 |
   |
|
In this mailing:
The Doctrine of Proportionality
by Shoshana Bryen
• July 20, 2014 at 5:00 am
Proportionality in international
law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about
[equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military
action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in
the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian
law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no
matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even
when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime
occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians
(principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective
in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly
excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of
proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International
Criminal Court.
"The greater the military
advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often
civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and
"necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.
One
journalist labeled Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system
"unsportsmanlike" because it protects Israel's civilian population
too well. (Image source: IDF)
As the Israeli ground incursion into Gaza continues, increased attention
will be focused on the notion of "proportionality" in both the
number of casualties on both sides and the sophistication of the weapons each
side brings to bear. Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg characterized
Israel's operations against Hamas in language that came close to an
accusation of war crimes. "I really do think now the Israeli response
appears to be deliberately disproportionate. It is amounting now to a
disproportionate form of collective punishment." Even President Obama,
who has been a firm advocate of Israel's self-defense in this instance, told
reporters that he "encouraged" Prime Minister Netanyahu to
"minimize civilian deaths."
Sunni Muslims Must Reject ISIS "Caliphate"
by Irfan Al-Alawi
• July 20, 2014 at 4:00 am
"Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi"
is Abu Du'a, a follower of the late Osama Bin Laden. By adding the name
"Al-Qurayshi" in his current alias, he is also seeking to affirm
descent from Muhammad.
The allegation of theological
sovereignty over all Sunnis extends to Indonesia and Morocco. The idea that
the borders between Syria and Iraq will be dissolved by the new
"caliphate" defies all Islamic theology and history. As the Qur'an
states, "Allah "made the nations and tribes different."
(49:13) Syria and Iraq have been distinct for millennia.
The "Islamic State"
seeks to obliterate these diverse identities by expelling or killing all
Shias and Sunni Sufis. And it does not invoke the Ottoman caliphate in its
propaganda, demonstrating decisively the fake nature of the "Islamic
State."
A caliphate is obsolete and the
"Islamic State" is totalitarian. All Sunnis need to repudiate them
soundly, even by force of arms.
Abu
Bakr Al-Baghdadi speaks at a Mosul mosque on July 4, 2014.
At the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan this year,
coinciding with the end of the Western month of June, a new caliphate, or
Islamic religious and political order, was proclaimed on the borderland of
Iraq and Syria. As described by international media, the news was included in
a "declaration of war" released as an online audio statement by Abu
Muhammad Al-Adnani, a representative of the purported "Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria" or ISIS (also known as ISIL, or the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant, based on differing English translations of "Sham,"
the Arabic name for Greater Syria, which long included all the lands on the
eastern coast of the Mediterranean). ISIS is now to be deemed simply
"the Islamic State."
Within days, the man who calls himself Abu Bakr Al-Husayni Al-Qurayshi
Al-Baghdadi issued a declaration as head of the purported "Islamic
State," titled pompously, "A Message to the Mujahidin and the
Muslim Ummah."
Gatestone Weekly Roundup
by Nina Rosenwald
• July 20, 2014 at 3:00 am
"What if Hamas had military
superiority?" — Colonel Lawrence A. Franklin (Ret.)
The conflict between Hamas and Israel has, as Colonel Lawrence A.
Franklin documents, the different military tactics used by Hamas and Israel:
"Would Hamas have dropped millions of leaflets to warn civilian
residents before staging bombing runs? Would Hamas have tailored its air
targeting to avoid, as much as possible, innocents from becoming
casualties?"
Gatestone contributors also tried to draw attention to the Obama
Administration's failure to address the threat of missiles in the hands of
Iran, among other rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. "Missiles
are indeed becoming the weapon of choice of both terror groups and rogue
states," writes Peter Huessy. Should America care? (Yes!)
|
|
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment