13 Fall 2023 did not do so, as the Israel Defense Forces concluded that the harm to the hospital would be disproportionate even to the military advantage of taking out the command post. When a rocket is about to be fired towards Israel, we must take into account not only the enemy’s civilian casualties but also our possible casualties. Clearly this dilemma becomes most acute when we discover a rocket that is about to be launched. These decisions are made by military commanders on the spot when they themselves are under fire. As stated, Israel takes these precautions for several reasons, including humanitarian considerations, such as our pilots not wanting to kill civilians, and because Israel does not want to offer its opponents the opportunity to happily claim, “Ah, Israel has killed civilians!” The sixth issue revolves around Palestinian selfdetermination. The innumerable international declarations supporting Palestinian self-determination do not stipulate that the Palestinians must also respect Israel’s right to self-determination and sovereignty. Self-determination, apparently, is a right only considered relevant for the Palestinians. The seventh issue is the ever-present claim of a rule that has been invented regarding a “right of return” for descendants of people who fled or were expelled from the area. This so-called right “applies” to people even though they are not, nor have they ever been, your citizens or even domiciled in your country. According to this invented rule, it is sufficient that if your grandfather came from British Mandate Palestine in 1948, you have a right under international law to “return” to Israel. There is no such right in international law, and no other country states that such a right exists. Sometimes states offer preferential treatment to certain groups. For example, Ireland gives priority to return and receive citizenship to people of Irish descent. Germany has similar provisions. However, determining which individuals are eligible for such priority decisions is an internal decision. Israel grants priority to people of Jewish descent but somehow for Israel, “Under international law, there is an automatic ‘right of return’ for Arab descendants to the nth generation.” While no other country has such a rule imposed upon it, such an imposition is seen to be valid in the context of Israel. The eighth issue is the handling of questions by the International Court of Justice. The UN General Assembly has asked the International Court of Justice in The Hague for an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories in Gaza and the West Bank. The International Court of Justice can give advisory opinions to United Nations bodies, although normally, these are rendered on technical issues of international law. However, the Court has previously ruled that it will not render an opinion on the merits of a dispute between two states. The rationale behind this is that states must a gree to appear before an international legal body; they cannot be forced to do so. By extension, the Court cannot determine the merits of a case when a party has not consented to the Court’s involvement. However, the Court seemingly forgets this ruling when handling issues regarding Israel. In a previous case, the International Court of Justice reneged on this rule by arguing that it can give an opinion on the merits of a case when requested to do so by the UN. When the a ctivities of other states are involved, the UN asks the Court to determine an action’s legality. When addressing Israel’s actions, the question of legality is completely bypassed, and instead the Court is asked, “What are the results of Israel's illegal activities?” In other words, any action by Israel is presumed to be illegal without any inquiry. At law school, one is taught about the question posed to the accused: “Have you stopped beating your wife, answer yes or no.” The framing of the question obliterates any presumption of innocence. Similarly with Israel, the Court operates under the UN’s assertion that Israel’s actions are illegal and it is now required to outline the consequences. In any other scenario, a court operating under the presumption of guilt rather than innocence would be considered a miscarriage of justice. However, when it comes to Israel, it is par for the course. The ninth and final issue is evaluating proportionality in warfare. You may have heard that “Israel has used disproportionate force against military targets.” Anybody who has had any experience in armed conflict knows that you want to hit the enemy’s armed forces harder than they hit you. They should know that playing around with you is dangerous. There was once a cartoon regarding Israel in a French magazine that showed an animal in a cage. Underneath it was the caption: “Be careful! This animal is dangerous: When attacked, it defends itself.” Our enemies should know that if they attack us, we will hit back, harder, if possible, than they did! I think that one of the problems is that the criticism does not come from foreign military personnel who are familiar with the law. The criticism comes from people who have no experience with actual military conflict. Once again, my experience with the Advocates General from other countries highlights that they have no problem whatsoever with Israel’s actions during wartime. But there are Foreign Ministry officials who, luckily perhaps for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=