By Brian Smith, MONTREAL GAZETTE
When Israel killed Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, much of the world condemned the action. But when the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden, the reaction was quite different.
MONTREAL – On March 22, 2004, a rocket fired from an Israeli helicopter gunship terminated the life of the terrorist leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. As expected, world reaction was swift and almost unanimous in its condemnation of Israel.
Yassin, a founder of Hamas, was a virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic demagogue who repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Among his more memorable statements are “Reconciliation with the Jews is a crime” and Israel “must disappear from the map.”
In 1989, Yassin was arrested by the Israelis for masterminding the abduction and murder of Israeli soldiers and was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, in 1997 he was released in a prisoner exchange on the condition that he refrain from continuing to initiate suicide bombings against Israel.
In violation of the terms of his release, Yassin resumed his leadership of Hamas and immediately started a campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets. After years of masterminding several appalling terrorist attacks on Israel, his reign of terror was finally brought to an end by the helicopter attack in 2004.
In a display of unwarranted antipathy to Israel, and a denial of its right to self-defence, countries of the world united in condemning the Jewish state. A brief survey:
-
The European Union issued a statement condemning Israel’s “extra-judicial” assassination of Yassin.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned the assassination as a violation of international law.
The UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution condemning Israel. It was approved by 31 votes in favour, two against (the United States and Australia) and 18 abstentions (including most of the EU countries.)
French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hervé Ladsous said: “France condemns the action taken against Sheik Yassin, just as it has always condemned the principle of any extra-judicial execution as contrary to international law.”
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called it an “unlawful killing.”
Japan called Yassin’s killing a “reckless act” that “cannot be justified.”
New Zealand called the assassination counterproductive to Middle East peace efforts.
Malaysia called the killing of Yassin “state terrorism” by Israel and claimed that it would “only escalate further the cycle of deadly violence.”
In contrast, the same countries, so quick to beat their breasts in moral outrage at Israel’s actions, have reacted quite differently to the assassination of Osama bin Laden by the United States:
European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek, reflecting generally positive reactions among EU leaders, said, “we have woken up to a more secure world.”
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: “The death of Osama bin Laden … is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism.”
In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy praised the “tenacity” of the U.S. in tracking down the al-Qaida leader and described his death as “a major blow to international terrorism,” adding that victims of al-Qaida terrorism “received justice today.” Foreign Minister Alain Juppé opined that bin Laden’s death is a “victory for all democracies fighting the abominable scourge of terrorism.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron said that bin Laden’s death would “bring great relief” around the world.
Japanese Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto said: “I pay respect to the U.S. officials concerned.”
Malaysian Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said he hoped that the death of bin Laden would help bring universal peace and harmony.
Chilean Foreign Minister Alfredo Moreno hailed the death of bin Laden as “a very important advancement in the war against terrorism.”
Ahmed Yassin was responsible for some 425 brutal and cowardly attacks on Israel civilians carried out by Hamas. At least 377 Israelis were murdered and 2,076 wounded in the 3½ years preceding his death.
Comparing the number murdered in Israel by Hamas to the number murdered in the World Trade Centre on 9/11, a rough calculation shows that approximately one in 18,500 Israelis were killed, while the comparable figure was one in 102,000 Americans. Yet to its great shame, the world laments the death of the murderer of Jews while lauding the U.S. for assassinating bin Laden.
It is time for the world community to abandon this double standard and to accord to Israel and Jews everywhere the same right of self-defence that is claimed by every other people on the face of the globe.
Translation:
It’s not about the rightness or wrongness of “occupation,”
or even about the actuality of “occupation.”
It’s about whose ox is gored.
All the rest is propaganda.
That’s essentially what you just said.
That’s more than a trifle facile, and you don’t get to write if all off so easily.
The Mandate system was a conscious & deliberate departure from the colonial system.
It was in large part the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, no colonialist he — and, while flawed in execution, it was clearly designed to provide guardianship & tutelage to various peoples in differing stages of development, with the ultimate goal of independent sovereignty. No strictly colonialist system would have entertained such a policy.
What’s more, as no international treaty supercedes the Palestine Mandate — whose Preamble, among other parts of it, makes bluntly clear that its solitary raison d’être was the Jewish restoration, and moreover, in the only place where the Jewish People had ever been sovereign — the rights therein continue in-perpetuity,
and your statement, “in international law, Israel is occupying Palestinian territory,” is simply not so.
I am certain that most Israelis would find little objection in Palestinian Arabs living where they are, to flourish in security, assuming they were prepared to behave themselves — a rather large assumption, given the latters’ amply demonstrated history over the past 90-something years. But statehood? West of the River?
Out of the question.
East of the River, perhaps, if sovereignty is what they must have. (They’d have to take it up with Abdullah ibn Hussein.) But not West of the River; no way, no how.
There is nothing at all in the nature of the “practical” in the notion of two sovereignties between the River and the Sea, Safiyya. And you know it. There is scarcely room for one.
Were the shoe on the other foot — if an Arab state were the EXISTING one and the Jewish state were the PROPOSED one, in the postage-stamp sized area in question — I seriously doubt that you would even for a moment entertain the notion. If you really think you would, then I suggest that you haven’t tried visualizing the proposition.
Do not make the common error of confusing your own Desire with good Judgment. It’s easy to do, happens all the time.
Desire is a great motivator — she is a SUPERB energizer & animator — but she makes a piss-poor counselor and a jaundiced judge.
Shyguy
the ONLY is what counts
I don’t see that happening, a sub doesn’t change 🙂
Oh, and I corrected your typo 😉
Dweller
That was then, this is now. Times change, priorities change. To sum it up in one line, borders and “names” created by colonial powers meant little. A long time after they were created, they were still regarded as meaningless.
We can keep going back in time, another decade, another century, another millenia or we can find a mutual solution today based on the reality, what is practical and what is not.
Neither UNSC 1515 nor UNSC 242 is a law. That is to say, neither of these two resolutions is legally binding.
It is quite true that only Security Council resolutions can be binding [those of the General Assembly have no such potential], but this is not the case with ALL Security Council resolutions. The only way a Sec. Council may be legally obligatory, and self-enforcing, is for it to include a formal invocation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter [“Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, Acts of Aggression” -— Art. 39-51]. This was the case, for example, before, during and after the 1991 Gulf War, in which the Sec. Council adopted ALL of its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII.
The two resolutions you cite contain no such invocation. If they did, they would have immediately become subject to legal attack in The Hague and elsewhere — because to make them mandatory would cause them to run afoul of the preexisting & non-terminating rights of the Jewish People throughout all of the Palestine Mandate, as acknowledged & protected in the Mandate Charter — an international treaty to which the entire League of Nations Council (as well as the non-League-member US, via the Anglo-American Convention of 1924) were unanimous signatory — and which Charter also contained a provision making all of the signatories [not merely the UK Mandatory itself] “responsible for seeing that no Palestine territories shall be ceded to or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign power.” [Art. V]
How can the existence of Jews anywhere in the historic Land of Israel (with a Jewish government OR without one) constitute, in any sense of the term, an ‘occupation’ of that which the very, selfsame, internationally binding, Charter that, together with the international San Remo Resolution that authorized it two years prior, created the lawful, juristic basis for the Jewish State, to begin with, say is theirs?
But then, how is it that when the heartland provinces that you characterize as “Palestinian territory” were held illegally by the Jordanian govt [1948-67], after being seized from the temporary UN Trusteeship, thta nobody protested THIS occupation?
I mean, why was this Arab occupation -— which was very obviously a true occupation: an occupation in the classic sense of the word, and an illegal occupation, to boot -— why was this Occupation NOT an issue to the law-abiding, world community of nations at any point in all those 19 years; the question of ‘occupation’ never in fact arising UNTIL such time as possession of the territories was securely in Jewish hands?
Jordan’s “annexation” of “East Jerusalem” & the “West Bank,” to be sure, was never recognized by any Arab states (which had long distrusted the Hashemite monarchy’s ambitions); nor, for that matter, had Jordanian annexation ever been recognized by any other states apart from Pakistan & Britain.
Yet, why no Arab protest of the Occupation itself during those two decades? nor -— while we’re dwelling on politically correct dogmas—
• any demand for independent “Palestinian” statehood in those then Arab-held provinces
• or in the then Arab-held “East Jerusalem”
• or in the then Arab-held, Gaza Strip
during those years, from anybody in the Arab world: including the Palestinian Arabs“ (of the “West Bank,” Gaza and “East Jerusalem”) themselves?
Not a word? Not a peep? Not a hiccup?
How come?
With all due respect, Milady, this is a phrase & formula which frankly falls properly under the heading of “famous last words.”
May I commend to the attention of your mouse the word, “Sudetenland”?
Only in the Security Council.
I agree. It’s time Israel told your Islanimal kingdom to f**k themselves.
