The International Double Standard On US and Israeli Targeted Killings
I’d like to share two interesting columns this morning detailing a certain world hypocrisy.
Deborah Danan at the Jerusalem Post wrote Obama, Osama and Israel’s Drama. She poses the question “What if Israel had done it?” She answers with the reaction to the killing of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yassin by Israel in 2004. She notes:
To be sure, that particular killing shook the world’s self-righteous tail feathers. Castigated unequivocally by former UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan, as being an “extrajudicial killing…against international law,” the UN Council for Human Rights passed a resolution condemning the execution that was supported by votes from 31 countries.
The draft resolution was ultimately vetoed by the US, on the grounds that it should have contained some reference condemning Hamas’ suicide bombings in Ashdod a week prior.
She also notes that the Yassin killing is not the only historical example of a U.N. double standard against Israel:
Another thorny issue emerging from Sunday’s clandestine operation is the legality of an extrajudicial killing on Pakistani soil without the latter’s express permission. Consider too that Pakistan is not at war with the US, and neither can Osama’s execution be considered self-defense since, according to White House officials, he was unarmed. In yet another ironic plot twist, a precedent for violating the sovereignty of a foreign country was set by Israel in 1960 when Mossad agents captured Adolf Eichmann in Argentina to bring him to Jerusalem to stand trial. At Argentina’s persistence, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 138 which declared that such acts “endanger international peace and security.”
Alan Dershowitz has written a similar piece entitled Targeted Killing Vindicated.
He correctly identifies that the legality of bin Laden’s killing is based on the military killing the leader of a warring army, not lawyers dealing with a criminal with due process rights:
Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of Al Qaeda, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very phrase "check mate" means "the king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle.
But Dershowitz lays out nicely the European and Middle Eastern double standard in not condemning the U.S. while condemning Israel specifically or targeted killing in general:
Accordingly, those who have opposed the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan, and the United Nations. Former British Foreign Secretary once said, "The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive." The French foreign ministry has declared "that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable." The Italian Foreign Minister has said, "Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations." The Russians have asserted that "Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings.'" Javier Solana has noted that the "European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings." The Jordanians have said, "Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination and its position on this has always been clear." And Kofi Annan has declared "that extrajudicial killings are violations of international law."
Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden by the US. The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing was directed at one country. Guess which one? Israel, of course.
Both of these columns point out not only the world hypocrisy toward Israel, but they also make the case nicely why the United States should never subjugate itself to international tribunals. The existence of prejudice and hypocrisy will always be the best reasons to avoid it.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The International Double Standard On US and Israeli Targeted Killings
Make that officially not at war with the US, just as they're officially not at war with India.
Edited on May 4, 2011 at 9:03amJan '11
Re: The International Double Standard On US and Israeli Targeted Killings
If you’re at war, then enemy soldiers are targets. You don’t need to produce evidence that the soldier committed any illegal action. The mere fact that he’s a soldier means he’s a legitimate target. If your soldiers kill him, they’re not guilty of murder.
We had an interesting discussion a few weeks ago about whether the president could engage in military action without Congressional approval. Our Constitution, of course, reserves the authority to declare war to Congress. That’s not a mere formality. If Congress declares war on the Klingons, that means we can kill them without explanation. Declaring war on an enemy means you’re publicly warning them that you intend to kill them. Only Congress has that power. The president has the right to use military force, but only Congress has the right to declare a group of people as kill targets.
The international community has no veto over that declaration. If we declare war on al-Qaeda, or they declare it on us, we don’t need the U.N.’s approval (or anyone else’s) to hunt and kill al-Qaeda. They’re all legal targets.
Dec '10
Re: The International Double Standard On US and Israeli Targeted Killings
Russia routinely carries out targeted assassinations in its battle against separatists in the Caucasus. I am pretty sure both Britain and France have used the tactic in their anti-terrorist campaigns as well. (And France seems to have used something similar in sinking the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand.)
Of course, none of those countries are the homeland of the Jewish people, and criticizing their actions taken in what they believe to be their self-defense (you can certainly argue that sinking the Rainbow Warrior had nothing to do with defending French lives) doesn't placate the irrational rage of Muslims, so nobody bothers to say anything about them.