “occupation” were somehow reasonable rather than contrived, any related claims of entitlement to employ “any means necessary” would remain false.
International law always has precise and determinable content. It cannot be gratuitously invented and reinvented by terror groups, or even by “nonmember observer states,” simply to satisfy particular interests. This is especially the case where terror violence intentionally targets a country’s most fragile and vulnerable civilian populations.
National liberation or self-determination movements that fail to meet the test of just means can never be protected as lawful or legitimate. Even if one were to accept the argument that Hamas and its sister groups could satisfy the relevant struggle criteria, it is still clear that they would not satisfy the critically-involved legal standards of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity. These basic standards of the law of armed conflict have been applied to insurgent organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and also by the two Protocols to these Conventions of 1977.
They are also binding on all combatants by virtue of broader customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. This rule, called the “Martens Clause,” makes all persons responsible for the “laws of humanity,” and for the associated “dictates of public conscience.”
Under international law, the ends can never justify the means, even at the hands of a “nonmember observer state.” As in the case of war between states, every use of force by insurgents must always be judged twice, once with regard to the justness of the objective (in this case, a Palestinian state, to be built explicitly on the charred ruins of a pre-existing Jewish state), and once with regard to the justness of the means used in reaching that objective.
In law, the murderers of young children who take an unhidden delight in the blood of their victims can never be “freedom fighters.” If they should ever become entitled to such an exculpatory designation, we would then have to concede that international law itself had become little more than a nicely codified authorization for the commission of evil.
President Obama continues to presume that a Palestinian state will be part of a “two-state solution.” Here, it is falsely presumed, a 23rd Arab state will coexist obediently with the lone Jewish state. Oddly enough, this presumption is dismissed everywhere in the Arab/Islamic world itself.
Cartographically, the “Map of Palestine,” available at the official website of the Palestinian National Authority and of Hamas, still includes all of Israel.
Only one state is depicted on this map. That state is not Israel.
Terrorist crimes always mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment. As punishers of “grave breaches” under international law, all states are expected to search out and prosecute, or extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators. In no circumstances are states permitted to characterize terrorists as “freedom fighters.”
This is especially true for the United States, which incorporates all international law as the “supreme law of the land” at Article 6 of the Constitution, and at assorted Supreme Court decisions, most notably the Paquete Habana (1900). Under natural law, which represents the canonic legal foundation of the U.S. Constitution, every nation-state has an overriding obligation of self-preservation. Wherever a government acts contrary to this core obligation, which is assuredly the case with Israel’s recurrent freeing of Palestinian terrorists, these actions, inter alia, demand far-reaching citizen opposition.
The theory of natural law, which has discernible roots in the Bible, is based on clarity, self-evidence, and coherence. Its validity cannot be shaken by the presumed imperatives of geopolitics, even when a misguided American president should feel that manifestly contrary policies are called for.
No matter how strenuously Obama should maintain that Palestinian statehood is needed to implement a wider Middle East peace, there is nothing about full sovereignty that would ever exempt the newest Arab state from its peremptory obligations under humanitarian international law.Louis Rene Beres
About the Author: Louis René Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is professor of political science and international law at Purdue University and the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and strategic studies.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.