Solana to Haaretz: New rules of war needed for age of terror
EU foreign policy chief: We will not accept a situation in which Iran has nuclear weapons.
By Adar Primor Tags: Goldstone report France Israel news Middle East peaceFor exactly 10 years Javier Solana has represented the "international face" of Europe; 10 years in which he has closely followed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with all its turns and crises; a decade in which, to a great extent he was the answer to the famous question of Henry Kissinger: "Who should I call when I want to talk to Europe?"
To a certain extent Solana, the head of Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy, has served simultaneously as the counterpart of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Soon, the most complicated role in the world may come to an end: with the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty- the constitutional document of the European Union, the EU will appoint, for the first time, a foreign minister, who will head a European diplomatic service. Solana will step down. A proverbial moment before he does, he has agreed to grant Haaretz an exclusive interview.
The 67-year old Solana, who was in Israel this week as a guest at the President's Conference, is uncertain what the future holds for him. He is also not willing to reveal whom, among the candidates for the new position, he prefers. He prefers to talk about the day to day issues that were his bread and butter during the past decade.
For example, he would like to understand what troubled Israel that led to its decision to prevent French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to travel to the Gaza Strip this week. After all, he says, the visit was humanitarian in nature. He was told that Israel would like to prevent a "Hamas festival" that will grant legitimacy to the terrorist group ruling the Gaza strip.
He was also told that, according to one assessment, the Israeli attitude stemmed from the French handling of the Goldstone report. France opted to abstain from the vote at the Human Rights Council instead of rejecting the report, and angered the Israeli leadership.
Solana responds with a smile and a gesture of dismissal. He says that, "this is a very short sighted approach. After all, it is the Foreign Minister of France, a state which is one of the most important allies of Israel."
For years Solana has sought to bring about a "victory of a coherent and effective European foreign and security policy," in order to prove that Europe has joint values and political direction, which it advances on the international arena. In order to emphasize this, Solana, a Physics professor, offers a parallel from the world that is close to his heart.
"The Union is not a mixture of states," he says. "It is a type of molecule with joint electrons that enable us to act together and make binding political decisions."
However, it appears that during the vote at the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in Geneva, the electrons opted to make up new rules of physics: Italy, Hungary and Slovakia voted against the Goldstone Report, Belgium abstained, while Britain and France chose not to participate in the vote.
He is much more concerned with the near consensus that has taken root in Israel against Judge Richard Goldstone.
"I know Goldstone very well," Solana says. "He has helped us a great deal in his legal work in former Yugoslavia and I have no doubts regarding his rectitude and honesty. It is entirely obvious that Goldstone did not seek to harm the sides, certainly without intention to harm Israel. His report may not have been read properly. In any case, it is now important to look forward and to hold an independent investigation in Israel and the other side [the Palestinians]. This would be the best outcome."
When Solana is asked whether Israel is in part responsible for the report, for its refusal to cooperate with its author, he says, "Sure, I would have recommended that Israel would have cooperated. In the Union we respect the UN and multilateral bodies a great deal. Unfortunately, this view of ours which is linked to the era of globalization and the need to create different mechanisms for global governance, is different from the view that is prevalent here."
Solana is presenting a European philosophy, which in Israel they are hard pressed to understand. Multilateralism and internationalism ¬ the "new religion" of Solana and his colleagues in the EU, constitute an essential lesson of the world wars, and of the destructive nationalism that caused them.
They are also the result of the increased migration and the demographic changes that Europe underwent in the past decades, and which blurred the notion of nation-tribe throughout the continent. Europe has relinquished the supremacy of national values in favor of the international society of law.
However, Solana's "religion" is not of the radical sort. For example, he tends to emphasize that the struggle against terrorism is deeply ingrained in him.
In an interview he gave Haaretz in 2004, he said that "nearly every week I had to participate in the funeral of a person who was killed by terrorism. This situation did not change even when I served as Secretary General of NATO, and reached its peak with the large attacks that occurred in Madrid on March 11 2004."
Perhaps this is why he understands ¬ and even supports ¬ the call of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the need to alter the laws governing international warfare, which are not aligned with the reality in which countries need to combat terrorist entities. Solana chooses not to address the question of war crimes attributed to Israel in the report, but stresses that "in yesterday's world there were wars of armies against armies and there were laws and conventions that dealt with the conduct of such wars.
