Lindsey Graham goes on TV and casually declares the intent to kill Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, representing the latest example of how U.S. and Israeli leaders treat political assassination as a standard policy tool. It’s remarkable how only in these two countries can officials publicly adopt the rhetoric of mafia hitmen, while the rest of the world, including the so-called “rogue states,” maintains at least a thin veil of respect for international law. What was once discreet is now shamelessly out in the open, with America and Israel flaunting their disregard for global norms, all while wondering why the world doesn’t admire their righteousness. But don’t worry—the innocent families in Wisconsin and Tel Aviv will probably be the ones paying the price when the tide inevitably turns.
* * *
by Andrea Zhok
Yesterday, American Senator Lindsey Graham publicly declared on live television the intention (presumably on behalf of the U.S. administration) to kill Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar: “Sinwar, we have no intention of putting you on trial, we will kill you.” Let’s set aside trivial matters such as the fact that in the same contexts where they shut down a geopolitical analysis site like The Cradle, accusing it of “inciting hatred,” we can still find ministers like Israel’s Ben Gvir or senators like Graham calmly promising massacres or assassinations on national television.
What I believe deserves proper evaluation is the fact that these mafia-like tones are found at the institutional level only in some specific contexts, particularly in American and Israeli politics. Occasionally, similar rhetoric can be found in some homemade videos by Islamic beheaders or in ISIS proclamations (and some might argue this confirms who is really behind ISIS), but at an official, institutional, governmental level, I can’t think of other nations, not even the so-called “rogue states,” that allow themselves such outbursts.
And, of course, this is not simply a matter of good manners or uncontrolled words. It is something far more concrete because both the U.S. and Israel have long, systematically used political assassination as a standard tool in international politics. There was a time, in the 1970s, when these “shortcut” methods of dealing with political opponents were still somewhat denied or covered up. But for quite some time now, there is no longer any secret. Not only because political assassinations and regime changes from half a century ago (especially in Latin America) have been declassified and turned into quite a few films, but mainly because the brutality of public death threats, coming from those who clearly have the means to carry them out, has become an ordinary way of expressing one’s negotiating power on the international stage. Today, the last shred of decency has simply been torn away.
In this context, Israel’s position is particularly interesting and delicate. Since its inception, Israel has had an attitude of declared intolerance for “international law.” Historically, this is understandable, having lived through many situations in the 1930s and ’40s where the apparent formalities of international law allowed, and sometimes facilitated, genocidal practices to which the Jewish people were subjected. It is on this basis that, in the following years, the actions of Israeli secret services violating international law did not stir much outrage: take the exemplary case of Eichmann’s kidnapping in 1960 in Buenos Aires. It was certainly a blatant violation of international law, but given that there was a butcher on one side and his victims on the other, no one raised too many objections, and even the Argentine government quickly closed the case.
In the relationship between law and justice, there is always a subtle and problematic balance, where the letter of the law can be bent in the presence of a clear perception of what is “the right thing” to do. This is a human tendency, understandable, and not surprising.
But of course, as always in history, balance, proportion, prudentia (as the Latins called it), and phronesis (as the Greeks called it) are essential to the substance of what counts as right or wrong. Over time, this pragmatic, “get things done” attitude—present for different reasons in both American tradition (the Wild West) and in Israel’s recent history—has increasingly gained the upper hand.
Again, the reasons for this development are not particularly mysterious. The U.S., globally, and Israel in the Middle East (thanks to U.S. support) have long been the overwhelmingly dominant military powers. And the combination of 1) having superior force and 2) feeling unbound by any legal frameworks other than one’s own sense of justice is a bad recipe for maintaining any moral compass.
The ability to systematically disregard “international law,” except when selectively applying it to one’s opponents, is a dominant trait that unites American and Israeli foreign policy, especially in recent decades. What the West unfortunately overlooks, and what that melancholic American colony called Europe fails to grasp, is that this abusive, unscrupulous attitude is keenly felt in the rest of the world. More precisely, in all parts of the world not covered by the Western media’s sugarcoated lens.
We watch American films where families from Wisconsin ponder, between bites of cornflakes, “why there is so much hatred” against them. They see scenes of American (or Israeli) flags being burned and can’t understand why people as kind and good as they, who wake up every morning to go to work, should be so ferociously hated. Could it be racism? Could it be envy? Who knows what goes on in the minds of these barbarians.
In this context, the saddest figures of all are the Europeans, who don’t even have the luxury of believing in their own interests. We are the cheerleaders, the pom-pom girls of the American empire. What will inevitably happen is that the balance of history will shift, that those who have been in an unchallengeable position for 70 years will be brought back to a position of commensurate power. And when this happens, all the accumulated resentment will find its expression, likely harming innocent families in Wisconsin, Tel Aviv, or Busto Arsizio more than the ministers, senators, and journalists who have irresponsibly nurtured this violent blindness.
