12 No. 70 JUSTICE is no other state that could look after them, including Jordan, which has renounced its claim to the West Bank. Israel granted the Palestinian population the rights of protected persons in an occupied territory even though Israel does not regard the West Bank as occupied territory. As such, the Palestinian population has all the rights which the Geneva Conventions and the H ague Regulations grant to protected persons in occupied territory. Israel allows the Red Cross to be present at trials and grants the population the unprecedented right to appeal to the Israel High Court of Justice against acts conducted by the Israeli Government and by its armed forces. Israel has claims to this territory, but Israel is also aware that there are other existing claims. That issue aside, somehow for Israel, the very word “occupation” is deemed “illegal.” Why? Because it relates to Israel. Occupation is legal under the laws of war. The U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II was perfectly legal. The Allied occupation of Germany after World War II and the U.S. occupation of Iraq a fter the Gulf War were also considered perfectly legal. It is interesting that the UN Security Council, which has previously proven not to be the friendliest of bodies towards Israel, has never referred to the Israeli occupation as “illegal.” This is because the powers themselves recognize that under the laws of war, occupation is legal. It is not something permanent, and Israel does not want it to be permanent. Nevertheless, the phrase “illegal occupation” is repeated in any conversation regarding Israel. Another fact the world also chooses to ignore is that since the Oslo Agreements in the early 1990s, over 90% of the Palestinians in the West Bank live under the civilian control of the Palestinian Authority, and not under Israeli administration. The fourth issue is the use of the word “apartheid.” The attempt to brand Israeli policy as “apartheid” is particularly nefarious. The moment one is smeared with the word “apartheid,” their actions are inadmissible; they are taboo, and illegal. It evokes immediate condemnation in the third world based on their historic emotions regarding this issue. Our Arab opponents are perfectly aware of this, and this is precisely why they intentionally use the term. Israel built a security barrier separating Israel from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to combat terrorist attacks that are committed by terrorists located across the demarcation line. The barrier separated Israel's sovereign territory from territories in dispute. To pass the barrier, one must go through border control. Indeed, fences and barriers are often unpleasant, but good fences can sometimes make good neighbors. When it comes to Israel, people treat the barrier as an “Apartheid Wall.” No o ther country that has built a fence around its borders has ever had it called an Apartheid Wall. I was very disturbed to see an Amnesty report a few weeks ago claiming that Israel’s use of facial identification at the border is representative of “apartheid.” Anybody who has gone through Heathrow Airport – or many other airports in the world – is aware that the airports utilize facial identification. You must present your passport, and if your face does not look like the face printed on your passport, you are in trouble. This is exactly what Israel does at checkpoints located along the border. We use facial identification only when inspecting people who want to travel from Gaza or Judea and Samaria into Israel. Somehow Amnesty decided this behavior is “apartheid.” We cannot ignore this extreme warping of the concept. It is increasingly harmful because when people throughout the world hear the word “apartheid,” they will impulsively say, “That is abhorrent. We reject any country that does that.” The fifth issue is civilian casualties, which are always a tragedy. However, when an enemy embeds its forces amongst the civilian population, it is impossible for a state to conduct military activities without incurring some civilian casualties. When reading about D-Day, I remember learning that approximately 40,000 French civilians were killed on the first day of the operation. Yet, no one argued that the Allies were committing a war crime. I recently attended a conference of Advocates General from different armies, and these very senior legal officers stated that Israel takes more precautions to ensure it does not harm civilians than any other army. We do so for several reasons ‒ for humanitarian considerations, but also out of self-interest. Simply put, killing civilians harms Israel, regardless of the legality. It enables Hamas to say, “Look, they are attacking civilians.” It does not provide Israel with any military advantage. Hamas is well aware of Israel’s caution and deliberately places its military installations, including rockets, in or adjacent to civilian dwellings, schools, and h ospitals. Nevertheless, you must have read: “Oh, civilians were killed: it is a war crime.” It is a war crime if you deliberately attack civilians or even if citizens are harmed through negligence. If you are attacking Hamas’s rockets, which are placed next to and amidst civilians, the commander, on the spot, must consider whether the foreseeable harm to civilians is excessive compared to the military advantage of attacking the target. Is it proportional? Clearly there are cases, such as in the recent w ar in Gaza, that Hamas placed a military command post underneath a hospital. Under the laws of war, Israel could have destroyed the hospital. Yet Israel
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=