Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Washington Post) Peter Berkowitz - On Thursday, Hizbullah chief Hasan Nasrallah called the attacks which detonated his militia members' pagers and walkie-talkies "a war crime." On Oct. 8, 2023, Hizbullah launched a campaign of aerial bombardment of northern Israel that has continued for more than 10 months. These are acts of war. Most strike civilian areas and have driven more than 60,000 Israelis from their homes. The laws of war bar targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. In contrast, Israel's targeting of Hizbullah communication devices conformed to the three major principles of the international laws of war. First, Israel's operation was consistent with the principle of necessity, which limits military action to methods that are essential to the achievement of legitimate war aims. Igniting Hizbullah's communication devices was a direct and efficient way of accomplishing the legitimate war aims of destroying the militia's equipment and removing its fighters from combat. Second, the operation was consistent with the principle of distinction, which requires combatants to target combatants and military objects and not civilians and civilian objects. Hizbullah purchased the pagers and walkie-talkies for their commanders and fighters to facilitate their war to destroy Israel. Third, the operation was consistent with the principle of proportionality, which requires that attacks against legitimate targets not cause incidental loss of civilian life and injury to noncombatants that is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Targeting Hizbullah fighters by igniting their communications devices minimized collateral damage to a remarkable degree. Israel should be congratulated for its ingenious efforts to defend itself consistent with the international laws of war from a fanatical adversary that utterly repudiates the international laws of war. The writer is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and was director of the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department (2019-2021).2024-09-22 00:00:00Full Article
Israel's Retaliation Against Hizbullah Is Completely Lawful
(Washington Post) Peter Berkowitz - On Thursday, Hizbullah chief Hasan Nasrallah called the attacks which detonated his militia members' pagers and walkie-talkies "a war crime." On Oct. 8, 2023, Hizbullah launched a campaign of aerial bombardment of northern Israel that has continued for more than 10 months. These are acts of war. Most strike civilian areas and have driven more than 60,000 Israelis from their homes. The laws of war bar targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. In contrast, Israel's targeting of Hizbullah communication devices conformed to the three major principles of the international laws of war. First, Israel's operation was consistent with the principle of necessity, which limits military action to methods that are essential to the achievement of legitimate war aims. Igniting Hizbullah's communication devices was a direct and efficient way of accomplishing the legitimate war aims of destroying the militia's equipment and removing its fighters from combat. Second, the operation was consistent with the principle of distinction, which requires combatants to target combatants and military objects and not civilians and civilian objects. Hizbullah purchased the pagers and walkie-talkies for their commanders and fighters to facilitate their war to destroy Israel. Third, the operation was consistent with the principle of proportionality, which requires that attacks against legitimate targets not cause incidental loss of civilian life and injury to noncombatants that is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Targeting Hizbullah fighters by igniting their communications devices minimized collateral damage to a remarkable degree. Israel should be congratulated for its ingenious efforts to defend itself consistent with the international laws of war from a fanatical adversary that utterly repudiates the international laws of war. The writer is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and was director of the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department (2019-2021).2024-09-22 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|