It is necessary to invest thought to the changing situation in which there is asymmetry between fighting parties, a situation in which it is difficult to implement the classic/old rules of war." But he says that "until new rules are in place we must obey the old ones."
Solana opts not to comment on the declaration of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, which described the Goldstone report as "an obstacle to the peace process." However, his view on the matter is clear: In a visit Solana made to Ramallah this week he stressed that the aim of the EU is "to establish a Palestinian state at the earliest possible moment within the 1967 borders."
In July it seemed that he had lost his patience when he declared that "the UN should set a target date for establishing a Palestinian state and recognizing it, even if the Israelis and the Palestinians do not reach an agreement. Then the Security Council will be asked to call for the adoption of a two state solution that will deal with all the parameters of borders, refugees, the issue of Jerusalem, and the security arrangements. There is a need to also accept the Palestinian state as a full fledged member of the UN and set a time table for implementing the solution until the declaration of an end to the conflict."
At the panel on "Tomorrow," which was part of the President's Conference, Solana said that peace much be achieved today. "Globalization and the demographic data in the region demand it," he says during the interview.
His efforts in our region have taught him that without the mediation of a third party the two sides are unable to reach agreement. Solana is convinced that following the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union, which he describes as "one of the most beautiful constitutional projects" will have a greater and more evident presence on the international arena. He therefore insists that "Israel must place some of its eggs in the European basket," and not leave everything in the American one.
For example, he says that if the sides ask the EU to deploy a military force in the territories that the IDF will evacuate as part of an agreement, Europe will rally to the cause. However, he recognizes the fact that the United States, "with whom Europe is in complete agreement on most issues," is the "best" mediator for the region. Solana does not agree with the disappointment and the ridicule that has followed the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama.
He is convinced that the U.S. president is determined to act in order to resolve the problem and applauds the appointment of George Mitchell to the role of special envoy to the Middle East, "a wise man with many talents," he says. The two were party to the preparation of the Mitchell Report in 2001, which investigated the events of the second intifada, and led to the formulation of the road map.
Solana is also the representative of the international community in the talks with Iran on its nuclear program. He visited Tehran many times and held dozens of meetings with the Iranian leadership. In response to a question on a military option in case talks fail, Solana was firm.
"We are looking for political solutions, but I want to be very clear," he says. "We will not accept in any case a situation in which Iran has nuclear weapons.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
that attacked Israel to fight for their umma brothers. Why can Arabs/Iran have 5 times as many men & equipment as Israel.? As if you did not know but just because you want to wave the flag for your side.Israel is not party to the NPT.Iran is. Pakistan is not.
Israel could have flattenned Gaza just like Russia did Grozny,in minutes.Israel did not. Chechnya never called for obliteration of Russia by Islam did they? Grozny worried you? Worried about how Hamas Arabs/Iranians use or used their children? Worried about use of civillian facilities by Hamas to fire at Israeli civillians. Strange how some seem to have only one problem in life.
When BIBI says he believes that the rules of war must be changed so that terrorism can be fought, is he then not saying that what the IDF did in Gaza was indeed war crimes under the framework of todays rules of war? Such a foolish man to have as a leader of a Country, any Country, he puts the noose around his own neck, sad.
"Solana to Haaretz: New rules of war needed for age of terror" Editorial
HUH????
what r the new rules n e way? in a list, pleaze
Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan forbids Japan ever taking part in a war. They suffered the full horror of what war can be. They know that the best rule is NO WAR.
Bill Moyer devoted the whole hour on Bill Moyer's Journal last night to an interview with Judge Goldstone. I hope someone will show this program in its entirety in Israel. It probably would not change the minds of many on this forum, but hopefully there are some Israelis who can be persuaded that the attacks on Goldstone are pure propaganda. Bill Moyers, as devil's advocate, ably presented the rightwing Israeli view. But Goldstone was unshaken. His best line: Implicit in Netanyahu's call for new laws of warfare is a recognition that Israel (along with Hamas) violated the current law. Any fair individual who studies Judge Goldstone's record in examining human rights abuses in South Africa, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, and listens to him parrying Moyer's presentation of the Israeli arguments, must conclude that this is a good and brave man who did the best he could to gather eveidence and apply current international law to his findings of fact.
