“Preemptive self-defense,” O’Connell writes, “is clearly unlawful under international law.” She explains, “The right of self-defense is limited to the right to use force to repel an attack in progress, to prevent future enemy attacks following an initial attack, or to reverse the consequences of an enemy attack, such as ending an occupation” and also points out that “the United States as a government has consistently supported the prohibition on such preemptive use of force.” O’Connell continues, “the reality is that the United States has no right to use force to prevent possible, as distinct from actual, armed attacks. The further reality is that the United States does not advance its security or its moral standing in the world by doing so.” Throughout her paper, O’Connell stresses that all nations are bound by these same rules.
Though O’Connell was writing in anticipation of an unprovoked US attack on Iraq, the parallels to the current American and Israeli bellicosity toward Iran are obvious and identically relevant. “There is no self-appointed right to attack another state because of fear that the state is making plans or developing weapons usable in a hypothetical campaign,” she states, elaborating that “a state may not take military action against another state when an attack is only a hypothetical possibility, and not yet in progress—even in the case of weapons of mass destruction” since even “possession of such weapons without more does not amount to an armed attack.”
In her eerily prescient analysis, published eight months before the US bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq, O’Connell suggests that “if an official argument is given at all for an invasion of Iraq, it is likely to be ‘preemptive self-defense'”, and continues:
The preemptive use of military force would establish a precedent that the United States has worked against since 1945. Preemptive self-defense would provide legal justification for Pakistan to attack India, for Iran to attack Iraq, for Russia to attack Georgia, for Azerbaijan to attack Armenia, for North Korea to attack South Korea, and so on. Any state that believes another regime poses a possible future threat— regardless of the evidence — could cite the United States invasion of Iraq.
O’Connell even uses the specific example of the Israeli destruction of Iraq’s Osirak facility to prove her point. “Many representatives were impressed by the testimony of the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency who testified that the IAEA had found no evidence of unlawful weapons development by the Iraqi government,” she writes. “Not only did the IAEA find no diversion of nuclear material, but Israel put forward no evidence that an attack was imminent, let alone underway.” With regard to the legality of such an unprovoked assault, she determines, “Permitting preemptive self-defense at the sole discretion of a state is fundamentally at odds with the [United Nations] Charter’s design.”
In defending Israel’s “right” to commit what the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg described as “the supreme international crime” – namely, the willful initiation of a “war of aggression” – against Iran, Dershowitz also ignores the salient fact that the consequence of the Israeli bombing of Osirak was actually exactly the opposite of the stated goal of the operation. It was only after the Israeli attack that Iraq embarked on a nuclear weapons program.
The claims of Alan Dershowitz, in addition to being factually incorrect, legally unjustifiable and morally indefensible, are wholly unoriginal. Nuclear proliferation experts Leonard S. Spector and Avner Cohen, writing in the July/August 2008 edition of Arms Control Today, reveal that two days after the strike, “in a dramatic press conference in Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin took full responsibility for the operation, praised its execution as extraordinary, and justified it both on moral and legal grounds. Begin referred to the strike as an act of “anticipatory self-defense at its best.”
Mary Ellen O’Connell defines “anticipatory self-defense” as “armed responses to attacks that are on the brink of launch, or where an enemy attack has already occurred and the victim learns more attacks are planned.” Clearly, as Israel was in no imminent danger of being attacked in 1981 by Iraqi nuclear weapons which didn’t exist, Begin’s triumphant boast was nothing more than a propagandistic lie. The neoconservative, AIPAC-driven rhetoric, echoed consistently by Dershowitz, warning of the existential threat now posed to Israel by Iran is an updated example of this very same falsehood.
Spector and Cohen continue:
The message that Begin conveyed was that the raid on Osiraq was not a one-time operation but rather a long-term national commitment. He ended his press conference with these dramatic words:
We chose this moment: now, not later, because later may be too late, perhaps forever. And if we stood by idly, two, three years, at the most four years, and Saddam Hussein would have produced his three, four, five bombs.… Then, this country and this people would have been lost, after the Holocaust. Another Holocaust would have happened in the history of the Jewish people. Never again, never again! Tell so your friends, tell anyone you meet, we shall defend our people with all the means at our disposal. We shall not allow any enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction turned against us.
