7_V said:
1. "State sponsored assassination is illegal"
Under international law and the laws of war, it is entirely legal to target and kill an enemy combatant who has not surrendered. Palestinian terrorists - whether they are the suicide bombers themselves, those who recruit them, those in charge of the operation, or commanders of terrorist groups - are, without any doubt, enemy combatants.
That strikes me as using the very same logic that the palestinian terrorists use for their targeting of Israeli civilians. ie
To paraphrase:
"All Israelis are either in the army, army reservists or will be conscripted in to the army for thier national service in the future. Therefore they are all either combatants or potential combatants and so valid targets."
It seems to me that the problem is deeply and irrovicably entrenched on both sides.
2. "the occupation of the West Bank is illegal"
UN Resolution 242 calls for:
a) "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"
(this means the 1967 conflict)
AND
b) "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"
(in other words - security and recognition for all states)
NOTE that the charter is deliberately worded such that Israel is not required to withdraw from ALL territories occupied in 1967. Nor should they be. The Arab states effectively invaded and were repelled in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 and it would be virtually unknown for any country to return all the land that it occupied under those circumstances. This is particularly true when such land is required for defensive buffer or strategic purposes (the Golan Heights come to mind here).
Stalin did the same thing with eastern europe after the war. Did the west believe it was justafiable then? If not why is Israel allowed to use such arguments?
The simple fact is that irrespective of the details of the conflict the west is being hypocrytical with regard to it's support of Israel, by supporting a regime that is clearly using excessive force to solve it's security problems.
To draw an analogy. Ask yourself why it is considered morally reprehensible for a man to hit a woman. The answer most often given is because women are smaller and weaker than men. Palestine as a military might is significantly smaller and weaker than Israel, yet Israel is rarely condemed by the one world power that has any influence over it's action. A power that claims to be on the side of moral right.
Another point. The killing of civilians in order to win a conflict is nothing new. The palestinians aren't even doing it particularly successfully. The allies bombed German cities with huge loss of life. This was a purposeful use of terror in an attempt to weaken German resolve. The justification? Well the Nazis were evil of course ! and had to be stopped at all costs. So ask yourselves why Palestinian arabs shouldn't use similar tactics when the people who are telling them it is wrong essentially invented them ! and their family members are being killed on a daily basis by Israeli soldiers. At least the Palestinians have some justification in using the argument that they have no other military means at their disposal, unlike the allies during WWII.
Of course, the solution will never be a military one in this conflict. It has to be political. However, it is very hard to feel that way when you feel oppressed to the extent that the palestinians do.
GTM
