Trusting The ‘International Community’ Israel, Iran And The Begin Doctrine (Conclusion)
Latest update: January 10th, 2013
print
tell a friend
It is essential today, that the Begin Doctrine be reinvigorated and declared. Now, just as during the Second World War, Jews face the threat of mass murder because of nuclear weapons. Now, however, the danger is not that these weapons will be used by a genocidal state against other states to acquire physical custody over Jewish bodies. Instead, it is directed against that single state which was expressly created for the eternal protection of these Jewish bodies.
The particular nuclear danger to Jews is even greater today than during World War II; that is, it looms even more menacingly over those Jews who live in Israel. Logistically, with the concentration of more than five million Jews within a state that is the size of New Jersey, genocide has now become a much simpler operational task. In an unspeakable irony, the Zionist solution to what Theodore Herzl called the “Jewish Problem” could soon make what Hitler called the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” much easier. This fact is not lost upon elements of the Arab/Islamic world, who cite to it regularly in theological justification for their planned war of Jewish extermination.
Routinely, we know all too well, Israel comes under international pressure to dismantle and renounce its still undeclared nuclear weapons capacity. In the name of “fairness”, dozens of countries, including virtually all Arab/Islamic states and certain others in Europe, insistently demand that Washington push Israel to accept a regional “nuclear weapon free-zone.” Significantly, any future Israeli move to comply with such sinister or naive pressure would effectively assure Israel’s explosive disappearance. Heeding the international community on such a demand, Israel would hammer in the last nail on its own coffin.
International law is not a suicide pact. From the standpoint of criminal intent, Israel cannot possibly be compared to Iran or to various Arab and certain other Islamic states, whose only true rationale for weapons of mass destruction vis-à-vis Israel is manifest aggression and total war. It is plain that Israel’s nuclear weapons exist only for national survival and self-protection, and that these weapons – which have never been flaunted, brandished or even acknowledged – would be used only in reprisal and only for survival. Significantly, the use of nuclear weapons for national survival could be entirely permissible in certain circumstances that were identified by the International Court of Justice on July 8, 1996.
In that authoritative Advisory Opinion (“The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”), the Court ruled as follows: “The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”
International law cannot be properly judged and juried by journalists, pundits and television commentators. Rather, it is a complex and detailed jurisprudence that requires real learning. Like medicine, engineering or architecture, it is necessarily constructed upon a highly generalized system of theory and concepts that mandates careful study, evaluation and interpretation.
Faced with the newest form of organized Jewish extinction, Israel’s leaders should now remind the world with full confidence that the “Begin Doctrine” is still consistent with the established right of anticipatory self-defense under international law. Following such an appropriate legal reminder, they should also make prompt preparations to prevent a looming Jewish disappearance by implementing a number of established military strategies, including comprehensive plans for the preemptive destruction of various Iranian nuclear and/or biological targets and infrastructures. Other coordinated and corollary Israeli efforts must be directed at particular Iranian regime targets, ranging from pertinent national leadership elites to those individual scientists in different parts of the globe who now fashion or prepare to fashion biological and nuclear weapons for exclusively genocidal purposes.
The defensive killing of enemy scientists making mega-weapons for dangerous regimes to murder noncombatants is assuredly not an unprecedented practice by Israeli or American operatives. Nor, by any means, is it patently a violation of international law. Similar Israeli/American tactics of “targeted killings” must remain firmly in place against certain terrorist leaders, and should also quickly be extended and expanded to any such leaders with documented and identifiable plans to create nuclear or certain biological weapons of mass destruction.
If European Jewish leaders in the months before September 1, 1939 had known the precise identities of German scientists and industrialists who were then designing and constructing gas chambers for Jews, would it have been wrong for these murderers to be preemptively targeted? Should we assume that the blood of would-be “genociders” is redder than that of utterly innocent and defenseless civilians? Instructively, for current and future reference, we already know the position of the international community before 1939. Glib archeologists of ruins-in-the-making, this community – whether for reasons of sheer evil or simply on account of docility – can always be counted upon for error. Steadfastly, and gazing indifferently over history’s already-gathered mountains of corpses, it is always poised smugly for surrender.
During World War II, a number of Arab leaders went directly to Berlin to meet with Hitler. There they enthusiastically offered their own armed forces to extend the European annihilation of Jews to portions of the Islamic Middle East. At that time the Allies did everything possible to prevent the wartime nuclearization of Germany and, very successfully – at least for that moment – to create a nuclear monopoly for the United States. Today, aware that it cannot possibly permit Iran to acquire authentic weapons of mass destruction, Israel must finally acknowledge the infirmities of the international community, and act accordingly.
At this very moment the terrorists of Hamas are slaughtering the terrorists of Fatah in Gaza. Nonetheless, it is to such unreconstructed devotees of ritual slaughter that the international community demands Israel surrender even more Jewish land. What is perhaps most stunning of all is that one Jewish prime minister after another has capitulated to these demands for auto-destruction, the latest example being Prime Minister Olmert’s plan to trade the Golan for “peace” with Syria. “Credo quia absurdum. I believe because it is absurd.”
For Israel, “disengagement” has been an unforgivable crime. Even today, in parts of Samaria, police and IDF units are deployed to keep Jews off Jewish lands. Harking to the endlessly false promises of an international community, the present prime minister – in the fashion of several of his equally misguided predecessors – confuses surrender with diplomacy.
There can be no authentic diplomacy with an enemy that seeks only Israel’s annihilation. Reciprocally, there should be no Jewish respect for an international community that cares vastly more for the prospective Iranian murderers than for the prospective Israeli victims. It is certainly true that substantial numbers of innocent Iranians could die in any Israeli preemptive strikes implementing anticipatory self-defense, but these deaths would be the result of Iranian “perfidy” – a codified crime under international law.Pursuant to both customary and conventional norms, all legal responsibility for these noncombatant fatalities occasioned by cynical Iranian use of “human shields” would fall directly upon the shoulders of the perfidious regime in Tehran, not upon Jerusalem.
Copyright The Jewish Press, July 6, 2007. All rights reserved.
LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.
tell a friendAbout the Author: Louis René Beres, strategic and military affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is professor of Political Science at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law and is the author of ten major books in the field. In Israel, Professor Beres was chair of Project Daniel.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
Loading ...