Important Articles Analyzing the Application of International Law to Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon

Far too often, people who lack the requisite knowledge to speak intelligently about both international history and international law nevertheless feel free to offer uninformed and inaccurate commentary about Israel's actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) is an association of lawyers advancing legal education about Israel and providing legal support to victims of antisemitism. The UKLFI website includes a wealth of detailed information about what international law stipulates regarding Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, and the Mideast in general. 

A good starting point for anyone who wishes to understand the legal status of Israel's borders and the territory commonly referred to as the "West Bank" but properly called Judea and Samaria is Outline of the History and Status of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). It is important to understand how mendacious it is for anyone to make the assertion "Israeli settlements are the primary obstacle to peace"; the settlements are not even illegal, let alone an obstacle to peace! It should be noted that the above article--while excellent in most respects--glosses over the dubious legality (at best) of Great Britain's decision to create Transjordan (which became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) out of the eastern 80% of the Palestine Mandate, a topic that is discussed in an Arizona Law Review article by Abraham Bell and Eugene Kontorovich (see below).

In the wake of Hamas' October 7, 2023 mass casualty terrorist attack against Israel, media outlets and even the UN uncritically accepted as factual the unverified Gaza casualty numbers released by the Hamas-controlled Gazan health ministry, but UKLFI did a detailed analysis demonstrating that the widely accepted numbers are likely wildly exaggerated numbers: Palestinian casualty figures fabricated (August 12, 2024). Here is the summary of what UKLFI found:

UKLFI CT estimates that by 29 February 2024, about 19,000 Palestinians had been killed in the Gaza Strip, of which 9,000 were combatants and 10,000 were civilians; and that by 31 July 2024, 27,000 Palestinians had been killed of which 12,000 were combatants and 15,000 were civilians. On these estimates, the civilian: combatant ratio in the current war in the Gaza Strip was 1.1:1 in the period to 29 February 2024 and at 1.3:1 in the period to 31 July 2024.

Although every civilian death is a tragedy, UKLFI CT points out that these ratios are an order of magnitude lower than the average civilian: combatant casualty ratio in urban armed conflict worldwide in 2021 (over 8:1) and half of the ratio in the Mosul battle of 2016-2017 by Iraqi and allied forces against ISIS (2.5:1), despite the exceptional difficulty of operating in the Gaza Strip.

Jonathan Turner, Executive Director of UKLFI CT, commented: "It might have been justified for media organisations to avoid coverage of any of the figures on the ground that they are unreliable. However, since the Gaza Ministries' figures for the total numbers of Palestinians allegedly killed have been repeatedly stated in media coverage, it is unbalanced and misleading not to state with similar regularity the figures provided by the IDF of the Palestinian combatants killed. This unbalanced and misleading media coverage is likely to be a major cause of rising antisemitism in the UK and around the world.

A must-read article from a different source than UKLFI is PALESTINE, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, AND THE BORDERS OF ISRAEL by Abraham Bell and Eugene Kontorovich. Bell and Kontorovich explain that the international law concept uti possidetis juris (a Latin phrase meaning "as [you] possess under law") "is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization. The doctrine provides that emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries."

They then describe how this is relevant to any discussion of Israel's current borders:

Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights).

Uti possidetis juris is the international law concept that was applied to determine the borders of the states created in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.

As mentioned above, Bell and Kontorovich point out that a strong argument can be made that the creation of Transjordan (which later became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) from the eastern portion of the Palestine Mandate was illegal (footnotes omitted):

While the British were clearly intent on establishing Transjordan as a separate, Hashemite-ruled state, the Mandate did not authorize the removal of any territory from the Mandate of Palestine; it only allowed for the nonapplication of certain provisions. Thus, while it allowed for the separate administration of eastern Palestine, it did not allow for partition; rather, Article 5 stated that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the government of any Foreign Power." The French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon contained an identical Article 5, but also had clear language providing for the establishment of two distinct states in the Mandated area, making clear that Syria and the Lebanon were viewed as two Mandates. Moreover, Article 5 was not included among the provisions of the Palestine Mandate suspended by Britain pursuant to Article 25. Zionist groups pushed this argument quite strongly in the 1930s and 1940s, and insisted on independence for the complete Palestine, including Transjordan. And the British seemed to be aware of the force of this argument, formally insisting throughout the period that the territories were under a single Mandate. 

Having withheld the applicability of certain provisions of the Mandate in 1922 and granting Jordan autonomy in 1928, Britain went the rest of the way in 1946, recognizing the independence of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the termination of the Palestine Mandate there, in 1946. At this point, arguments about the violation of the Mandate could no longer be glossed over. For the last two years of the Palestine Mandate (until May 1948), it did not include Transjordan. Upon the independence of Transjordan, the administrative boundary between it and Palestine became the new international boundary, consistent with the doctrine of uti possidetis juris. This is despite very strong legal arguments against the severance of the territory from Palestine. Thus, while Jewish nationalist parties continued to claim Transjordan throughout the 1940s and 1950s, and Transjordan (and later Jordan) claimed legal rights to territory in Palestine that it captured during its 1948 invasion, neither set of claims received any serious recognition. Indeed, the Jewish authorities of Palestine recognized Transjordan's borders despite any scruple they may have had about its formation.

The entire 60 page Arizona Law Review article is worth reading/studying carefully by anyone who wishes to avoid sounding foolish when talking about Israel, Jordan, the Palestine Mandate, and how international borders are properly determined.

Further Reading:

Nasrallah's Victims Rejoice at His Demise, While Western Media Outlets Display Their Distorted Moral Compasses (October 1, 2024)

Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism (September 18, 2024)

Anti-Zionism is Indistinguishable From Antisemitism Because Israel is the Jewish Homeland (January 5, 2024)

Israel, Hamas, and the Islamic Concepts Dar al-Islam Versus Dar al-harb (October 11, 2023)

Israel's Ongoing Oslo Accords Folly (September 28, 2023)

Who Are the Invaders, and Who are the Invaded? An Analysis of Inversions of Truth (January 12, 2022)

The Fear and Shame at the Heart of Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism (February 17, 2021)

A Masterful Review of Robert Spencer's Book "The Palestinian Delusion"

Dr. Anjuli Pandavar's detailed review of Robert Spencer's 2019 book The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process should be required reading for politicians, media members, college students, and anyone who publicly opines about the Middle East. Contrary to the Orwellian-style cancel culture that has become prevalent in the media and on U.S. college campuses, it is not "Islamophobic" to state the truth about the religious theology underpinning the actions of Iran and her terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas' Charter is easy to find online, and it describes in great detail Hamas' inspirations and goals. It is just as easy to find Hezbollah's foundational documents and underlying ideological imperatives, here quoted in pertinent part and expressing the same goals that Hamas has (emphasis added):

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

After reading the primary source material, it is clear that one has to be either woefully uninformed or antisemitic to pressure Israel to negotiate a ceasefire with an enemy whose sworn purpose is to destroy Israel and who explicitly refuses to recognize any treaty or cease fire with Israel. The reader may accordingly draw appropriate conclusions about President Biden, Vice President Harris, various international leaders, the college professors/college students who chant "Free Palestine," and many media outlets that distort historical truth to promote a preferred narrative.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Pandavar's review: 

The "delusion" in the title refers to multiple delusions: that of a Palestinian nation; that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a simple struggle over land; that the so-called "peace process" is a series of negotiations; that Judea and Samaria — what the Jordanians dubbed "The West Bank" during their occupation — and Gaza (and the Golan Heights) are "occupied territories"; and that the Muslim Arabs are the wronged party. Along the way, many lesser and shorter-lived delusions are referred to, both directly and indirectly...

