Rise of ISIS Read Online Free Page A

danger of air strikes) far exceed even America’s.
    After a multiyear effort, which included multiple oral interventions at the ICC, we succeeded in persuading the ICC to drop the case. Unfortunately, however, the left never admits defeat. It just tries again.
    So Israel once again faces international condemnation and investigation for military tactics that are more conservative than America’s. If Israeli soldiers are judged to be war criminals, then so will our own men and women in uniform, and the terrorists will have won a dramatic victory without ever winning a battle.

CHAPTER TEN
THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER
    L et’s be crystal clear: If the U.N., Red Cross, and even the Obama administration win the legal argument, nations like Israel and the United States will no longer have a meaningful right to defend themselves. If direct warnings of an attack are insufficient, when can a nation defend itself against jihadists who are violating the laws of war? Such rules would give terrorists (who care nothing for the law) safe havens throughout cities and towns as they appropriate and strike from civilian buildings.
    It has never been the law that any fighting force, anywhere, enjoys a safe haven when it strikes its enemies. Jihadists, who systematically violate the laws of war, should be the least protected of all combatants. To provide them with any protection at all merely guarantees that civilians will be placed in the crosshairs again and again.
    The international left, the U.N., and the Red Cross understand this reality. They are not fools. One can only concludethat they are objectively siding with brutal war criminals, rendering them complicit (and in the case of the U.N., often explicit co-conspirators) in war crimes.
    Let’s take the example of the International Red Cross, a formerly respected international organization that loses its moral authority with every pro-Hamas statement. In a recent article, the Red Cross discussed an Israeli strike on a seven-story building in Gaza. In the article, the Red Cross made the following statement:
    The ICRC engages in discussion with “both parties” about the “rules of war.” We talk about principles such as “precautions in attack,” “legitimate targets,” “concrete military advantage” and “proportionality.” We remind everybody that if an attack is expected to cause “excessive incidental civilian casualties” in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, it must be cancelled or suspended. We say loudly and clearly that in this war, as in any other, it is not acceptable that soldiers minimize their risks at the expense of civilians on the other side. We also say it is not acceptable to use civilians as human shields, in any conflict. We attend diplomatic conferences, we organize workshops, we “raise awareness” among belligerents to “minimize casualties.” How effective is all this? 1
    Such statements are both self-serving and misleading—especially when it is clear that one side (Israel) is making herculean attempts to fully comply with the law of war and the other side (Hamas) violates the law as a matter of intentional, premeditated strategy. There is no moral equivalency here. Readily available evidence establishes beyond doubt that Hamas is routinely, openly, and notoriously violating the law of war. Yet Israel is singled out by the Red Cross, the U.N., and the Obama administration for actions it would have preferred to avoid altogether, but for the incessant attacks on Israeli soil from Hamas-controlled Gaza. The U.N. is going so far as to launch an investigation of Israel, the only party to the conflict that complies with the law of war. 2
    The Red Cross and the U.N. consistently ignore or minimize the fact that Hamas built tunnels in civilian areas or stored weapons in hospitals and schools, or that the Israeli military warns civilians (the very