Setting a date for PALESTINE iNDEPENDENCE, sorting out ALL core Issues, Borders, Jerusalem, Refugees, Waters, Armies and so on. Regardless what Israel and PA may say. It was created by the Un and it will sorted out by the UN. PERIOD
you have to read part one on # 34. Until a new one is in place.Armies never obeyed old rules and will do the same with new ones.So what is there to change? The word humanitarian is used all over--to spare someone's life, to feed civilians. If they print all of it, you will be able to read 1, 2, 3.
"Shooting civilians with white flags is not "self-defense....and all the irrefutable rest." Shooting terrorists who carry white flags to camouflage themselves, is not shooting civilians... And all the typical responses to the rest of your usual inanities.
see part 2 no. 34 --Govts. throughout the world spend $ billions to train, build huge armies for one purpose and one purpose only ,to Kill.If it's offensive, defensive,the end results are identical -- to Kill. hundreds of millions starving, destitute,without shelter are roaming the world in search for work,bread YET,those who 'have it' and those who'don't' continue to build bigger, better,faster instruments of death with the most advanced technology available. Two-three cases in point. N.korea with famine for years,must have the bomb,but the leadership get gourmet food from Paris on private jets. Egypt swamped in misery,must have and maintain a huge army (for what?).Iran, flushed with cash,is a disaster;100's or 1000's of communities without the basics;decent housing,electricity, running water,no infrastructure BUT, they must have the bomb,the hell with the population.And Mr. Solana wants the "rules of war changed?".As you say,all is changed today, we must obey the old ones. See # 3
Hello r cummings.... Everything you say is true... and on paper it looks legal and binding. In the real world... in the streets and alleys of Khan Yunis or Mogadishu things are not so clear-cut. You see, there are laws on the international books that address humanitarian war crimes and civil murder. But who will enforce those laws when the communities where these crimes originate from are lawless and the population, the religious fanatics actually propagate these crimes... on a weekly basis.. It's one thing when terrorists kill their own, but when they cross borders in suicide belts or fly planes into skyscrapers and then vanish into thin air. There's no one to prosecute... and how many were prosecuted. Again, I agree with the premise of your post. But the world has changed so much and I'm simply asking if theses laws are still relevant....or need to be revisited, that's all. Cheers...
This interview only confirms my suspicions. Imagine, wanting to changing the laws to cater to the outlaws in Israel? That's un-conscionable in my book. Those laws were put in place following terrible armed conflicts with great loss of human lives. Plus, the real terrorists today are mostly governments imposing their will on civilian populations-such as Israel. Dutch Dutch
Sounds like you're describing Ann Coulter. Do we need more look-a-likes?
....of Israelis and Hamastanis are longing for a just peace between Israel and the Arab world, with Spain in the role of the "honest broker". Would someone remove his "blindfolders", please....??? :)
Largely ignored by mainstream media and those who might actually believe in Goldstone's garbage, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, made a remarkable statement during his testimony before the United Nations Human Rights Council. "The IDF," he said, "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare" (Oct. 16, 2009).
Did I miss something? First the EU favors multilateralism and internationalism over nationalism because nationalism causes wars. Then the EU wants to create a Palastinian nation.
The laws of armed conflict are pretty much set out in the Geneva Conventions. Among other things, they set out that places where wounded combatants are treated can be targeted in limited circumstances. But it cuts two ways. If civilians are being treated there, they are at risk. Among other things, Israel treats its wounded at civilian facilities, making them too legitimate targets during periods of armed conflict. The US on the other hand, uses military only hospitals where the only civilans allowed are military dependents and retired military. That limits civilian exposure. So what changes in the rules does Israel propose? Will 90% of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva conventions agree? Changing the rules is periodically proposed, but not often done.
Anybody who wants to talk tough must put on a blond wig and a red dress. Rule Number Two. Anybody who just wants to stand tall must wear some spiked heals! That way we will know for sure that all differences have been redressed! If Assad wants to wear a bra and jock strap outside his clothes, that's okay! That's what advertising is all about!!!
