A preemptive military attack is permitted under international law only if an attack is imminent. Iran has not attacked or threatened Israel, yet Israel initiated a war against Iran. Logically, there is always a possibility that someone might attack you, but this does not grant the right to target anyone at will.
An Infinite Right to Defend Yourself
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The TMI Show" talk show. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
5 Comments. Leave new
Whether the United States, Israel, Gaza, or Iran, the people in power think that more death and devastation is part of the solution. They are wrong. The solution is acknowledging that even the enemy has the right to freedom and security, and then acting accordingly. I hope that the diplomatic at heart continue their efforts despite all the violence.
<3
9/11 changed the whole calculus, it showed that these regimes (and cultures! And peoples!) are deranged, despotic, violent enough that Western Civilization can no longer afford to sit back and wait to be hit and then react
So, hope it was fun Atta et al, you got your shot in, now the game has changed. Look it’s simple: you can scream Death to America, Death to Israel OR you can have nukes, but not both. This isn’t difficult
The good news is that Democrats will end up back in power eventually and the subsequent foreign policy incompetence that comes with it, so that’s something to look forward to?
I apologize if this appears multiple times. The interface has been swallowing my submissions without posting them.
abducens writes> Look it’s simple: you can scream Death to America, Death to Israel OR you can have nukes, but not both. This isn’t difficult
It is all very simple, but my conclusion is the opposite of what you are saying. There are plenty of times where the USA has talked about assassinating the leadership of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc., but you wouldn’t argue that the USA therefore deserved 9/11, right? To prove that USA is the good guys, you’d have to prove that the other guys started this, but that requires going back decades, if not centuries, to place the blame on people many of whom died long ago.
No, the sorry fact is that ALL today’s combatants are all correct when they say they are responding to some atrocity committed by the other side’s combatants in the past, because this tit-for-tat has a long history and nobody’s hands are clean. This cycle of violence will not end unless people can set aside the belief that more violence is the solution. Truth and reconciliation has a much better chance of actually working.
One of the first things a sniper learns? “Don’t shoot to kill. Shoot to injure. Ideally, a gut shot. Why? If you kill someone, you’ve taken out one soldier. You gut shoot him, and one or two of his friends will have to carry him to safety and a lot of resources will be expended to save his life.”
One of the first things a sniper figures out? “If I shoot a civilian, I activate every relative, lover, co-worker, etc., against our side. I’m doing myself no favor. … Unless (hand moves toward pants) it turns out I simply like killing people.”
Are there instances where bombing people cannot be avoided? I suppose so. But that isn’t the real question because the survivors won’t be consulting their volumes of Rousseau, Locke, and Jefferson. The survivors will be listening to an inner monlogue that tells them their sweetie is in little bloody chunks all over the place, and wouldn’t it feel nice to do something horrible about it.