[Boston Globe] Daniel Taub - I recently asked a group of eminent jurists on a fact-finding mission: "Considering the rocket attacks launched against Israel by terrorist groups in Gaza, what in your view would have constituted a lawful response?" The answer was total silence. The troubling notion that international law has no practical advice for a state facing terrorist attacks other than to grin and bear it is increasingly pervasive. According to the understanding of international law of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, Israel has no right whatsoever to defend itself. Yet, contrary to the impression created by such experts, international law is not a suicide pact. It offers practical guidance to a state seeking to respond responsibly and effectively to threats to the lives of its civilians. International law does not require, for example, that a state refrain from attacking a lawful military target - a missile launcher or a weapons stockpile, say - solely because it has been placed in the heart of a civilian area. To require this would simply encourage terrorist organizations to operate from within kindergartens and hospitals. There may indeed be attractions to maintaining a pristine ideal of international law. But in practice, it offers a simplistic and unworkable legal model that absurdly posits that the more irresponsible, illegal, and morally reprehensible the actions of terrorists, the less a state is permitted to do in response. The writer is a senior legal adviser in Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2009-05-08 06:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive