U.S. Vetoes Resolution Condemning Israel for the Killing of Hamas Leader

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
A lot of people are confused about how the UN operates.

The UN serves as a forum where parties establish contracts between each other. This is the basis of international law.

Israel entered that forum and ratified agreements, starting with the UN charter. These agreements are crafted by and reflect back upon the participants themselves. For, example, all member states have bound themselves, for the greater purpose of trust and co-operation, to refrain from assassinating their political rivals. By adding its name to lists of signatories, Israel binds itself to codes of conduct recognised universally in this world forum, and becomes - by definition - a responsible state in the world.

Now what Israel has done recently is to very clearly violate its contract with member states, and vow to continue violating this contract, in the form of extra-judicial political assassination, beyond its borders no less. Israel effectively spits on its own document.

Member states of the UN are bound, by their ratification of the UN Charter, to work within the legal framework of the UN (that is - voluntary, mutual contract), and to enforce the adherence of fellow member states to the agreements those states have entered into. This means that a state's failure to admonish Israel's breach of treaty would be a crime in itself.

So we began to write this draft resolution, to fulfil our legal obligation as members of the United Nations.

1. What Israel did was completely legal. Yassin was an active terrorist, and as such Israel had the right to kill.
2. Where're the resolutions condemning the UN for failing to fulfill its obligations and for decieving Israel?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Enter USA, with a vow to sabotage the resolution unless it contains a stern condemnation of Hamas terrorism.

***

Enter Israel, outraged because language like "all parties refrain from violence and destruction of property" is an obvious pointed attack on Israel and the Israeli way of life. The statements in the resolution are patently anti-Israeli, they say.

***

Exit all reason. Proceed!

I gave you a quote from the UN site showing clearly that the UN, for the third time within a day, directly condemned Israel for killing a terrorist while refusing to condemn the terrorists. The truth is that this was to be a completely one sided resolution, and even the UN admits it only condemns one side, and this side was Israel. Ignoring the truth won't make it go away.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by G-Man
I don't recall any democracy making a full sclae invasion into one of the most densely populated areas in the world in order to arrest anyone when they had other options to stop him.

Sure you're not forgetting about two recent events?

Anyway, if you want the guy, there are ways to do it legally. Show us how his arrest or assassination is consistent with the international laws and principles all our countries have pledged to uphold. Or remove yourself from protection under those laws, and defy them at will. You can't have both.

I'll give you an example. Israel is not a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. This means it enjoys neither benefits nor protections nor regulation under the NPT. So you can do what you want, build your bombs, it's no crime. Of course it also means you haven't got a leg to stand on in any case against foreign nuclear weapons activity. Israel cannot speak on this, being deaf to these laws itself. Still, you're free in a sense to do as you wish.

So make up your mind. Do you want to uphold and be covered by the law forbidding assassination, or not?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom


Sure you're not forgetting about two recent events?

I'm sure.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Anyway, if you want the guy, there are ways to do it legally. Show us how his arrest or assassination is consistent with the international laws and principles all our countries have pledged to uphold. Or remove yourself from protection under those laws, and defy them at will. You can't have both.

Israel is at war with the hamas, thus all members of hamas involved in its military activities are legitimate targets.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I'll give you an example. Israel is not a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. This means it enjoys neither benefits nor protections nor regulation under the NPT. So you can do what you want, build your bombs, it's no crime. Of course it also means you haven't got a leg to stand on in any case against foreign nuclear weapons activity. Israel cannot speak on this, being deaf to these laws itself. Still, you're free in a sense to do as you wish.

So make up your mind. Do you want to uphold and be covered by the law forbidding assassination, or not?

Laws covering assasinations do not speak about heads of terror organizations.

 

[Achinz]

Originally posted by G-Man
Laws covering assasinations do not speak about heads of terror organizations. [/B]

Where's your source for this? And what do they have to say about assassinations in someone else's territory.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by G-Man
thus all members of hamas involved in its military activities are legitimate targets.

I believe that's Israeli law you're refering to.

Originally posted by G-Man
Laws covering assasinations do not speak about heads of terror organizations.

Squirming. You know there are no laws setting forth when assassination of political leaders is OK. The Hague Convention broadly forbids it in all forms. When it's OK to liquidate your political opponents and their representatives, or which ones, is non-debatable.

Now do you want to live by these universal documents or not?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Achinz

Where's your source for this? And what do they have to say about assassinations in someone else's territory.

My source for this is the treaties Israel is signed on. I don't see what assasinations in someone else's territory have to do with the current debate.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom

I believe that's Israeli law you're refering to.

I believe this is both laws.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Squirming. You know there are no laws setting forth when assassination of political leaders is OK. The Hague Convention broadly forbids it in all forms. When it's OK to liquidate your political opponents and their representatives, or which ones, is non-debatable.

The hamas isn't a political opponent of Israel. It's a militia, and it's treated as such.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Now do you want to live by these universal documents or not?

We already live by them. Israel could've easily killed the leader of any of its neighbours.

 

[Pongui]

Now how do you expect me to defend Israel against this same grade of rationalisation from your enemies?

All we have in international law is the agreement between parties they'll stick to the same codes of conduct. When you insist your enemies a special case not covered by these universally recognised codes, you destroy our basis for their accountability. You're telling me anything's permissable. They may very well throw this back at you.

In that event, G-Man, you can expect from me only natural sympathy made impotent by moral indifference.

 

[Sh3kel]

Let's assume for the sake of the arugment that Hamas is structured like most arabs armies, which is quite similar to the way the British military is built.
The Palestinian military would consist of several branches. Just like the Egypt has an Air Force, a Navy and an Army, the Palestinians would divide their military into sub-organizations. We'll call these sub-organizations by their names: The PFLP, the Islamic Jihad, Hamas and so on and so forth.

