Israel and International Law

Wasem Mawlana's article, "Assassination under International Law", seems to forget several important truths while still offering a scathing rebuke of the Israeli policy of assassination. First, he forgets, or possibly ignores, the history of the state of Israel and how it came to be. With the Zionist movement in Europe strongly supporting the Allies in World War I, Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration which promised the creation of a Jewish state centered on the area of Palestine (Young, 2005). After Germany's defeat in World War I, Britain and France were each given portions of the former Ottoman Empire under the Sykes-Picot Agreement (BBCNews, 2001). Their influence was such that each was able to administer the lands as they saw fit. Great Britain gained control of what are now Jordon, Israel, and the "West Bank". The British looked favorably on the establishment of a Jewish homeland while also guaranteeing lands for Arab Palestinians. As Jews began emigrating to this "promised land" they were met with severe Arab resistance. Feeling the pressure, Britain, in 1923, divided the "promised land" into two sections; east of the Jordan River was named "Trans-Jordon" (today called Jordan) for the Arab population and west of the river was given to the Jewish people (Masada.org). Over 75% of the land promised Israel was thus sectioned off and given to the Arab population, the British assuming this would settle the issue and prevent further conflict, as this area was currently occupied by Arab Palestinians.

Before anyone can say, "So it was there (Arab) land to begin with", let me stop and illustrate the point further. For starters, Israel was promised the land by God and, if one wishes, a careful study of what was promised and then occupied would show that the Jewish people literally possessed the land of Israel from the Euphrates in Iraq to the Mediterranean and equal distance north and south (Genesis 15:18-21)(Joshua 1:4). The Jewish people possessed this land first. Period. They were dispersed through various wars after that time, but does that mean they lose possession of it? If so, then does might makes right? If it does, can we now safely say that Israel is right if they can take the land from the Arabs? Either way, it's rightfully their land. It's theirs if they owned it first, regardless of who took it from them, and it's equally theirs if they did lose possession but are now able to repossess it!

Equally important in this discussion is the quality of the land. The land mentioned above was of little value and so sparsely populated as to be an afterthought in the minds of those administering it. The Arab Palestinians present in the land obviously hold otherwise, but it wasn't until the land was made arable did it warrant much attention. In fact, Arab immigration increased dramatically as the Jewish people made the land valuable (Masada2000.org). This happened when the Jews who were promised these lands began to clear and clean the land and produce a livelihood from their work (Spiro, 2009). How fair is that? The Arabs didn't even want the land until someone else made it worth wanting! Remember the story of the Little Red Hen? Google it and tell me this isn't the same exact story!

It's also important to note in this long, bloody history the Israeli attempts at appeasement and their repeated failures. Emptying the Gaza Strip in most recent memory has done nothing to stop the repeated suicide bombings and rocket/mortar attacks. Israel's defense in the various wars waged against it by those neighboring Arab countries has seen Israel capture lands which, based on might makes right, should remain in possession of Israel but have been returned in attempts at peace, also known as appeasement. Still, this long history gets to the point on the table. If Israel is sovereign in its territory, the issue of defense, to include assassination when international law fails repeatedly, is a moot point. If Israel targets those leaders who are organizing and effectively attacking the civilian population of Israel, how would they be guilty of breaching any sensible international law? Shouldn't international law prevent, or if not prevent condemn, those men who attack peaceful civilian populations? This is not a complicated issue in the slightest. If international law is to be worth our time, shouldn't it condemn those who initiate hostilities and support those in defense of their rightful lands? Stop and look at the size of the state of Israel and compare that with those surrounding nations who promise nothing short of another Holocaust. Where is the outrage from each of us? Where is the international community condemning Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran and Syria, etc? Why do we see dozens of UN resolutions condemning Israel and none indicting Hamas or these other terrorist organizations? I'm at a loss as to how to describe this in any stronger terms.

Do Israel's assassinations of those responsible for funding, planning, or executing strikes against Israel violate international law? It's simply too bad we are even asking this question. Is Israel a terrorist state? According to the UN, the news, and the Arab world, the answer is yes. But what is the truth? Stop and ask yourself this question: How many rockets had Hamas launched into Israel since they pulled out of Gaza in 2005? Does the media pick up on that number and report it? Is that what's reported in the news, or does it take Israel's long overdue reaction to warrant coverage? When Israeli's die, there's no news. When Israel responds to Hamas and bombs those launchers placed in hospitals and schools and mosques and homes, Israel is condemned even here in the United States. How sad is this? The answer to the above question is staggering. Over 3,200 rockets and an unknowable number of mortars have been sent into Israel from the land Israel gave up in the hopes of peace (Murdock, 2008). There obviously is no international law when Hamas is allowed to do this. Should Israel wait for the UN to act? Obviously that will never happen, so what are they to do? Isn't the first requirement of a state the protection of its citizens? How do we think we can condemn Israel in the slightest for there actions, be it the assassination of murderers who deserve justice but otherwise will never know it or the incursion into Gaza from whence Hamas has been shelling Israel for years? This is why international law is so ineffective; simply because corrupt, evil men are allowed to fill the ranks and adjudicate as they see fit. There is no natural law to guide these men, there is no sense of fairness or right and wrong. There is only the greed and corruption which sees the UN issue repeated condemnations of Israel when they act in self-defense.

Works Cited

BBCNews.org, "Sykes-Picot Agreement." bbcnews.com. 29 Nov 2001. Bristish Broadcasting Company. 6 Jan 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681362.stm.

Masada2000.org, "History of Israel & "Palestine"." masada2000.org. 2002. Masada2000.org. 6 Jan 2009 http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html.

Murdock, Deroy. "Hamas rockets blew away Gaza opportunity." scrippsnews.com. 31 Dec 2008. Scripps News. 6 Jan 2009 http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/39608.

Spiro, Ken. "Crash Course in Jewish History." aish.com. 24 Dec 2006. Aish International. 6 Jan 2009 http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_5_The_Promised_Land.asp.

Young, Darrell G.. "Focus on Jerusalem Prophecy Ministry." focusonjerusalem.com. Aug 2005. Focus on Jerusalem. 6 Jan 2009 http://focusonjerusalem.com/TheRootsoftheIsraeli-ArabConflict.htm.