Israels acts are legally reprehensible under International law.

First, the presence of Israeli troops in the Philippines cannot be immediately considered valid.
According to the United Nations adopted conventions on hijacking, the country where the hijacked
aircraft may be found may exercise its penal laws in order to prosecute the authors of the hijacking
incident. However, a state can also exercise jurisdiction over a hijacking incident involving the aircraft
carrying its flag. However, the fact that jurisdiction is shared does not mean that territorial boundaries
are to be disregarded, or that military forces of a state may simply trespass and exercise military activity
in another state.

Therefore, the shared jurisdiction over the Hijacking incident between the Philippines and Israel
does not necessarily translate to authority for the latter to deploy its military troops into the former, or
vice versa. It would have been more in line with the spirit of international relations if Israel undertook
means to at least coordinate with the Philippine government before acting on the hijacking incident. In
the case, the Philippine Governments permission to Israel is difficult to deduct from the latters hasty
response and sudden arrival on the formers territory.

Second, the Israeli forces attack was premature; they failed to exhaust the possibility of
negotiation with hijackers. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations
would state that the Right to Life is of imperative importance to all. This right must be upheld regardless
of the hostility of forces and should be respected by both sides in an armed conflict.

In the present case, the Hijackers cannot be said to have disregarded the Right to Life, as they
effected the release of eleven hostage women prior to the assault. The Israeli forces should have taken
this as a sign to hold off any undiscerning attack against the hijackers as the possibility of saving more
lives, Filipino or Israeli, can still be attained.

Finally, the Israeli forces handled the situation contrary to the Principle of Humanity; they caused
unnecessary civilian casualties due to the use of unreasonable and indiscriminate force. The principles of
International law on armed conflict require the use of proportionate weaponry in order to nullify a
hostile force in order to minimize, if not avoid, civilian casualties. When the circumstances warrant, there
must, as long as reasonably possible, a disdain for the use of extreme force.

In this case, the fact that the Israeli forces poured gunfire down the cabin is an evident overkill
and shows utter disregard for the lives of the hostages who have no choice but to be caught in the
gunfire. This indiscriminate attack and violence can open them for liability under the sanctions of
International law.

In conclusion, since the Israeli forces acted with negligence and imprudence and caused the
death of the several innocent civilians, they should be held liable under International law or state
jurisdictions as the case may be.