As the U.S., Europe and Israel have all repeatedly demonstrated, 100% of the time: no country, while being exclusively required to unilaterally adhere to the present interpretations of international law, can succeed in defending itself against asymmetric attacks by an enemy that is permitted to flagrantly violate international law. Requiring only the defending country to adhere to international law guarantees defeat of victims trying to defend themselves and victory to brazen war criminal predators. There is nothing just about it.
In other words, current interpretations of international law authorize (wink at) the most flagrant violations of international law by favored countries (that “happen” to be Muslim) while non-favored countries (that “happen” to be Jews and non-Muslim infidels) are required to go beyond the law to extremes of scrupulousness and meticulousness — effectively stripping non-Muslim countries of their ability to defend themselves against asymmetric attacks — crimes against humanity — by war criminals.
In other words, current interpretations of international law guarantee victory for those cunning enough to fight asymmetrically and religiously zealous enough to flagrantly commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in brazen violation of international law. If not remedied, Islamists will impose sharia on you; James Foley’s fate is coming to you!
To require only one side to adhere to international law is unreasonable and biased — in the case of Israel (“Zionism”) and Jews, blatantly miso-Judaic. This, and the miso-Judaic engine implanted within international media / world opinion driving the present international laws and their interpretations and applications, combine to comprise the #1 existential threat to Israel (and the rest of the non-Muslim world as well, though the world doesn’t yet recognize the scope or seriousness of the Islamic threat; Islam inexorably mutates to Islamist).
First, a prey (defending) country must NEVER be equated to the predator (aggressor instigator of conflict)!
Second, asymmetry emphasizes two issues: proportionality and distinction; each of which must be updated to contemporary realities, facts on the ground not only in many regions of the Middle East but, increasingly, world-wide.
Proportionality essentially says that if someone punches you once in the mouth, you may punch them back only once in the mouth. It doesn’t take into account if it’s a bully who can withstand your punch in the mouth and is about to beat your brains into mud and a fatal coma. On this personal level, a person who has been attacked (assaulted, not even, necessarily, battered) is entitled to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend himself or herself, up to and including lethal force. If the attacker is bigger and badder than you (an asymmetric advantage), and it’s reasonably clear he is about to attack you again, then you can whack him over the head with a 2×4 or shoot him (asymmetric defense), when it’s reasonably necessary in order to save yourself (“reasonably” and “necessary” each being a pivotal issue). Similarly, the parallel holds that when any country is attacked asymmetrically, the victim country must be entitled to retaliate in kind — asymmetrically.
Punitive Retaliation: Deterrence
Similarly, future peace depends upon the ability of a country that has been attacked asymmetrically, beyond defending itself to restore the status quo ante, to reasonable punitive retaliation as a deterrent against future recurrence of attack. The status quo ante is no penalty — or deterrence — at all. Rather, guaranteed return to the status quo ante is a guarantee that defeat will be harmless, without risk, to the predator. If the asymmetric predator pays no price for adventure and predation, then predatory forces are keenly motivated, and powered by religious zeal, to continue attacking asymmetrically until they prevail — guaranteeing eventual defeat of prey countries forced to unilaterally adhere to international law in the face of attacks by war criminals and crimes against humanity that will go unindicted.
The term “civilian” cannot be applied to persons of any gender or age who function as shields, voluntarily (complicit enablers) or involuntarily, or who refuse to vacate vicinities used for military activity. Neither is it reasonable to require a country defending itself from asymmetric attack, before it can defend itself, to warn non-combatants to disengage from and evacuate locations and neighborhoods that are being used to attack the defending country. The right of a country to defend itself from an attacker is inviolable.
Genuine civilians know when their neighborhoods are being used to launch mortars, missiles and initiate attacks on another state, or if their military has their headquarters or a command post in their building or neighborhood — and have the good sense to get themselves and their loved ones away from the fighting. That knowledge is sufficient to warrant evacuation, and parental evacuation of their children, from the vicinity. A state that has been attacked cannot reasonably be required to sacrifice its own citizens and self-defense in order to protect non-uniformed human shields, enablers and accomplices aiding and abetting an attacking enemy. If the law says differently, then the law is unjust, wrong and must be fixed. The alternative is for the civilized world to be subjugated by war criminals who fight asymmetrically and have been granted special dispensation from international law.
The world can fix the international law accordingly and create a climate in which countries can defend themselves against asymmetric attacks and attackers who flaunt international law and conventions — or be subjugated to sharia.