The United Nations and its agencies come in for a well-deserved pummelling in The Palestinian Delusion, for they are shown to be little more than instruments of jihad, right down to the inculcation of Jew-hatred in the Muslim children in UN schools, and those children's early indoctrination into aspiring to be jihad mass murderers. A child in a UN school shares his endearing aspirations: "Stabbing and running over Jews brings dignity to the Palestinians. I'm going to run them over and stab them with knives." If The Palestinian Delusion has one loud and clear message, it is Get real!

The blatant, relentless and ritualistic discrimination against and legal abuse of Israel at the United Nations are also thoroughly treated, not least the outrageous "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war," contrived especially for Israel after it drove Jordanian troops back out of Judea and Samaria, Egyptian troops back out of Gaza (and all the way across the Suez Canal) and Syrian troops off the Golan Heights, after these countries' aggressive war of 1967, intent on wiping out Israel.

It has been a basic principle ever since men made war, that if an aggressor loses a war, that aggressor loses such territory as the victim had managed to conquer from it. The book makes clear that it is the first time ever that it is demanded of a country attacked that it returns territory conquered from aggressors in self-defence. Of course, should Israel accept this ridiculous and suicidal principle, any of its many hostile neighbours will have every incentive to try again next year in the full knowledge that they will never lose territory, and the old Islamic pattern of annual jihad war will be restored. The Palestinian Delusion strengthens the view that the United Nations has outlived its original purpose. That is putting it mildly.

Pressuring Israel to agree to a cease fire that her enemies have no intention of honoring is a recipe for disaster and suffering, not a blueprint for peace. What is the solution? The solution is not a reality that Leftists want to face, but one that Israel's enemies fear: Israel fighting until complete victory is obtained, thus denying her enemies the opportunity to keep contesting limited liability wars in which Arab/Muslim conquests are permanent but Israeli victories are temporary advances immediately wiped out by international pressure or voluntary Israeli concessions. Israel has tried "Land for Peace" since the 1978 Camp David Accords, and the result has been that Israel gave up a lot of land but obtained very little peace.

Dr. Pandavar concludes:

The key to success of Israeli military force is permanent insecurity for Arab Muslims, the only condition that Islam recognises as a valid excuse for suspending jihad. The surest way of accomplishing such permanent insecurity is by Arab Muslims permanently losing territory every time they attack Israel. The entire point of jihad is the violent subjugation of the entire world "until all religion is for Allah." Every part of the earth that is now subjugated, or was once subjugated, is "Muslim land" and the greatest humiliation for those on jihad is to lose Muslim land. Humiliation equals defeat. This is why those advocating for Israel annexing and Jews closely settling Gaza and Judea and Samaria are correct.

Leftists will scream that this smacks of racism, nationalism, or some other "ism" that they have determined to be inimical to human progress--and Islamists will applaud the bleatings of their useful idiots--but decades of Mideast history have illustrated the key to success, if Israel is brave enough to take it. It is important to understand and acknowledge the extent to which the concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-harb (see the fourth article in Further Reading for more details) drive the actions of Israel's enemies. "Land for Peace," "Two State Solution," and "Free Palestine" are propaganda slogans that have no relevance regarding the Mideast, because the root cause of the conflict is the fundamental Islamic precept that non-Muslims must be subjugated, driven out, or killed. That is a brutal reality that many people refuse to face, but refusing to face reality does not change reality.

Further Reading: 

Professor Louis Rene Beres Lucidly Explains Why Israel's Justified Military Responses Are Not Terrorism Even if Civilians Are Killed (September 21, 2024)

Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism (September 18, 2024)

Anti-Zionism is Indistinguishable From Antisemitism Because Israel is the Jewish Homeland (January 5, 2024)

Israel, Hamas, and the Islamic Concepts Dar al-Islam Versus Dar al-harb (October 11, 2023)

The Implications of Hamas' Surprise Attack Against Israel (October 7, 2023) 

Israel's Ongoing Oslo Accords Folly (September 28, 2023)

The Fear and Shame at the Heart of Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism (February 17, 2021)

Pictures of Four Israeli Soldiers Killed in Gaza Bring Several Thoughts to Mind

Looking at the pictures of the four brave young men who just fell in battle in Gaza to defend Israel, I have many thoughts but three thoughts come to the forefront:

1) If Israel were truly trying to commit genocide then she would not put her soldiers at risk in building to building targeted combat but she would just bomb Gaza to oblivion. 

2) If Israel were truly an "apartheid state" as the modern blood libel insists, then pictures of her soldiers would not look like a United Colors of Benetton ad. The reality is that tiny Israel--just twice the size of L.A. County--is the only nation between Morocco and Pakistan that embraces ethnic diversity while having free elections, free speech, women's rights, and religious freedom. An Arab who publicly questions Israel's right to exist can run for election and serve in Israel's Knesset (Parliament); the equivalent opportunity does not exist in any other country in that region. 

The outside agitators and brainwashed fools who are rampaging across U.S. college campuses chanting hate speech against Jews and Israel probably could not find Gaza on a map, and they have no clue about the historical truth about Israel or Gaza; the propaganda they spout is not only false but it is not even internally consistent: I am waiting for them to decide if (1) Gaza was a thriving area until Israel bombed it or (2) Gaza was an "open air prison." Logically, both cannot be true, but once you decide to chant "From the River to the Sea..." you abandoned logic a long time ago.

3) By pressuring Israel to delay the Rafah operation and then refusing to deliver various weapons to Israel, the United States emboldened Hamas, gave Hamas time to prepare, and thus put Israeli lives at risk. A stronger Israeli leader than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have either sent forces into Rafah weeks ago, or else made the determination that instead of endangering Israeli soldiers in close combat Israel must bomb into submission the entrenched Hamas forces.

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Esq. provided a brilliant analysis of the history of American diplomatic pressure leading to catastrophic results, and he concluded, "The United States can weather its bad policy choices; it is big country protected by two oceans. It rarely pays any price for its diplomatic follies. That price is paid by its erstwhile allies pressured into acting against their own interests." 

In order to survive, Israel must be brave and must act in her own self interest. When Menachem Begin was Prime Minister of Israel and Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator, Begin rebuked Biden by declaring, "Don't threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid." 

Unfortunately, Netanyahu must be an octopus, because it seems that he does not have two trembling knees but eight trembling knees that paralyze his ability to move decisively. He bears great responsibility for weakening Israel by repeatedly caving in to outside pressure for the past two decades, and if he wants to salvage what is left of his good name then he only has two choices: finish the job in Gaza and then resign, or resign now to make room for a true leader who will finish the job in Gaza.

Finishing the job means, at a minimum, the following:

1) Hamas is eliminated as a functioning terrorist, military, and political entity.

2) Hamas' state sponsors--including but perhaps not limited to Iran and Qatar--must pay reparations for the killed, for the injured, and for the destruction of property.

3) All hostages held by Hamas must be released immediately and unconditionally.

Just hours after Hamas' October 7, 2023 mass casualty terrorist attack, I predicted the following:

The broad outline of events for the next few weeks is sadly predictable:

1) For the next 24-48 hours, America and many Western countries will express sympathy for Israel.

2) After 48 hours at most, attention will shift to Israel's allegedly "disproportionate" response, and both sides--but mostly Israel--will be urged to "act with restraint."

