Sounds like an "irregular combatant" to me. Give him a choice: noose or firing squad.
International law backs Israeli actions.
Regarding “Israel, Gaza and international law” (Opinion, Jan. 8):
Professor Jonathan Graubart accuses Israel of besieging Gaza, and implies that it is a violation of international humanitarian law. I know a thing or two about international humanitarian law as I belonged to the legal team of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which worked hard at updating the 1949 Geneva Conventions with two new treaties called Additional Protocols. There is nothing in these instruments that outlaws a siege in response to constant attacks by a pathologically aggressive and genocidal neighbor.
Next, Graubart repeats the latest canard that Israel “must show that its actions are proportionate.” How so? By lobbing a rocket at random over Gaza for every rocket fired by Hamas over Israel? Would that make the unilateral critics of Israel happy? The Palestinian casualties would have been horrendous, and Israel refused to stoop that low. It held its fire and endured the constant barrage for eight long years.
Overall, Graubart uses international humanitarian law only to bolster his prejudice and hold Israel accountable for unintended casualties inflicted within the Palestinian population of Gaza, while saying next to nothing to demand the same of Hamas for its fully intentional attacks. International law is not a candy store where you pick and choose what suits you. As in any civil society, the same rules apply to everybody. Hamas is no exception. Consequently, it would have helped to point out that Hamas has in fact committed what the Geneva Conventions refer politely to as “grave breaches,” which means war crimes, on at least three counts: lobbing rockets over civilian areas without any ability nor intention to distinguish between military and civilian targets, hiding its forces behind its own civilian population, and hiding arsenals, command and control centers and troops in patently civilian buildings.
In each case, the absolute immunity that civilian installations and civilian populations are entitled to under international law was automatically waived the second these installations or populations were used for military purposes. Humanitarian law is crystal clear on this point. Israel is therefore entirely in its right to destroy mosques filled to the rim with weaponry or houses hiding Hamas command centers, to name only two categories of otherwise illegal targets turned into lawful military objectives by Hamas' actions. The resulting casualties are Hamas' sole responsibility, and the critics should give blame where blame is due, not accuse Israel for merely defending itself.
JEAN-JACQUES SURBECK
Who is he? Jean-Jacques Surbeck, is a Swiss-American peace activist and lecturer and is a former Official of the International Committee of the Red Cross!