Israel Criticized for Killing the Enemy

POLITICS: Israel Criticized for Killing the Enemy

The Bush Administration publicly criticized Israel today for killing Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

This was probably wise on the part of the US. Whether or not Israel made a mistake in targetting the sheik, it makes diplomatic sense for the US to distance itself.

The reaction in Europe was different.

This is confused. Israel most certainly is entitled to kill the enemy during a war. This particular move at this particular time may or may not have been wise. No one really knows yet if it will have been worth it in the long run.

But Hamas is an enemy. It is not a rival political party, nor is it a mere criminal enterprise. Hamas makes its objective perfectly clear in its charter: Conquer the state of Israel and transform it into a Taliban-style police state.

During the invasion of Iraq, the US military fired weapons directly at Saddam Hussein’s person. In Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was individually targetted. Of course these attacks were “extra-judicial.” War is extra-judicial.

Israel is at war with Hamas. Hamas declared that war - a war of annihilation - and steadfastly refuses to negotiate any kind of settlement whatsoever.

The European ministers are mistakenly applying the rules of police conduct to the rules of war. They are not the same. They never have been. And they never will be.

*shrugs* P.R. ploy by Bush to keep all hell from breaking loose with our European allies. I'm sure Israel informed the U.S. before carrying out the attack and I'm sure Bush cleared the language of the "condemnation" with Israel before issuing it.

Indeed. All of that is probably true.

I am proud to hear Sean stand up and speak the truth. He is the one person who can say this with impunity and without fear of being zotted. Thank God he uses his bully pulpit in a righteous manner.

On the face of it, I agree with this line of thinking. However, let's follow that line and see where it leads.

Israel decides once and for all to eradicate the PLO, the PA, Hammas, and the rest of the Palestinian terrorist organizations in military operations (aka all-out war). To do this they would have to use their entire ground force to occupy the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Any Palestinian forces left would most likely flee to Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. The IDF would then be inclined to pursue these forces into those countries.

If they did in fact follow those forces, hunting them down, I think Israel would quickly find itself at war with all of it's neghbors, and soon after that with the entire Arab world; Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Kuwait, et al.. Israel couldn't win that war, and the US would have to make a choice; after the events of 1967, I doubt Israel counts on us for more than monetary support and weapons sales.

If they did not initially pursue them, then those forces would be unified into one organization in some sympathetic country, and would resume para-military attacks on Israel from outside it's area of control. Basically a repeat of the 70's, but with the added flavor of nuclear weapons, thanks to Pakistan's security problems. How long before a private plane flying out from Jordan or Egypt explodes a small nuke over Tel Aviv?

I think smarter people than I have played out these war game scenarios, and all of them end with the complete destruction of Israel, whether the US defends them or not. This, I think, is the reason the IDF is taking the limited response tactic, rather than going after a complete obliteration. I think it is also the reason that Sharon is trying to arrange a retreat while settling old scores and removing current immediate threats.

Keep this in mind: If a Palestinian State is formally recognized, with national borders and national government, these events become Acts of War, rather than Acts of Terrorism, in the legal sense. One sovereign state attacking another. As it stands now, that isn't the case. This, I think, may also help to explain the foot-dragging in the peace process.

Come on, get serious Michael.
Think alittle about it.
Israel is not at war with Hamas, but with it's military wing, which Yassin was NOT the leader of.
he was the leader of the political side.
I know that it can be hard if you quickly think through this to actually differentiate the two, but after just a little contemplation, you have to come to the conclusion that there's a difference.

I mean, should we also kill Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein, IRA's political wing?
Or Arnaldo Otegi the leader of Batasuna, ETA's political wing?
From all points of view, this would be stupid.
It will only push the people inclined to agree with these groups even more away, and also, they're the only possibility of getting the military wings to back down.
I mean, who do we speak to, when the political wings have been eradicated?
Then it's flat out war (as the Hamas military wing -it's called the Ezzedin Al-Qassam Brigades, just so you know till next time- has already declared on the Israeli governement)..



As much as i deplore their use of violence, and Israel's also, we have to remember that there IS actually something wrong now; Israel HAS occupied parts of Palestine for four decades, and THIS IS WRONG.
Many people say that they put it on themselves, Arafat didn't take the offers he was offered, but the truth is that offer was only statistcally good.
All the land he was offered was intersected by Israeli territory, and what's the point in having a country that doesn't even have one unified area?
I mean, sure you have Alaska, and youre fine with the fact Canada's in the middle (thank god! ), but since Israel does not have the right to all the land they've settled since the sixties, why not just GIVE ALL OF IT BACK?
You can't occupy Ontario and Quebec, and then after forty years be angry when the Canadians doesn't take your "generous" offer, of just getting Ontario back, but keeping Quebec for yourself....

--
sorry about spelling, but it's very late here, and I'm starting to get drowsy..