3) Most media outlets will present false narratives about alleged "legitimate Palestinian grievances" that supposedly justify Hamas' attacks. Few people will have the courage to publicly state the truth: 

There has never been a sovereign country called Palestine, nor is there a distinct Palestinian people. If you don't believe me, then consider the words of Zuheir Mohsen, who was a high-ranking PLO leader in the 1970s. In a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Mohsen declared:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

The word Palestine has nothing to do with Arab or Islamic history, but it dates back to the Latin name that the Romans gave to Judea (the second Jewish Commonwealth) after conquering and subjugating the Jewish people (and the Latin name is derived from a Greek word). After destroying the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Romans renamed the city Aelia Capitolina, and they proudly printed coins bearing the words "Judea Capta." The Roman Empire was long ago consigned to history's dustbin, but the Jewish people are still here and the Jewish people have reestablished their historical state in their historical land. We know when the first Jewish Commonwealth was founded (roughly 3000 years ago), we know its approximate and fluctuating borders, we know that Jerusalem was its political capital and main religious center, we know when that state was conquered by the Babylonians (roughly 2500 years ago), we know when the Maccabees established a second Jewish Commonwealth (roughly 2200 years ago), we know when the second Jewish Commonwealth was conquered by the Roman Empire (roughly 2100 years ago), and we know when the final Jewish revolt against Rome was defeated (less than 2000 years ago). We know that the people in the first and second Jewish Commonwealths spoke Hebrew. 

In contrast, the notion of a distinct Palestinian Arab nation is quite recent, and has no historical basis. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded in Cairo, Egypt in 1964, with funding and support provided by the Soviet Union. What exactly was the PLO founded to "liberate"? In 1964, Egypt controlled Gaza, while Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria plus the eastern portion of Jerusalem. If the PLO had been truly interested in creating a Palestinian national state in Gaza plus the West Bank then why was the PLO conducting terrorist attacks against Israel, a nation that had no control over the areas that the PLO supposedly wanted to "liberate"? Of course, the reality is that the Soviet Union helped create the PLO to destabilize Israel and thus increase the Soviet Union's influence and power in the region. This was all about oil and about expanding Communism's reach, and had nothing to do with helping "Palestinians" or creating a "Palestinian" nation. That is why the PLO and other Arab/Islamic terrorist groups are still waging war against Israel decades after Israel gave up control of Gaza and of portions of the so-called West Bank: the goal is not creating a "Palestinian" state but rather destroying the Jewish State. The PLO has not even attempted to create a functioning government in Gaza, because the PLO was not created to govern, does not know how to govern, and has no interest in governing. 

This is a tragedy not only for Israel, but also for the innocent Arabs who are not terrorists and who just want to live in peace; being placed under the control of the PLO was the worst thing that happened to those Arabs, but many media outlets would rather blame Israel than examine and explain historical truths.

Until the nations of the world, the U.N., and major media outlets speak truth to power about both Israel and about the Palestine myth, there will never be Mideast peace.

4) In three to six weeks, Israel will declare victory. That victory will result in some form of limited ceasefire or Israel ending major military operations--but Gaza will still be governed by Hamas, and large portions of Judea and Samaria will still be governed by the terrorist organization that calls itself the Palestinian Authority, even though there is no such country as Palestine and the only "authority" that this terrorist organization exercises is waging war against Israel.

It has taken a bit longer than I expected to reach stage four but--sadly--the broad outline of events that I predicted has unfolded as I expected, which is a tragedy not just for Israel and the Jewish people but for democracy and freedom in general. Victory for Hamas--and this is turning into a victory for Hamas--is defeat for anyone who values democracy, freedom, and human rights.

Deplorable Criticism of Israel's "Deadly" Hostage Rescue Operation

Israel just accomplished something that no one else is willing or able to do: Israel went into the heart of Gaza's nest of terrorist compounds in Rafah, and rescued two of the hostages who have been held captive since Hamas' October 7, 2023 mass casualty attack in Israel. Former hostages Fernando Simon Marman and Louis Har are alive and free today because Israel did not surrender, did not give in to cruel international pressure, and instead stayed laser-focused on the dangerous but necessary task of rescuing hostages and destroying Hamas. I fervently hope that we will see many more videos like this of Israeli soldiers bravely rescuing hostages.

It is deplorable and disgusting that Israel's brave and heroic rescue mission is labeled as "deadly" by biased media outlets; these same biased media outlets also devote a lot of attention to what they term a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. Few people are brave enough to speak the truth: what Hamas did and continues to do is "deadly," and the only humanitarian crisis in Gaza is that Hamas is holding over 100 hostages. Everything that is happening in Gaza is a direct consequence of Hamas' deadly actions.  

Israel is saving lives by rescuing hostages and dismantling Hamas. Hamas is responsible for every death in Gaza, and Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing all hostages unconditionally. Gazans voted Hamas into power, Gazans cheered (and participated) on October 7, and now Gazans are paying the price for their decisions and their actions. As the saying goes, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Or, to put it more bluntly, "F-around and find out." The Gazans played their stupid games, and now they are receiving their "prizes" for killing at least 1200 people and kidnapping hundreds of others. Israel and the world community provided billions of dollars to Gaza to build a paradise, but the Gazans chose to build a hell--and after they chose to export that hell to Israel they should not be surprised or outraged by Israel's justified response.

People who speak about "proportionality" do not understand international law; in a war of self-defense, a country may legally use the necessary force to eliminate the threat. Hamas decided to use Gazans as human shields, and Israel may legally use whatever force is necessary to destroy Hamas' command centers, bases, and tunnels as long as Israel is not deliberately attacking civilian targets.

Israel must stay strong, and her supporters must stay strong as well. President Biden pretended to support Israel for a hot minute before looking at his cratering poll numbers and deciding to pander to the self-proclaimed "progressives." He cannot be trusted, and that is sadly true of the leaders of many other countries as well. It is better to be a living Jew who is criticized than a dead Jew who is mourned.

The international organizations that are supposed to protect the innocent are instead demonizing Israel. The United Nations is worse than useless; it has become an instrument of evil, and should be disbanded as soon as possible. The so-called Palestinians are the only group in the world that has an entire UN organization devoted exclusively to their particular concerns: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). UNRWA collaborated with Hamas before, during, and after Hamas' October 7, 2023 mass casualty attack in Israel; it is long overdue that UNRWA be shut down, and now that the full truth has been revealed about UNRWA's participation in war crimes the UNRWA officials who worked with Hamas should be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. This is unfortunately not the first time that UNRWA collaborated with Hamas to attack Israel, but it must be the last time.

President Biden and others are pressuring Israel to accede to the creation of an Arab state in Gaza, but there must never be two states west of the Jordan River. Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and there is already an Arab state in the former Palestine Mandate territory: Jordan. Arab civilians from Gaza should relocate to Jordan as soon as possible, to secure their safety and as part of a long overdue permanent solution to decades of strife and war. This is no different than the population transfers that happened as a result of World War II, the wars in the Indian subcontinent, and just about every other war in human history. 

It should be noted and emphasized that the Arab/Muslim world and the international community as a whole prefers that Gazans die while serving as Hamas' human shields as opposed to peacefully relocating Gazans to Jordan (or to other Arab/Muslim countries). Israel has encouraged Gazans to flee the war zone, and Israel has provided safe passage to Gazans to do so; it is Hamas and Hamas' supporters in the international community that have forced Gazans to remain in Gaza as human shields. That decision is regrettable, but it is not Israel's fault, nor is it Israel's responsibility.

