Dershowitz' O.J. Defense Negates Israel

Dershowitz O.J. Defense Negates Israel’s Right to Exist

Responding to Alan Dershowitz’ “If Israel did it…”

Claiming a right to murder enemies in hotel rooms in another country, as Dershowitz does (see footnote) refutes Israel’s right to exist. It poisons the rule of law and excludes them from participating in civilized diplomatic discourse under international principles of justice.

Argument:

If assassination by state decree is a right, it cannot be nation specific; it must also give Palestinians the right to murder suspected Mossad agents; and, indeed, any country making war on another the right to go anywhere, do anything, because its law trumped theirs. Such understanding cannot be international law; it contradicts assumptions of trust required for civilized diplomatic relations under atonomous jurisdictions. As a standing attitude, it places each official of everyone of their embassies, plus known contacts, under suspicion as possible spies and murderers.

Further, in anticipation of claims to Zionist-Israeli exceptionalism, it is contradictory to the principle of legal reasoning, itself, for parties to rules of justice governing a domain, national or international, to privately reserve exceptions in their own case, since each party could equally so-regard themselves, thus negating the effect of rules intended for all. But rules intended for all is the essence of rational morality. “I will agree to the rule of law, but only under the condition that it never apply in my own case” is not an agrement to rule of law at all. It contradicts the rule of law using its name to do so. It is immorality in the name of morality. This illustrates a particular psychosemiotic form of ultimately corrupt communication (~S/S*)^- assertion of text that negates its own tokens.

This, and no other, is the case demanding trial before an international tribunal; presumably by an appropriate branch of the United nations. The theory of rule of law pivots on it.

If Israel accepts Dershowitz’ “If I did it” justification for murdering citizents of other countries, it negates it’s right to exist.
*********
Footnote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/if-israel-killed-mahmoud_b_467506.html

Alan Dershowitz argument in defense of state intelligence service (Israel’s Mossad) assassination. (his “If I did it…”)
“So if the Israeli Air Force had killed Mabhouh while he was in Gaza, there would be absolutely no doubt that their action would be lawful. It does not violate international law to kill a combatant, regardless of where the combatant is found, whether he is awake or asleep and whether or not he is engaged in active combat at the moment of his demise.

But Mabhouh was not killed in Gaza. He was killed in Dubai. It is against the law of Dubai for an Israeli agent to kill a combatant against Israel while he is in Dubai. So the people who engaged in the killing presumptively violated the domestic law of Dubai, unless there is a defense to such a killing based on international principles regarding enemy combatants. It is unlikely that any defense would be available to an Israeli or someone working on behalf of Israel, since Dubai does not recognize Israel’s right to kill enemy combatants on its territory.

If it could be proved that Israel was responsible for the hit—an extremely unlikely situation—then only Dubai could lawfully bring Israelis to trial. They would not be properly subjected to prosecution before an international tribunal.” Israel hiding from justice behind their anonymity (…jurisdictional matter)