Shyguy
Some boy toy then! Why does the USA have the freedom to veto resolutions against Israel?
Since Israel is a member state of the UN does that mean she too is Islam’s “concubine” ? 😉
Can it? You’ve tried several times, it hasn’t worked out the way you planned. So you take the back door, trojan horse, palestinian method as a route to achieve your objectives.
The resolution doesn’t require us to abandon parts of Jerusalem or allow a flood of refugees into Israel.
The UN? Islam’s boy toy? Who cares anymore!
Dweller
UN Security Resolution 1515 in 2003, which embraces previous former UN Security resolutions including 242, and which supports a negotiated two state solution. As you’re probably aware, it calls for a withdrawal from territory occupied since 1967, and for borders to be negotiated. The resolution also calls for Israels security to be guaranteed and recognition by those countries thatrefuse to do so at present.
This invalidates the arguments some here are making, that Palestine is a “plot” to destroy Israel. The fact is even if there were/is/will be a such a plot, the UN will never support it (An Israel within 1967 borders is accepted by the UN anyway, even though there are no permanent borders yet) and will be obliged to deal with any country that tries to destroy AFTER a peace deal is signed.
By the way, I cannot see how Palestine can be a “plot” to destroy Israel, why bring a Palestine into being? If the intent is to destroy Israel it can be done without a Palestine. I wonder if anyone can clear up this curious mystery.
Kufar_Dawg
I did not lie.
No sources to back up your revisionist history? Are you too embarrassed to post them? Let me guess..Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer? Andrew Bostom? Check out Spencer Watch before you take Spencer’s word, if that is your school of learning,
In any case, after they broke their covenent, comitted treason
They had an agreement which they broke numerous times but were forgiven only to reveal their ugly colours yet again, they took advantage of the Prophets forgiving nature, and plotted with the Quraysh and pagans (who were once their own enemies, and whom the Prophet helped them against), they KILLED innocents, and they tried unsuccessfully to kill the Prophet and undermine his battles and mission to return the Quraysh back to the religion of their forefathers. How dare you distort the truth, you obviously have no clue as to what happened then. THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT WHICH THEY BROKE. THAT IS TREASON. How about you try the same thing in the USA and see how traitors who comit treason leading to the death of Americans are treated. They’d be given the death sentence, if not shot on sight.
It was the first Caliph Omar Ibn al khattab who decided that. Some doubt the Prophet ordered it.
As the not particularly sympathetic to Islam, Bernard Lewis says:-
The saying attributed to the Prophet was impugned by some earlier Islamic authorities. But it was generally accepted as authentic, and Umar put it into effect. The expulsion of religious minorities is extremely rare in Islamic history — unlike medieval Christendom, where evictions of Jews and (after the reconquest of Spain) Muslims were normal and frequent.
Compared with European expulsions, Umar’s decree was both limited and compassionate. It did not include southern and southeastern Arabia, which were not seen as part of Islam’s holy land. And unlike the Jews and Muslims driven out of Spain and other European countries to find what refuge they could elsewhere, the Jews and Christians of Arabia were resettled on lands assigned to them — the Jews in Syria, the Christians in Iraq. The process was also gradual rather than sudden, and there are reports of Jews and Christians remaining in Khaybar and Najran for some time after Umar’s edict.
You obviously have reading problems. Iam not denying anything to you. I was applying the logic of your right wing extremists to themselves. I did ask why they are not calling for all Israel to be repatriated to Israel? I also said that unless they do that, their call on religious grounds is hypocritical.
Only the 4-5 mile pilgrim parts of Mecca and Medina are off limits to non Muslims not the whole cities. That is no different to your holiest of holies being off limit to everyone save your priestly Kohanim.
Kufar_Dawg,
There is no comparing what Caliph Omar did to what you advocate. Caliph Omar gave the relocated Book people land and property in Syria and Iraq, which were part of Dar al Islam (Caliphate aka House of Islam). They were still within the Caliphate, not expelled from it.
Safiyya lied:
LOL, an interesting interpretation of history. Muhammad attacked these Jewish tribes after signing a peace treaty with them.
Only an all too typical Muzzie would describe this as “treason” on the part of the Jewish tribes of Yathrib and Khybar. I notice you don’t mention the enslavement and slaughter of the Jews after surrendering either — or Muhammad’s commandment to expel all Christians and Jews from the Saudi Barbarian peninsula.