Hamas Should be Condemned for Endangering Gazan Civilians By Using Them as Human Shields in Contravention of International Law

It is important to understand that Hamas and other Arab/Muslim terrorist groups have a long tradition of violating international law (and basic human decency) by using civilians and civilian organizations as human shields:  

Hamas Is Known To Use Hospitals, Ambulances, Mosques, Churches And Schools As Shields For Its Military Activity

Kurdish writer Mehdi Majid Abdallah summarized the problem on December 4, 2015, and his words are still applicable today:

The Palestinian women and children who are killed in the Israeli army's defensive war against Hamas are not killed deliberately. They are collateral damage, for any war has innocent victims…Were it not for the reckless actions of Hamas, which constantly fires rockets into extensive parts of Israel [where] peaceful [people live], there would have been no innocent victims, because Israel's actions are directed against the terrorists…

If the Palestinians want to avoid being harmed by Israeli fire, they should prevent Hamas from using their homes, mosques and schools [as bases from which] to launch its terrorist rockets at Israel.

This reality does not fit the Left-wing anti-Israel narrative, and so this reality is far too-often ignored by The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and other media outlets that provide free propaganda for Hamas.

It must be emphasized that many of the people who claim to be most worried about Gazans are in fact the people who are causing Gazans the most harm by lying about Israel and defending Hamas, while Israel is the only party in the region that takes any concrete actions to protect Gazan civilians; information about Gazan infant mortality, life expectancy, and other key demographic indicators before, during, and after Israeli administration of Gaza is readily available and refutes the lie that Gaza is an "open air prison," so why do so many media outlets refuse to publish this information? Why do so many media outlets accept at face value any anti-Israel claims by Hamas, let alone claims that can be easily refuted? If Nazi Germany accused the United States of war crimes during World War II, would U.S. media outlets immediately publish those allegations as facts? Would members of the U.S. Congress credulously accept the lies spouted by U.S. enemies in the way that the self-proclaimed "Squad" credulously accepts Hamas' lies?

Left-wing media outlets spewing antisemitic and anti-Zionist propaganda are causing tremendous damage not only to Israel but also to Arabs, and that tremendous damage is being magnified by traitors in our own government who are endangering the lives of Americans and Israelis around the world--including the hostages being held now by Hamas--by giving aid and comfort to Hamas.

The Democratic Party should immediately censure the self-proclaimed "Squad" members who spread lies about Israel. We hear so much about Right-wing incitement (and it is true that Right-wing incitement should be condemned), but why are media outlets and the Democratic Party silent about Left-wing antisemitism and anti-Zionism that are making it unsafe to be a Jew in America? 

Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and the other members of the self-proclaimed "Squad" are spreading modern day blood libels about Jews and Israel, and the time is long past for the Democratic Party to separate itself from their shameful antisemitic incitement. 

Don't Condemn "Suffering": Condemn Hamas!

"When Jewish children hide in a protected room and their anguished parents pray that they won't cry, so that the marauders won't come in and set the house on fire, it's a Shoah [Holocaust]."--Ben Caspit

A crisis reveals people for who they really are. In normal times, cowards can hide and heroes may be invisible, but during a crisis people are forced to show their true natures. 

In the wake of Hamas' barbaric surprise attack on Israel during which Hamas raped, tortured, and killed young and old alike while taking an unknown number of hostages, I have read and heard many vague expressions of sympathy for those who are "suffering." 

This is not about some generic "suffering." This is about a mass slaughter in Israel committed by the terrorist organization Hamas, whose official charter states (Article 7) "The time [Judgment Day] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, and until the Jew hides behind the rocks and trees, and [then] the rocks and trees will say: 'Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding [behind me], come and kill him...'" Hamas' stated goal is to kill Jews around the world, and that stated goal is the motivation behind Hamas' attack last weekend. This is not about justice for Palestinian Arabs or forming another Palestinian Arab state (one Palestinian Arab state already exists: Jordan), but about killing as many Jews as possible. 

Period, point blank, end of discussion.

I am outraged by blaring headlines bemoaning the "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, because those headlines are attempting to arouse sympathy for the aggressor and are not referring to the hundreds of innocent people (including babies and the elderly) who are being held captive by Hamas in contravention of international law. 

I am outraged by corporations, institutions of higher learning, and other public organizations that seem puzzled about the right message to deliver.

The message is simple: "Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying the Jewish people. We condemn Hamas' terrorist attack against Israel. We demand that Hamas immediately release all hostages, and that Hamas pay reparations for the people who Hamas killed and wounded."

If you are unwilling to deliver that message without equivocation then I don't want to buy your products and I don't want to hear your pontifications on any issue. Add Starbucks to the list of companies that will not receive a penny from me.

Let's be very clear about the overall Gaza situation. The citizens of Gaza received warnings from Israel to evacuate--warnings that reveal Israel's attack plans and could cause Israel to suffer additional casualties. Hamas issued no such warnings to Israel. Gaza's citizens elected Hamas to govern Gaza, Gaza's citizens celebrate in the streets every time America or Israel is attacked, and Hamas squandered several billions of dollars of international aid by spending those funds to implement their evil plans to indiscriminately kill Jews. 

It is not Israel's responsibility to protect Gaza; it is Israel's responsibility to protect her own citizens. Imagine how ludicrous it would have sounded during World War II for any media outlet or corporation to assert that the United States should provide humanitarian relief to Germany or Japan. The United States decided to implement the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe only after the Axis Powers surrendered unconditionally. During World War II, the United States bombed Germany and Japan into submission, and had every right to do so: the fate of the free world was at stake.

Hamas can save Gaza's civilians by unconditionally releasing all hostages, and by unconditionally surrendering.

There is way too much talk about alleged Palestinian Arab rights, and not nearly enough talk about Hamas' responsibilities. Hamas is responsible for every person that they killed, for every person that they injured, for every hostage that they are holding, and for the fate of every Gazan who they are governing. Anyone who blames Israel for Hamas' evildoing is at best a fool, and at worst an active supporter of genocidal terrorism--and, yes, Hamas' actions fit the legal definition of genocide, which consists of two elements:  

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
   • Killing members of the group
   • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
   • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
   • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
   • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

The humanitarian crisis in the Mideast has two components, neither of which are controlled by Israel or are Israel's fault. Those two components are (1) The stubborn refusal of large elements of the Arab/Muslim world to accept that the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel have a right to exist, and (2) the stubborn refusal of the Arab/Muslim world to build modern, 21st century countries with democratic elections, basic freedoms, and a market economy. From Morocco to Pakistan, the map is dotted with one failed Arab/Islamic state after another: most of the countries in the region are economically poor, educationally backward, and lack the most basic freedoms--and the few countries that are not poor use their money not to constructively build a modern, open society but to finance global terrorist organizations. 

Israel is a tiny, democratic country surrounded by hostile, non-democratic countries. 

Israel deserves unconditional support in her war against Hamas and Hamas' sponsor states Iran and Qatar. Hamas deserves condemnation that far too many people and organizations are hesitant to deliver.

Victory for Israel Can Mean Only One Thing: The Elimination of Hamas

"How many dead Jews does it take to justify a proportionate response against a genocidal terror organization? Is it 1,000? Six million? Maybe it’s 10 million--the population of Israel? This is, after all, Hamas' publicly declared goal. So I ask you, how many murdered Jews does it take for you to support Israel's right to self defense?"--Israel's Ambassador to the U.N. Gilad Erdan, responding to the U.N.'s shameful refusal to condemn Hamas for committing crimes against humanity

In Israel, Hamas, and the Islamic Concepts Dar al-Islam Versus Dar al-harb I briefly described what Israel's minimum goals should be in her war versus Hamas:

1) Hamas is eliminated as a functioning terrorist, military, and political entity.

