No matter how the mayhem in Gaza is perceived politically, it is impossible to watch helplessly as children, non-combatants, and the elderly are massacred unless we are & nbsp to abandon the principle of civilized behavior that is the essence of rule-based society, let alone common decency.
When they mention attorneys finding violations of international law without taking into account fundamental constitutional principles of self-defense in their email to The Times on October 20, I have to disagree with my honorable and learned buddies Lord Macdonald KC and Lord Pannick. & nbsp,
These separated and prominent King’s Counsels argue that Israel has no viable alternative to the violence it is inflicting on the persons of Gaza given that Hamas has indicated its intention to kill Israel and all Jews living within its borders. & nbsp,
Does the constitutional principle of self-defense actually be applied to something so blatant and arbitrary? No logical solution? Definitely no.
Self-defense may be relatively equal to the personal belief of the threat of force, which is the fundamental requirement that limits it.
This is occasionally, incorrectly, demonstrated by the statement that a weapon can be used to defend against another knifeman.
The concept of self-defense, however, is broad enough to provide even a pre-emptive attack when one is faced with an enormous threat of violence like that it may very well be justified to take an attacker just armed with knives, as no one knows better than my honorable and learned friends. These circumstances are both fact-sensitive. & nbsp,
Similar to how one’s self-preservation instinct may be artificially separated from the personal heat of the moment when wisdom is impaired when faced with an unprovoked assault by a superior force, one may overestimate the steps taken in their own defense. & nbsp,
Can it be actually argued, in opposition to these general principles, that the carnage being committed against thousands of non-combatants Palestinian civilians is fairly proportionate to the perceived danger from Hamas?
Give Hamas’ danger of the harsh extermination of all Jews within Israel’s borders every conceivable consideration. What evidence is there that the large majority of Palestinians who reject Hamas or its twisted reasoning are responsible for that risk? & nbsp,
Regardless of whether the Gaza War is viewed as a conflict between religions or as an international conflict for area, there is neither the time nor the area within this study to examine the traditional roots of the conflict.
Understanding the situation makes it impossible to ignore the conflicts that have been sown in thousands of years of Israeli repression, including the Balfour Declaration, the Holocaust, war like the War of Independence, six-day war, and the Yom Kippur War, all of which reflect the attitude of a people with an unavoidably sensitive instinct for success. & nbsp,
On the other hand, the 1948 forced eviction of millions of non-Jewish residents of Palestine and the establishment of two isolated, flimsy, and landlocked oases of property officially considered Arab but contained within the borders of Israel were mature for trouble.
One can easily imagine how the pressure started to increase when you consider the relentless, creeping, and unlawful land annexation by Jewish settlers that was generally tolerated by succeeding Israeli governments and encouraged by America’s most extremely stupid president ever.
The creation of an Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that included fervent religious fundamentalists and violent racist haters was unquestionably the straw that broke the camel’s up.
On October 7, a Jewish Sabbath evening, Hamas committed an evil legal attack that resulted in the deaths of honest men, girls, and children as well as the taking of lots of hostages. None of this is even remotely be justified or exonerated. In addition, & nbsp,
Unquestionably, this required timely retaliation. However, it did not justify a descent into the same levels of violent atrocity.
My honorable and learned friends’ discussion, taken to its logical conclusion, seems to be that Israel is entitled, under the rule of self-defense, to wipe out every part of Hamas regardless of the cost to the non-combatant human population in the Gaza Strip. & nbsp,
As a former soldier and criminal defense attorney, I am unaware of any such domestic or international legal process.
Prevent this pursuit of fictitious legitimate explanation, for the love of God, and immediately stop killing and injuring innocent people. & nbsp,
Neville Sarony is a well-known Hong Kong attorney who has practiced law for more than 50 years.