American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee

Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly is at it again. In his latest column, Kelly repeats his call for Israel to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces that have declared war on Israel." For a detailed explanation of how this constitutes the advocacy of war crimes, see ADC's update on the issue <http://www.adc.org/action/2001/17august2001v002.htm>.

Kelly also strongly endorses the campaign of murder and extra-judicial executions by Israeli death squads against Palestinian political leaders and activists, calling these murders Israel's "right" and "duty." Kelly also argues that Israel has used "restraint" in its attempts to suppress the uprising, arguing that "Israel has used its planes, tanks and missiles only in a limited and targeted fashion. This is restraint." By this logic, which lacks any sense of proportion whatever, any state that possesses nuclear weapons but doesn't use them in a conflict, or only uses them in a limited manner, could still be said to be exercising "restraint." Of course, this "limited and targeted manner" has resulted in the deaths of almost 600 Palestinians in less than a year, the vast majority of them unarmed civilians and many of them children.

Kelly's fatuous arguments about Israeli "restraint" rest upon the patent falsehood that "The only way in which Israel has used lethal force with clear lethal intent is in the targeted killings of Palestinians identified by Israel as directly involved in attacks on Israelis." This claim is refuted by the reports of almost all human rights groups who have examined Israel's actions during the intifada, including:

to name but a few, as well as the work of most reporters covering the conflict, including in the Israeli press.

Kelly's latest demands for war and endorsement of murder can be read at the Washington Post's website at [click here ].

On the other hand, it should be noted that the Post's own editorial today does not endorse any massive Israeli attack on the Palestinians, although only on the grounds that this would "would simply play into Mr. Arafat's hands." The Post editorial can be read at [click here ].

Letters on either article can be sent to the Post at <letters@washpost.com>.

TEXT OF ADC LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST:

8/29/01

To the Editor:

Someone really needs to hand Michael Kelly a copy of the 4th Geneva Convention. On top of endorsing the campaign of murder by Israeli death squads, Kelly repeats his odious call for war crimes from two weeks ago, urging Israel to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces." ("Israel Is Acting With Restraint," 8/29/01) Any expulsion of Palestinians, armed or not, is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Moreover, Kelly's implication that all of the 40,000 Palestinian police, as well as other armed Palestinians who might resist the Israeli assault he craves, should be expelled probably rises to the scale of a crime against humanity. Of course, Kelly continues to ignore the Convention, because he refuses to recognize the fact of the occupation. It is this fundamental lie, treating events which occur in the context of a 35 year military occupation as if there were no occupation at all, that allows him to cast Israel as being engaged in "a defensive war" when its army is on a rampage outside the borders of Israel for the sole purpose of denying another people their freedom.

Yours, Hussein Ibish
Communications Director, ADC

TEXT OF COLUMN BY MICHEAL KELLY:

Israel Is Acting With Restraint By Michael Kelly Washington Post Wednesday, August 29, 2001; Page A21

Two weeks ago I wrote that Israel was in a war and that the only way for Israel to win was to fight the war on its terms -- to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces that have declared war on Israel." Dozens of readers wrote to denounce what they described as an immoral, racist and even genocidal call to kill Palestinians in general. Likewise, many writers described Israel's use of force in the war to date as immoral. Let us take a second look.

A first question is whether Israel is in fact exercising restraint. Many writers scoffed at this, pointing out that Israel was employing warplanes, tanks and missiles in its fight. This is undeniable, but Israel is nevertheless, also undeniably, exercising restraint.

Israel possesses one of the great armies of the world; combined, the forces of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine do not amount to any sort of real army at all. If Israel chose to fully exercise its might, it could fairly quickly destroy the organized Palestinian forces, seize much of the Palestinian arms, expel the leadership of the Palestinian terrorist groups (indeed, if it wished, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority) and seal off Palestinian areas. Instead, Israel has used its planes, tanks and missiles only in a limited and targeted fashion. This is restraint.

The only way in which Israel has used lethal force with clear lethal intent is in the targeted killings of Palestinians identified by Israel as directly involved in attacks on Israelis. One such killing occurred Monday. Israeli helicopters fired missiles into a building in the West Bank city of El Bireh, killing Mustafa Zibri, known as Abu Ali Mustafa, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The building housing Mustafa's offices also housed three Palestinian families, but reports indicated that no one other than Mustafa was killed or injured.

