International Community Can't Understand Why Israel is Unwilling to Let Palestinians Violate International Agreements
Four years ago, Palestinian terrorists from the PFLP - apparently having concluded that mass murder wasn't sufficient to demonstrate their lack of humanity - decided to cross all red lines and assassinate Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi. Murdering children was something that the world had kind of come to expect from Palestinian terrorists, but murdering sitting government officials was somehow still shocking. Prime Minister Sharon and the rest of the Israeli establishment predictably went ballistic and promised to bring the Palestinian terrorists to justice, at which point the oh so brave warriors ran and hid behind Yasser Arafat's skirts in his Muquta compound (Jimmy Carter on Arafat's death: "father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement... powerful human symbol and forceful advocate... instrumental in forging... peace"). At some point Israel realized that it was either going to have to invade Arafat's compound or reach a compromise that stopped short of letting the PFLP terrorists go free. The IDF wasn't so hot on starting a regional war by invading Arafat's compound, so a deal was worked out to keep the terrorists in a Palestinian prison under US and British watch.
Israel promised not to go after the terrorists as long as the Palestinians promised to keep them "locked up" (if sitting around a table laughing and playing board games counts as being "locked up", which apparently it does). Then this happened:
After winning the Palestinian Legislative Council elections on January 25, Hamas leaders insisted they wanted to release Saadat, and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said last week he would not oppose freeing the six men.
Everyone is quite used to the Palestinian Authority (especially its new "militant wing") abrogating their agreements - there's the always palpable sense that the Palestinians are just playing at being grown-ups - that at any time they might throw a temper tantrum and call the game off.
The Oslo Accords under which Israel gave them land, weapons, and money? No longer binding...
International laws that prohibit the military use of hospitals, ambulances, and churches? What do you expect from terrorists...
Agreements meant to limit the movements of terrorists and weapons? No one expected the Palestinians to even pretend to obey them...
But even in their willful violation of international law and humanitarian standards usually the Palestinians are smart enough to make sure that half of them are hinting at keeping their obligations while the other half are threatening open war (which often actually happens on the same day). In this case, even "moderate" Palestinians like Abbas were saying that this whole "international agreement to keep criminals locked up" thing isn't something they're going to follow. So the American and British monitors packed up and left, and the murderers of Rehavam Ze'evi were about to be let go - again, in direct violation of presumably binding promises that had been made to Israel by British, American, and Palestinian officials:
Last Wednesday, the British and American consuls in Jerusalem sent a letter to Abbas informing him that they were canceling the 2002 agreement. The Palestinian Authority never fully implemented the agreement, the consuls charged; it "consistently failed to comply with core provisions of the Jericho monitoring arrangements regarding visitors, cell searches, telephone access and correspondence. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority has failed to provide secure conditions for the US and UK personnel working at the Jericho Prison."
So Israel, again having given up its right to protect its citizens in exchange for worthless agreements, again sent its own soldiers into harms way to accomplish what had already been accomplished four years ago - the neutralization of Palestinian gunmen and the eminent capture of Ze'evi's killers. The IDF surrounded the prison and battled the prisoners - who had somehow managed to find their way into the prison's well-stocked armory (how'd that happen?) Eventually, the prisoners surrendered.
So of course, the United Nations would blame Israel for triggering a cycle of violence:
Top UN officials, meanwhile, warned that the latest violence in the West Bank only heightened tensions in the region and urged both sides to defuse the crisis. "Israel's violent incursion - as well as the Palestinian actions carried out in response - risk destabilizing even further the already tense situation in the Middle East," Ibrahim Gambari, the UN undersecretary-general for political affairs, told the Security Council in an emergency meeting on Tuesday... The Palestinian observer to the UN, Riyad Mansour, urged tougher council action, saying that Israel was violating international law and the Security Council should hold it accountable... [EU] External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner also criticized Israel's raid. "Israel is in an election campaign but at the same time I think we have to condemn this action by Israel," she told reporters after meeting Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Strasbourg.
