Defensive war - especially pertaining to the Middle East. Cases and criteria?

What criteria do we use to justify first-strike attacks, such as Israel's attack on Egypt in 1967, its attack on Gaza in Nov/Dec 2008 and perhaps even the most recent attack on Gaza, or any other of the mutual aggressions for that matter.

What is a “defensive war”, HB? What is it’s legal standing? In this thread I would like to seek a better analysis than that provided in the bald statement in the quote above.

https://www.mythsandfacts.org/media/user/documents/Israel Wars.pdf

My reading has revealed nothing of the sort - at least not in authoritative and scholarly sources; such articles are usually from personal or blog-type publications, or from websites of distinct political persuasions, or relate to pre-20th C events. For instance, the US army’s Operational Law Handbook - http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2012.pdf - makes absolutely no mention of a Defensive War. Neither does the Charter of the UN, the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Resource Centre of the International Red Cross, or the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Hague I - 29 July 1899).

So what is a “defensive” war and when does a first-strike attack represent one? I would suggest that, even though the concept is frequently employed in Zionist sources such as Herz's above, it has very little value. Instead, the distinction used in scholarly studies should be followed, namely between a Pre-emptive war and a Preventive one

What has been hotly debated is whether ‘pre-emptive’ and ‘preventive’ wars are legal. This has become a significantly more active topic - hundreds of publications - since 911, when, for the first time since Pearl Harbour, the USA suffered the pain that was frequently dished out on other countries and justified. Sifting through this forest of ‘debate’ is almost impossible. A ping-pong match involving tossing the two alternative views in succession is almost certainly going to lead to futile debate.

Instead what need to be sought are authoritative analyses of first-strike attacks that have been widely praised and have been robust against attempts to find major weaknesses. In other words the first criterion should be – “Is it demonstrably respected in legal and scholarly reviews, with little discord”.

I would be interested to see Forum members' views, and hopefully pointers to authoritative articles or publications.

 

Firstly some definitions: - http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf

This US Air Force analysis adds further criteria that are useful for purposeful analysis:

The analysis goes on to classify Israel’s June 1967 first-strike as the epitome of a Pre-emptive attack, something that other legal luminaries disagree with.

A case often quoted as classic is Israel’s preventive attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is another frequent example. Most international legal scholars agree that Preventive attacks are illegal.

I would suggest mainly using Tom Ruy’s analysis of First Strike- “’Armed Attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter” - to determine if June 1967 was indeed a Defensive War, as HYBendor claims – was it Pre-emptive and how certain and imminent was the danger. I chose this treatise because of the widespread accolades that it has receive from numerous legal experts:

# … a great strength of the book is that it provides a detailed restatement of the law on self-defence and the crucial issues surrounding it … Ruys' work demonstrates a large amount of research into the content of the customary law … this is an excellent book on armed attack …' James A. Green, Journal of Conflict and Security Law

# … a particularly subtle and reasoned interpretation of jus contra bellum established by the UN Charter. One could even say that this is the most rigorous and successful book to date about self-defence.' Professor Olivier Corten, translated from the Revue Belge de Droit International

# … 'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter is a well written and carefully researched contribution which will become a bookshelf staple for academics working in the area.' Heather A. Harrison Dinniss, The Modern Law Review

So, in June 1967 was the danger to Israel certain and imminent? What occurred in the period prior to Israel’s attack that could throw light on this issue?

 

Our federal Congress is delegated the power to enact letters of marque and reprisal whenever they cannot justify wartime tax rates to the electorate of the United States.

 

Interesting. Which holds sway in the Scales of Law - those Letters of Marque or the UN Charter? I am not familiar with the US view on legal precedence

But I suspect that I don't want them to have dominance over the Geneva Conventions in my world.

 

It is about the (social) Powers delegated to our federal Congres by the People. Some on the left believe that there is no implied or express delegation of wartime social Powers if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates under our form of Capitalism, to prove a legitimate exigency exists, and is not just another government program, blah...blah...blah, and boondoggle, if not yet a generational form of theft regarding our War on Terror.

 

Thousands of years of religious history have been wiped out by radical Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.
The tombs of biblical prophets Jonah and Daniel leveled by explosives;
More than 40 churches burned to the ground in Egypt;
A 2,000 year-old synagogue known as home to the prophet Elijah reduced to rubble;
The oldest Islamic shrine in Iraq demolished; and
A 1,300 year-old church in Iraq damaged beyond repair.

This is just a sample of the devastation facing religious minorities in the Middle East. Yet rather than act on these horrible atrocities, the United Nations seems more concerned with demonizing Israel, the one place in the Middle East where minorities enjoy full freedom and equal rights.

Enough is enough. Will you join us in calling on the UN to take decisive action to end these horrifying acts and stop smearing Israel?

Click here to tell the UN: Start protecting minorities. Stop smearing Israel!
http://www.theisraelproject.org/protect-minorities/

ISIS is on a rampage, slaughtering and enslaving thousands of Iraqi and Syrian minorities who refuse to convert to their beliefs. We know ISIS and the Iran-backed Assad regime cooperate on the battlefields of Syria and we know Iran’s terror master Qasem Soleimani is on the ground in Iraq enflaming sectarian violence.

Just this week, we heard about four teens beheaded in Iraq for confessing to ISIS terrorists that they loved Jesus. For the first time in 1,600 years, no Sunday Mass was held in the ancient Christian city of Mosul.

If you want to see the UN start protecting minorities and stop smearing Israel, click here and take action.

 

This isn't about Israel:

It is about the (social) Powers delegated to our federal Congres by the People. Some on the left believe that there is no implied or express delegation of wartime social Powers if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates under our form of Capitalism, to prove a legitimate exigency exists, and is not just another government program, blah...blah...blah, and boondoggle, if not yet a generational form of theft regarding our War on Terror.

 

Did you read the opening post?

It has little or next to nothing to do with the US congress

This has absolutely nothing to do with the middle east.
You do realise that there other countries outside the US?

 

There is no common offense clause or general warfare clause; does that answer your question? We have a Commerce Clause.

Why is it that we can only find mediocre politicians who Only seem to know how to fail at diplomacy?

 

No it doesn't. Nor is it mandatory to have a "common offence or general warfare clause" mostly because this is a concept that you've fabricated out of thin air.

Which has got what to do with this?

 

Here is the clue and the Cause; it is for comparison and contrast. Only the terms, to pay the debts and provide for the commone defense and general welfare are used. There is no common offense clause nor any general warfare clause.

Thus,

No reason to pay for a warfare-State if our federal Congress cannot justify warfare-State tax rates. We should Only be paying for a welfare-State whenever our federal Congress cannot be that fiscally responsible to Tax and spend to win any given War.

 

That's because there doesn't need to be.

In order for a state of war to exist; one state has to declare war upon another.
And you're not paying a war tax in the US.

Furthermore what does this have to do with the middle east?

 

Why do you believe a social Contract does not need to express specific Terms?

 

I didn't say that at all.

 

Here is the clue and the Cause; it is for comparison and contrast. Only the terms, to pay the debts and provide for the commone defense and general welfare are used. There is no common offense clause nor any general warfare clause.

 

Poor grammar, poor spelling and ultimately nonsensical.

Exactly, because a declaration of war isn't a complicated task which requires specific types.

 

It must be distinguishable from letters of marque or reprisal, which may not require wartime tax rates.

 

Nobody issue letters of marque. And if its retaliation then its inevitable to be called and declared as war. So no there is no distinction. And there is no wartime tax rate.

 

It is about the letter of our supreme law of the land, if we have to quibble about limited government.

It is why we have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Only those Powers enumerated are available, if we should have to quibble.

 

Good then you admit that what you are saying has nothing to do with the topic

No need

None of which relate to war

What gives you the right to determine what sources can and cannot be used?

 

It has to with you having a clue and a Cause. What do you believe, limited government means? Surely, it cannot mean any Thing and every Thing as the right would have us believe.

 

I've never said anything remotely close to that.
Looks like you're going off on a tangent again

 

Exactly, the general powers are, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

 

Special pleading.

 

There is no special pleading with our supreme law of the land because that would be an appeal to any ignorance not covered by the special pleading, as a form of vacuum.

The general powers are, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. It really is that simple, except to the right.