2) Hamas' state sponsors--including but perhaps not limited to Iran and Qatar--must pay reparations for the killed, for the injured, and for the destruction of property.

3) All hostages held by Hamas must be released immediately and unconditionally.

Then, after the war ends, any Hamas leader who survives this war should be put on trial for crimes against humanity both for the attacks against Israel and for using Arab citizens and Israeli hostages as human shields.

It is important to understand how Hamas became powerful enough to inflict such a devastating attack on Israel, because only through understanding the root causes can one figure out the best path out of this morass. As I explained in Gaza is Not an "Open Air Prison," Israel administered--but did not annex--Gaza from 1967-1993 before withdrawing from approximately 80% of Gaza after signing the Oslo Accords. In 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israel's military forces from the rest of Gaza and he also ordered the dismantling of Israeli communities in Gaza that housed more than 8000 Jews. This plan was known as "Gaza First," and it was conceived by fools whose shortsightedness is directly responsible for enabling Hamas to commit atrocities not just this past week but (on a smaller but still horrific scale) for the past several years. Those of us who replied to "Gaza First" by asking "And then what?" were branded as extremists, but--tragically--our perspective has been vindicated by current events. The twin assumptions of "Gaza First" could not have been more wrong: 

(1) It was assumed that unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would lead to peace.

(2) It was assumed that if Arab terrorists attacked Israel from Gaza after Israel withdrew then the outside world would understand that the Arabs are the aggressors and that Israel is entitled to defend herself.

Hamas' anti-Jewish atrocities invalidated the first assumption, and the growing calls for a ceasefire now that Israel is gaining the upper hand invalidated the second assumption. Would anyone have dared call for a ceasefire after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor or after Nazi Germany conquered most of Europe but before those tyrannical regimes were completely defeated? In any "normal" war it is understood that attacked countries are expected to fight back until the attacker unconditionally surrenders--but a different standard is applied to Israel because, quite frankly, Jewish blood is cheap in the eyes of the rest of the world. 

It must be noted that even though many people and nations around the world have expressed support for Israel and the Jewish people we are also seeing irrefutable confirmation of what many of us have asserted for a long time, namely that Antizionism is Antisemitism, as Gary Willing eloquently explains:

Before October 7, 2023, it was possible to think that many who supported the anti-Israel cause were simply naïve useful idiots who had fallen for a propaganda campaign initiated decades ago by the Soviet Union and continued today by the United Nations and NGOs that used to stand for human rights. Surely, these "peace activists" wouldn't support acts of genocide, the murder of babies and Holocaust survivors, right?

Wrong.

The demonstrations in support of the Palestinian Arab "cause" which followed the first reports of the massacre in New York City, in London, in Sydney Australia, were demonstrations in support of evil, in support of ISIS clones, of modern-day Nazis.

On Sunday, the Democratic Socialists of America held a rally in Manhattan in celebration of the massacre. Hundreds of people gathered to pay tribute to the worst of humanity. Participants chanted "globalize the Intifada," a call that can only be interpreted as the desire to expand Hamas' atrocities to Jewish communities across the world.

These glorifiers of evil chanted "700," the number of confirmed fatalities from Hamas' massacre at the time of their demonstration of inhumanity. They chanted "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free," the favorite chant of Hamas supporters who wish genocide on the millions of Jews in the State of Israel with no regard for its recognition by the UN in 1948. One of the speakers spoke at length of how happy he was that 260 "hipsters" were murdered at a music festival for peace.

In London, Islamists marched and drove through the streets in celebration of the massacre, chanting "Allahu Akbar" and setting off fireworks. One Hamas admirer called the massacre "victory," "beautiful" and "inspiring." "We need to celebrate these acts of resistance because this is a success," she said.

In the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Golders Green, the windows of a kosher restaurant were smashed, and "Free Palestine" graffiti was written on an overpass just feet away from the restaurant.

Perhaps the most despicable demonstration of evil occurred in an orgy of hate outside the famous Sydney Opera House in Australia. There, Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun told the 1,000 who gathered to show their hatred of Jews, "I'm smiling and I'm happy. I'm elated."

"It's a day of courage. It's a day of pride. It's a day of victory. This is the day we've been waiting for!" he said with no shame, about the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians, of God-knows how many babies. This man has a master's degree in human rights.

The hate-fest continued as the demonstrators demonstrated their support not only for the Hamas massacre, but for the Holocaust itself, and their desire to see the Holocaust repeated. "Gas the Jews," they chanted over and over again, along with "f-ck the Jews."

This is what the anti-Israel movement is, and what it has always been...

The mask is off. The true purpose of the global anti-Israel movement was to facilitate the kind of slaughter we saw on Saturday. That is why they are celebrating now. That is why they make excuses for an act of genocide and seek to hamstring Israel hoping that Hamas will do it again and again until Israel and its millions of Jews are no more.

There are two sides--the side of those who seek to finish what the Nazis started, and the side of basic human decency. Whose side are you on?

It cannot be emphasized enough that Israel's enemies--including Iran, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority--actively deny that the Holocaust happened while aspiring to create a second Holocaust to kill every Jew in the world. I mentioned the Palestinian Authority because many people pretend that the PA is a moderate organization. PA leader Mahmoud Abbas is a product of the Soviet system who wrote a dissertation asserting that the Zionist movement is just as culpable for the Holocaust as the Nazis, making arguments that have become quite fashionable among contemporary leftist antisemites/anti-Zionists.

Unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has been an unmitigated disaster for Israel, culminating in the worst single day massacre suffered by the Jewish people since the Holocaust followed not by the sympathy and support for Israel and the Jewish people that the architects of "Gaza First" expected but rather by an enthusiastic and joyful outpouring of vile antisemitism by people who are proud to publicly show their true colors--and those people include members of the U.S. Congress, most notably the execrable "Squad." Anyone who ever again votes for a member of the "Squad" is either a fool or an unrepentant antisemite. What purpose is served by supporting "leaders" who are singlemindedly focused not on governing the U.S. but on promoting genocidal antisemitism? These hypocritical self-proclaimed "progressives" cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe that any of their cherished causes are embraced by Iran and Hamas; the reality is that their main cause is antisemitism, and any other cause does not really matter to them: supporting Hamas in no way helps Black people, women, gay people, poor people, or any other community that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, or Rashida Tlaib claim to represent--but supporting Hamas provides aid and comfort to a group that promotes killing Jews and that is more than enough to garner the Squad's unconditional affirmation and support.

Other than Iran smuggling a nuclear device into Gaza for use against Israel, it is difficult to imagine a worse outcome for "Gaza First" then what we have seen for the past 18 years culminating in Saturday's atrocities. We must hope that the crimes against humanity just committed by Hamas shocked Israel into a clear understanding of what must be done next, regardless of how much the U.N., Human Rights Watch or anyone else will complain.

If Israel talks tough but then settles for killing a few Hamas leaders before signing a ceasefire that leaves Hamas intact then this war will be a major victory for Hamas and a devastating, humiliating defeat for Israel, with consequences that will reverberate for many years. No, Israel must completely fix the "Gaza First" mistake, and that can only be accomplished by eliminating Hamas--not "punishing Hamas," not "hitting Hamas hard," not "teaching Hamas a lesson."