...and all the irrefutable rest.
Maybe this is a factor of you not understanding the English language. But I'm saying exactly what Mr. Solana is saying. Who BTW represents the European Union, a place you obviously came to as an Arabic immigrant. That, the way terrorists fight is immoral. Let me say it slowly so you can understand. What Solana is talking about is the difference between the classic combat of armies. And the new age fight of terrorist... taking civilian hostages, blowing-up air-liners, beheading and all the rest of the despicable ways you seem to admire. If you like to return to the Neanderthal days of your ancestors.... that's ok by me. Otherwise you can stick it.
Marc Number 14 - "I think Israel`s defense force should rid themselves of all uniforms and dress in civilian clothes and than they have free reign." POOF! Your wish is a reality! Israel's psychopathic and violent plainclothes defense force is already in existence. They're called "settlers."
Does that mean we have to let those who are presently in jail, being tried, or being hunted under the old ones go free? And it will be hard to change them in such a way where Israel is not vulnerable to them, and still have them catch Hamas. Change them so Cast lead doesn't fall afoul of them, and the rockets also escape through the same path. (Oh, and Judith, the number of rockets that have been fired at Sderot since Cast Lead exceed those fired at Sderot during last years ceasefire agreement.)
after their Govt. attacked a neighbor and lost. Yet the charity money given to them goes for more weapons for the next round -- the hell with the population. The Palestinian saga is a modern humanitarian plunder of monumental proportion lasting 62 years.Instigated by the arabs (the smart ones, smiling)and nurtured by the West (stupid and crying).The $ billions spent for 62 years, helped build new armies,while the refugees are still displaced, thanks to their loving arab brothers. And you Mr. Solana wants the rules of war changed?.Yesterday's armies didn't give a damn with the old rules. today's combattants won't give a damn about the new ones Winning was and still is the 1st rule of war.And Kill is required to win......unless ????
But of course this does not apply to Darfur, the kurds the tibetans, the ouighours etc...
You should have told that to the dutch soldiers that were supposed to protect the inhabitants of Srebrenica. 8,000 of them having been murdered under dutch eyes in 1995.
Mr Solan is quoting as saying that «His efforts in our region have taught him that without the mediation of a third party the two sides are unable to reach agreement». His efforts should also have taught them that the two sides cannot reach agreement *with* mediation of any third party. Such logic escapes him, as it does the EU and successive US administrations.
First rule of war: kill the other guy. Second rule of war: keep your guys alive. European and Liberal rule of war: surrender equals peace.
There is no need of new rules of war to fight terror. The cause of terrorism is unjustice , remove unjustice and terrorism will abate immediately. Israel should stop to treat the Palestinians as subhumans as he has done until now , he should return the land that they deserve and that was taken away from them in 1947.Once this has been achieved the world will be a much more peaceful place to live. Yitzhak Rabin understood this but he paid with his life for the dream to see two people peacefully cohabiting together
Fighting an enemy that does not respect the rules of engagement should not be shown mercy. Collateral damage is the price paid. That is the common sense law that should be in effect until formalities conclude.
Oh, this is rich. Now Israel wants to change intl law because it doesn't like it. The Goldstone represents a high-water mark for critics of Israeli policy, particularly in the US. To much is now known about Israel?s agenda and all over the world people are finding it impossible to reconcile liberal principles with ostensible Zionism. Israel?s massacres are all over the front pages. They have become prominent in public life. Even Jewish writers in the New York Times are having trouble supporting Israel. The apartheid system is becoming impossible to defend. The laws will not be changed just because you want them to. Your days of exceptionalism are over. About time too. Israel needs to be accountable for what it did in Gaza.