A few days later, in a CBS News television interview, Begin reiterated this doctrinal point: “This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel.… [E]very future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way.” (emphasis added)
The countdown to an imaginary Iraqi and Iranian nuclear bomb is a three-decade-old staple of Israeli and American fear-mongering. Naturally, the exploitation of Holocaust analogies and endless Hitler comparisons is all part of the routine, along with ad nauseum repetitions of long-debunked mistranslations of cartographic proportions.
In April 2010, Dershowitz, after following the lead of George W. Bush by accusing Obama of “appeasement”, fulminated that, even if “the United States is prepared to accept a nuclear Iran…it has no right to require Israel to accept the risks posed by a nuclear armed country that has overtly threatened its destruction.” He continued, “Every country in the world has the inherent right to protect its citizens from a nuclear attack. Israel, a nation that Obama has himself acknowledged was built on the ashes of one Holocaust, certainly has the right to take military action to prevent a second Holocaust, especially at the hands of a country that has explicitly threatened to wipe it off the map.”
Still, Dershowitz wasn’t finished:
The world ignored the explicit threats of one tyrant who threatened to destroy the Jewish people in the 1930s, and he nearly succeeded in the 1940s. Israel cannot be expected to ignore Hitler’s successor, who while denying the first Holocaust, threatens a second one.
Dershowitz’s own usage of Menachem Begin’s “Never Again” nonsense should come as no surprise considering The Dersh’s obvious affinity for plagiarizing propaganda.
It is no wonder that Dershowitz treats the Osirak attack as a successful and necessary mission to be emulated, if not overtly duplicated, with regard to Iran. The reason is that Israel never pays a price for its constant contravention of international law, denial of human rights, and indifference to, if not outright contempt for, any human life that doesn’t fully support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, colonization, occupation, and institutionalized racism and discrimination against a displaced, dispossessed, devastated and demonized indigenous population.
Clearly, Israel has never followed through with its obligations as determined by the UN Security Council in 1981 and has continued to act aggressively and criminally ever since, with complete impunity and diplomatic protection from its superpower patron. The supposed “moral right” Dershowitz ascribes to an unprovoked and illegal Israeli attack on Iran – a sovereign nation of nearly 74 million people whose government consistently declares it has no intention of building a nuclear weapon or starting a war against the region’s strongest military – isn’t even worth discussing.
With his noxious comments in Tel Aviv, as with most everything else he says, writes, and does, Alan Dershowitz has once again revealed himself to be incapable of telling the truth or demonstrating even the most basic elements of reason or humanity in his obsessive determination to defend, and in this case encourage new, Israeli war crimes.
The author left off: “prolific racist” “hate-mongering Islamophobe” and “epic hypocrite.”
A former scholar who has let his obscene passions overwhelm him and out him as a pathetic bigot.
Dershowitz, is realistic. This article is loaded with misrepresentations, and venom. Dershowitz is not wrong on Israel’s right to defend herself from the evil axis, Iran Ayatollahs, and the Jishadist everywhre. Dershowitz is right on target. See this link and understand what this author,Nima Shirazi, is defending: “Death to America” chants in Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4
And this recent Dec. 15, 2011 video:
Jordanian Sheik Nader Tamimi, Mufti of the Palestinian Liberation Army, to the West: We Will Restore the Caliphate and You Will Pay the Jizya “or Else We Will Bring the Sword to Your Necks”
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3238.htm
Hamid, please illustrate a single “misrepresentation” from Mr. Shirazi’s article.
In short Mr. Hammond,
This article does not have only a slew of misrepresentations and falsehoods but also is out of context and misleading. It also shows a vicious intention to demolish Dershowitz because one of his expertises is criminal defense and criminal defendants thus sought his advice. Dershowitz in all the cases cited by Shirazi was hired as a consultant not as their attorney. And he has never “worked tirelessly” to defend real criminals or child rape. Adolf Eichman too had Robert Servatius as his defense lawyer. All the prosecuted neo-Naziz in Canada found in Doug Christie a very effective defense lawyer. Why doesn’t Shiraz blame Christie and Servatius for defending obvious criminals? By focusing on Dershowitz, Shiraz shows his naked bias, which surely weakens his case, if he ever had one.
However, this whole false characterization of Dershowitz have nothing to do with the statement of Dershowitz regarding Israel’s legal, moral and political right to defend her citizens from vicious mad men, killers/terrorist Hamas/Hizaballah proxies of Iran who for years openly proclaim statements that their goal is to ‘wipe Israel of the Map’ conveniently omitting the fact that these terrorists hide behind children, old man and women and stoop to barbarism.
Further this statement “one can simply read his justifications for the murder of civilians, as long as they’re Arabs and/or Muslims.” is false. Check Shirazi’s own citation. And to cite the Dersh, is beyond the pale! And “preemptive attack” is legal, only logical and has always been so. Who is in the right mind would wait for an enemy to attack knowing so? You? On “preemptive strikes” Shiraz doesn’t know what he is talking about. There is a customary right of “anticipatory self-defense” under international law. This goes well beyond Article 51 of the UN Charter and finds its sources in the 17th and 18th century, with the words of Hugo Grotius and Emmerich de Vatel. Article 51 of the UN Charter does not overrise the customary rights of anticipatory self-defense. With the advent of nuclear threats and Islamic terrorism, anticipatory self-defense has a far greater importance now than it had then because, simply stated, “international law is not a suicidal pact” in the words of Louis René Beres.
In addition, while it is true that the world raised hell when the Israelis erased the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq, the author fails to mention that when the smoke evaporated and a few years later, the world couldn’t have enough good words to thank the Israelis for doing so including rational, kind, informed and peaceful Arabs and or Muslims!
I would note that one can only deduce that it is apt to call Shirazi’s diatribe and it seems this website too: “The Warped Morality of Warmongers” since what he et al herein do is precisely defend terrorism and hatred. Lumped in the same hornet’s nest with Richard Falk and others, you lose all credibility.
Anybody who’s walking on clouds is apt to be carried away. — Franklin P. Jones (1906-????)
AND ONE CAN SAY a lot MORE, BUT THIS WILL SUFFICE. Indeed as long as Shirazi uses fake references about Dershowitz, it is not worth the time and attention of anyone who cares for truth and peace.
Peace,
Hamid, while charging Mr. Shirazi with misrepresentations, you are guilty with quite a lot of your own. Israel has a right to self-defense. It does not have a right to violate international law and international humanitarian law, to commit aggression and war crimes, to collectively punish an entire civilian population, etc. You misrepresent Israel’s criminal actions as “self-defense”. As for Iran, the “wipe Israel off the map” claim is a fabrication of Western media propaganda. Mr. Shirazi’s comments on the so-called “preemptive” warfare are right on, and it’s actually you who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. There is no right to “anticipatory” self-defense. There is a right to self-defense against armed attack, period. This so-called “preemptive” war, actually “preventive” war, is merely a euphemism for “aggression”, “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within it the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined at Nuremberg. Applied to the example, Israel has no “right” to bomb Iran, which is not threatening Israel with armed attack. On Osirak, you’re wrong there, too. It was as a direct consequence of that act of aggression that was in violation of international law and undermined the NPT regime that Iraq determined to move its program “underground”, so to speak, and try to develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to any further such acts of aggression.
Your denial of the evidence [Ahmadinejad calling for “wiping Israel of the map”] and your continued shifting from issue to issue show that you are incapable of sustaining any serious conversation on ANY TOPIC.
See Associated Press:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q
And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9zcElqetqk&skipcontrinter=1
See also New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html
It’s a fabrication.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/26/turning-back-from-the-point-of-no-return/
You know, repeating lies over and over doesn’t make them true.
Mr. Hammmond:
You wrote: “You know, repeating lies over and over doesn’t make them true.”
Do look deep in the mirror.
Farewell,
Mr. Hammmond:
You wrote: “You know, repeating lies over and over doesn’t make them true.”
Do look deep in the mirror.
Farewell,
Mr. Hammmond:
You wrote: “You know, repeating lies over and over doesn’t make them true.”
Do look deep in the mirror.
Farewell,
Whoops! Looks like the troll who’s been hitting up multiple sites that have posted this article of mine accidentally revealed himself as a phony by posting the same comment under different Iranian sounding names in short succession (y’know, for “authenticity”). Hilarious.
Incidentally, I have already responded to this troll’s comments over at <Media With Conscience.
No need to repeat them here.
Shirazi, the phoney and vacuous person here is you. It is not about the name but the content of you false and hateful article. And get real!