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by toomaas]

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by toomaas]

Time for Israel to get started on the 12 step program toward self renewal. The world has grown weary, not of the plight of the Jews, but because for a while, they were different and now they seem just like everyone else. No different from the Palestinian who wants his farm back, but far more vocal and painfully forceful. No different from the American tired of senseless terrorism, but slightly more covert and fanatic. No different from the English or French, German or Spanish who tire of their own struggles, but armed with a louder wail and support from the media.
This is not war. This is the dangerous behavior of thoughtless narcissistic ideologists on both sides of the conflict. Israel’s demand to colonize the Palestinians has lost support from the world at the hand of Sharon who may not even represent the majority of Jews.
Let your tirades rip; there is not an anti-Semitic corpuscle in my body, only an emergent ambivalence for something horrible that took place nearly 60 years ago. Israel’s actions have become a caricature of itself, an abstract cult whose following is becoming increasingly narrow.

Actually, it is a long-standing principle of the laws of war (yep, we have these, and most states even follow them more or less!) that assassinations of enemy leaders (even during a state of war) are verboten.

For instance the 1907 Hague Convention's article 23(b) states that "to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army" is "especially" prohibited. The U.S. (and most other nations that have voiced an opinion) read this as barring targeted killings and assassinations happening outside battlefield conditions.

Of course, you're entitled to disagree about the political morality of targeting leaders (in fact, one might reasonably ask - why *not* assassinate enemy leaders, if it will spare the bloodshed of a traditional war?). But Israel (and the U.S. if we were, e.g., to openly attempt to kill rather than apprehend bin Laden) is most definitely on shaky ground with respect to international law.

the primary reason israel occupies large chunks of the west bank is for security reasons, in the 6 days war the egyptian controlled jordanian army sought to cut israel in half in by attacking from the west bank and bisecting israel at its thinnest point (which is only about 10-15 miles wide). another point to consider in this discusion is that the land in question was taken by israel from its neighbors (who have stated that they would like to wipe israel off the map and have tried unsuccessfully 4 times now) in 1967 after the arab nations had already closed off access through the straights of sharm al-sheikh to the port of eliat and were trying to strangle israel economically. luckily for the israelis they spotted the troop movements of the egyptian, syrian, and jordanian armies moving to their jump off points for the invasion of israel and beat them to the punch so to say.

as for killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the man inspired his followers to carry out over 400 attacks on civilian and military targets which killed and maimed over 15,000 israelis, the equivalent of 100,000 americans in terms of percentages of total population.

if someone had done this to the united states do you actually think we would've let him live? hell no, we would have found him, killed him, and pissed on his grave.


on a final note let's not forget that israel does have an elected government that will continue to act as they see necessary (in their eyes) to protect their citizens and state.


sry it was so wordy

It's tricky with terrorists. They don't belong to a hostile nation ("nation" meaning government) or army. They do not follow the laws of war. They break them all, and they break them on purpose because it forces us to fight dirty or not at all. It is illegal, for example, for a combatant to hide among civilians. But it is not illegal to kill that combatant while he is hiding among civilians.

I believe it is you who need to get your facts straight. Hamas never recognized the right of Israel to exist. That was the PLO. You're telling people they need to distinguish between the military and political wings of Hamas and you can't even tell the difference between Hamas and the PLO?

You actually raise an interesting point - because of the statist assumptions of international law, you're right that things like the Hague Convention only get invoked if you're a member of a state's army. Hence, there's a strong sense in which Israel is on *worse* legal ground if they claim that Hamas is an enemy with whom they are at war and they have just killed its leader.

Things are trickier with conflicts that are not between states. Extra-judicial killings are violations of various human rights treaties and customary norms, even when they're not acts of aggression against another state (I'm sorry for not citing this, if you doubt me, I'll go look later). But jurisdiction is a problem. Hamas, not being a state, can't bring Israel to the ICJ. And anyway, ICJ jurisdiction isn't compulsory, so they could just say no. Israel isn't a signatory to the Rome statute, and so no one can bring whoever made the decision before the ICC. The accepted recourse is supposed to be that charges could be brought in a domestic court against whoever ordered the killing - but, since passive personality and territorial jurisdiction would be vested, presumably, in the Palestinian state (and there isn't one), this would have to be in an Israeli court (it sucks to be stateless). Even if Israeli law permits the killing (I don't know if it does), if Israel has the equivalent of the U.S. Constitution's clause giving treaties supremacy, you could argue it that way. But, you know, good fucking luck. It's precisely this problem of potential bias in domestic courts that the ICC was instituted to solve...

Incidentally, the laws of war don't have a "he started it" clause. Depending on how you go about it (e.g., there's a difference between carrying the firefight into a populated area and carpet-bombing a city block), you *may* be in violation of int'l law if you target someone hiding among civilians, even if they are doing it precisely so you can't target them. Civilian casualties are, of course, inevitable - but nations are expected to do their best to minimize them, even if the other side is playing dirty.

