Israel and International Law
http://info.jpost.com/C003/Suppleme...010/art.01.html
(quick and free registration required)
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder wasted no time Sunday in condemning Israel’s air strike on a training camp in Syria used by Islamic Jihad.
"Violating the sovereignty of a third country,‘ he said on a state visit to Egypt, ’cannot be accepted.‘ Then France added its voice: ’Unacceptable.‘ Britain: ’Unacceptable.‘ Canada: ’An escalation." And so on and on.
This is not to say the international community (putting the US to one side) forbids Israel from exercising its right of self defense. It is only that they believe that "the fight against terrorism… has to take place within the rules of international law," as the European Union’s Javier Solana recently explained.
According to these rules, Israel may not impose closures on Palestinian cities because doing so punishes the innocent. For the same reason, Israel may not demolish the homes or deport the families of suicide bombers. It may not imprison terrorist suspects without availing them of the rights given to Israeli citizens.
Israel may not follow a policy of targeted assassinations because such action is "extra-judicial." It may not deploy its troops in Palestinian cities or towns to arrest terrorist suspects or shut down bomb factories because this is a form of occupation. It may not build a wall because this involves the theft of Palestinian lands and is racist. It may not build bypass roads for the safety of its settlers because those settlers shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Israel may not attack terrorist training camps in third countries because this is a violation of sovereignty. It may not overfly third countries without permission to monitor potentially hostile activity. It may not possess nuclear arms. It may not attack hostile countries attempting to build nuclear arms. It may not meet with Terje Roed-Larsen.
All this Israel may not do. It would be helpful if our European and Canadian friends would outline for us exactly what we may do to fight terrorism "within the rules of international law." But we know the answer to that already. Evacuate all settlements. Withdraw to the ’48 armistice lines. And resolve, to the satisfaction of the Palestinian Authority, the question of refugees.
It is not as if we are categorically opposed to international law. But we are opposed to an interpretation of the law that offers Israel no realistic military recourse. We are opposed to the invoking of international law only against the party attempting to exercise self-defense.
And we are opposed to laws that no Western nation would apply to itself were it under sustained terrorist attack. When was the last time the European Council formally condemned the US for targeted killings of al-Qaida leaders? Until they do so, loudly and in unison, we must draw the conclusion that the Jewish state is being singled out principally because it is an easy target.
International law has its place. So does our sovereign right of self-defense. Messrs. Schroeder, Solana, de Villepin et al, are entitled to condemn us for violating international law, but only if they are also willing to take meaningful action against terrorism. So far they have not done so. Instead, they continue to engage diplomatically both state (Syria, Iran) and non-state (Hizbullah) terrorist actors. To Israel, they lecture and counsel retreat.
No wonder Israelis will no longer "take risks for peace," to use that shopworn phrase. As we walk the tightrope, Europe removes the net, which is why the United States remains the only nation for whom we will dare take risks.