...The IDF should still take that risk for Gazans, a risk that they're own elected government was unwilling to take. A risk that would have most likely resulted in much heavier casualty rate to IDF. Like, G-D man, don't you know how it works. It is only fair, otherwise the IDF would win every battle and Hamas deserves to, if not win a battle, at least kill as many Jews as they can. I mean examine the kill ratios, it is not just that the IDF only lost 13 precious souls. That is the part that always gets me, when people discuss the kills ratios. its almost as if they don't mind 1400 dead palestinians, so long as there were more dead Jews and Israelis. It is was one of the most disgusting things to read on these talkbacks and I am always amazed at the writing style that covertly hides this atrocious thought. (Peter I was being sarcastic in the begining. I really appreciate the passion with which you defend Israel and Jews globally, it is incredibly impressive, Shabbat Shalom 2U
- for "persecution" by them as has been the case w/the UNHRC & its evident-to-all obsession w/israel. also, i'm not so sure the EU is yet close to being the "molecule" solana's talking about, nor does it have a coherent unified foreign policy when this really matters, demonstrated most acutely over the ME. a few years ago it was iraq, a few years before that EU's helplessness over bosnia.
Since when has Israel cared about "rules"? The whole framework of the Zionist mentality revolves around being excepted from the very "rules" that it tries to hold everyone else to. When it says it wants "new" rules of war, it really means it wants no rules for itself, and lots for everyone else. The only rules Israel has a problem with are the ones it doesn't make for itself, and when it can't investigate its own crimes it whines about anti-semitism and appeasement of terrorists. There ARE currently lots of laws concerning war, and asymetric and low-intensity conflict, which Israle is engaged in against a captive, imprisoned population in Gaza. Let's talk about NEW rules when you're ready to follow the OLD ONES. Of course, if Israel followed the EXISTING rules, there would be no insistance upon NEW rules for their idea of what's fair in war against those it believes are nothing but drugged cockroaches in a bottle.
... To say that the only lawful way for war is on the open battle field? If protecting ciivlians is as I agree of the utmost importance why is fighting in a city tolerated in the first place? At present this favours terrorist and non conventional war while at the same time restricted means to limited terrorist abilities for example by targeting economies and access to weapons I.e bloackade or siege it truly is mind boggling that developed nations to whom conventional war is favoured ever created laws that increase the risk to their sons and daughters
after an attack by a terrorist, his house should be destroyed, of course only after evicting the family and a settlement can be established on the ruins Just a proposal.
But it would never happen, too may parasites make a living by killing and war.
The examples you give which involve killing are ALREADY covered by the rules. They would be war crimes, humanitarian crimes or straightforward civil murder. Even a particularly difficult one, insurgents embedding themselves in the civilian population, is clear-cut. If by doing so they endanger the civilians, they are guilty of crimes against humanity. If you attack a house where there is a likelihood that insurgents or soldiers are holding civilians, that is a war crime. What some people are really looking for is an excuse to suspend ALL rule of military and civil law when fighting insurgents. The problem is you are immediately one inch away from My Lai or worse, so no international court is going to buy that. It is perfectly possible to fight an asymmetric war legally and successfully under the present rules, as armies and their legal departments know full well.
"In July it seemed that he had lost his patience when he declared that "the UN should set a target date for establishing a Palestinian state and recognizing it, even if the Israelis and the Palestinians do not reach an agreement. Then the Security Council will be asked to call for the adoption of a two state solution that will deal with all the parameters of borders, refugees, the issue of Jerusalem, and the security arrangements. There is a need to also accept the Palestinian state as a full fledged member of the UN and set a time table for implementing the solution until the declaration of an end to the conflict." In other words, the Pal state is to be set up BEFORE an official declaration of the end of hostilities and Pal claims on Israel. Who believes that approach can bring peace?
The bombs on London, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Ahmburg, Rotterdam were of course war crimes. Today the world does not accept killing random civilians anymore. In the new world civilians are protected people. There is nothing old about those rules. If for example Bombing UN compounds, random shooting rockets into villages, shooting woman and children point blank, prefenting helping wounded, killing Fatah members, hiding behind civilians is ok and does not need to be investigated your moral compass needs recallibrating.
If you fight as a guerrilla organization, in alleyways of apartment blocks. Indoctrinate teenagers into hatred and Jihad. Indiscriminately fire into population centers. Strap-on suicide belts and blow yourself to smithereens on buses or cafes. Profess total extermination of your enemy.... or a demonic realization of some religious prophet. You have no moral standing.... what so ever. You can't expect to hide behind the white flag of Human Rights. And of course, the classic old Rules of War don't apply.
