The Right Way to Prosecute

The US is so committed to Israel because we see a big piece of ourselves in them. Both of us have sizable 'war' parties because we both on occasion get dragged into fundamentally unlawful situations.

The US is global cop. Arguing we shouldn't do the things we do is saying either the world doesn't need one or someone else could do a better job. Sometimes the law doesn't cover reality because the players we're dealing with aren't law abiding.

Israel in this case had to deal with a serial mass murderer. Yahya Ayyash already had the blood of at least 90 civilians on his hands and he was trying to perfect the "hundreds dead at once" routine. The Pals weren't going to arrest him, sending in the army would have been even more bloody, ergo assassination, even if it did kill a dozen other civilians, was the LEAST bloody way to deal with the situation.

The suggested alternative by the overly "lawful" would be living with terror attacks, which we're honest enough to admit we'd never do. So Israel did EXACTLY what the US would do in the same situation. That's why we're in their corner, it's because we understand them.

The US is so committed to Israel because we see a big piece of ourselves in them. Both of us have sizable 'war' parties because we both on occasion get dragged into fundamentally unlawful situations.

The US is global cop. Arguing that we shouldn't do the things we do is saying either the world doesn't need one or that someone else could do a better job. Sometimes the law doesn't cover reality because the players we're dealing with aren't law abiding.

Israel in this case had to deal with a serial mass murderer. Yahya Ayyash already had the blood of at least 90 civilians on his hands and he was trying to perfect the "hundreds dead at once" routine. The Pals weren't going to arrest him, sending in the army would have been even more bloody, ergo assassination, even if it did kill a dozen other civilians, was the LEAST bloody way to deal with the situation.

Markus Demetrius (me) - Why is the US so committed to Israel? Is it just the Jewish Lobby, or is there an actual rational explanation? As I understand it, after WWII Britain was getting swamped with Jewish refugees and so lobbied the UN for the creation of Israel on Palestinian land - without any new homeland/redress given to the displaced Palestinians. Then Britain backed away from supporting Israel (?) and somehow this has become the USA's problem. We provide Israel with money and weapons, they kill Arabs, then Arabs kill us since we back Israel. Why not simply stop all support for Israel? Is it just the Jewish Lobby, or is there an actual "compelling reason" for the USA to be making so many enemies?

Anyone, please, point out the holes in my logic. I simply want to know...

Thank you Mr. Tepperman for rehashing the Israeli human rights exception as a dumbed-down mishmash of an exhaustion requirement and forum non conveniens. To suggest Israel is an adequate alternative forum, you say "The Israeli government regularly convenes commissions of inquiry to consider the propriety of its own military actions" and "Israel's prosecutors??? are also not shy about going after top political leaders."

Alone, each statement might be true: the Winograd commission questioned the propriety of the 2006 war on Lebanon; prosecutors have gone after Israeli officials like Olmert. But together, the statements suggest you think that because prosecutors have gone after Israeli officials for, say, corruption, it follows that they will use int???l humanitarian and human rights law to assess the legality of Israeli security policy (sure hasn't been our experience here in the US???). Or, you believe a commission would actually address the ???impropriety??? of killing Lebanese or Palestinian civilians, rather than just the propriety of attacking Lebanon in a manner seen as a political and military failure.

The fact is, the Winograd commission???which I presume is the sort of commission you so admire???was critiqued as "deeply flawed" precisely because it "failed to investigate a crucial aspect of the war???the government policies and military strategies that failed to discriminate between the Lebanese civilian population and Hizbullah combatants and between civilian property and infrastructure and military targets." Amnesty International, Winograd Commission disregards Israeli war crimes (1/31/08), http://tinyurl.com/7p773v Your article would be stronger if it named commissions that actually "prove[d] unsparing," or cited sources that support their general "reputation for probity". But it doesn't.

Finally, your parenthetical about "collateral damages" is laughable. The idea that the legality of killing civilians is somehow determined by whether the US public or "the legal community" objects when drones take out Qaeda suspects makes no sense. Is something clearly legal if the US public doesn't object? Does it matter that the Afghan public and legal/political classes objected when, e.g., a US bomb wiped out an entire wedding party, killing 47? That collateral damage has long been accepted in wartime, though likely true, certainly unfortunate and perhaps relevant to customary int???l humanitarian law, ignores the fact that a particular attack may well be illegal if it fails to discriminate between military targets and civilians, or if it violates the principle of proportionality. Like current Israeli attacks on Gaza. But wait... Israel will set up a commission to unsparingly evaluate the legality of those attacks, no?

I guess the reason the plaintiff's are suing in an American Court is because they beleive that it is more probable that they will get justice in an American Court than an Israeli Court.If there is a Statute in the USA that permits bringing such litigation they should go for it.The reasons that a case should be thrown out of a Court is if it does not meet the necesarry legal standards.Throwing a case out because the US Adminstration has behaved in a hypocritical way etc,or that the Defendants country provides for legal redress also is injecting extraneous issues into the matter.

Finally, an article that tells in a clear and informative manner, how to discuss torture without being an apologist for it! Who knew it was possible after the Bush administration? Let's hope it is a sign of the shape of things to come! I will keep an eye out for the writings of this journalist, this article demonstrates real promise of real journalism. Keep it up Tepperman, and keep it up Newsweek!