Israeli assassination policies

Disclaimer- I’m not a world history maven so the following observations may be at odds with real politik as it has been practiced this century and if this is the case I will be more than happy to stand (well sit actually) corrected.

Re the latest assassination carried out by Israel, this is the first time (I can recall) of a democratically elected government more or less overtly targeting and assassinating opposition leaders as a matter of course. I could possibly understand this if there was a formal state of war declared but in the current situation doesn’t Israel risk legitimizing assassinations as a political tool vs killing as a military objective.

I know the distinction between the two may be a fine gray line in the real world where people are being bombed in marketplaces, but if you eliminate that distinction aren’t you endangering yourself in the long run by essential OKing such tactics to be used legitimately by other governments (even democratically elected ones) against you if they feel threatened by your policies.

It just doesn’t seem like a wise thing to encourage the long run. As a side note I know the Bin Laden situation has many similarities but it always came across as more of a criminal gang pursuit than a political agenda.

By no means defending Israel’s policy, but I think your OP kinda lumps the Palestinian leadership in with opposition party leaders within a country. The Palestinians being assassinated are not citizens of Israel and are not leaders of a political opposition movements but instead military or paramilitary leaders in armed opposition to Israel.

I don’t know what ethical/political standard should apply, but I’m pretty sure its not the same one Bush should apply in deciding whether to assassinate Gore.

Sua

I guess one man’s criminal is another’s government leader.

Though I’m not aware that the US actually targeted Bin Laden personally.

In any event, you haven’t shown that Israel stands to lose much as a practical matter. Just who is there an increased danger from as a result of this policy?

It’s a bit long, but I just happened to receive this in an email from somebody:

I thought there were a variety of protocols, either written or merely ‘understood’ that spelled out a few things about how countries get on with each other in the world. Among these (if they in fact exist) was a protocol prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders by other governments. The idea behind this is that in this day and age governments could have heads-of-state knocked off willy-nilly (certainly the Russians could probably have tagged every American President during the Cold War had they wished).

That said it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen or that there aren’t ways around it. Certainly, the US did its level best to kill Castro in Cuba. American bumbling aside it is a wonder that man managed to survive as long as he has (IIRC Castro claims to have survived over 600 assassination attempts…what counts as an ‘attempt’ in his book I don’t know).

Countries may also support insurgencies in another country so while it may not be one of their own trigger men involved in an assassination they certainly aid and abet others to do it for them all the time.

Usually, however, the instigating country is at least a little bit circumspect in how it goes about these things. How does Israel get away with it? I would guess a few things play into it:

[ul]
[li] Palestine is not a country and is not recognized as such by anybody that I know of. As a result you cannot be targeting a ‘head-of-state’ when going after Palestinians.[/li][li] Israel has not targeted a head-of-state (for lack of a better term) in Palestine. They have left Arafat alone for ages. I don’t think the protocols I mentioned above go very far down the leadership ladder if they go down at all.[/li][li] Technically I think Israel still lays claim to the land the attacks are made on. While it might be a bit thin the Israelis might consider themselves as carrying out their own brand of justice on what they consider an internal issue. Everyone else and their opinions can just bugger-off as far as Israel is concerned.[/li][/ul]

An excellent point. As a naive American I suppose my view is that this overt assassination policy seemingly lowers the bar for what is considered to be an acceptable governmental response and possibly the extent to which it (and I know this may sound trite) personalizes the armed response and legitimizes it’s use against a targeted individual.

I suppose what it seems Israel stands to lost most in the near term is the ability to stand as a peer of equal status ethically/morally with other democratically elected governments who do not directly target individual enemies of the state for assassination when no war has been declared, although not many of these are getting their market places bombed weekly. In the long run I have no real idea.

The U.S. has employed assassination overtly for a long time. Admiral Yamamoto’s plane was shot down in WWII in an intentional act to target a military leader and execute him.

And Saddamm Hussein was explicitly targeted in the Gulf war, and his palace was bombed, killing one of his children.

Are we saying that it would be morally wrong to have a sniper target him, thereby preventing any innocent deaths, but morally correct to target him by bombing his residence in an attempt to kill him, while also killing innocents through collateral damage?

Is there anyone here who doubts that the U.S. would have assassinated Hitler in a second if they had the opportunity, and that they would have been morally correct to do so?

And don’t forget the Phoenix program in Vietnam, which was a CIA operation which sent operatives into the countryside to assassinate local officials, Viet Cong Leaders, etc.

One more thing to think about - if world leaders knew that other countries would target them and shoot them in times of war, perhaps that would lead to a little more negotiation and a little less war. It seems a little odd that nations should agree to guarantee the safety of opposing leaders, who are actually making the decisions to fight, and then killing soldiers and civilians at will as a result of those decisions. Perhaps state-sanctioned assassination would help balance the cost-benefit equation a bit.

I’d also like to add US implications in trying to assasinate Kaddafi. I honestly don’t like the Israeli policy, but I feel very close to what the article posted by curwin states. Decapitation of the terrorist infrastructure in the PA is the neatest way to incapacitate it. The greater occurence of bungled bombings and apprehended suspects since this policy began (I can’t give cites but I suspect it is true) speaks strongly for this. The Panama-type approach, with invasion, search, apprehension, and deportation to trial is cumbersome and provocative at this point and can’t be pursued. I think that the approach should be dual-pronged however, with more of an emphasis on negotiation.

Thanx for pointing out Adm. Yamamoto’s assassination, Sam Stone. I have been reading Winston Churchill’s six-volume history of WW2 and he mentions how, at one point in the 1942 North African campaign, British commandos assaulted Rommel’s headquarters by surprise. One presumes the commandos did not intend to invite Rommel to tea. Fortunately for him, Rommel was absent at the time.
During the early 1980s, the Reagan administration bombed Khaddafy’s headquarters in Libya. I suppose you could call this an assassination. Regardless of the terminology, Uncle Muammar has been relatively quiet since then.
Personally, I think assassination is a justifiable policy. It is better in my view to pick off the one kingpin or king nut who directs policy rather than engaging in a war or police action that kills off a bunch of people. The leaders of countries or factions are the ones that start wars; let them pay the price for a change.

The problem for me is that Israel is taking its war to other countries, does this mean that it will kill its enemies when they are in other countries, carrying its dispute to British or American cities ?

This had happened already with the execution of a ballistics expert, murdered by Israeli operatives when the Iraq supergun affair came to light.

Israel purports to have courts, law and legal procedure, these are not assassinations they are extra-judicial killings.

When Spanish authorities systematically targeted and killed leaders of ETA during the 70’s and 80’s they were condemned by many governments yet they used the same arguments as are used in the Middle East.

The UK has been accused of the same thing with IRA terrorists, the West German government was accused of the same against the Red Army Faction.

All have been condemned for these activities and token legal investigations were carried out, although little was done to lock up the perpetrators, it still established the fact that extra-judicial killings are in fact murder and illegal.

One of the main thrusts of condemnation is that UK, Spain and Germany are democratic, and civilised countries with a rule of law which is independant of the politicians.

Quite honestly the actions of Israel resemble terrorism more and more each day, and saying words like self-defence and pre-emptive strike will not change it.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck then it probably is a duck, doesn’t matter what else you call it.

In all of those cases the extra-judicial killings did not solve the problems and actually exarcerbated things, both in the short term in Germany and the longer term in UK and Spain.

Why does Israel think it is a special case ? Human nature is what it is, you do not have to be a genius work out what the likely response is going to be from Arab supporters.

I believe Israel has calculated that risk very carefully. Israel’s immediate neighbours (i.e. Jordan, Lebanon, Seria, Egypt) are not willing to go to war over the Palestinians. They are quite happy to let them fight and die and even send them a little something to egg them on but they will not stick their necks out for them. More ardent supporters like Lybia, Iraq and Iran have enough to worry about at present without declaring war on anybody.

US will not pull support from Israel. They may posture for benefit of world press and opinion but they have Israel’s back and Israel knows it.

I’d say that things are going to turn out very badly for the Palestinians if they don’t start taking peace very very seriously (and mean it this time).

You mean like American attacks on the Sudan and Afghanistan?

It is strange that you acknowledge that other countries in circumstances less difficult than Israel routinely conduct the same types of operations, but yet insist on holding Israel to this artificial standard.

Why not? Seems to me like it changes it a lot.

Are you unable to distinguish between killing civilians and combatants? This seems to be a reasonable distinction between terrorism and combat.

How do you know they exacerbated things? My history isn’t very polished in this area so you may be right but I find it hard to accept such a categorical statement. Certainly terrorism has continued in these cases but perhaps it is a shadow of what it might have become had some of their earlier leaders been allowed to grow and prosper in their positions. As the letter curwin posted mentions depriving an organization of its leaders is destabilizing to those organizations. It may not destroy these groups but they have to expend energy getting new leaders into place…energy that might otherwise be spent carrying out terrorist attacks.

On the flipside you run the risk of creating a martyr via assassination. Often the targeted organization will attempt to create a martyr out of their fallen but this is a fickle thing at best. Usually the dead are forgotten in relatively short order. However, if a true martyr is created it can make things much worse for the people who carried out the assassination in the first place.