Hamas must be eliminated, the same way that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were eliminated. Daniel Greenfield is right on target with his vision of what Israeli victory must look like:

What should a nation do when its women and children are murdered and taken hostage.

Israel has the same choice it always had. That choice becomes clearer each year and with each atrocity.

It can carry out another "limited incursion" into Gaza, bomb the homes of some terrorists and then go home, hopefully with the hostages, and wait for something like it or worse to happen again.

Or it can actually go to war and win.

Israel, like America, doesn't win wars anymore. It has operations. It takes out terrorist leaders and occasionally terrorist cells. And then it goes home. But when home is within a stone's throw of where monsters live, then there's no way to go home. Home is where the monsters are.

A war ends with victory. The destruction of the enemy. The Islamic terrorists have been waging a war meant to end in victory since Israel was reborn. Unless Israel fights to win, it will be lost.

What does a war look like? It is not "proportionate" or "limited." It is not based on "deterrence" and does not end with a "truce." If at the end of the war, the enemy still exists, you have not won.

Israel has yet to fight a war against the terrorists. Let alone win one.

It's been 30 years since the Israeli Left sold the myth of peace with the Arab Muslim invaders in Gaza and the West Bank and under 20 years since building walls and defenses was sold as the alternative.

Neither of those were ever a viable option against a genocidal enemy...

We fight things that are not wars to "stabilize" regions. Wars are not fought for stability, but destruction. To win a war, destroy the enemy. That's what the United States did in WWII, raining mass death and destruction on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in ways that still make modern liberals cringe.

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They have sown the wind, and so they shall reap the whirlwind," RAF Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Arthur Harris bluntly stated.

"The harder we push, the more Germans we kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing harder means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that," Patton told the Third Army.

FDR's obsession with taking the war to Japan led to the Doolittle Raid. One of the bombs from that raid hit a school. "It is quite impossible to bomb a military objective that has civilian residences near it without danger of harming the civilian residences as well. That is a hazard of war," Doolittle had warned.

That is what war is. It's why wars should not be fought lightly. But when you fight them, fight to win.

A just war is based on a fundamental moral clarity about your enemies, not your tactics. War crimes are a meaningless term except when applied to violations of an agreement between the two combatants or civilians that are not a party to the conflict. That is not the case in Gaza. And is rarely the case when fighting Islamic terrorists.

The United States met the Japanese torture, execution, abuse, medical experiments and cannibalism of our troops with increased determination to win at any cost. This was the cost for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were not war crimes, this was how a regime of monsters that committed unspeakable atrocities was finally forced to surrender.

That is what fighting to win means.

Winning against Hamas does not mean dropping a few bombs on buildings, staging a limited incursion, taking out a few Hamas leaders and then letting Turkey and Egypt negotiate a truce. That's not a war.

Winning means destroying Hamas, its leaders, its terrorists and its supporters by any means necessary, and securing the territory they operated from so that it can't be used to stage similar attacks.

Incessant media focus on conditions in Gaza is puzzling. During World War II, did Western media outlets concern themselves with conditions in the Axis Powers Germany, Japan, and Italy? No--it was understood that if the leaders of those countries wanted to spare their citizens from further bombing then they would unconditionally surrender. Hamas can restore food, water, and power to Gaza right now by surrendering on the terms listed above. If Hamas decides to follow in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito--who preferred to see their civilians die than to surrender--then that is a choice for which Hamas will have to answer to the voters who elected them to power, and who cheer in the streets every time that Hamas kills a Jew. 

After a November 18, 2014 terrorist attack during which two Arab terrorists killed five Jews in a Jerusalem synagogue, I quoted Caroline Glick's description of how a strong, proud nation would respond regardless of which direction the fickle winds of world opinion blow:

The horrible truth is that all of the anti-Jewish slaughters perpetrated by our Arab neighbors have been motivated to greater or lesser degrees by Islamic Jew-hatred. The only difference between the past hundred years and now is that today our appeasement-oriented elite is finding it harder to pretend away the obvious fact that we cannot placate our enemies.

No "provocation" by Jews drove two Jerusalem Arabs to pick up meat cleavers and a rifle and slaughter rabbis in worship like sheep and then mutilate their bodies.

No "frustration" with a "lack of progress" in the "peace process," can motivate people to run over Jewish babies or attempt to assassinate a Jewish civil rights activist.

The reason that these terrorists have decided to kill Jews is that they take offense at the fact that in Israel, Jews are free. They take offense because all their lives they have been taught that Jews should live at their mercy, or die by their sword...

With regard to the individual terrorists, the government has made much of its intention to destroy the homes of terrorists. While it sounds good, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of this punitive measure, which is a relic of the British Mandate.

Rather than destroy their homes, Israel should adopt the US anti-narcotics policy of asset seizure.

All assets directly or indirectly tied to terrorists, including their homes and any other structure where they planned their crimes, and all remittances to them, should be seized and transferred to their victims, to do with what they will.

If Israel hands over the homes of the synagogue butchers to the 24 orphans of Rabbi Moshe Twersky, Rabbi Kalman Levine, Rabbi Aryeh Kupinsky and Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, not only will justice be served. The children's inheritance of the homes of their fathers' killers will send a clear and demoralizing message to other would-be killers.

Not only will their atrocities fail to remove the Jews from Israel. Every terrorist will contribute to the Zionist project by donating his home to the Jewish settlement enterprise...

Israel should also revoke citizenship and residency rights not only from terrorists themselves, but from those who enjoy citizenship and residency rights by dint of their relationship with the terrorists.

Wives who received Israeli residency or citizenship rights though marriage to terrorists should have their rights revoked, as should the children of the terrorists...

The actions set forth above: asset seizure, revenue seizure and citizenship/residency abrogation for terrorists and their dependents are steps that Israel can take today, despite the hostile international climate.

Glick's proposed measures in response to a terrorist attack that claimed five lives are a good starting point for what Israel should impose on individual terrorists and terrorist groups moving forward after every attack. The days of accepting "minor" terrorist attacks and "just a few rockets" landing in Israel must end forever.

Greenfield's description of a war that is fought until the enemy is destroyed is a blueprint for what Israel must do after Hamas slaughtered more than 1300 people.

If Israel declares victory but there is one Hamas leader left free to fulminate about how Hamas will "liberate Palestine from the river to the sea" then Israel's self-proclaimed victory will in fact be a bitter defeat that will lead to a massacre even worse than the one Hamas just perpetrated, as Greenfield noted:

The first rule of co-existing with Islamic Jihadists is that you can't.

You can't make peace with them and you can't have an "understanding" with them. You can only deter them for so long. Eventually they will break through your defenses. And then planes will crash into skyscrapers and young people will be massacred at a concert. Worse will come if you don't learn those lessons.

Either you defeat Islamic terrorists or they will defeat you. The idea of a middle ground is an illusion that lasts only as long as your capabilities do.

The only thing that works is going on the offensive.

This is not a pleasant message to deliver, and it is a message that many people do not want to accept or even hear--but rest assured that if Israel does not fight until achieving the kind of victory Greenfield and Glick described then Israel will suffer more mass casualty events, and mass casualty events perpetrated by radical Muslims will spread to other Western countries.

