|
Trending Topics
|
Pre-emption, Israeli Style
[Los Angeles Times] Joshua Muravchik - There has been a deafening silence from the international community and especially from the other states of the region in response to the reported Israeli airstrike in Syria on Sep. 6. Their reticence suggests that even though most governments believed this was indeed a blow against Syrian nuclear ambitions, none of them, frankly, were displeased to see it happen. The fact is that virtually every government in the world, regardless of its feelings about Israel, recognizes that a Syrian nuclear weapons program would make the Middle East and the world more dangerous. The right of self-defense has always been understood to include the possibility of pre-emptive self-defense. Hugo Grotius, the 17th century Dutch philosopher who laid the foundations for international law, wrote that "it be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill." The UN's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change acknowledged the argument that "the potential harm from some threats (e.g., terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon) is so great that one simply cannot risk waiting until they become imminent." However, it said that in such cases, the party feeling threatened should bring its concern before the Security Council. But given the UN's bias against Israel, it is hard to counsel Jerusalem to trust the Security Council. Indeed, given the council's historic impotence, few states would be likely to rely on it if they believed their safety was at stake. Israel was condemned by the Security Council in 1981 for bombing Osirik to abort Iraq's nuclear program, but when Saddam Hussein launched wars against Iran and Kuwait, many governments were pleased in retrospect that Israel had pulled some of his fangs. The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.