The Gaza War: Appearance vs. Reality
Why is Hamas putting its weapons in the middle of homes, schools, hospitals and mosques in the first place?
Palestinian violence has been persistent in violating all rules of engagement, despite the signed Oslo II Interim Agreement of 1995, Article XIV of which states that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall be completely demilitarized.
Now that the dust has begun to settle in Gaza after Israel's Operation Protective Edge, it is again easy to feel sorry for the beleaguered Palestinians. As everyone knows who looks at The New York Times and CNN, the lingering images are incontestably painful, and continue to look "asymmetrical" and "disproportionate."
How could Hamas have been the aggressor when so many more Arabs than Israelis were killed? Surely the side with greater civilian losses must always be in the right. How could it be otherwise?
The people of Gaza (together with those many Israelis still forced to live under terrorist rocket attacks) are indeed victims of regional violence. But their victimization was not caused by any outside enemy. On the contrary, Palestinian suffering remains the direct result of a criminal Hamas leadership. Why is Hamas putting its weapons in the middle of homes, schools, hospitals and mosques in the first place?
Moreover, this Palestinian leadership sits safely away from Gaza, either tucked away in Qatar or the comfortable parts of Europe. "Martyrdom" is always welcomed, as long as it is someone else's.
Israeli soldiers inspect a concrete-reinforced tunnel that was dug by Hamas from Gaza to Israel, in preparation for a terror attack, August 3, 2014. (Image source: IDF)
Contrary to carefully scripted outbursts from Hamas, Israel's defensive responses were never gratuitous or contrived. Unlike their adversaries, Israelis receive absolutely no joy from killing others. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and related terror groups operating from Gaza, on the contrary, always seem to take calculated steps to ensure that Israeli reprisals will kill or injure Palestinian noncombatants. By directing elderly women and young children to those areas in Gaza from which lethal rockets will intentionally be launched into Israeli homes, hospitals, and schools -- with the knowledge that the Israelis will have to return fire to the places from which the fire originated -- Palestinian leaders openly violate the most elementary restrictions of the laws of war. Under international law, holding civilians in front of one as a shield is specified as a crime.
Ironically, these criminals are now proposing to bring Israel's leaders before the International Criminal Court.
Now, after an expectedly inconclusive end to Operation Protective Edge, several major Palestinian terror groups will begin to prepare for expanded attacks on Israel. Such attacks, possibly in cooperation with certain allied jihadist factions (perhaps even with the Islamic State, [IS], which is now slaughtering its way across Iraq), could include chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Over time, especially if Iran transfers some of its growing inventory of nuclear materials to terror groups, Israel could even face Palestinian-directed nuclear terrorism, perhaps launched from trucks and ships, as well as from nuclear-tipped rockets and missiles.
Should Iran be permitted to become nuclear-capable, as now seems a certainty, it could send ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads against Israel, as it has repeatedly threatened to do, despite the stipulations in the UN Charter that member states are prohibited from threatening each other. Israel's Arrow ballistic missile defense system would require a 100% rate of success, but no such system of perfect reliability is possible.
Israel has always tried during war to keep its essential counterterrorism operations in Gaza consistent with the established rules of international humanitarian law. By contrast, Palestinian violence has been persistent in violating all rules of engagement, despite the signed Oslo II Interim Agreement of 1995, Article XIV of which states that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall be completely demilitarized. 
Furthermore, although the word "occupation" has been tirelessly repeated in the media for a month, there is no "occupation" of Gaza. Every last Israeli left Gaza in 2005, in the hope that the Palestinians, reciprocally, would finally cease their self-destructive excursions into terror and instead use the opportunity to build a productive state. All restrictions on how goods could enter Gaza grew out of the concern, now seen as justified, that instead of building a productive state of its own, Hamas was using the material it imported to build a city of terror tunnels from which to attack Israel. What country could possibly permit that of a neighbor who keeps pledging to destroy it?
Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and international law. His most recent legal writings can be found in the Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Brown Journal of World Affairs; and Oxford University Press. Professor Beres' popular writings are published in US News & World Report; The Jerusalem Post; The New York Times; and The Atlantic. Dr. Beres was born at the end of World War II in Zürich, Switzerland.
 3. Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
4. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I.
Reader comments on this item
|Why does Hamas put missiles, tunnels with the public? [173 words]||julea bacall||Aug 20, 2014 05:05|
|The Hamas Urban Warfare Manual encourages use of civilians to stop the IDF [124 words]||Moll||Aug 19, 2014 21:00|
|Reality is unimportant [25 words]||Sylvia Quastel||Aug 19, 2014 13:49|
|Hamas is not alone [302 words]||Franck Prissert||Aug 19, 2014 11:22|
|We are Not living in a world Governed by Reason [176 words]||Elisheva||Aug 19, 2014 11:11|
|Media Gumption Outdoes Chutzpah [51 words]||Holy Shirt||Aug 19, 2014 11:01|
|A lot of Victims [110 words]||Andrew T. Halmay||Aug 19, 2014 10:25|
|Wake up, world! [39 words]||Martin Bookspan||Aug 19, 2014 10:22|
|Revolution [106 words]||Ugh||Aug 19, 2014 10:02|
|appeasement 80 years on [117 words]||jane||Aug 19, 2014 09:28|
|What the West believes [60 words]||Gabby Klein||Aug 19, 2014 09:18|
|PR campaign [73 words]||Len Sive||Aug 19, 2014 08:56|
|fabricated evidential photos [119 words]||DockyWocky||Aug 19, 2014 08:38|
|The Gaza War [16 words]||Ariane Hechter||Aug 19, 2014 06:46|
|Those that defame and incite should be brought to task [135 words]||fiorella massey||Aug 19, 2014 06:39|
|Why does the West support Hamas at the expense of the people of Gaza? [251 words]||Nomi Benari||Aug 19, 2014 06:27|
|↔ Truth versus personal safety. [136 words]||Laura||Aug 20, 2014 09:46|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz