This piece in today's Journal by George Bisharat, professor of law at UC Hastings, is breathtaking in both its presumption and its inability to substantiate the allegations that are, for a lawyer, recklessly cast about. Bisharat writes:
Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians. In the following days, Hamas continued rocket fire -- yet still no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against this escalation, because it was provoked by Israel's own violation.
An armed attack that is not justified by self-defense is a war of aggression. Under the Nuremberg Principles affirmed by U.N. Resolution 95, aggression is a crime against peace.
The Israelis claimed that this raid into Gaza was self-defensive in nature, in order to demolish what Jimmy Carter euphemistically called a "defensive tunnel." Such tunnels have been used in the past by Hamas in attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers, and if what the Israelis say is true, they were well within their rights to act preemptively to eliminate the threat. Even if what the Israelis say about that raid is not the whole truth, their claims surely merit some consideration.
Later in the piece, Bisharat gets in touch with his inner Walt:
Israel should be held accountable for its crimes, and the U.S. should stop abetting it with unconditional military and diplomatic support.
As the New York Times reports today, U.S. support for Israel's military is anything but unconditional. The Bush administration refused to allow IDF aircraft to transit Iraqi airspace, refused to provide the IDF with the bunker-busting munitions it requested, and refused to provide the IDF with the air-to-air refueling capability necessary for a strike on Iran. And just two days ago the United States failed to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate halt to Operation Cast Lead and the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza. If this is unconditional military and diplomatic support, Israelis should be deeply worried about the new conditions an Obama administration might impose.
Just for fun, see what Bisharat wrote about Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah -- a war that was sparked by Hezbollah's unprovoked aggression against Israeli soldiers in Israeli territory:
...Israel brought its iron fist down on Lebanon. The blow had been planned for at least a year, awaiting only the pretext of Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers. Hizbullah seized them to trade for Lebanese detainees that Israel had previously refused to release. If Hizbullah indeed attacked inside Israel - some reports initially located the skirmish in Lebanon - it violated Israel's sovereignty, took Israeli lives, and committed grave wrongs - but did nothing to justify the destruction of a country.
When, exactly, is Israel legally justified in using force? I'm guessing never.
