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
(Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs) Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch - The latest wave of U.S. strikes against the Houthis in Yemen was an expression of clear U.S. support for a legal position long held by Israel. The Laws of War define civilians who take part in hostilities - i.e., people who present themselves as innocents but are combatants - as "direct participants in hostilities" (DPHs). Under the Laws of War, DPHs are legitimate targets and do not enjoy the protection of the Third or Fourth Geneva Conventions. Using the widely accepted definition of DPH, Israel has targeted hundreds of terrorists from Hamas and other Gazan terror organizations. Many of these terrorists were targeted, similar to the U.S. strikes against the Houthis, in their homes. While these strikes sometimes also resulted in the death of civilians, they remained legal and legitimate under the Laws of War and the principle of "proportionality." The Laws of War and "proportionality" accept that incidental or collateral damage may be caused when a military target is attacked. Attacks of this nature are legitimate so long as the loss of life and damage to property incidental to the attack is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. As the value of the military target grows, so too does the extent of permitted incidental damage. In its strike in Yemen, the United States was implementing the same position held by Israel. The Houthis are terrorists, no different from their Hamas partners in the Iranian axis of terror. As such, its members and leadership are legitimate targets even when sleeping in their beds. If hostile elements such as the UN and the International Criminal Court were to rule that Israel's actions were illegitimate, in practice, they would also be condemning the similar U.S. approach. The writer, former director of the Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria, is director of the Palestinian Authority Accountability Initiative at the Jerusalem Center. 2025-03-20 00:00:00Full Article
U.S. Attacks in Yemen Provide a Security Blanket for Israel in The Hague
(Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs) Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch - The latest wave of U.S. strikes against the Houthis in Yemen was an expression of clear U.S. support for a legal position long held by Israel. The Laws of War define civilians who take part in hostilities - i.e., people who present themselves as innocents but are combatants - as "direct participants in hostilities" (DPHs). Under the Laws of War, DPHs are legitimate targets and do not enjoy the protection of the Third or Fourth Geneva Conventions. Using the widely accepted definition of DPH, Israel has targeted hundreds of terrorists from Hamas and other Gazan terror organizations. Many of these terrorists were targeted, similar to the U.S. strikes against the Houthis, in their homes. While these strikes sometimes also resulted in the death of civilians, they remained legal and legitimate under the Laws of War and the principle of "proportionality." The Laws of War and "proportionality" accept that incidental or collateral damage may be caused when a military target is attacked. Attacks of this nature are legitimate so long as the loss of life and damage to property incidental to the attack is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. As the value of the military target grows, so too does the extent of permitted incidental damage. In its strike in Yemen, the United States was implementing the same position held by Israel. The Houthis are terrorists, no different from their Hamas partners in the Iranian axis of terror. As such, its members and leadership are legitimate targets even when sleeping in their beds. If hostile elements such as the UN and the International Criminal Court were to rule that Israel's actions were illegitimate, in practice, they would also be condemning the similar U.S. approach. The writer, former director of the Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria, is director of the Palestinian Authority Accountability Initiative at the Jerusalem Center. 2025-03-20 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|