Gaza is Not an "Open Air Prison"

It has become popular to declare that Gaza is an "open air prison," and then to blame Israel for allegedly oppressing Gaza's Arabs. A brief history lesson will clarify the reality about Gaza. In Who Are the Invaders, and Who are the Invaded? An Analysis of Inversions of Truth, I provided historical background about Palestine in general:

Palestine is a geographic term, much like the term Midwest is used to describe the portion of the United States that includes Ohio, Michigan, and a few other states. In the early 20th century, the geographic term Palestine was used to describe a territory including what is now known as Israel, Gaza, the so-called West Bank (the areas properly called by their historic names Judea and Samaria), and Jordan; after World War I, the League of Nations approved a Mandate granting control of Palestine to Great Britain with the express understanding that the territory would be a homeland for the Jewish people. Great Britain sliced off the eastern 80% of the Palestine Mandate to create Transjordan (which later became the independent Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). After the demise of the League of Nations and after World War II, the United Nations proposed that the remaining 20% of the Palestine Mandate be divided into a Jewish state and a second Arab state (in addition to Jordan). The Jewish leadership in Palestine accepted the UN's proposal--but the Arab leadership in Palestine rejected the UN's proposal and joined forces with armies from the surrounding Arab nations in what they expected to be a war of annihilation against the nascent Jewish State--but Israel won the war, and ended up controlling less than 20% of the original Palestine Mandate, with most of the remaining territory under Jordanian control (Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, which has never been historically part of Egypt). 

From 1948-1967, Egypt occupied Gaza. During that period, Arab/Muslim terrorist groups used Gaza as a staging ground to launch terrorist attacks against Israel. Egypt made no serious effort to create an independent Palestinian Arab state in Gaza, nor did Egypt take any meaningful steps to improve the lives of Gaza's residents. In the article cited above, I discussed the founding of the PLO:

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded in Cairo, Egypt in 1964, with funding and support provided by the Soviet Union. What exactly was the PLO founded to "liberate"? In 1964, Egypt controlled Gaza, while Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria plus the eastern portion of Jerusalem. If the PLO had been truly interested in creating a Palestinian national state in Gaza plus the West Bank then why was the PLO conducting terrorist attacks against Israel, a nation that had no control over the areas that the PLO supposedly wanted to "liberate"? Of course, the reality is that the Soviet Union helped create the PLO to destabilize Israel and thus increase the Soviet Union's influence and power in the region. This was all about oil and about expanding Communism's reach, and had nothing to do with helping "Palestinians" or creating a "Palestinian" nation. That is why the PLO and other Arab/Islamic terrorist groups are still waging war against Israel decades after Israel gave up control of Gaza and of portions of the so-called West Bank: the goal is not creating a "Palestinian" state but rather destroying the Jewish State. The PLO has not even attempted to create a functioning government in Gaza, because the PLO was not created to govern, does not know how to govern, and has no interest in governing.

In May 1967, Egyptian dictator Gamal Adbel Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping--by definition, an act of war--and he massed his armed forces on Israel's border. Faced with the daunting prospect of a three-front war versus Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, Israel launched a preemptive strike that decimated Egypt's air force. The Six Day War ensued, after which Israel controlled Sinai, Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and the Golan Heights. 

The territories other than Gaza are not relevant to this article. Israel administered--but did not annex--Gaza from 1967 until the 1993 Oslo Accords, after which Israel withdrew her military forces from approximately 80% of Gaza. From 1967 to 1988, infant mortality in Gaza declined from more than 120 per 1000 live births to less than 30 per 1000 live births, and the percentage of children born in hospitals soared from 10 percent to 80 percent. Measles, diphtheria, and polio were almost completely wiped out in Gaza. During the same time period, the Gross National Product per capita in Gaza increased from $280 to more than $1480. Instead of partnering with Israel to continue this progress that took place when Israel administered Gaza, the PLO and other terrorist groups killed Jews. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew the rest of her military forces from Gaza, compelled more than 8000 Jewish settlers in Gaza to vacate their homes, and even dug up all of the Jewish dead buried in Gaza so that they could be reburied in Israel. The little section of Gaza inhabited by Jews had bloomed and thrived--much like the Jewish people made the rest of the Land of Israel bloom and thrive--but as soon as the Jews left Gaza the Arabs looted and destroyed anything built by the Jews. 

In the article cited above, I demonstrated how Gaza's demographic statistics refute the vile accusation that Israel is committing genocide against Arabs:

Israel has never expressed or displayed an intent to destroy any group of people. In fact, the Arab population west of the Jordan River has increased tremendously since Israel's founding in 1948, and the standard of living for Arabs in Israel is higher than the standard of living for Arabs in other countries in the region, so accusations of Israel's alleged genocide are refuted by publicly available data. The 2014 book Industry of Lies cites various official UN and CIA demographic reports setting the record straight. To cite just a few examples from the book, in 1967 the life expectancy for a Palestinian Arab in the West Bank and Gaza was just 49 years. By 1975 (i.e., after those territories had been under Israeli administration for eight years), Palestinian Arab life expectancy rose to 56 years, and by 1984 it had risen to 66 years. Since 1984, Palestinian Arab life expectancy in those territories has climbed to 75 years, which is not only higher than the global average life expectancy but it is higher than the life expectancy in many Arab countries and even some European countries. In addition, Israeli Arabs have the highest life expectancy in the Mideast.

Further, another measure of genocide is infant mortality, which has been steadily and dramatically improving since 1967 in areas under Israeli administration. In addition, the combination of high birth rates and low death rates among Palestinian Arabs in Gaza put that territory near the top of the world in population growth. 

Remember, by definition genocide refers to an intentional policy to destroy a group of people. The definition is clear, and the data clearly shows that there is no genocide being committed by Israel. 

Here are some other data points to consider: under Jordanian occupation, only four out of 708 Arab towns and villages in the administered territories had modern water supply systems and running water, but just five years after Israel gained control of those areas the fresh water sources grew by 50 percent and has continued to grow. By 2004, 641 Arab communities in those territories—accounting for 96 percent of the population—had running water. Israel accomplished this infrastructure development for Arab communities despite the reckless PLO and Hamas mismanagement of those communities after Israel handed over some of those areas to the PLO. "One of the driest countries on Earth now makes more freshwater than it needs," declared Scientific American.

It is worth noting that the Jewish communities in the Arab/Muslim world--communities which in many instances predate the birth of Islam--have all but vanished due to massacres and expulsions inflicted on those communities by Arab/Muslim countries after the creation of the modern State of Israel. There is indeed apartheid and genocide in the Middle East, but those evils are not being committed by Israel.

Recent media accounts accuse Israel of bombing refugee camps in Gaza, but few if any media members question why there are still refugee camps in Gaza. Why did Egypt not build homes for Gaza's Arabs during the 19 years that Egypt controlled Gaza? Why did neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas build homes for Gaza's Arabs during the past three decades? The answer is obvious: the refugee camps are useful tactically as human shields and strategically as propaganda weapons against Israel. In every other part of the world where there have been wars and border disputes any resulting refugee situation is resolved by resettling the refugees into new homes. Only the Palestinian Arabs have been consigned to live in refugee camps for decades--and this is the fault of their Arab and Muslim brothers, not Israel! The Palestinian Arabs could have been resettled in homes in Gaza, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere in the Arab/Muslim world, but solving the refugee crisis would mean getting rid of a major excuse for attacking Israel, and that does not suit the agenda of the rulers of the Arab/Muslim world.

As many media outlets are kicking into anti-Israel propaganda overdrive to draw attention away from Hamas' barbarism, Jake Wallis Simons debunked the myth that Israel is operating an "open air prison" in Gaza:  

Firstly, Israel is unique in the emphasis it places on warning civilians to evacuate before an attack. Gazan civilians do have places to go, such as schools, which aren't targeted. Thousands have taken refuge there in recent days, as my friend in Gaza told me.