The only thing needed is for the occupation to stop.
Both Netanyahu and Solana have recently spoken about the need to change the rules of war. However, they have not said which rules need change, how they need change or why they need change. What a pity that influential statesmen spend time and energy on defining, implementing and justifying war rather than exploring the modalities of forging peace.
Israel was indiscriminately attacked by the ruling governmnent of Gaza, after Israel has abandoned Gaza. The allies in the Second World war, would have acted similarly or even worse that Israel. Hiroshima and Dresden are an example. Also a lot of civilian payed with their life in the Normandie landing. That is colateral damage. Gaza is a sad story that could have been avoided if the International community would be a harsher with a bunch of reactionary terrorists like Hammas.
Assuming what you say is true, what is your defense for Hamas and Hezbollah? Should I assume the way they fight is in accordance to the rules of war. I think Israel's defense force should rid themselves of all uniforms and dress in civilian clothes and than they have free reign. That should settle it.
What nonsense -- and what futile nonsense. What is really wanted -- but can never be asked for -- is a simple statement that Israel can do whatever she wants and no one may resist her. Doesn't that about cover it?
As usual the header of the article hardly covers the content. It could just as well be Solana supports Goldstone. I do though feel strongly that the way opponents are labeled should have nothing to do with the rules during fighting. As Javier Lobo writes (and anyone who has read the Goldstone report should know} the problem in this case lies in the way civilians were treated. Those rules should never change in a way that allows the things that Goldstone investigated.
he could start by learning Arabic. Will be useful in the EU
Will someone ask Solana why, if it is not all right for Iran to have so much as one nuclear weapon, it is just fine for Israel to have a couple hundred, and no inspectors? What a sweet deal that is!
"In a visit Solana made to Ramallah this week he stressed that the aim of the EU is "to establish a Palestinian state at the earliest possible moment WITHIN THE 67 BORDERS." " If accurate, this is worrisome.
The denial and inversion of law and history has singled out Israel for vilification applied to no other country. Scapegoated for crimes of which it is in fact the victim, Israel has become the Jew of the Western world. This is a victory for the Arabs in the new type of war in which they are engaged. Asymmetric warfare, whose principal battlefield is the mind, uses ostensibly powerless people (the Palestinians) who are in fact backed by powerful state actors (Iran). Such an inversion of strong and weak and the systematic use of deception are vital to the principal strategic goal of asymmetric warfare: to confuse and demoralise its victims and suborn world opinion to its cause as described at : http://xrl.us/bi3q3 http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-war_01.html
Past, present, or future... And who should be in charge of the "green" and "clean" war. Let's include this as a paragraph in Kioto. Oh, and let's drop all barriers. Wars without barriers, how about next WTO PR campaign.
There is peace and quiet now in Sderot. No rockets fired at Jewish kids. That's what matters. If it took op Cast lead to accomplish that, then so be it. But don't be fooled by Hamas propaganda. Their terrorist infrastructure was greatly damaged, and that's because Israel got it in apartment buildings, or wherever else hamas hid.
The rules Israel broke were all Cauus Belli. Or, rules broken DURING hostilities due to targeting civilians. Israel broke the rules when it bombed civilian policemen at their graduation ceremony, burnt people with illumination rounds in day time, used captured civilians as human shields for their artillery tanks, used civilians as human shields when entering buildings, bombed houses with civilians in them knowing that only civilians were in the houses, bombed the UN building when Israel knew it was the UN building, and wrecked the life sustaining infrastructure of Gaza when there wasn't a Hamas fighter in miles. All those rule breaking moves are classic rules to break DURING an engagement. None of those rules need to be changed to fight terrorism. All Israel had to do was simply know knowingly and intentionally murder innocents and Israel would have been fine. The other Rules of War fall under the category of Jus Ad Bellum, just war theory. The Nazis were hung for JusAdBellum.
If the French FM REALLY wanted to go to Gaza, he could've gone through Gaza. Israel has NO obligation to allow transit through its borders to a State dedicated to its demise
whether its the Taliban in Afhghanistan or Hamas in Gaza. Fighting embedded amongst civillians is how they chose to fight endangering civillians
This is the sad reality, Israel has no policy for peace.