Consider: Hamas launched three long range missiles at an Israeli Nuclear reactor. Its Iron Dome system was forced to knock one down. This is an act of nuclear terrorism.
Writing from The Israel Project this morning, Omri Ceren draws our attention to a notable development (reported here) in Hamas’s war against Israel: “Yesterday Hamas launched – and then bragged about launching – three long-range M75 rockets targeting Israel’s nuclear reactor in the city Dimona. Iron Dome had to knock one of the rockets out of the sky; the other two landed in open areas.”
Omri comments: “A terrorist attack against a nuclear reactor is straightforwardly defined as nuclear terrorism by the UN’s 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This isn’t a close, debatable interpretation. It’s part of the black-letter definition at the very top of the convention[.]”
Hamas is likely to try again; if they succeed, writes Omri, they will have pulled off against an Israeli city what the UN considers to be an act of nuclear terrorism: “The Israeli reaction to an unconventional terror attack is impossible to completely foresee, but it’s safe to say that Israel’s missile defense system prevented a catastrophe yesterday.”
Now what might a “reasonable” response look like?
Hamas now has long range missiles that can hit Tel Aviv Airport - the primary gateway to the country.
Destroying/shutting down either of this facilities is an existential issue for Israel. So how far does Hamas have to go before Israel hits back harder than it ever has before? It almost seems like Hamas wants to martyr itself to 'destroy Israel's reputation'.
If rationally responding to terrorism hurts Israel's reputation in the world then the world is not worth saving.
No comments:
Post a Comment