Yaron London -21/09/2007

Yaron London, (Ynetnews)

"The public discourse over the measures to be taken against Qassam rocket fire from Gaza revolves around morals, law and benefits.

The three points of discussion overlap, yet they differ from each other. In the civilized world there is agreement that suffering should not be intentionally directed at a civilian population as a ploy in a military campaign. Such an act is deemed a moral transgression. The question is whether the definition of "civilian population" applies to all those who do not carry arms, or whether it makes an exception for those who advocate murder and suicide for the glory of their gods.

We don't know what's in the hearts of 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip, but we do know that they democratically voted for a leadership that strives to destroy us, "the sons of pigs and apes." In so doing they took upon themselves a moral responsibility, with those who became enslaved to a tyrannical rule being exempt. The Gazans are not enslaved and are not rising up against their rulers: They elected Hamas to lead them and they glorify "Islamic Jihad" and the murderous sects among the Fatah ranks. This is tantamount to carrying arms even though in practice not every person carries a weapon of destruction.

In the real world we cannot resemble Abraham our forefather, who defends Sodom due to 10 righteous persons residing there. A person is not entitled to be an avid partner in a murderous collective group while at the same time demand protection for being an individual, who should only be tried for committing acts of murder with his own hands. Obviously this argument is incommensurate with the Geneva Convention, which many lawyers worldwide are pondering the need to change. It was drafted during a period where standing armies clashed with each other and terror organizations could only inflict relatively minimal damage. Now such organizations are in possession of weapons of mass destruction and means of high-speed communication that serve to incite millions and prompt thousands to action.

Without amending the Geneva Convention it will be difficult to rid the world of terror organizations that hide behind the backs of insane countries and benefit from the sympathy and support of societies obsessed with terror.

Several years will elapse before it is amended, yet it may be assumed that exacerbation of the terrorist threat will sooner or later lead to a situation whereby the majority of countries worldwide will support such change. A law is a law, and we have to abide by it, but until it is adjusted to the current reality we are permitted to utilize any legal ploy and any argument that would relieve us of its severe consequences."

Back to top