I also find it sick, twisted how you deny the Jews their religious rights to Israel while ranting about the banishment of all
infidels/kuffars from Medina and Mecca under pain of DEATH. Maybe you should look up the word hypocrisy. Of course, taking the moral high ground and being Muslim is practically the definition of hypocrisy.
Here are some headlines for today, its in JPost, but I’m sure you can find it in your favorite muslim publication
This is not peace. This is not working towards peace. This is a phased attempt to take over all of Israel. Even after all these years, still nothing from your side. You cannot have the right of return, you cannot have Jerusalem as your capital. If you really wanted a 2 state solution, it could have been done under the last 3 or 4 prime ministers, but thats not really your goal.
Safiyya: You say: “I don’t deny that is the goal of some Muslims. But at the same time, it’s no different to the opposite side you have your fair share of genocidal maniacs, Yigal Amir had/has many fans. Most Muslim countries support the two state solution.” The difference is that our genocidal maniacs are kept under control. They have no involvement in running the government or the IDF. Your genocidal maniacs are the leaders and in charge of your troops and terrorist groups. Furthermore you make a big deal out of Israel having the 4th largest army in the world. You are so far off (as you are with most of your “facts”). Counting standing armies including reserves, they are #15 in the world. The reason a small country of just over 7,000,000 needs a total of 750,000 men and women under arms, is to protect herself from her bloodthirsty neighbors who are salivating at the thought of killing all the Jews if only they could. Your people are worse than animals who only kill for food. They are not capable of getting the hatred out of their systems, electing an honest government, and putting their efforts into positive ventures (other than attempting to kill Jews). Your people have done a good sell job in the U.N., but anyone who has an open mind knows how to seperate the bad from the good.
Hamas charter will never be abandoned when a peace deal is hammered out with Isreal, because there will never be a peace deal between them.
Hamas’s only reason for being is as a dedicated group to eliminate Israel, and kill it’s Jewish citizens. The P.A. has yet to even
give one inch in any negotiation, and has no intention of ever doing so. Forget Hisballah…that’s not even worth discussing.
Now safiyya, you say I hate muslims. Yes, that’s true. Muslims or muslim leaders have been behind just about every single terror attack against civilized Israelis, Americans, and Europeans for the last 40 years. How in the world is one supposed to trust a group when so many of you hate us and want us dead. You have been at war with America for all of these years and we stupid Americans never realized it. Never realized that we can’t talk with you, reason with you, or negotiate in any way. Your hatred and rage stands as a wall against it. You want it one way…your way. Neither Israel or America have any designs on the destruction of any of the nations in the mid east with the exception of Iran. But every muslim majority country in that entire area wants to see Israel destroyed. And….if they could figure out a way to do America in, that would be great too. You know that if your people stopped killing, that Israel would have no more reason to figure out how t protect itself and retaliate……if there were no strikes there would be no retaliation. Pretty simple Safiyya….why don’t you tell your people.
Another popular myth. (Would that it were fact.)
It would be truer to say that Israel’s is the fourth STRONGEST military — although even strength does not always permit one to take the risks afforded by numbers.
In any case, the notion that ANYTHING about Israel could be characterized as ‘large’ would be funny — if, in the real world, it weren’t so scary.
Still awaiting your response to my earlier inquiry [May 14, 2:48 pm] to your comment,
I had asked that you cite, please, the specific law[s] to which you refer.
(I realize you’ve got your hands full with all the posts you have to address here, but I do hope you’ll get around to this question sometime soon.)
Do they support a two state solution where Israel remains majority Jewish? I kinda doubt it.
Yonaton
I don’t deny that is the goal of some Muslims. But at the same time, it’s no different to the opposite side you have your fair share of genocidal maniacs, Yigal Amir had/has many fans. Most Muslim countries support the two state solution.
I could say, you’re offering half truths too like the unsourced Nato statement by Mazen, which I can only find on Zionist extremist sites, nowhere else, which makes me doubt it’s authenticity. 🙂
It’s not obvious to me. Israel’s detractors seem to hate on Israel regardless of any concessions she makes.
The US has a much bigger military than that of Israel. The condition of your typical Afghan is pretty lousy. So what?
Of course Israel’s. I would take the side of the group which just wants to be left alone, as opposed to the side of the group which wants only to destroy the first. Duh.
And note that there was no occupation or settlements between 1948 and 1967 and yet the Arabs still tried to wipe out Israel. The occupation and the settlements are just an excuse, not the actual reason for anti-Israel sentiment.