Yes, this is a phenomenally obnoxious and morally bankrupt tactic on the part of terrorists. But it can be done - I'm not otherwise a huge fan of the Iraq war, but civilian casualties were kept very low despite the dirty tactics of the Iraqi forces.

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by galvagin]

I'm big enough to admit I made a mistake, and am editing my post.
Will Michael be big enough and admit he made a mistake not distinguishing between the factions of hamas?

There is no meaningful difference between the military and political wings of Hamas.

Hamas as an organization needs to be either reformed into something else or utterly annihilated. Just like Al Qaeda. The only meaningful difference between Hamas and Al Qaeda is the geographic location and the primary target.

The only reason Al Qaeda hasn't tried this stunt and announced the existence of a "political wing" is because we would shut it down by force.

Hamas isn't fighting for Palestinian justice or a state in the West Bank and Gaza (which I wholeheartedly support). Hamas is fighting to conquer Tel Aviv. Peace is impossible as long as Hamas exists. Israel is remarkably restrained. No other Western country would tolerate such a gang of murderous fascists in its midst for so long.

I posted my reply before I saw this.

I know about the supposed "distinction." I didn't omit it because I wasn't informed. I omitted the distinction because I don't recognize anything meaningful in it.

If Hamas were to split into two actual separate organizations, once which is charitable, and one which is terrorist, then I would find the distinction meaningful.

I want to be clear, though. If someone works for Hamas and doesn't do anything other than feed hungry kids, I say leave that person alone. But we're talking about the organization's founder here. He is responsible for what all of Hamas is and does.

Using the collective logic displayed here on this thread, it is possible to assume that A) a state of war exists, B) that the zealot suicide bombers are justified in their actions given that every citizen of Israel is a member of its military, and C) that peace is impossible at least until either one side or the other has complete genocide and ethnically cleansed the region.

Very angry thoughts are displayed, and the thought of stabilization and co-existance is dead. Interesting.

Sad, but interesting.

Thank you for fixing the error . The question of whether there is a meaningful difference between the political and military wings of Hamas is a matter of opinion, not of established fact. Michael and I are both of the opinion, based on the statements and actions of Hamas' leadership, that there is no meaningful division between the two. That is to say that the political and military wings of Hamas share their leadership, their name, and their goals. Yassin founded and was in charge of the whole operation.

Israel's actions here do not seem to me to be treacherous -- they flew in and killed an enemy leader. They did it in broad daylight, with a helicopter, which is not exactly a stealthy way to do it. It seems to me to be preferable to off the leaders causing the whole mess rather than slaughter tens of thousands of grunts. I suppose the people who draft these sorts of conventions probably don't see it that way, as they are those leaders.

co-existance?? thats been dead and gone for quite some time my friend. the best that can be hoped for now is two states, with some sort of 1 mile high, 10 feet thick adamantium (you know, that stuff wolverines claws are made from ) wall forever seperating the two. the end.

Well, yes, most of these conventions draw on customs that come from the good old "it's good to be the king" days.

You're right - there is a perfectly good sense of 'treacherous' in which Israel's actions weren't. That's why I mentioned that most all nations have taken the clause to prohibit all non-battlefield killings as 'treacherous' within the meaning of the convention. After all, we don't want Saddam Hussein to be able to declare war on the U.S., and then assassinate Bush I and call it an acceptable military tactic (even if he does it in broad daylight). I'd be interested to see Israel's official interpretation of the clause, if they have one. And I wonder if the U.S.'s will change in our next Restatement.

I'm an old fashioned republican... I'm into regicide .

That would be the sense in which it is commonly used, and in which it was commonly used at the time the convention was written. Since the convention was written before air power, it only anticipated combatants being able to reach enemy leaders through stealth and deception or if they came within rifle or artillery range of the front line.

And now we are getting back to the fact that the convention was written for a very different world. The meaning of 'battlefield' is really rather slippery wrt fighting terrorist organizations or other non-governmental armed groups. Israel could claim, with a certain amount of justification, that Hamas has claimed all of Gaza as a battlefield. Therefore, Yassin was in a battle zone and fair game.

The speed and ferocity of the likely US response would have rendered any such objections rather moot.

I hope I didn't write anything that led to this comment.

Let me clarify what I mean. (And I am only speaking for myself here.)

Peace is not possible while Hamas exists, at least not in its current form. (If it can be reduced to a mere charitable organization, that's great.) Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and says negotiation is treason. But Hamas does not equal "the Palestinians."

Destroying Hamas does not in any way shape or form equate to ethnic cleansing, any more than destroying Al Qaeda equals genocide of Arabs.

all propaganda. Hamas was the creation of the Shin Bet (aka) Israeli intelligence. They just blew up there own creature.

Did the Jews create the Nazi party, too?