Twenty years ago In “Legitimizing the PLO,” the late Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote about how international law was subverted over the years by the PLO and its advocates to excuse terrorism. One of the earliest steps in this process was the passing of the Declaration on principles of International Law Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, passed October 24, 1970, which states:
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
About this declaration Dr. Kirkpatrick observed:
With this declaration, the General Assembly, more clearly and unambiguously than ever, took the position not only that “peoples” had rights superior to those of member states, but that states resisting the rights of “peoples” could themselves become a “threat to peace.” The General Assembly thus subordinated the principle of the “sovereign inviolability” of states to the struggle of “peoples” against “colonialism” and put important new restrictions on the right of states to self-defense.
The U.S. and the other Western nations joined in these resolutions without much thought, dis-
missing them as without significance outside the halls of the United Nations. This fundamentally
frivolous attitude ignored the cumulative impact of such resolutions in focusing attention, in ex-
pressing what is widely considered to be “world opinion,” and, finally, in having an impact on
international law.
And so began a slow process of allowing terror against Israel and restricting Israel’s right to defend itself.
It’s no wonder that Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu has embarked on an effort to change the laws of war.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu directed the relevant ministries on Tuesday to look into ways of launching an international initiative to change the laws of war to deal with the modern-day scourge of terrorism.
This new initiative comes fast on the heels of the Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war crimes for its military operation in the Gaza Strip against Hamas earlier this year.
Needless to say Judge Goldstone is not impressed.
When asked about Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s initiative to change the international law to allow states to fight terrorist groups, Goldstone said Israel was apparently “clutching at straws.”
“I think it’s sad… Israel is clutching at straws. International law can’t be changed just because one side doesn’t like the laws of war,” Goldstone said.
“I think it’s wrong, very unfortunate and inappropriate,” Goldstone said of the Israeli response to the report compiled by the UN fact-finding commission he led.
Does Goldstone really believe this? The purpose of his mission, he has said, was to end the “culture of impunity.” But if he effectively binds states from legally responding to terror attacks, isn’t he granting impunity to the terrorists? And the problem with his assertion is that international law has been changed, as noted above, to favor terrorists. International law wouldn’t be changed because Israel doesn’t like it; but because it’s been perverted for decades.
In the “Lawfare pioneer,” Petra Petra Marquardt-Bigman writes about the career of Michel Massih. who is making it his goal to hamstring Israel.
Mr. Massih’s quest to bring Israeli officials to trial is doubtless motivated by a principled concern for human rights and international law. However, Massih has also acknowledged that his goal is “to end the impunity that Israel has enjoyed. The field of freedom for Israel will narrow. More and more of these warrants will be applied for. And people will become much more aware of the difficulties of waging war in this unlawful way. Frankly, all you need is one case – one case which sticks.”
But Massih is involved in other activities too:
It seems that by now, at the age of 59, Massih has additional priorities: according to his profile, “he is advising the Syrian government and military officials who are being investigated by the United Nations Security Council over the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon; and he is advising the president of Sudan, Omar al Bashir, who has been accused of presiding over genocide in Darfur by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.”
Which brings us to this observation:
How much more absurd can it get? Imagine the scenario: the man who does his professional best to help Sudan’s president avoid being held responsible for the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens hauls Israel’s defense minister before a British court to accuse him of conducting a limited military campaign that was necessitated by the fact that a terrorist group, hiding in a densely populated urban area among the civilians it rules, used this area as a launching pad for thousands of rockets endangering some one million Israeli civilians.
Goldstone is not as reprehensible as Massih. Goldstone thinks that by applying the law as he sees it to both sides he can effect some sort of world peace. But his methods would only apply to the side that cared about international law. Massih, on the other hand, openly sides with the bad actors. Still the effects of both their efforts will be the same: to stymie legitimate governments from fighting terror.
UPDATE: I’ve corrected a few errors and omissions.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
