International Law and Israel

What are Israel's military options for dealing with Hamas in Gaza? An Israeli legal adviser makes the case in this article in the Boston Globe. He makes excellent points that have been well accepted for decades, and his critique of what many legal experts in this area claim is valid in my view. A key quote:

The troubling notion that international law has no practical advice for a state facing terrorist attacks other than to grin and bear it is increasingly pervasive. John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, issued eight reports on Israel's responses to terrorism and never found a single measure adopted by Israel to be lawful or proportionate. His successor, Richard Falk, recently issued a report that goes one remarkable step further. In the conditions existing in Gaza, he asserts, any Israel military response would be "inherently unlawful." According to Falk's understanding of international law, Israel has no right whatsoever to defend itself.

Contrary to the impression created by such experts, international law is not a suicide pact. For all its limitations - which are many - it offers practical guidance to a state seeking to respond responsibly and effectively to threats to the lives of its civilians.

Is the Two-State Solution Dead?

Since the early 1990s, diplomats have been focused on creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; thus, the "Two State Solution", Israel in approximately its pre-1967 territorial borders, the new Palestinian state in what is left over from the original Palestinian mandate from 1948.

There were always many problems to solve - the status of Israeli settlements in both territories, security provisions for Israel in what many have always regarded as inherently indefensible borders, the future military status of a Palestinian state, and the economic relationship between the two countries. To say nothing of the very vexed question of the old city of Jerusalem, claimed by both sides.

In 2000, the Israelis offered 98% of the land in question for a Palestinian state at Camp David, in a plan sponsored by the United States. It was rejected and a wave of terrorist violence began, apparently to induce a better offer, which of course was not forthcoming - the Israelis had probably offered everything they could. I think it would be fair to say that the Palestinians damaged their standing with the diplomatic community very badly at this point. US initiatives during the eight years of the Bush administration were desultory at best.

Instead, it was the Israelis who took steps. They quelled the so-called "second intifada", the campaign of suicide bombers attacking Israeli civilians, by more tightly controlling their borders (which decimated the Palestinian economy); and by building a security fence. This stopped the violence and delineated a provisional border, which the Israelis indicated they were willing to further negotiate (the fence is by most accounts on Palestinian land rather than Israeli). Moving the fence would permit Israel to make useful concessions in the future.

Finally, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to test Israeli withdrawal in the Gaza Strip. He withdrew all Israeli settlements and troops to permit the Palestinian Authority to completely control the territory. But this too was rejected, and quite angrily, by the Palestinians. Instead, the terrorist gang Hamas seized control from the Fatah party in Gaza and launched rockets into southern Israel.

In the wake of the recently concluded Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli Defense Forces, there will no doubt be another period of assessment: will Hamas continue to be able to control the Strip? Will they resume their terror campaign of rocket fire? But I think we will begin to hear more about moving beyond waiting on the Palestinians to be reasonable.

Senator Sam Brownback (R) writes in the Jerusalem Post, suggesting that the two state solution is no longer a useful plan, and that some form of control of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan is the next step. (Is Brownback burnishing his credentials early for a 2012 presidential campaign? Probably.)

The question would then be, do Egypt and Jordan want anything to do with these territories and populations?

UPDATE: I should have included a good link for maps. Try here.