Europe is in full blubber mode this morning:
There is an air of frustration and deep concern inside European Union headquarters in Brussels following the Israeli helicopter missile strike that killed Sheikh Yassin outside a Gaza mosque.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters that Israel has a right to defend itself, but only within the boundaries of international law.
“All of us understand Israel’s need to defend itself, and it is fully entitled to do that against the terrorism which affects it within international law,” said Mr. Straw. “But it is not entitled to go for this kind of unlawful killing, and we therefore condemn it. It is unacceptable. It is unjustified. And it is very unlikely to achieve its objectives.”
It’s a minor thing, but there is no mechanism within international law to go after terrorism. The international law surrounding terrorism is still being written. And even if there was a law under which Yassin could have been tried – how would Israel have gone in and gotten him? They would have had to reinvade the Gaza Strip which would have caused (wait for it…) frustration and deep concern inside the European Union and violated international law. Asking Israel to only pursue terrorists within the context of international law is asking Israel not to pursue terrorists.
Oh, and screw France:
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Sheikh Yassin’s assassination can only set back the so-called Middle East peace process by fueling the spiral of violence.
Because the peace process was doing splendidly before this.
UPDATE: More evidence that obsessively focusing on international law and treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue causes horrific future attacks:
Al Qaeda’s [bombed] the billion-dollar U.S. destroyer… the State Department’s Michael Sheehan agreed this almost certainly was bin Laden’s doing, but the FBI and CIA representatives wanted more investigation…
Atty. Gen. Reno, told by the FBI that the terrorists were still unidentified, argued that retaliation violated international law… Secretary of State Albright is quoted as saying that with renewed Israeli-Palestinian fighting, “bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time.” (Albright later told Miniter she would have taken a different position if she had “definitive” proof of bin Laden’s involvement.)
ANOTHER UPDATE: Barry Rubin puts an end to this international law stupidity:
In defending itself during the last three years, Israel has had to deal with the fact that its situation is a very unusual one and hence hard for others to understand. International law is premised on the existence of authorities willing to enforce it. What does a country do if its neighbor not only refuses to stop or arrest terrorists attacking it on a daily basis but actually encourages and supports them? There is no alternative to direct action against such a safe haven.
Equally, international diplomacy generally assumes that any dispute is ultimately resolvable through compromise and negotiation. What does a country do when the other side Related Mere Rhetoric Posts:
