They were terrorism in its purest sense.<\/p>\n They were planned and aimed primarily at\u00a0Israeli civilians: babies, children, young and old people<\/a>. And these crimes were not concealed. On the contrary, they have been openly celebrated so that their perpetrators can boast of them, intensify the horror, and deepen the fear and terror.<\/p>\n These international crimes undermine the foundations and security of the international community and violate universal moral values and humanitarian principles.<\/p>\n \u201cCrimes against humanity\u201d are crimes perpetrated in the course of a broad or systematic offensive that is part of a national or international \u201carmed conflict\u201d targeting a civilian population. By contrast, the laws of war pertain to conduct in combat, the right to self-defense, and the way in which an army of combatants can use force.<\/p>\n The international community has defined\u00a0genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes<\/a>\u00a0as acts that by their very nature are intolerable to the human mind: crimes that are systematic in character and aimed at annihilation.<\/p>\n Historically, these definitions arose at a time of piracy in international waters and enshrined universal jurisdiction to try criminals for atrocities in any country, no matter where they were committed, who committed them, or who the victims were.<\/p>\n Later, the crimes of the Nazis, on the same basis, led to the establishment of tribunals, the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) in Tokyo, which granted jurisdiction over crimes considered atrocious by the Allies and that had not previously existed in international law: \u201cwar crimes\u201d and \u201ccrimes against humanity.\u201d<\/p>\n At the same time, a legal basis was established for trying Nazi criminals in Israel and in any other country.A prohibition on the use of force was enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: \u201cAll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.\u201d<\/p>\n There are two exceptions to the prohibition: the exception of self-defense, and the authority Security Council to intervene in instances where \u201cpeace and security\u201d are at issue.<\/p>\n In both cases, the response must be reasonable and proportional. The laws of war do not permit deliberate harm to a civilian population, and the right to self-defense does not include burning families or raping women.<\/p>\n Thus, one must never confuse Hamas with the struggle of the Palestinian people.<\/p>\nHamas’s atrocities cannot be justified<\/strong><\/h3>\n