This is not about the name, Right or Left, but about integrity, reality and facts, that which you severely lack thus resort to triviality and sources that have legs or substance. Worse, you also choose to remain in denial because of the hatred in you that eclipses rationality and become blind, deaf and dumb.
See these video’s again and again. Use a magnifying glass if you can’t seed. But I am afraid that even if truth hits you in the head, you still will not get it!
See Videos:
Nima Shirazi, is defending: “Death to America” chants in Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4
And this recent Dec. 15, 2011 video:
Jordanian Sheik Nader Tamimi, Mufti of the Palestinian Liberation Army, to the West: We Will Restore the Caliphate and You Will Pay the Jizya “or Else We Will Bring the Sword to Your Necks”
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3238.htm
In addition, let it be known that I give infinitely more credence to a single paragraph written by professor Louis René Beres and any of the listed Board members of MEMRI than to the verbal diarrhea generated by Shirazi. The French have a name for the likes of Shirazi: they use to call them chieurs d’encre, quite appropriately.
Hamid, if you would like to challenge Nima’s argument on the basis of fact and logic, you are welcome to do so. I notice you haven’t.
Thank you for your invitation to continue this debate but I am afraid there is no point in doing so as both of you deny the evidence, facts, and lack simple common sense! To say that anyone is “enthusiastic” about torture is reflective of Shirazi sick mind.
So long,
To deny that there are people in America–Dick Cheney, for example–who are enthusiastic about torture is pretty ignorant. I’d observe that once again rather than addressing any facts or logic, you merely employ ad hominem argumentation. I invite you to be reasonable. If you refuse to be, you’re not welcome here.
Jeremy,
You wrote: “To deny that there are people in America–Dick Cheney, for example–who are enthusiastic about torture is pretty ignorant.”
Do you hear yourself? How can you say such a thing? Are you for real? might it be that you are ‘enthusiastic’ to defame Americans and any reasonable human being? How can any one be “enthusiastic” about torture? And Dick Cheney is never “enthusiastic” about torture, the ignorant here is you!
Hamid, you have got to be kidding.
Correction FOR Shirazi:
This is not about the name, Right or Left, but about integrity, reality and facts, that which you severely lack thus resort to triviality and sources that have NO legs or substance.
Jeremy and Shirazi et al,
Please, do illustrate to us how anyone who is a “torture enthusiast” according to the second and third words of this mostly false and hateful, poisonous article by Mina Shirazi demonstrate so in Western societies let alone by Dershowitz or Cheney per Jeremy?
Indeed it does so ‘perennial’[ly] FOR at least the last century in the barbaric, backward despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Syria,Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Salafis, Fatah, Muslim brotherhoods, collectively called islamoemoManiacs?
Here are just a few examples of “torture enthusiast” in Iran, for the rest of the IslamoManiacs Google YouTube etc, in case you didn’t notice, Jeremy et al and there are plenty such examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFrnQR2TxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7aLxywU-88&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZF9Zs9AYl8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d90bwM4No_M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0XoJqjDXP8&feature=related
But let me repeat, I fear that even if truth hits you [Jeremy, Shirazi et al] in the head, you choose to harbor hatred and denial v. truth, historical facts, reality, love and peace, for some odd reason. Can you et al free your mind of that sever hatred that is inhabited in every cell of your body and soul? Sadly, it seems you chose to keep your mind obtuse and obstinate.
“There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark” Hamlet, by William Shakespeare.
– think over
Reread and see videos above and in the rest of my posting herein, you might get it!
The following link may refresh and heal your delusional and hateful mind; you may finally be capable of realizing who and what you and Shirazi et al are truly defending when you falsely demonize those who at the end result defend your own freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Death+to+America+Ahamadinejad+&oq=Death+to+America+Ahamadinejad+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=35367l44637l0l46577l18l18l2l14l16l0l206l396l0.1.1l2l0
H
If you’d like a reply, you’ll have to post a coherent comment rather than gibberish.
I do not expect a truthful reply from you. You have proven my case that you are nothing short of hateful, and terminally delusional! May you see the light at the end of the day, so long!
If anyone wants to know Dershowitz stance on Iran I suggest reading the chapter on Iran in his book “The Case against Israel Enemies”
One point I disagree with Dershowitz is Osriak strike. He claims only one person died yet i dont think he provides any reference for that claim