"surgical precision"
"Law Enforcement Paradigm (LEP)"
"Law of War Paradigm (LWP)"
"anticipatory self-defence"
er.. these are not laws. They are theories drummed up by right wing ideologues used to justify a strategy of pre-emption.
We could almost be playing a video game here.
Each civilian that Israel kills creates a martyr and a multiplier factor of supporters for revenge on Israel.
Israel's "targetted killings" may strike a chord with the Israeli electorate and washington.
But what is it achieving?
A mark of its success is that over the past 50 years (warning irony ahead) it's managed to solve the middle east problem and prevent attacks on Israel.
Jonathon how about you give some thought to the YRWYSP, the You Reap What You Sow Paradigm?
Because LEP and LWP and anticipatory self-defence can equally be used as a justification by the Palestinians.
That's the problem with "laws". they apply universally.

It appears that Ariel is vying with Singer to be the Voice of Israeli Imperialism on OLO.

The whole world knows that Israel desperately wants to get rid of all non-Jews from its territory whether that territory is legally acquired or obtained by invasion and occupation.

The whole world knows that Israel wants a religiously 'pure' State, one that befits the racist 'Children of God'.

The world also knows that Israel has plans for Greater Israel which involves taking land from its neighbours by force. It will then set about creating a Jewish Super-State, a junior version of the U.S.

So Johnathon, please save us from the mountains of duplicitous nonsense that you have included in this article, nonsense that tries to present Israel as 'just defending itself!'

Israel will get rid of the Palestinians by hook or by crook and genocide is its preferred option because it has created too much hatred.

Hopefully the civilized world will unite to stop this happening and the most important nation to target is the U.S., the enabler of every atrocity and war crime that Israel carries out!

Well Jonathan you did state "Under both domestic and international law, the civilian population has the right to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life."

Perhaps you can send an email or letter to the Israeli government, and their most accommodating psychopath of a leader Benjamin Netanyahu outlining this fact, especially the next time they decide to incite murder and genocide on a group of civilian people that have no means to defend themselves.

Please note the fact that less than 30 'Jews' have been killed as a result of Palestinian rockets since 2004, yet the Israeli military response in respect to these attacks have resulted in thousands of civilian deaths.

Talk about blatant hypocrisy.

Another rant from yet another Zionist apologist.

there are two aspects to the law of war:
(1) whether a state is right to be fighting a war in the first place
(2) the tactics a state has the right to use in fighting a war

The article is mostly about (2). But it is on point (1) where the big difference between the two sides lies. Israel is occupying (or controlling, if you prefer, including blockading) Palestinian territory, not the other way around.

At the end he says "So long as the Jewish state remains at risk of Islamic terrorists who refuse to accept an independent Jewish presence in the Middle East and fundamentally dedicate themselves to Jihad as the means of erasing the Jewish state ..."

My sense of the reporting I've read is that there is very substantial acceptance among Palestinians of a Jewish state within its own lawful borders (though obviously every individual will have his/her own perspective). But in Israel there is clearly not substantial acceptance of a Palestinian state.

So would Ariel agree with a statement like

"So long as Palestine remains at the mercy of militant Israelis who refuse to accept an independent Palestinian state in Palestine and fundamentally dedicate themselves to military means as the means of preventing an independent Palestinian state ..." [and then justify the resultant militant activity by Palestinians]

People who have a claim to be Jews have every right to have and to defend a racist state for those of their ethnic group who opt to be part of it, and to exclude all they would define as goyim or reduce them to non-citizenship. All they need is terra nullius on which to establish it. Parts of Antarctica might do, provided the relevant territory is not required by the rest of the world for scientific or other activity.

But an enclave held, whatever its borders, on land from which millions of people are living in exile brought about by murderous ethnic cleansing, including immediate neighbours held by violent force in an archipelago of Bantustans, is an affront to humanity.

While it can draw American support in return for keeping the oil-rich Middle East in perpetual turmoil it will have the military power to remain and expand at will though not without frequent challenge. After that its future is bleak, as its antics have long ago squandered most of any good will mistakenly accorded it by the world's people.

In its remaining years it would do well to work hard on an accommodation with the Palestinians for a single democratic, secular non-racist state.

I concur with earlier posts that see the article as zionist attempts to legitimize their actions.

I want to reflect on the longterm results of Israel sowing extreme racist sentiment in their population that has become consumed by paranoia.

What will they turn that energy to when they achieve their objective?

The lust for killing children, for bullying unarmed Arabs, the disrespect for women and the aged will not go away, the innocent blood cannot be washed off. It will turn on itself. Israel will not survive unless it reflects on itself and embraces a secular state.
The alternative is a rebirth of fascism that just might reawaken Humanity