Central to Israel’s defence of its actions in Gaza last year is the claim that international humanitarian law (IHR) is inadequate and must be modified to accommodate the “asymmetrical” nature of modern warfare. Rather than arguing that greater protection should be afforded to the weaker party in such uneven conflicts, the leading theorists of this new doctrine, Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin, actually demand greater privilege for the strong, the wealthy and the well-armed.
Contrary to cherry tomatoes, solar water heaters and purple carrots, this is a truly Israeli invention, from which other countries currently engaged in "wars on terror” stand to benefit considerably, to the detriment of the rest of mankind.
In “The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel’s Undermining Of International Law”, Jeff Halper offers a thorough analysis of this aspect of “Operation Cast Lead” and its aftermath. The following is a brief excerpt:
This is a serious stuff. We are in the midst of the second battle of Gaza, a campaign not only to refute and defame the UN’s Goldstone Report and sanitize Israel’s actions there but to change international humanitarian law in a way that protects the powerful states and their armies while removing the fundamental rights of the world’s poor and downtrodden to resist. The stakes are high. What will happen to the Palestinians—or oppressed peoples everywhere—if Kasher & Co. succeed in striking the Principles of Distinction and Proportionality from international law? Imagine an entire world unprotected against occupation, invasions, exploitation and warehousing, a global Gaza. It would be world that reflects current reality: everyone would be either an Israeli Jew, part of a privileged global minority who main ethical responsibility is towards defending itself against “terrorists,” or a Palestinian, part of an impoverished, occupied majority with no control over its resources or its future, which nevertheless carries responsibility for the well-being and security of its violent “zero-tolerant” masters.