|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East
Israeli high court sanctions political assassinations
By Bill Van Auken
16 December 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Israels high court Thursday ruled that the Zionist regimes
use of political assassinationso-called targeted killingsagainst
members of Palestinian organizations in the occupied territories
is not only justified but in conformity with international law.
The ruling constituted the courts long-delayed response
to a case filed by two human rights groups seeking a ruling that
the practice constituted a violation of international law and
that such killings amounted to war crimes.
Instead, the Israeli justices gave a green light to the security
forces to continue assassinating those deemed terrorists
by the Zionist authorities, thereby ensuring that the killing
and maiming of both political opponents of Israeli occupation
and innocent bystanders will not only continue, but escalate.
This extraordinary judicial ruling is a telling manifestation
of the lawlessness that has long characterized the actions of
the Zionist regime both in the occupied territories and in the
Middle East as a whole. It is, moreover, an indication of the
profound crisis of the Israeli state, which is shedding the last
pretenses of democratic methods of rule.
The petition was initially brought to the court in January
2002 by an Israeli organization, the Public Committee Against
Torture in Israel, and LAW, a Palestinian group. Last month, a
third human rights organization, Yesh Gvul, had filed a petition
seeking a court ruling against the justices themselves for having
dragged the proceedings out for nearly five years while hundreds
of Palestinians continued to die at the hands of the Israeli state
murder machine.
It is estimated that 339 Palestinians have died as a result
of the Israeli assassination program over the last six years.
The victims include 210 individuals actually targeted by the Israeli
security forces and 129 bystanders, many of them women and children.
While the Israeli government initially claimed that its targeted
killings were directed against so-called ticking time
bombssuicide bombers and others who would strike civilians
if they were not immediately stoppedit quickly became clear
that the murderous operation was aimed at decapitating organizations
opposed to Israeli domination and terrorizing the Palestinian
population as a whole.
The overwhelming majority of the victims were killed not in
the midst of an operation stopping some imminent terrorist attack,
but as they were sleeping in their beds, sitting in offices or
riding in their cars in the occupied Gaza Strip.
Among those killed was Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a 67-year-old blind
and quadriplegic cleric who was a founder of Hamas. Yassin was
assassinated on March 22, 2004, as he was being taken in his wheelchair
from an early morning prayer session. A US-built helicopter gunship
fired a number of US-made Hellfire missiles, killing Yassin, two
bodyguards and eight other bystanders, as well as wounding over
a dozen others. The man named to succeed Yassin as Hamas leader,
Dr. Abdel Aziz al-Rantiss, a pediatrician, was killed less than
a month later, when a helicopter fired missiles at his car, killing
him, his bodyguard and his son, and wounding several bystanders.
Among the more infamous targeted killing operationsand
one that prompted the groups that filed the case to return to
court seeking an emergency injunction against the practicewas
that carried out in July 2002 with the aim of killing another
Hamas leader, Salah Shehada.
An F-16 fighter plane dropped a 1-ton bomb on the apartment
building in which Shehada lived and was sleeping at the time.
The explosion caused the collapse of several buildings in the
densely populated Gaza neighborhood, killing 14 peoplenine
of them childrenand wounding at least 150 others.
More recently, the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
has threatened to assassinate Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader
of Hezbollah, which constitutes a mass social movement and major
political party in Lebanon, and Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister
of the Palestinian National Authority and leader of Hamas.
Given this horrific record, the courts decision had a
distinct tone of unreality and even mockery in its prescriptions
to the security forces on the legal and moral niceties of state-organized
assassinations.
For example, it cautioned Israels Murder Inc. that the
ends do not justify the means. It called upon the army and
intelligence agencies to take into account the human rights
of those targeted for incineration with Hellfire missiles.
Attacks, the court advised, should be carried
out only if the expected harm to innocent civilians is not disproportional
to the military advantage to be achieved by the attack.
It cautioned that Israeli military commanders must possess
strong, convincing and well-founded evidence linking
a prospective victim to terrorism before ordering
an assassination and that an investigation must be conducted afterwards
to determine the precision of the identification of the
targetsomething that will prove cold comfort to those
already dead.
The reality is that all of these criteria, decisions and investigations
are left in the hands of the security forces themselves, who are
granted the right to act as judge, jury and executioner, exacting
an illegal penaltythere is no capital punishment in Israelagainst
individuals who have never been charged or tried.
The ruling was greeted favorably by the security forces themselves
as well as by right-wing Zionist politicians. It was seen essentially
as a pseudo-legal seal of approval for the policy of cold-blooded
state murder that is already under way.
