http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5596800^2703,00.html
What, if anything should the US (or anyone else) say/do?
As long as they kill terrorists and not innocent people, I think we should applaud them.
The world community should give any aid and assistance to bringing those terrorists to justice. If the world community won’t do that, then Israel should bring justice to those terrorists themselves. Either way, really.
The Mossad does not have a perfect record of killing only the guilty. When Mossad agents were hunting down the Palestinians responsible for the Munich massacre, they killed an Arab waiter by mistake.
Why the coyness in the Sunday Times article? “According to a well-informed source…” Sharon himself has certainly made no secret of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/11/29/kenya.mossad/index.html
As for what the world’s response should be–gee, I dunno, what was the world’s response to the hunting down and killing in 1972? IIRC, the world didn’t seem to have a big problem with it, but then, I was still in high school so don’t go by me.
Maybe the US could contract the Mossad to get Bin Laden for us, and possibly Mullah Omar as well…
hansel: While Mossad admittedly does not have a perfect record (what intelligence agency does?), what would you have Israel do? As I see it, there aren’t too many alternatives:
a) Nothing - clearly not an option, especially given that Kenya has been somewhat uncooperative
b) Conduct an investigation, then demand that the countries of which the alleged terrorists are nationals hand said alleged terrorists over for trial - not reasonable; say the plotters of the attack are Saudis, always the most likely possibility when you’re talking about al-Qa’ida - what are the chances Saudi Arabia (or Yemen, or whatever country they come from) will be willing to turn over one of their nationals to Israel?
c) Conduct localized IDF Special Forces- or Mossad-coordinated capture of said alleged terrorists to bring them over to Israel for trial - not a good idea, as Israel would lose the anonymity of killing these guys and thus be invaded the next day
d) Invade Saudi or whatever country these people are being harbored in - hah
In principle, by the problem you point out (mistaken identity), b) and c) would be the best options. However, the practical considerations I’ve noted would make negotiation or capture basically impossible. Thus sending Mossad out to secretly kill these thugs seems like the best possibility in a difficult situation.
Since when did assassination become an acceptable political tool of a supposedly liberal democracy? Isn’t it against international law? Why would it be so impossible to capture the supposed culprits and try them in an open court? Why kill them secretly? Wouldn’t it be better for Israel’s credibilty and image if justice was seen to be done, openly and in front of the world?
Sorry for sall the questions, but I am vehemently opposed to state-sponsored assassination, whether it is done by Israel in the circumstances mentioned in the OP, or by the US in their missile attack against Al-Qaida suspects in Yemen, or indeed by any nation.
In response to the OP, I don’t think anyone will do a damn thing about it except maybe mumble some token condemnations and “concerns”. The US certainly isn’t going to do anything. What they should do is openly oppose such actions and urge Israel to use diplomatic means to get their hands on the culprits. If that fails, then capture and trial would be necessary
The problem with using diplomatic means is that most of the places where the bad guys would hide have no diplomatic relations with Israel. Besides, which Islamic country will risk the bloodbath in the streets that would result from handing someone over to the Israelis? Also, if an intifada results from a simple visit to an area holy to both Jews and Moslems, what do you think will happen if the Israelis attempt to bring to trial someone who is a hero of the resistance?
Whack 'em, I say.
It’s obviously the most pragmatic way to eliminate the threats. Any other method is liable to result in civil bloodshed and/or diplomatic snares.
Israel did this with Adolph Eichman, and I’m not aware that they suffered a great deal of international backlash because of it. The French do it. Even the U.S. does it, both with their military (Panama) and in general with U.S. courts not caring if a defendent shows up for trial because he was kidnapped from a foreign country by bounty hunters (one Canadian national kidnapped in Toronto, of which I’m aware).
Kidnapping for trial has the benefit of perceived restraint, legal justification, and precedent by many countries who might condemn Israel for assassinations. It also stays away from such PR disasters as the attempted poisoning of a Hamas leader in Syria that failed, souring relations for Israel with both Syria and Canada (whose passports the Mossad agents were carrying).
Besides, if they can arrange an assassination, they can probably arrange a kidnapping just as easily. I think the assassination order is posturing by Sharon.
U.S. and other world powers assasinate people all the time. Just look at the Pablo Escobars and all the other scum. (And Pablo was a drug kingpin, not a terrorist).
Why is everyone so shocked by this? The Israeli army assasinate Palestinian militant leaders and high-ranking terrorists quite routinely. I often hear of the army shooting missiles at cars with suspected leaders, and there have been many innocent people killed using these methods. I don’t see why a few undercover Mossad agents can’t kill these terrorists when the risk of loss of innocent life is relatively low compared to other ventures by Israel.
I say wack 'em, and bring Tom Clancy along so he can write a book about it.
Wish them luck and share any intelligence we have.
Marc
I’d prefer Mark Bowden.
Hmm, just wondering what all of you would think if the Iraqi secret service assassinated George Bush.
Or, funnier still, kidnapped him and had him on trial in Iraq.
Did George Bush blow up a hotel in Kenya? Of course if the Iraqi’s did this it would constitute an act of war and they could then be invaded without any international objection. The fact that the terrorists are not part of a state means Israel can not use it’s Army to invade the country they reside. Therefore the Mossad needs to be used.
Eichmann was quite a different case. Nobody in the world supported Eichmann, and Israel was not going into a country where they were nearly uniformly hated at that time. If Israel openly captures a citizen of another country, particularly an Arab country, they will be attacked. I don’t see how you can consider it any differently
Ah yes, the Saudis and Yemenis and Syrians, those great scholars of international law. Please. The countries who would be attacking Israel would not be doing so because of the legality, or lack thereof, of Israel’s actions. In any case, they would claim the capture was illegal, for violating their sovereignty (the fact that alternatively they would have been harboring international terrorists and refusing to extradite them to the “Zionist entity” notwithstanding). They would then claim that it was an act of war, and that they had the right of response, and my guess is most people (and governments) in the Arab world would support them.
Israel’s technical capability to arrange the kidnapping is not in question. The issue I’m raising is the fact that if they capture one of the alleged terrorists and put them on trial (thereby admitting to the capture), whatever country they capture this person from would consider it an act of war, and would respond militarily. Iraq and Iran would most likely join in, or at least supply some “extra-special” weapons. At least of they kill these people, Israel maintains some level of plausible deniability, and so is at a much lower risk of backlash.
The point I think you’re missing, Fang, is that the U.S. and much of Europe would not view it as an act of war, and would not withdraw support from Israel because of it. Were it not for significant first-world support (most of which is American), Israel would have been obliterated long ago, and it’s the continuing support of the U.S. that keeps the Arab/Muslim states around Israel from launching another war.
If Israel kidnaps-for-trial, the U.S. could still support it in the same way; if Israel starts a series of heavy handed assassinations, some of which go wrong, the U.S. would distance itself (as it did with the Syrian case), and Israel loses some of the threat of American support that keeps its enemies at bay.
Besides, countries like Saudi Arabia would have to moderate their indignation in the event of a kidnapping because they already officially claim that they don’t support terrorism; so, the act of bringing a terrorist to justice is not an automatic casus belli, as an assassination is.
There’s also the difference of direct support by the U.S. for kidnapping (intelligence, assets, etc.), vs. current support withdrawn for assassinations. I can believe that the U.S. would let the Mossad fly a suspect captured in Kenya to an American carrier nearby for transport back to Israel. I can’t believe that U.S. helicopters would be used to insert a hit-team into a hostile country.
Nope. But he did order various bombings on Iraki soil which he justified by things like Iraki radars locking US planes flying over a part of Irak the US unilateraly decided they had the right to fly over. That would consitute a good motive for a trial
If Fox decides that he has the right to fly Mexican fighters above California and he bombs american radars which lock on these fighters, resulting in american deaths, I’m sure the US would consider that deserves a trial.
But anyway…concerning the OP : I don’t like much political assassinations. I would rather prefer trials. And I think it would be better for the image of Israel. However, I do prefer targeted assassinations to launching a missile on a building where some supposed terrorist lives, killing many unrelated civilians in the process. Something the Israelis don’t hesitate to do. I also prefer that, by far, to a war. Soldiers usually aren’t personnally guilty of anything, apart being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So, if there’s no reasonnable way to catch these guys and bring them to court, I would consider assassinating them as a lesser evil than solutions involving launching missiles or declaring war on a country harboring them. I would probably even consider it a lesser evil than letting them loose (note that I’m strongly opposed to death penalty, but death penalty applies to people who are in custody and aren’t a danger any more. This situation is totally different).
However, I’m not fully convinced that it’s actually an inability to catch them and try them which is the prime motive for this decision.
Let’s say these assassinations aren’t the world issue (or even the Israeli issue) which bother me the most.
Nonsense. If Syria, or Yemen, etc…had the will and the means to attack Israel they would do so and wouldn’t wait for the Israelis to provide some pretext like kidnapping someone on their soil. For instance , Syria could just claim that Israel is occupying its territory (the Golan heights) and launch a war. And if these countries don’t have the will/means to attack Israel, they won’t do so just because the Israelis kidnapped someone. They would issue a strong diplomatic protest and would point fingers to Israel, that’s all.
Also, it’s not because an arab country would decide to attack Israel that all the others would follow the move.
It could be impractical to kidnap someone if he’s protected by an arab government on its own territory, but that’s another issue.