by Eli E. Hertz
It
would be a denial of reality to assume that only a small group of
terrorists could be involved in the thousands of documented acts of
terror in the past 10 years by Palestinian Arabs. In the seven years
since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has launched thousands of
rockets directly at civilian populations in Israel. It would be
reckless to assume that these acts of terror are isolated, undertaken
independently, without the direct involvement of the Palestinian
populace and the leadership they opt to elect.
Israel
often is portrayed in the media, by Western leaders, human rights
activists and the many different organs of the United Nations as
inflicting disproportionate and collective punishment on many
Palestinians for the deeds of a few terrorists.
Ironically,
the prohibition of imposing "collective penalties [punishment] ...
intimidation and terrorism" that Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention [1] talks
about, should be applied in this case to the millions of innocent men,
women, and children of Israel that are collectively being punished
day-in and day-out by Arab terrorists for "offenses" they never
"personally committed." As to the "terrorism" Article 33 speaks about;
it is the Israelis that fight to prevent Palestinian terrorism, and not
the other way around.
Interestingly,
the British in 1929 thought that collective punishment was a perfectly
legitimate measure when inhabitants of Arab villages attacked the Jews.
This collective punishment was not merely a single necessary step, but
actually an existing ordinance of the British Mandate supported by the
League of Nations, in dealing with Arab terrorism:
“Collective
Punishments. The Collective Punishments Ordinances were applied to the
[Arab] towns and villages whose inhabitants were guilty of participation
in the concerted attacks on Jews at Hebron, Safad, Motza, Artuf,
Beer-Tuvia, and heavy fines were inflicted." [2]
Throughout
history, Jews were law-abiding, peaceful people defending themselves
against Arab aggression. In a 1946 Report, the Anglo-American Committee
described its observation regarding Jews living in the land of
Palestine:
"The
Jew had to train himself for self-defence, and to accustom himself to
the life of a pioneer in an armed stockade. Throughout the Arab rising,
the Jews in the National Home, despite every provocation, obeyed the
orders of their leaders and exercised a remarkable self-discipline. They
shot, but only in self-defence; they rarely took reprisals on the Arab." [3]
Israel's
reaction to Arab aggression is nothing more than a measured, fair
response designed "to effectively terminate the attack [s]" by a
conglomerate of Palestinian Arab terrorists, supported by Iran, Syria,
and Hezbollah, in order to prevent its recurrence. [4]
Palestinian
Arabs, by their first use of armed force against Israeli civilians and
non-combatant Jews in contravention of the United Nations Charter,
constituted prima facie [Latin: on its face] evidence of an act of aggression - aggression being defined by international law as "the most serious and dangerous form of illegal use of force." [5]
Therefore, the rule of proportionality in this case of continuous aggression
needs to be met by Israeli acts that will induce the aggressors to
comply with its international obligations. Israel countermeasures need
not be the exact equivalent of the breaching act. [6] Judge Schwebel, the former president of the International Court of Justice is quoted saying:
"In
the case of action taken for the specific purpose of halting and
repelling an armed attack, this does not mean that the action should be
more or less commensurate with the attack." [7]
The
perception among Palestinians that politically motivated violence is
legitimate and effective is nothing new. From a broader perspective, if
the Palestinians are rewarded with political gains following their acts
of aggression, it can be expected that other radical groups will also
make use of their tactics. Israel will no longer be the main target.
[1] See: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/c525816bde96b7fd41256739003e636a/72728b6de56c7a68c12563cd0051bc40?OpenDocument
[2]
From the report by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of
Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan for the year
1929.
[3] Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry regarding the problem of European Jewry and Palestine. Lausanne, 20th April, 1946.
[4] See Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 3/22/2002; Beard, Jack M.
[5] See UN GA Resolution 3314.
[6]
United States Department of State, Draft Articles on State
Responsibility, Comments of the Government of the United States of
America, March 1, 2001. See: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization
[7] Ibid
Source: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=249
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment