If, therefore, a conclusion can be drawn from military violence it is that... there is a lawmaking character inherent in it.-- Eyal quotes Walter. Is it possible, he asks,
that the attack on Gaza was not restrained by an extensive use of [International Humanitarian Law] - but rather, that a certain interpretation and application of this law have enabled, not only the justification of atrocities, but crucially, the affliction of otherwise inconceivable levels of destruction? Has the chaos, death and destruction been perpetrated with the full force of the law? If this is so, should those who oppose Israeli violence use the language of international law?