Every self respecting military, including the IDF, the arabic armies and some of the western armies have chaplains - these are men of religion who provide services for the men in the field. The services range from religious services to psychological first aid.

If the Palestinian resistance can be equated to western militaries, then Sheikh Ahmed Yassin can be equated to the chief Hamas chaplain in the Gaza sector, an officer that holds the rank of a Colonel in the Israeli military. If we'll go as far as saying that he's the cheif chaplain of the palestinian military he'd be the equivalent of a Brigadier General (one star gen for the americans).

By the palestinian's own declaration of their forces as the army for the liberation of Palestine and bearing in mind that uUnder any warfare regulation book, eliminating an officer of the opposing force is not a war crime unless he's being held as a prisoner of war and is executed while holding POW status. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was at least a Col. in the Palestinian military. His words inspired the soldiers that hold the AKs and the bomb belts, and thus he is directly responsible for whatever these men do with their weapons. Regardless of his physical condition, as long as he is sound of mind and part of the military he is a valid target for elimination - the Israeli intelligence located a high ranking officer and forwarded the information to the Air Force that dispatched a gunship and eliminated him.

Either Yassin was an officer in a military organization engaged in open warfare with another military or he was a militia engaged in terrorist activities and thus terminated for his crimes. Either way, he was a valid and legitimate target for the Israeli Air Force.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

So according to Sean Lindstrom, the assassination of Yassin was against international law. He has yet to comment on whether it was right or wrong however.

Frankly I sense a distinct muddying of the waters from both sides in this thread...

 

[Pongui]

That's right. I'm troubled by Israel's claim to be outside international law. Reason one, I'm fond of universally accepted conventions and hope for my son's sake they stand to protect him in his lifetime.

Reason two, I see the state of Israel, when removing itself from this treaty by conveniently cutting a little hole through its conventions with foreign powers, is preparing by the same legal act its own grave. When you tear up a convention, you tear both ways. I happen to value the legal protections Israel enjoys in this world. Apparently, Israelis don't.

I don't want Israelis reminded first hand just how dependent we all are on the network of conventions and contracts known as international law.

@Sh3kel: Try to be serious here. Yassin was a stone-deaf old fiendish figurehead cut out of the loop, and you know it. If he can be targeted as a combatant then the lively Pat Robertson must be G.I. Joe and it would be no crime if his enemies shot him. I refuse to accept that. Stop undermining our laws!

***

Was killing Yassin right or wrong? Who cares!? Ariel Sharon's busy digging his own citizens a mass grave straight through the Hague Convention, and one spent old voiceless moderate among eviler men shan't stand in his way.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Originally posted by Achinz
There's the other point of view of course:

1. It's a breach of international law - assissination is murder and on someone else's territory at that.

2. The Israelis are unlawfully occupying Palestinian land.

3. The Israeli military is itself a force for terrorism, albeit state-sponsored using brute force and weapons on civilians.

1 who's territory?

2 i believe it was the king of jordan who declared war on israel in 1967. There was never a palestinian state to occupy, it was the west bank of jordan.

3 Hamas targets civilians, israel targets hamas, israel is the bad guy? How dare they protect their citizens from those peace loving muslims.

 

[amadeus]

Egypt no longer claims the Gaza Strip and Jordan no longer claims the West Bank, so the "Palestinian terrortory" (as I prefer to call it) is either part of Israel or is in a state of anarchy similar to that of Somalia.

 

[allhailIndia]

OK, we are debating a rather useless point here.

If yassin hameed's assassination means that terrorist activity stops, well and good for Israel, bravo:thumbsuP;

If on the other hand, like most of us here believe, it will only escalate tensions and cause more bloodshed, bringing to nought any more hopes of peace in the region, the Israeli govt, has a lot to answer for its people.

Its easy for rmsharpe and his likes to cheer for such actions from the sidelined coz it isn't their buses which are being targetted, nor it is their children who will grow up in a time of permanent fear.

Whatever Israel has achieved, and it has achieved a lot, in its 55 years of existence, will be set at nought if it cannot bring peace with the Palestinians. Ultimately all the intl. law, justifications, etc. wont bring peace. The Israelis and the Palestinians have to somehow realize that they are barreling down the path of self destruction and the sooner they find a way to slam the brakes, the better.

 

[Sarevok]

very good point india.

 

[PinkyGen]

I'm glad they killed the bastard, even if tactically it wasn't the best move.

I find it extremely hypocritical that Israel is condemned for killing terrorist leaders, when we know right now that the U.S. is trying to capture or kill Osoma Bin Laden. Is killing Bin Laden now illegal and condemnable as well? Should the U.N. perhaps pass a resolution holding the U.S. equally responsible with Al Quaeda for starting this conflcit?

 

[IceBlaZe]

Now the estimate in the security system is that the assassination will not raise the number of terrorist acts because:
1. The assassination donated to creating a small "chaos" in the Hamas.
2. The Hamas is already using its full potential.

Who knows..

 

[Pongui]

If the US aims to assassinate bin Laden, they should present their case, and we'll be happy to listen. I think we'd endorse it.

I doubt the US wants to set that kind of precident though.

 

[IceBlaZe]

What do you mean by we?
The citizens of the US, or judges?

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Originally posted by allhailIndia


Its easy for rmsharpe and his likes to cheer for such actions from the sidelined coz it isn't their buses which are being targetted, nor it is their children who will grow up in a time of permanent fear.

You think hamas would stop if israel put their arms down? they will settle for nothing less than the destruction of israel.