Justified And Productive (JP Riposte To British Foreign Minister Jack Straw's Hypocrisy)

They had the opportunity to hand themselves to justice and answer for their crimes. They refused to do this. It goes without saying that we would have much preferred this, but the news that Saddam's sons are no longer a threat to the security of Iraq will be a reassurance to the Iraqi people." – Jack Straw, July 22, 2003, on the killing, by US troops, of Uday and Qusay Hussein

"One has to treat such claims and proposals by al-Qaida with the contempt they deserve. This is a murderous organization which seeks impossible objectives by the most violent of means." – Jack Straw, April 16, 2004, on the proposal, by Osama bin Laden, to arrange a truce with Europe

"Unjustified and counterproductive." – Jack Straw, April 18, 2004, on the killing, by Israeli forces, of Abdel Aziz Rantisi

Will the British foreign minister explain why the killing of Uday and Qusay Hussein was justified and "productive," but the killing of Abdel Aziz Rantisi was not? All three are, or were, leaders of what the British government defines as terrorist organizations.

Will the minister also explain why it is unthinkable for European countries, including Britain, to negotiate with al-Qaida, while it is not only thinkable, but necessary, for Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian regime implicated in Hamas's terrorism? All bin Laden asks of Europe is what Europe asks of Israel, which is to get out of Arab lands. If that demand is reasonably made of Israel, why is it any less reasonably made of Europe?

And will the minister tell us why, in June 2002, after describing suicide bombers as "misguided and depressed," he went on to say that "behind those people are some very evil terrorist leaders who do not put their own lives on the line when they are making sure that others' lives are ended." Was this not a description of people like Rantisi and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, whose killing last month Straw also condemned in the strongest possible terms?

At least former French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin was consistent when he warned that the killing of Uday and Qusay would contribute to the cycle of violence in Iraq. That's a foolish view, but it is not a hypocritical one. Straw's view, however, is hypocritical. It is also foolish and at variance with his previous statements.

The minister says Israel may act against the likes of Rantisi, but only within the parameters of international law. That suggests that Rantisi ought to have been arrested and tried, not killed.

Well then: Arrested how, and by whom? Maybe we have missed the minister's calls for the Palestinian Authority to meet its responsibilities under the road map to "undertake visible efforts... to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning attacks on Israelis." But if the minister has in fact issued such calls, he hasn't made them with the force and indignation of his denunciations of Israeli action.

Maybe the minister will allow that Rantisi may lawfully be arrested by Israel. But wouldn't that require an unlawful entry by Israeli troops into Gaza City? And would it not also have entailed a much larger loss of life? And possibly the use of military components supplied by Britain? This last the minister is on record as strongly opposing.

To follow the minister's pronouncements to their logical conclusion, Israel may take no measure in its self-defense except to arrest suicide bombers when they reach Israeli soil, which is as good as no defense at all. Alternatively, he believes Israel must resume negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, notwithstanding the failure of the PA to take steps against terrorist organizations and the evidence that it is deeply implicated in terrorist activity.

This is foolishness. Either the minister accepts Israel's right to take what efforts it thinks necessary against terrorism, or he must demand the PA do the same and make it pay a price if it doesn't. So far, the minister's government does neither.

It is noteworthy that after Saturday's killing of Rantisi, Hamas would not name its new leader. The bravado is gone. They are afraid. This will not prevent future attacks on Israel. But it puts paid to the lie that attacks on Hamas only embolden it. In that sense, Saturday's strike has served a purpose.

The Jerusalem Post's riposte to British Foreign Minister Jack Staw's hypocrisy is as timely as it is welcome. Israel is simply exercising the same right of pre-emptive self-defense against terrorists claimed by her Her Majesty's Government and her American ally. More to the point, Saturday's killing of Abdel Aziz Rantisi has struck fear into the hearts of the terrorists. They are far from being emboldened and I can think of no better illustration for the axiom the only solution to terrorism is a military one. Israel's act was indeed both justified and productive.

3 posted on 04/19/2004 2:46:45 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)

4 posted on 04/19/2004 6:47:19 AM PDT by SJackson (America...thru dissent and protest lost the ability to mobilize a will to win, Col Bui Tin, PAVN)

It is being reported that Hamas is afraid to make public the name of the new leader who will fill the post. If this isnt prrof that targeted killings ARE working, then I dont know what is. As far as the Brittish are concerned, its their fault that the borders got screwed up in the beginning. If they would have abided by the Balfour declaration and the desires of the League of Nations Israel would have begun with defendable borders and this would more than likely have been much less of an issue. Palestinians already have their own state, its called JORDAN.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.