‘When Israel does it, it’s not illegal’
Former US President Richard Nixon once said: “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” So to paraphrase for our case: When Israel does it, that is not illegal. It is even permissible, desirable, necessary and mandatory. After all, we are permitted what others are forbidden.
By Roy Schwartz • Translated by Sol Salbe
Something relatively unusual happened on Friday night: the Israeli political spectrum displayed a broad consensus. The Far Right, the Palin Right, the Centre-Right, the Right-Centre, the Radical Centre, and the Centre-Left were all unanimous. The opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague — that the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal — is invalid, disconnected, one-sided, and the rest of the entire familiar repertoire.
“Tainted by antisemitism and a misunderstanding of the situation on the ground,” Opposition Leader Yair Lapid stated. “Judicilaisation of a political-diplomatic conflict,” complained the head of the National Unity party, Benny Gantz; “The court once again underscored its hypocrisy,” said Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman. It seems that in this case, all the opposition parties’ leaders would have backed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who declared: “The legality of Israeli settlement project cannot be challenged.” In his remarks, with which many in Israel apparently agree, he recalled a statement by a well-known leader from an earlier epoch. This time it’s not the Duke of Wellington or Winston Churchill, but the not-so-popular phrase of former US President Richard Nixon, who said: “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” So to paraphrase for our case: When Israel does it, that is not illegal. It is even permissible, desirable, necessary and mandatory. After all, we are permitted what others are forbidden.
And it’s not just a 57-year Occupation, a violation that has grown over time and allows Israel to keep an entire people under a military dictatorship while claiming to be the victim. It’s reminiscent of José Saramago’s Blindness, Middle East style. Another example is Israel’s actions beyond its borders, according to foreign or local reports, including assassinations, blowing up arms shipments, and so on. It’s elementary. It is preventive deterrence, striking out at the empowerment of our enemies. Not an attack, but a necessary defence. Whether it’s Lebanon and Syria or anywhere else. It is also not limited to times of war, and if it is Israel who carries it out, it is also not grounds for starting a war.
But is it equally legitimate for a Syrian Air Force plane or an Iranian drone to make its way inside Israel’s borders, enter and wreak havoc, perhaps destroy military infrastructure and accidentally kill civilians? Come on, what’s the logic of that? Obviously they shouldn’t; This is a violation of sovereignty, a proper casus belli for starting a war. We might even find something in international law that prohibits this.
And what about the assassination of an arch-terrorist in Gaza, one with a lot of blood on their hands, a person whose demise was warranted and whose name has been striking fear here for years? And anyway, it’s a war now. Clearly, this is an action that is not only logical, but also necessary. And who knows, maybe it will also bolster our deterrence. True, a few dozen innocent people who, as luck would have it, fled to a humanitarian zone delineated as such by Israel, might be killed. But what if the situation is reversed? If an Israeli general who came up with an attack plan in which many innocent people, including the elderly and children, were killed, though some unfortunate error? What if they were attacked at home, or even at their army base? Is this permissible by the Israeli war game rules? Is this an escalation?
What if this is not a general but a serial killer against whom a lot of evidence has accumulated, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they will strike out again soon? Suppose this murderer lives in a high-rise building in the heart of a Jewish city, and assassinating them could take a toll on their Jewish neighbours, even their lives. Is this still something worth considering?
Obviously, this is a rhetorical question; The Jew has an absolute right to life, he is also the one who sets the laws.
