Israel has a long established policy of assassinating individuals who present some sort of opposition to the existence of Israel, there is no denial of this. The question however is, is this legal? Is this acceptable? Should it be done?
Legally the argument can swing both ways, but the general consensus seems to be that assassination is illegal under international law. I gathered some interesting sources for this matter below. I believe it's illegal, but I believe this does not particularily matter to Israel.

An oldie but a goodie:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/se...isra-s07.shtml
Good general summary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1258187.stm

The UN disapproves:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...=palestin&Cr1=

But (more importantly) the US approves:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0323-11.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle5957.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/isr-a10.shtml

The UN Charter says:
And the UN Charter also says:
The Fourth Geneva Convention also frowns upon this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/REI403B.html
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/e...8?OpenDocument

PS: I would have posted this in the Middle East section, but that place sees as much action as a graveyard.

I see that all the thing Israel does is assasination. It hehaves as is ti were in another world, the world of animals. I was really shocked when I saw the assasination of that old man called Ahmed Yassin, the handicapped leader of Hamas. Note that the operaton came in a time when wanted to withdraw from Gaza. It wanted to say that it does not listen to the words of any body "I'll withdray with my own will not the will of any others event the will of International Law of Security Council"
Can this be a good country???????????

The policy of assassinations is the outgrowth of the fact that the Israelis and Palestineans would like to fight a war, but can't: the Palestineans because they know they don't have the military strength and the Israelis because of world (read U.S.) condemnation. The Palestineans have increasingly resorted to indiscriminate terror attacks (and why is it bad when Al-Qaeda does this and not when Hamas does this?) and the Israelis to what are effectively discriminate terror attacks (assassinations that usually take a few bystanders along with the target). If you must deplore one, deplore both.

As for the kindly, disabled leader of Hamas, he also loved children and was fond of charitable works. But to be fair to Israel, he preached a fundamentalist Islamic view of the world and asked his followers to wipe the Zionist from the face of Palestine (and there's no Israel in his world view) and his followers have carried out more suicide bombings then any other group in the world. if Osama bin Laden is discovered to be in a wheelchair, I don't think the U.S. woul declare an attack on him unthinkable.

True. When the Jews first began to immigrate into the area in the early 1900's, there was not much of an argument. But as anti-semetism grew in all of Europe in the 1920's and 1930's and as more and more Jews migrated to Palestine, the Palestinians decided they didn't won't Jews there. They saw them as becomming too powerful and began to view them as a threat. It was the Palestinians who began the attacks on Jews. And then Jews responded. And have been "responding" ever since. The British were in charge of all of it at the time, and pretty much mucked the whole thing up.

The British Administration served itself well, CYA, or Cover Your Ass. They maintained the conflict so that it would not explode during their stay, but rather after the mandate had been ended.

The fundamental issue began from designating a Jewish state in Palestine, based on a 2000 year old claim. (This plea came from European Jews, not the local Jews who had actually stayed in Palestine the who time) Be that as it may, so began the chain of events which have lead to today. No one side is to be completely blamed for the starting of this, both sides had their hands in it.

BTW: There were also numerous Jewish militants who performed terrorist attacks and sabotage against the British administration. This fact is quitely neglected.

Surely assassination is terrorism in itself?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

The central issue to me is that Sharon intentially provoked the current round of violence, something that most of the media and a majority of voters in Israel have conveniently forgotten. Remember too that Israeli prime ministers have not been immune to assassination at the hands of radical zionists. Mr. Rabin assination effectively led to the assumption of power by the right wing Likud.

Sharon should have been taken before the war crimes tribunal in the Hague for his role in the massacre at the Lebanese refugee camps be the Christian Phalangist militias. He knowingly allowed it to happen. At the very least the US should have withheld any support for Israel after Sharon was elected, and particularly after he quite publically provoded the current violence. Supporting a butcher like Sharon is an indefensible position for the US.

That said, were I the chief executive of a nation, I would not blink before taking out a guerrilla commander that was behind terror attacks, regardless of his health or location. The difference is, I would not have provoked the situation in the first place.

John McCain made an excellent point on Sunday. In response to a question regarding whether it is right to not allow photographs of the coffins at Dover AFB, he indicated that similar shielding of the citizens of the participating countries during WWI significantly contributed to the rise of fascism and to WWII. We know that the rise of fascism, and subsequent persecution of European jews and post-war disposition of Palestine is largely responsible for the current standoff between the Palestinians and Israelis.

We are wise to consider the unintended consequences before we act.

oc

We have already seen that Israel totally disregards the UN almost as if it isn't there.

But frankly, if killing terrorist leaders is unlawful, then :finger: the law.

__________________
Walk down the right back alley in Sin City and you can find anything...

Show your kids you love them by buying them the No. 7 brand.

The Jenin Massacre is a good example of the hypocrisy of the Israeli government.

If that wasn't state sponsored terrorism I don't know what is.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

I really do feel for the Palestinian people, but I also feel for the Israelis as well.

The streets are littered with bodies of innocents on both side of the fence.

I know it's wishful thinking and not the way that the fundamentalists do things, but imagine what would happen if the Palestinians didn't throw rocks, or lob grenades or use suicide bombers, but rather sat peacefully in front of the Israeli tanks.
It'd be like Tian An Men Square.
The Israeli army would surely run them down, but maybe the world would be more sympathetic to their cause.
I don't see how those that aren't radical fundamentalists can relate to anyone who would send their children off as suicide bombers.
But as long as they use terrorist tactics, I don't see people rallying to the Palestinian cause.
It's a difficult situation, because while they are victims, they aren't innocent either.

__________________
"No ba$tard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other poor dumb bastards die for his country."
-General George S. Patton

Your right, it isn't the central issue. But the long term Israeli policy of conducting assassinations is an aggravating factor in this conflict, like it or not. I find it rather interesting that Israel still openly conducts and defends these 'clear' (IMO) violations of international law it supposedly follows.

No-one to defend Israel's actions? With all the conservatives on this board frankly I'm shocked.