The military leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, Ahmed Jabari, has been assassinated in an Israeli air strike in Gaza. The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on Wednesday night (14th November) to discuss the onslaught and heard a plea from the Palestinian UN observer to stop “war crimes being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people”. The Israeli ambassador replied that the strikes were launched after days of rocket fire out of Gaza and Israel had a right to defend itself.
The assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari in a missile strike in Gaza City was the “start of a broader operation”, according to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), which it named Operation Pillar of Defense. Since the start of this Operation at the 14th November, a total of 1,500 rockets have been fired at southern Israel, about half of which were recorded as hits in Israeli territory. The Iron Dome anti-missile defense system has intercepted over 400 rockets, preventing them from striking populated areas in Israel.
Right of legitimite self-defense or aggression?
In international law, use of force excercising the right of (legitimite) self-defense has to be proportional. It means the use of force in self-defense has to be limited to the use of force necessary to counter the initial attack or aggression.
So, who is the initial aggressor in this particular case?
Professor International Law Terry Gill (University of Utrecht, University of Amsterdam) argues that the recent hostilities point into the direction of Israel as initial aggressor. It looks like the assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari is rather a retaliation than a direct reponse to a particular Hamas attack. If Israel is considered to be the initial aggressor, Hamas has a right to self-defense. According to professor Gill, Hamas has reacted disproportionally by launching hundreds of rockets.
Hamas has violated international humanitairian law, because Hamas in the launch of those rockets has not been able to make a distinction between military objectives on the one side and civilian and civilian objectives one the other side: legitimite self-defence has turned by accident into aggression. Israel has on its turn a right to legitimite self-defense against Hamas’ rocket attacks. Of course the principle of proportionality applies to Israel’s right to self-defense too.
In Professor Alan Johnson’s view Israel’s response to Hamas’ rocket launches has been a proportional exercise of the right to self-defense. In Johnson’s words: ”in international law and just war theory, proportionality is not the same thing as symmetry. (…..) Proportionality, then, must be measured in part against the future: What is the value of the end-in-view to be achieved? What is the future threat to be avoided? Israel’s stated end-in-view has been rightful: to protect the citizens of southern Israel by stopping the rocket attacks.”
Professor Johnson again: “In comparison to Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, what is striking about the current military action is precisely how limited the civilian casualties have been. As of this morning, the Israeli Defence Force has conducted over 1,500 targeted strikes against the weapons caches and the command and control facilities of armed groups; on the rocket launching sites, the tunnels through which they are smuggled, and the terrorists who fire them – all deliberately hidden in built-up civilian areas. These 1,500 strikes have caused around 130 deaths and a significant number of those are terrorists.”
Peace negotiations with Hamas resulted in a ceasefire on November 21, at 9 pm., which has been respected so far.
Both parties claim the victory.
However, there is still a continuing potential explosive situation in Gaza, for two reasons:
Israel hammers Hamas in Gaza offensive (Yahoo News, 14-11-2012)
Hamas says ‘gates of hell opened’ as Israel kills military leader in Gaza (The Guardian, 15-11-2012)
Palestinian Authority sidelined in Hamas-Israel conflict (Los Angeles Times, 20-11-2012)
Why Israel’s Action in Gaza is not “disproportionate” by professor Alan Johnson (Statesmen, 20-11-2012)
Israel and Hamas agree to Gaza cease-fire (NBC News, 21-11-2012)
Cultural Heritage distinguishes between Tangible Cultural Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Tangible Cultural Heritage can include archaeological sites, artifacts, buildings, monuments and culturally significant landscapes such as sacred places whereas Intangible Cultural Heritage can include language, oral histories, beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, customs, music, dance and other arts. The most important international organization that deals with Cultural Heritage is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Check this Research guide
Mare Liberum
Nellen, H.J.M., Hugo de Groot: een leven in strijd om de vrede, 1583-1645, Amsterdam, Balans, 2007.
Hugo Grotius Mare liberum / , 1609-2009
On June 25 th , 2006 was Corporal Gilad Shalit taken hostage by Hamas. He was denied all visits from the Red Cross and any members of his family. Gilad Shalit was ultimately imprisoned for 5 years and 4 months; he was used on several occasions as a tool and a part of Hamas’s ongoing campaign to terrorize and strike fear into Israeli citizens by releasing threatening animated videos of him pleading for release. Achmed Jabari was the mastermind of this plan. After years of negotiating and concessions , Israel managed to secure a deal for Gilad Shalit’s freedom.
Over the summer months of 2012, from May to September, an average of 30 to 40 rockets per month were fired on Israeli cities. In October the pace escalated: Over 116 rockets and 55 mortar shells were fired into Israel in October in 92 separate attacks. On October 16th seven rockets were fired, one of which hit a kindergarten; miraculously, none of the children were present at the time. For all off October , over 116 rockets and 55 mortar shells would be fired into Israel even after this did t he Israeli government chose restraint.
On Saturday, November 10 th , 2012 Gazan militants fired an anti-tank missile on an Israeli jeep traveling 150 meters inside the border fence. Four Israeli soldiers were wounded. The militants released a video of the attack shortly afterwards, with a message intended to inflame the Israeli public. Still the Israeli government chose restraint over violence and refrained from an all-out attack. . Palestinian militants responded with 16 more shells launched on civilian areas in Ashkelon , Ashdod and Yavne . It was only after these attacks that Israel responded with a highly targeted airstrike on the chief of Hamas’s military wing, Achmed Al-Jabari.
Israel’s right to defend itself should be assessed in light of Israel’s repeated attempts to avoid violence. Even when Israel finally decided to resort to force, the IDF warned the citizens of Gaza by dropping leaflets in areas that would be hit by air strikes so civilians could leave the area safely. Additionally, warning blasts were fired to make sure every civilian had indeed evacuated the area. Even after these measures, did Israeli jets not target entire areas or neighborhoods, but use precision missiles on identified targets in order to make certain that even while targeting terrorists they were making every effort to minimize casualties.
As a human being I ask myself: Has any other country in the world done so much to protect the lives of its enemies? Would I do the same if my children were attacked?