We've discussed Rules #1 and #2 of international law (Rule #1: Israel gives up more than it gets, Rule #2: No one expects Israel's enemies to actually keep their agreements). You can now add Rule #3: When Israel's enemies violate their agreements and Israel responds, Israel is the one accused of violating international law. Rule #3 turns out to be true even when Israel is only doing what it would have legally been allowed to do immediately after the initial crime anyway - in this case, go after criminals. And so we have the old cycle:
(1) Palestinian terrorists commit an atrocity
(2) Israel threatens some sort of action that everyone is pretty sure is justified
(3) The Palestinians promise to punish the terrorists
(4) Israel agrees to the promise and backs off
(5) The Palestinians violate their agreement
(6) Israel does the action that they would have done in the first place, had not the Palestinians lied to buy time for the terrorists
(7) The world condemns the Israeli "aggression".
Israel promised not to go after the terrorists as long as the Palestinians promised to keep them "locked up" (if sitting around a table laughing and playing board games counts as being "locked up", which apparently it does). Then this happened:
After winning the Palestinian Legislative Council elections on January 25, Hamas leaders insisted they wanted to release Saadat, and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said last week he would not oppose freeing the six men.
Everyone is quite used to the Palestinian Authority (especially its new "militant wing") abrogating their agreements - there's the always palpable sense that the Palestinians are just playing at being grown-ups - that at any time they might throw a temper tantrum and call the game off.
The Oslo Accords under which Israel gave them land, weapons, and money? No longer binding...
International laws that prohibit the military use of hospitals, ambulances, and churches? What do you expect from terrorists...
Agreements meant to limit the movements of terrorists and weapons? No one expected the Palestinians to even pretend to obey them...
But even in their willful violation of international law and humanitarian standards usually the Palestinians are smart enough to make sure that half of them are hinting at keeping their obligations while the other half are threatening open war (which often actually happens on the same day). In this case, even "moderate" Palestinians like Abbas were saying that this whole "international agreement to keep criminals locked up" thing isn't something they're going to follow. So the American and British monitors packed up and left, and the murderers of Rehavam Ze'evi were about to be let go - again, in direct violation of presumably binding promises that had been made to Israel by British, American, and Palestinian officials:
Last Wednesday, the British and American consuls in Jerusalem sent a letter to Abbas informing him that they were canceling the 2002 agreement. The Palestinian Authority never fully implemented the agreement, the consuls charged; it "consistently failed to comply with core provisions of the Jericho monitoring arrangements regarding visitors, cell searches, telephone access and correspondence. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority has failed to provide secure conditions for the US and UK personnel working at the Jericho Prison."
So Israel, again having given up its right to protect its citizens in exchange for worthless agreements, again sent its own soldiers into harms way to accomplish what had already been accomplished four years ago - the neutralization of Palestinian gunmen and the eminent capture of Ze'evi's killers. The IDF surrounded the prison and battled the prisoners - who had somehow managed to find their way into the prison's well-stocked armory (how'd that happen?) Eventually, the prisoners surrendered.
So of course, the United Nations would blame Israel for triggering a cycle of violence:
Top UN officials, meanwhile, warned that the latest violence in the West Bank only heightened tensions in the region and urged both sides to defuse the crisis. "Israel's violent incursion - as well as the Palestinian actions carried out in response - risk destabilizing even further the already tense situation in the Middle East," Ibrahim Gambari, the UN undersecretary-general for political affairs, told the Security Council in an emergency meeting on Tuesday... The Palestinian observer to the UN, Riyad Mansour, urged tougher council action, saying that Israel was violating international law and the Security Council should hold it accountable... [EU] External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner also criticized Israel's raid. "Israel is in an election campaign but at the same time I think we have to condemn this action by Israel," she told reporters after meeting Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Strasbourg.
We've discussed Rules #1 and #2 of international law (Rule #1: Israel gives up more than it gets, Rule #2: No one expects Israel's enemies to actually keep their agreements). You can now add Rule #3: When Israel's enemies violate their agreements and Israel responds, Israel is the one accused of violating international law. Rule #3 turns out to be true even when Israel is only doing what it would have legally been allowed to do immediately after the initial crime anyway - in this case, go after criminals. And so we have the old cycle:
(1) Palestinian terrorists commit an atrocity
(2) Israel threatens some sort of action that everyone is pretty sure is justified
(3) The Palestinians promise to punish the terrorists
(4) Israel agrees to the promise and backs off
(5) The Palestinians violate their agreement
(6) Israel does the action that they would have done in the first place, had not the Palestinians lied to buy time for the terrorists
(7) The world condemns the Israeli "aggression".
