Penna Dexter
Israel’s critics have denounced even it’s very first efforts to defend itself against Hamas’s horrific massacre. These voices warn that any civilian casualties will be seen as war crimes. And it’s true: the deliberate targeting of civilians is a violation of international law and the laws of war. But unlike Hamas, Israel does not target civilians.
Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich asks this question in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:“Does international law require a nation to choose between committing war crimes and having war crimes committed against it?” He says “The answer is no.”
Professor Kontorovich teaches at George Mason University Scalia School of Law and heads up the international law department at a Jerusalem think tank. Since civilians often become victims, “countries like Israel, “he writes, “resort to war only as self-defense, which, according to the United Nations Charter, is every nation’s inherent right.”
Hamas launches its rockets from civilian population centers. Its weapons infrastructure is located among civilians, by design, as shields and for propaganda. The professor points out that “Hamas has violated international law by hiding among civilians.” Hamas has even ordered Gazans not to flee to avoid Israel’s defensive campaign. He says the presence of civilians in and around military targets does not mean those targets are immune from attack.
Hamas has ruled Gaza since 2005 and has attacked Israel from there several times. In defending against those attacks, Israel targets Hamas fighters and infrastructure.  With this horrendous attack, Israel must operate with the knowledge that “Hamas’s goal is the annihilation of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.” Destroying Hamas is now, rightly, Israel’s existential goal.
Professor Kontorovich writes: “When military objectives and civilians are intermingled, siege aimed at the former will also affect the latter.”  Siege is a part of lawful war. He wonders whether those who deny Israel’s right to self-defense “are merely naïve or wish to leave Israel perpetually exposed to genocide.”
Israel cannot look away. 

Kerby Anderson
For many months, I have been saying that if the 2024 presidential election becomes a rematch of 2020, many voters will stay home. Recent polls confirm my prediction.
There is another possibility. The lack of enthusiasm for Biden and Trump might increase the possibility of more Americans voting for a third-party candidate. The announcement by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that he is running as an independent makes that possibility even more likely.
Of course, he is not the only third-party candidate. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party will no doubt nominate candidates that will appear on most ballots. The No Labels Party is a centrist party that may nominate one Democrat and one Republican for the ticket.
This scenario certainly explains why leaders in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have engaged in a scorched earth campaign against these parties and their candidates. The attacks last time on Jill Stein (Green Party) and Evan McMullin (Independent) will pale in comparison to the attacks we will see against third-party candidates.
We will be hearing that voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away. It is not. The two major political parties don’t own your vote. They need to earn your vote. If you see a candidate worthy of your vote, you should vote for that person.
We will also be hearing that voting for a third-party candidate takes votes away from another political party. But that assumes the voter would have voted for a main-party candidate if a third-party candidate wasn’t on the ballot. That is a difficult argument to prove. Perhaps the best example of that is the 2000 Presidential election in which Democrats argued that Ralph Nader’s candidacy kept Al Gore from winning Florida.
This may be the year of the third-party, which will remind the major parties that they don’t own your vote.