In Gaza, Israel Followed International Law And Not World Opinion

During the Gaza operation, there were instances when Israel followed the rule of Interantional Law as opposed to the arbitrary dictates of international opinion:

According to reports from Gaza, dozens of Palestinian civilians were also
killed in the fighting. The army says the fighting took place in a densely populated area, and Hamas gunmen sometimes using families hiding in their homes as human shields. The army also said the rules of engagement prohibit intentional firing on civilians, however in cases where a source of fire was clearly identified as coming from a home, permission was given to open fire without determining whether civilians were also present. [Emphasis added]

Much will be made of incidences like this, but the question remains whether the condemnations will be based on International Law or more subjective and personal considerations.

In his article, International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense, Abraham Bell--member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs--writes on an element of International Law that Palestinian terrorists and their apologists ignore:

The rule of distinction requires aiming attacks only at legitimate (e.g., military and support) targets. The rule of distinction includes elements of intent and expected result: so long as one aims at legitimate targets, the rule of distinction permits the attack, even if there will be collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence. Israel has aimed its strikes at the locations from which rockets have been fired, Palestinian combatants bearing weapons and transporting arms, Palestinian terrorist commanders, and support and command and control centers. Locations such as Interior Ministry buildings from which Hamas directs some military activities are objects that make a contribution to Hamas' military actions and are therefore legitimate targets, even though they also have civilian functions. [Emphasis added]

The case of the IDF firing at the gunman firing on them from the house is the same principle.

Of course, there are cases when the IDF held back:

The officers said some of the Palestinian civilians were hit by "heavy and inaccurate" Palestinian fire. In one case the commander of the brigade reconnaissance force saw a boy of about 10 sent to bring a weapon from a dead gunman after another gunman was killed trying to retrieve it. The commander ordered his men not to fire and the boy delivered the weapon to other armed men.

No one expects recognition for self-restraint.

The International Law that Israel's critics clamor about is based on making distinctions that are more fine than just: Israel is wrong, Palestinians are right.

Technorati Tag: Israel and International Law.