Secondly, let's talk about the fact that Israel secures its border with Gaza, and always has. The reason for this is security. We don't need to imagine what would happen if Israel had allowed the border to be open over the past 17 years: We saw it in gruesome reality over the weekend, with children beheaded, the elderly taken as hostages, and senseless violence in peaceful communities. What should Israel do, allow its civilians to be butchered just to avoid liberal Westerners accusing it of creating an "open-air prison"?

This is an allegation that is designed to undermine Israel's efforts to protect its people, the soft front of the Jihadi movement, perpetrated by useful idiots.

Everyone is criticizing Israel for sealing the border with Gaza and not sending in fuel and supplies for the duration of the war. But Gaza has TWO borders, the other with Egypt. Why doesn't Egypt open its border to refugees and offer humanitarian support, as Arab countries did during the Syrian civil war?

The FT reported that Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s president, said yesterday that "national security is my first responsibility and under no circumstances will there be any complacency or negligence." In an apparent reference to talk of resettling Gazans in Egypt, he added: "We will not allow the Palestinian cause to be resolved at the expense of other parties."

So Israel must be responsible for feeding, watering, sustaining and enabling its jihadi enemies even while trying to destroy them, while Egypt can turn its back and avoid international condemnation?

The false notion that Israel is running an "open air prison" in Gaza is predicated on the equally false notion that Israel is an occupying force in Gaza even though Israel withdrew her military forces from Gaza in 2005. Gary Willig explains that occupation has a specific legal definition, and that definition clearly is inapplicable regarding Israel's relationship to Gaza:

What is the actual definition of an occupation? The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague Regulations) are the primary source for the definition of occupation under international law. Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

"Actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." "Where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

These conditions are not met in Gaza and have not been met in any fashion since 2005. With zero soldiers, the IDF has no authority whatsoever in Gaza and can exercise none. Despite the claims of the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, a blockade and an occupation are two very different things under real human rights law. While the word "occupation" occurs 46 times in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which is often used as the basis for accusations of Israeli violations of human rights or international law, the word "blockade" never appears at all in any of the four conventions approved on August 12, 1949.

The Israeli occupation of Gaza from 2005 until today would be the first and only occupation in world history to have no boots on the ground, to have the entire territory supposedly under occupation under the complete control of an entity hostile to the occupying power rather than the occupying power. It would be the first occupation in history in which the occupying power lacks even the basic ability to arrest people for any crimes.

In short, they have changed the very definition of the word "occupation" in order to find Israel guilty.

This is a common tactic of Israel’s critics. They accuse Israel of "genocide" when the Palestinian Arab population has grown by leaps and bounds and while the IDF has taken unprecedented steps to protect the lives of civilians while combating terrorist organizations with actual genocidal intent. It would be the first genocide in history where the population being subjected to genocide grew instead of shrinking.

They redefine the word genocide to find Israel guilty, the facts be damned.

The people who call Gaza an "open air prison" often then accuse Israel of being an "apartheid state." In The Truth About Apartheid States, Genocide, and the Sheikh Jarrah Court Case I discussed apartheid and genocide at length, but in light of the unfortunately inevitable propaganda backlash against Israel's justified and necessary military response to Hamas' surprise attack against Israel and the ensuing crimes against humanity committed by Hamas on Israeli soil it is important to repeat that analysis:

The terms apartheid and genocide have specific meanings. It is not difficult to determine if those terms are being used accurately and appropriately.

Apartheid describes a system of legislation in South Africa that forced non-white South Africans to live in separate areas and use separate public facilities. Apartheid laws applied a host of restrictions, including forbidding non-white South Africans from marrying white people, and not permitting non-white South Africans to participate in the national government.

No Israeli citizens are subjected to separate, unequal treatment under the law. There are not separate public facilities that certain ethnic groups are required (or forbidden) to use. Any Israeli citizen can vote in elections and serve in the government; indeed, Israel's government includes Arab members who oppose Israel's existence. 

Anyone who is concerned about post-South Africa examples of "apartheid states" should carefully research, among others, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Can anyone vote and run for office in those countries? Can anyone become a full-fledged citizen of those countries? Are the rights of women and minorities respected in those countries? If you truly care about "apartheid states" and if you are truly committed to fighting racism and oppression, then you either know the answers to those questions, or you will find out the answers and then base your actions on a foundation of knowledge, not propaganda.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, formed in 1948 in direct response to the Nazi genocide of six million Jews during the Holocaust, defined genocide as consisting of two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
   • Killing members of the group
   • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
   • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
   • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
   • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

As demonstrated above, Israel is not an "apartheid state," is not an occupying power in Gaza, and is not committing genocide. Further, Gaza is not an "open air prison." It is a breeding ground for radical Muslims who openly state their goal to not just destroy Israel but to kill Jews around the world. If Israel has a shred of common sense and a desire to survive as a nation, she will not end this war until Hamas is destroyed and Gaza is no longer in position to threaten Israel ever again. How Israel should accomplish this important goal will be the subject of my next article.

Why is Media Coverage of Israel Disproportionate and Distorted?

Israel is a tiny country, smaller than San Bernardino County, California and less populous than New Jersey--but Israel receives a disproportionate amount of media coverage relative to her size and population and that media coverage is very distorted. Former AP writer Matti Friedman (no relation to this author) explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters:

While global mania about Israeli actions has come to be taken for granted, it is actually the result of decisions made by individual human beings in positions of responsibility--in this case, journalists and editors. The world is not responding to events in this country, but rather to the description of these events by news organizations. The key to understanding the strange nature of the response is thus to be found in the practice of journalism, and specifically in a severe malfunction that is occurring in that profession--my profession--here in Israel.

The world is full of big countries with big problems. There are major wars, huge refugee crises and heartbreaking humanitarian disasters that are largely ignored because the mainstream media is obsessively focused on not just covering Israel but portraying Israel in a negative light. Friedman learned about this process firsthand:

Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the “Arab Spring” eventually erupted.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I don’t mean to pick on the AP--the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives--that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

While there is a laser focus on Israel, Friedman notes that the depravity and depredations of Hamas are ignored:

There has been much discussion recently of Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail--that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll--because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)

But if critics imagine that journalists are clamoring to cover Hamas and are stymied by thugs and threats, it is generally not so. There are many low-risk ways to report Hamas actions, if the will is there: under bylines from Israel, under no byline, by citing Israeli sources. Reporters are resourceful when they want to be.

The fact is that Hamas intimidation is largely beside the point because the actions of Palestinians are beside the point: Most reporters in Gaza believe their job is to document violence directed by Israel at Palestinian civilians. That is the essence of the Israel story. In addition, reporters are under deadline and often at risk, and many don’t speak the language and have only the most tenuous grip on what is going on. They are dependent on Palestinian colleagues and fixers who either fear Hamas, support Hamas, or both. Reporters don’t need Hamas enforcers to shoo them away from facts that muddy the simple story they have been sent to tell.

It is not coincidence that the few journalists who have documented Hamas fighters and rocket launches in civilian areas this summer were generally not, as you might expect, from the large news organizations with big and permanent Gaza operations. They were mostly scrappy, peripheral, and newly arrived players--a Finn, an Indian crew, a few others. These poor souls didn’t get the memo.

Why should you care that the mainstream media slanders Israel, panders to Hamas and feels free to distort the truth in order to advance a particular political ideology? In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be." The price of the media's war against Israel is not paid just by Israelis but also by all of the downtrodden people of the world who are crying out in despair for someone to tell their stories.