Safiyya – so far you have offered half truths, conjecture and excuses for the statements and actions of the various ruling parties in the lands surrounding Israel. You cannot whitewash the facts of the wanted endgame by all the muslims involved in this farce – its not peace with Israel, its the elimination of Israel. Its not going to happen. Your people are going to push this to the edge and as I have said earlier, will find out who it is that rules all of creation. As far as your comment above concerning someone being fodder for the “armegeddon”, they have free will and do not have to support the nations in their vile attempt to eliminate the Jewish people.
The praise heaped on the U S for eliminating Osama bin laden, while a similar action by Israel against terrorist sheik Yassin, earned Israel only condemnation from these same governments, points to one un refutable truth. And that is, that bin Laaden made one serious mistake. He didn’t stick to murdering only the Jews. Else, he probably would be meeting with these same immoral leaders in their capitals.
Again a half truth by Safiyya: Here is the quote “Abu-Mazen said he was willing to have an international force such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but added, “I will never agree that there be Jewish soldiers in NATO, and I will never agree that there will be a single Israeli among us on Palestinian soil.” The second part of the quote has meaning.
Sabril
See my reply to Yonaton. Israel is the fourth largest military in the world. The Palestinains do not have a military or a state. Do I need to spell out the misery and poverty in the occupied territories?
The mind boggles at your question. Look at this neautrally. If this were two other countries somewhere, whose side would you take? Israel’s or Palestines?
it’s noteworthy that your only supporters are conditionnal end time dispensionalists who see you as fodder for the armeddegon. That should say it all.
Belman,
You mean to say, negotiated agreements and a Palestine coming into being, will be illegal? Or that you you will not recognise it? The two are completly different things.
If the former, then it’s a problem that bothers me, but if it’s the latter..well! i’m less concerned. I won’t say more, you may delete my comment 🙂
As a sidenote, I will add that the alternative is a one state solution, which would mean not having a Jewish majority. Don’t even think of calling for expulsions, galut Jews to be repatriated from around the world (forcibly if necessary according to your own moral code), otherwise it will be a hypocritical statement.
Yonatan
Israel has a right to defend herself within final status borders. If a Palestine comes into being, Hamas will be out of business. They enjoy support currently, because they are better organised and have better school, social, welfare systems than what the PA offers. PA is corrupt. It’s the lesser of the two evils, though both are bad.
I don’t need to provide evidence. It’s obvious. The world will not want the conflict to contine and destabilise the Middle East. Extremists will be dealt with more severly than now, because at the moment they’re underdogs and victims fighting a military machine.
I am not sure why you are comparing Palestine to Saudi ARabia. The two societies are worlds apart. Saudi Arabia is a made in America problem.
The sources I have seen where Abbas and Fayyed supposedly claim that Jews can’t live in Palestine are distortions and right wing propoganda. (Belman is probably one of those who actively promote those conspiracies 🙂 )
In one of them, I distinctly remember Abbas said he didn’t want any Israeli Nato troops on his border. That is not the same as saying no Jews can be citizens of Palestine even though the anti Palestine spin machine seized upon it as such.
Palestinian prime minister: Jews would be welcome in future stateby Brent Gardner-Smith, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
More nonsense. The US had no consent from the Taliban before entering Afghanistan; no consent from Mussolini before entering Italy; etc. etc. And the US has annexed plenty of territory as well.
What you are saying is that the US is completely different from Israel, which is nonsense.
I’ll repeat it for a third time:
What is your evidence that the end of the occupation will result in Israel being judged by the same standards as other countries?
It’s a very simple question.
I’m not doing that, I’m simply telling the other posters what the correct answer to the question is.
More nonsense, my question is extremely simple and clear. You continue to ignore it. I will ask for a fourth time:
What is your evidence that the end of the occupation will result in Israel being judged by the same standards as other countries?
I haven’t been reading all this stuff but I’ll comment anyway.
The Arabs have no right to this land no matter what they say, what the EU says, what the UN says and what Obama says. These lands are not Arab lands. These lands are not occupied land.
We were given the right by the Mandate, which right cannot be legally taken away. We also won the land in a defensive war. We are in possession of the land. It is our land.
Its as simple as that.
Pure conjecture on your part, what evidence do you give in support of this statement?
Concerning your point about Saudi Arabia – the PA has already said that not one Jew will be allowed to live in a newly created palestine…these are the people you have in charge, if you don’t agree with them, good for you, however, we have to deal with the reality of the situation, not your feelings.