United Liberty

Americans may be growing tired of biannual belligerent escalations in the Middle East, or more Generation X and younger commentators are getting jobs in media and thus publishing views more complex and nuanced than the blind support of Israel that characterized the Baby Boomers. Whatever the case, we now live in a political climate where Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, a friendly place for neoconservatism, includes articles such as this one by the Palestinian American professor George Bisharat:

Israel’s current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense. Rather, it involves serious violations of international law, including war crimes. Senior Israeli political and military leaders may bear personal liability for their offenses, and they could be prosecuted by an international tribunal, or by nations practicing universal jurisdiction over grave international crimes. Hamas fighters have also violated the laws of warfare, but their misdeeds do not justify Israel’s acts.

The United Nations charter preserved the customary right of a state to retaliate against an “armed attack” from another state. The right has evolved to cover nonstate actors operating beyond the borders of the state claiming self-defense, and arguably would apply to Hamas. However, an armed attack involves serious violations of the peace. Minor border skirmishes are common, and if all were considered armed attacks, states could easily exploit them — as surrounding facts are often murky and unverifiable — to launch wars of aggression. That is exactly what Israel seems to be currently attempting.