AMBIGUOUS RESPONSE: DISTURBING REACTION TO YASSIN'S DEATH
By Daniel Mandel
On any reasonable accounting, Yassin's death is a success for the Israelis in combating those deploying indiscriminate murder of civilians -- indiscriminate mass murder of civilians that is all of a piece with the Madrid bombings that claimed the lives of 200 more than a week earlier.
How has the United States and the world responded to this success? With an ambiguity and incoherence that is standard in this conflict.
The White House found it "deeply troubling." The State Department promptly equalized Israel and Hamas, issuing a statement calling for "maximum restraint" from "all sides." Spokesman Richard Boucher, as so often, affirmed Israel's right to self-defense (something that never needs affirmation in any comparable context) but immediately exempted from inclusion in this category the latest Israeli action on which he was being queried.
The reaction in Europe was more unbuttoned. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman described it as a "setback," before adding that it "goes without saying that the Prime Minister also condemns today's killing." EU foreign ministers issued a statement condemning Yassin's killing as "extra-judicial." And U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan "condemned" what he termed an "assassination."
This was only marginally removed from the Palestinian reaction: Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia described the killing as a "crime." Abu Qusai, commander of Yasser Arafat's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in the Gaza Strip, warned rather redundantly that "every Israeli will be a target for the militants."
Missile strikes, like most military acts, are inherently risky, often claiming the innocent as well as the guilty. As a general rule, the less surgical the strike, the wider the concern expressed over methods. Here, however, the rules are actually different. Whatever measures Israel adopted – roadblocks, curfews, withholding revenues, returning fire, missile strikes, targeting individual terrorists, incursions on the ground – all produced condemnation in the past.
In short, various governments do not dispute Israel's right to self-defense in principle – merely in practice.
That this is not how the rules work elsewhere is beyond doubt. Thus, when an American warplane bombed a Baghdad restaurant in April, 2003, missing all intended targets, including Saddam Hussein, but claiming 14 innocent lives, there was no suggestion from the European Union that the bombing was "extra-judicial" or, that had it succeeded, it would have amounted to an "assassination." Such language has little place in armed conflict.
The surreal quality of official statements on Israeli actions derives from many things – hypocrisy, expediency, and spurious even-handedness – but, above all, from the fiction that Israel is engaged in something other than a war. A bogus state of peace and endlessly incipient negotiations supply the rationale that regards a counter-terrorist success as "deeply troubling" and "extra-judicial."
The reasons for the near-universal embrace of this fiction could fill books, but boil down to this: Most of Israel's neighbors either seek Israel's demise or would be pleased to see it occur. Most people outside the region would prefer not to know this. They choose to proceed on the basis that the terrorists and the hateful attitudes that animate them are the workings of an unrepresentative fringe. No amount of polling of Palestinians, over however long a period, will convince them otherwise.
It is more agreeable to believe that the conflict is presently soluble and that the onus is thus on Israel, as the stronger party, to make concessions, not fight. In Europe especially, where attitudes towards Jewry are, to say the least, complex, a reiteration of Israeli wrongdoing also acts as valve for pent-up guilt over the Holocaust. Diplomatically, too, it is a tempting maneuver to purchase goodwill by agreeing with Arab governments harboring restive populations and sending increasing numbers of immigrants to the continent. Prejudice and fear go hand in glove.
A similar process of denial is at work in the opposition to the wider war on terror from the anti-American Left, which believes that Islamist terrorism originates in reasonable claims amenable to negotiations, not non-negotiable ambitions obtainable purely by force.
Both processes of denial speak of an inchoate decadence, an inability to see things as they are for fear of upsetting cherished illusions. It is far from sensible, and it makes for poor analysis. But it has its purposes.
The Israeli-Arab Conflict
The Middle East & the Arabs
Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
More on Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
War & Peace in the Real World
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Daniel Mandel is a Middle East analyst based in Philadelphia and a fellow in history at Melbourne University.
The article appeared earlier in the Washington Times (March 25, 2004) and on the Internet websites maintained by the Middle East Forumand the Washington Times.
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * France
Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control