Moreover, some military and security officials said that the
ruling would give legal cover to those responsible for carrying
out these killings against potential war crimes prosecution or
private lawsuits in non-Israeli courts. A ruling of this
kind provides enormous protection, deputy state attorney
Shai Nitzan told the Israeli army radio.
The threat that leading officials could be prosecuted for such
crimes became all the more real recently, when a pro-Palestinian
group sought to have former Israeli armed forces chief Moshe Yaalon
arrested in connection with the July 2002 bombing in Gaza that
killed 14 people during his visit to New Zealand last month.
Significantly, the court threw out the category of enemy
combatantborrowed directly from the Bush administrations
arsenal of legal justification for torture, illegal detentions
and extrajudicial executionsintroduced by Israeli state
attorneys to defend the killings.
The court held that unlawful combatant is not a
category recognized under international law. It also found that
those deemed terrorists by the Zionist regime are not combatants
but civilians.
Nonetheless, it accomplished the same ends as the enemy
combatant definition favored by the Bush administration
by declaring that those civilians alleged to be involved in terrorist
activities are subject to the risks of attack like those
to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of
a combatant, e.g., those granted to a prisoner of war.
In other words, those individuals targeted by the Zionist regimes
security forces for assassination are by definition denied all
rights, just as the enemy combatants persecuted by
the Bush administration are, even if, from a legal standpoint,
the Israeli court achieves this aim via a different route.
In summing up the ruling, the court declared, Thus it
is decided that it cannot be determined in advance that every
targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international
law, just as it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted
killing is permissible according to customary international law.
The law of targeted killing is determined in the customary international
law, and the legality of each individual such act must be determined
in light of it.
This is pure sophistry. Extrajudicial executions are illegal
under international law. The United Nations Basic Principles on
the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials state
unequivocally that the use of lethal force is permissible only
in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent
threat of death or serious injury or to prevent the
perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat
to life. Clearly the killing of leading political figures
in the occupied territories, and the threat to murder the leader
of a major political party in Lebanon, do not fall under this
category.
Similarly, in December 2004, the UNs Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated in regard
to the global war on terrorism, Empowering Governments
to identify and kill known terrorists places no verifiable
obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against
whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists, or to demonstrate
that every other alternative had been exhausted. While it is portrayed
as a limited exception to international norms, it
actually creates the potential for an endless expansion of the
relevant category to include any enemies of the State, social
misfits, political opponents, or others. And it makes a mockery
of whatever accountability mechanisms may have otherwise constrained
or exposed such illegal acts under either humanitarian or human
rights law.
Clearly, the Bush administration has itself engaged in such
extrajudicial executions. In his 2003 State of the Union address,
Bush himself boasted that some alleged supporters of Al Qaeda
had met their fate by sudden justice and were no
longer a problem to the United States of America.
Israel, which has the greatest experience with such extrajudicial
killingsassassinations have served as a customary instrument
of state policy since the founding of the Zionist statehas
now gone one step farther, with its highest court decreeing such
war crimes to be sanctioned by both Israeli and international
law.
Such a ruling marks a further degeneration into lawlessness
by a state that has similarly justified expropriation of land
and the expulsion of its legal inhabitants, collective punishment
against civilian populations and the waging of aggressive wars
against its neighbors.
Contempt for international law, binding treaties and internationally
recognized borders has been the hallmark of Israeli policy for
six decades. But what the Israeli high court ruling makes clear
is that whatever countervailing pressures previously existed within
the Israeli political establishment have ceased to operate.
What kind of a state produces a binding legal decision from
its highest court that political assassination of citizens and
leaders of other territories is a justifiable policy, sanctioned
by international law? One can imagine the howls of outrage in
Washington and Israel itself if the government of Iran or the
Palestinian National Authority were to issue similar judicial
rulings.
Far from trying to curb the criminal practices of its principal
client and ally in the Middle East, the Bush administration has
consistently aided and abetted them, from the campaign of assassinations
in the occupied territories to the barbaric assault against Lebanon
last summer. It has concluded that these acts of provocation and
aggression can be utilized to further US imperialisms own
drive to dominate the region.
Nonetheless, just as with the debacle confronting US policy
in Iraq, there is in the high court ruling enshrining assassination
in Israeli national law a powerful element of crisis and frenzy,
a sense that the Zionist project is reaching the end of its rope.
See Also:
Israel and the US threaten Iran and Syria
[14 December 2006]
Israel: Olmert brings Liebermans
far-right party into government
[13 November 2006]
Israel carries out deliberate
massacre in Gaza
[10 November 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |