Inside the Current Issue:

Comments or questions about the site?:
advocate webmaster

This site last updated on:
May 14, 2004

The current issue will be available online within 7 days of printed publication.

Israel’s Assassinations
and the Great Double Standard

William Adler

Amnesty International called it “a war crime.” Tony Blair said, “We condemn [it] just as we condemn all terrorism.” Sweden called it “illegal and disgusting.” King Abdullah of Jordan said it was a “hideous crime.” Ethnic slaughter and slavery in the Sudan? Another mass grave found in Iraq? The violent suppression of protests in China? Sadly, no. The world pays scant attention when thousands are killed (the human mind has trouble grasping it) and those events all blur into each other. But the killing of one man—one terrorist—set off an explosion of vitriol around the world: Abdel Aziz Rantissi, the leader of Hamas.

Rantissi was assassinated less than a month after Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Hamas’ founder, was similarly killed by an Israeli missile strike. Yassin’s death brought about a similar international reaction. In both cases, only the United States refrained from condemning Israel, opting instead for statements recognizing “Israel’s right to self-defense” but calling for “restraint.” The rest of the world rained fire and brimstone on Israel. Although the US vetoed it, the UN Security Council considered a resolution condemning Israel—despite never once having condemned Hamas for its deliberate slaughter of innocent Israelis, and refusing to even mention the terrorist organization by name in the resolution.

This newspaper last month carried an interview with a Hamas “militant,” Jamal Abu Alhija. (Incidentally, were Mohammad Atta and his collaborators “militants”?) It contained so many outright lies that I won’t try to correct them. But what stood out most prominently was Alhija’s seeming acceptance of a peace plan which would return Israel to its 1967 borders. This may not sound odd to the casual reader, since this is essentially what UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 say should happen as part of a negotiated settlement; except that Hamas has never recognized Israel’s right to exist. So naturally this piqued my interest, until I read a bit more closely: Alhija continued by saying “that is a preliminary phase and not a permanent solution… One day, they should return our lands” (emphasis added). To interpret, Alhija means that he can only accept an Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 borders as an interim step towards his actual goal, which is the destruction of Israel altogether.
Now we’ve hit the nub of the issue: Hamas is an organization dedicated to the elimination of a nation; more specifically, to the eradication of all Jews from the Middle East. If you doubt Hamas’ intentions, consider their covenant: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him'" (Article 7). Or if you prefer, listen to Rantissi himself: “By God we will not leave one Jew alive in Palestine” (shown on Al-Jazeera television, June 10, 2003).

What, precisely, is the difference between stopping someone who is about to blow himself up, and stopping another from planning that killing? Why is it acceptable for the US to target Osama bin Laden but unacceptable for Israel to target Sheikh Yassin? These rhetorical questions point to a double standard that is applied to Israel alone. African nations engage in decade-long wars, dictators indiscriminately kill their opponents by the hundreds, China occupies Tibet, Russia ravages Chechnya—and the world is silent. It is not enough to simply shake your head and agree that these too should be condemned, but political exigencies make it difficult, etc., etc. One must recognize the double standard, under which Israel is asked to be more “restrained” than any other nation would be given the same circumstances.

After Yassin’s assassination, Rantissi was asked if he feared an Israeli attempt on his life, to which he replied, “We will all die one day. Nothing will change. If by Apache or by cardiac arrest, I prefer Apache.” He certainly got his wish—if only the new leaders of Hamas, hiding underground, were quite so brave.

William Adler is a student in the PhD program in Political Science