Meir Panim’s Tiberias Free Restaurant not only provides warm meals, but the opportunity to socialize as well.
The Palestinian Authority has now succeeded with its deliberate strategy for acquiring incremental statehood at the United Nations. Though this cynical end-run around authoritative international law managed to skirt all critically governing expectations of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (The Montevideo Convention, 1934), most states in the UN General Assembly were nonetheless willing to grant the PA nonmember observer state status.
What was not summarily changed, however, were the underlying and deeply embedded inclinations of the PA to commit indiscriminate violence against the innocent. The UN vote won’t automatically turn terrorists into statesmen.
Jurisprudentially, at least, all persisting PA and Hamas expressions of violence against Israeli noncombatants will remain terrorism. From the standpoint of international law, even a now upgraded “Palestine” will be unable to justify serial murder of Israelis as “self-determination.” No matter how hard they might try for more sanitized designations in the UN-altered diplomatic milieu, those Palestinians who continue to identify the willful maiming and execution of Israeli civilians in the name of “national liberation” will still be criminals.
Terrorism is always a crime under international law. To date, whenever Palestinian insurgents have claimed a right to use “any means necessary” because they are victims of an alleged “occupation,” their argument has been contrived. After all, there remain irremediably firm jurisprudential limits on (1) permissible targets of insurgent violence and (2) permissible levels of insurgent violence.
The limited rights of insurgency under international law do not include the intentional firing of rockets at schools and apartments, or the use of nail-filled bombs, lovingly dipped in rat poison. Under even their most generous definition in law, these rights can never supplant the settled rules of humanitarian international law, norms that are also known as the law of armed conflict. Nowhere is it written that there are certain political goals so overwhelmingly worthy of implementation that they can permit the willful incineration of infants in their cribs, or children at play.
One needn’t be a professor of international law to understand such an elementary proposition.
From the beginning, supporters of Palestinian terror violence against Israelis have argued passionately that the ends of their insurgency (Palestinian “independence”) justify the means (barbarous attacks upon Jewish civilians). Leaving aside everyday and ordinary ethical standards by which such an argument is already manifestly indecent, the ends can never justify the means under conventional or customary international law. Indeed, for more than two thousand years the binding principles of world law have clearly stipulated that planned violence against the innocent is always repugnant, and always prohibited.
In contrast, in cases where Israeli counter-terrorism kills or injures Palestinian civilians, these particular harms are unintended and are made necessary by calculated Palestinian placement of rocket launchers among noncombatant populations. Here, from the standpoint of international law, the Palestinian side commits the codified crime of “perfidy,” and is therefore legally responsible for those harms actually inflicted by Israel.
Though fashionable to repeat at cocktail parties, the facile expression “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter” is an empty witticism, a shallow phrase devoid of any serious legal meaning. While it is true that certain insurgencies can be judged per se lawful (after all, the idea of “just cause” can be found in the Declaration of Independence of the United States), these residually permissible resorts to force must still conform to the longstanding laws of war.
Whenever an insurgent group or “nonmember observer state” resorts to openly unjust means, its actions are unambiguously terroristic. It follows that even if the ritualistic Palestinian claims of a hostile Israeli “occupation” were reasonable rather than invented, their corresponding claim of entitlement to oppose Israel “by any means necessary” would still remain false.
International law has determinable form and content. Its principles and practices cannot be fashioned and re-fashioned by individual terror groups only to satisfy their own presumed geo-political interests. This fact is unchanged by any diplomatic upgrading of the terror group in question.
National liberation movements that fail to meet the test of just means can never be protected as lawful or legitimate. Even if we could somehow accept the intrinsically spurious argument that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah fulfill the codified criteria of “national liberation,” it is plain that they do not meet the recognizable standards of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity. These authoritative standards are applicable to insurgent organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and by the two 1977 Protocols to these Conventions.
About the Author: Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is professor of Political Science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
Despite the interim agreement between Iran and several world powers, which provides for a softening of sanctions in return for a curtailment of elements of the Iranian nuclear development program, many members of Congress have resisted calls from the White House to defer legislation that would impose increased sanctions on Iran should a satisfactory final agreement not be reached or the Iranians fail to adhere to the temporary deal.
The Jewish Press raised some eyebrows with its endorsement of Bill de Blasio in the New York City mayoral election. After all, the editorial positions we’ve taken over the years are not particularly compatible with Mr. de Blasio’s liberal track record.
Filling two vacuums at once – one of Orthodox women taking a more public role and a second of Modern Orthodox Jews demonstrating the merits of religious Jewish practice – Allison Josephs has transformed her sweet and engaging webisodes and blog into a larger force. Jew in the City is now a franchise.
Yossi Klein Halevi’s Like Dreamers (Harper) explores the lives of seven Israeli paratroopers in the Six-Day War who, his subtitle suggests, “Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation.” It offers a fascinating variation on the theme of Israel at a fateful crossroads, in search of itself, following the wondrously unifying moment at the Western Wall in June 1967 when Jewish national sovereignty in Jerusalem was restored for the first time in nineteen centuries.
Although she survived the attack, she was demonized on Egypt’s talk shows for the violence she endured.
With the conclusion of the Syrian fiasco, the Obama administration had to turn it’s attention to a more imminent threat.
Adebolajo said there was an ongoing “war between Muslims and the British people” and he was a “soldier of Allah.”
The Saudis are signaling that they will unleash a pre-emptive war in the Middle East.
The less you know about Islam, the better. Ignorance is strength.
The topics are “The Reagan Strategy,” and the “Iran Time Bomb.”
The fact that ObamaCare was sold with lies multiplies the political resonance tenfold.
Like his father, Lapid believed that the Hareidim, together with the Palestinians, are parasites.
Terrorists are not folks and Americans were not attacked but murdered in a despicable and cold-blooded act of terrorism.
So much of the struggle between Israel and the Arabs continues to concern space.
It is, after all, difficult for any civilized people to acknowledge self-defense imperatives that could allow killing as remediation.
A core element of international law is the basic rule of nullum crimen sine poena, or “no crime without a punishment.”
In law, one man’s terrorist can never be another man’s freedom fighter.
Within Israel’s decisional boundaries, diplomatic processes that are premised on assumptions of reason and rationality may soon need to be reconsidered.
There are many specific and readily identifiable reasons for the failure of “Oslo,” a term that – though originally signifying the accords signed twenty years ago between Israel and the Palestinians – has become a commonplace shorthand for the Middle East peace process.
As I noted here last week, “the situation of survival is the central situation of power. Yet, as the ‘Middle East peace process’ makes Israel’s survival more and more problematic, this enterprise now effectively deprives Israel of its power. Left to proceed, the process will eventually permit Israel’s enemies to enjoy a triumph that still remains cleverly concealed, the conspicuous triumph experienced by certain still-living persons, when confronted by the powerless one who is dying.”
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/louis-bene-beres/why-un-fiat-wont-turn-terrorists-into-statesmen/2012/12/19/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.