Outside the Protection of Law

The word “outlaw” originally meant someone living outside the protection of law, because that person had committed such heinous crimes that no decent person would even help them stay alive. (Usually this meant treason, regicide, and so on.)

Their lands were seized by the government. Their goods were also seized, if the government could get them.

It was forbidden to give such people food, water, fire, or shelter except under duress. Killing such a person was not murder, and might even provide one with a reward, as if the person were a dangerous animal.

Those who aided such a person were committing a crime.

In medieval England, nobody under the age of 14 could be outlawed, and the courts generally shied away from outlawing women.

(The situation got a lot less clearcut when medieval England came up with the concept of civil outlawry, as opposed to criminal outlawry. It also wasn’t terribly effective, as civil outlawry could only be deployed against people who defaulted on tons of debts and didn’t have lands or seizable goods, and who just refused to show up for court or possibly no longer lived anywhere in a county.)

In Saxon times, an outlaw was also called a “wearg,” a wolf. Very often, his crimes were such that he was also excommunicated, and hence had no protection from either the civil authorities or the Church’s laws. OTOH, a repentant outlaw might find a home in a monastery or as a penitent hermit.

St. Guthlac is a good example of this, both in life and in Old English literature.

(There’s a surviving Old English poem about his life which is just awesome, btw. Here’s a translation.)

The laws of war operate on a similar basis to the laws of criminal outlawry.

People who don’t identify their side, don’t wear uniforms, and don’t operate under the laws of war, but who do commit acts of war, do not receive the protection of law given either a soldier or a civilian. They commit war crimes. They may count as terrorists, depending on the war crime.

Such a person can be shot as a spy, if not wearing a uniform while committing such acts. A uniform can be as simple as an armband, but there has to be one.

If guerrilla warfare leads people to abandon uniforms, they are taking their chances.

And somebody who helps other people commit war crimes, or crimes against humanity in general, is also considered a war criminal, in most cases. There are exceptions for aid workers… but often the aid workers get compromised, and end up actually working for the war criminals.

So basically, Gaza, Rafah and other Hamas territories are full of war criminals.

You’ve got terrorists collecting a salary from the UN, while actively running around committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. You’ve got terrorists setting up military bases, illegal prisons, torture sites, rape sites, etc., in places like hospitals and schools, as well as in civilian housing and in refugee camps.

And you have people using children, who would normally be exempt from war, as soldiers without uniforms, as bait, as propaganda actors, and any other illegal and immoral thing they can think of. (Sometimes these kids are also being abused physically and sexually, so it’s a very muddy situation.)

But the situation was created not by Israel, but by Hamas.

Israel didn’t attack first. Israel didn’t drag off “hostages” as sex slaves, or sit around raping dead bodies of suburban civilian housewives. All that was Hamas.

And Hamas actively set up a situation where any ordinary civilian who isn’t helping them, is still liable to get “martyred” by the Israelis who are fighting Hamas.

Hamas is the entity that is able to save civilians and end war crimes, by surrendering and laying down their arms. Hamas is the one that could be wearing uniforms, and staying away from civilian areas.

Anything bad that happens is all on Hamas. And they are happy to admit this in Arabic-language statements.