State Department spokesman Richard L. Boucher responded to the Israeli attack thusly: "Israel needs to understand that targeted killings of Palestinians don't end the violence but are only inflaming an already volatile situation and making it much harder to restore calm."

Is Boucher right? To put it another way, is Israel's one, limited use of purposeful lethal force wrong? Is it counterproductive, even from Israel's point of view (after all, no one claims that Israel does not want to "end the violence")? Is it immoral?

Israel, to repeat, is engaged in a defensive war. Its enemy could stop the war by stopping its attacks on Israel. Instead, it forces the war on its terms, through bombings and other lethal attacks mostly aimed at noncombatant Israelis. Israel has responded (in terms of the use of lethal force) not on a wholesale basis but only with limited strikes -- targeted killings.

What is the point of this policy? It is: (a) to discourage further attacks on Israelis by killing the relative few who have the skills to plan attacks and make bombs; (b) to disrupt the overall warmaking ability of the Palestinian forces by depriving those forces of their leadership, destroying their headquarters and disrupting their routines; (c) to avert specific imminent attacks by killing those engaged in their planning. In short, in the context of war, the point of Israel's policy of targeted killings is to "end the violence."

Is this a moral policy? As the Israeli writer Hillel Halkin cogently argued in a column in the Wall Street Journal this week, it is. Israel under attack can respond through means redundantly proven ineffectual, such as asking the Palestinian Authority to arrest the bomb-makers. Or it can respond by waging a brutal all-out war, including the use of disproportionate retaliation against the Palestinian population for any attacks on the Israeli population.

Or Israel can do as it has done -- target only those individuals known to Israel to be personally and, in effect, professionally engaged in the business of attacking Israel. Which is the better -- more moral -- choice?

Israel at war has the right to wage war in return. It has the right, as I wrote, to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces that have declared war on Israel." This is adamantly not to say that Israel has the right to kill Palestinians in general, purposefully. Israel has never done that, and neither Israel nor its supporters have proposed that. Israel has not even attempted to wage proper war against the armed Palestinian forces in general. It has only, with restraint, sought to kill some of the leaders of those forces -- forces openly warring against Israel.

Why -- again in the context of war -- is this not Israel's right? Indeed, Israel's duty?

	29 August 2001
	Michael Kelly Endorses Murder, Death Squads, War and Expulsions

	Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly is at it again. In his latest column, Kelly repeats his call for Israel to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces that have declared war on Israel." For a detailed explanation of how this constitutes the advocacy of war crimes, see ADC's update on the issue <http://www.adc.org/action/2001/17august2001v002.htm>. Kelly also strongly endorses the campaign of murder and extra-judicial executions by Israeli death squads against Palestinian political leaders and activists, calling these murders Israel's "right" and "duty." Kelly also argues that Israel has used "restraint" in its attempts to suppress the uprising, arguing that "Israel has used its planes, tanks and missiles only in a limited and targeted fashion. This is restraint." By this logic, which lacks any sense of proportion whatever, any state that possesses nuclear weapons but doesn't use them in a conflict, or only uses them in a limited manner, could still be said to be exercising "restraint." Of course, this "limited and targeted manner" has resulted in the deaths of almost 600 Palestinians in less than a year, the vast majority of them unarmed civilians and many of them children. Kelly's fatuous arguments about Israeli "restraint" rest upon the patent falsehood that "The only way in which Israel has used lethal force with clear lethal intent is in the targeted killings of Palestinians identified by Israel as directly involved in attacks on Israelis." This claim is refuted by the reports of almost all human rights groups who have examined Israel's actions during the intifada, including: LAW's Report to UN Inquiry Commission [click here]; Amnesty International's report on Israel's Excessive Use of Lethal Force [click here]; Human Rights Watch's Center of the Storm report [click here ] and Report of October 4 through October 11 [click here ]; B'Tselem's Report: Illusions of Restraint [click here ] to name but a few, as well as the work of most reporters covering the conflict, including in the Israeli press. Kelly's latest demands for war and endorsement of murder can be read at the Washington Post's website at [click here ]. On the other hand, it should be noted that the Post's own editorial today does not endorse any massive Israeli attack on the Palestinians, although only on the grounds that this would "would simply play into Mr. Arafat's hands." The Post editorial can be read at [click here ]. Letters on either article can be sent to the Post at <letters@washpost.com>. TEXT OF ADC LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST: 8/29/01 To the Editor: Someone really needs to hand Michael Kelly a copy of the 4th Geneva Convention. On top of endorsing the campaign of murder by Israeli death squads, Kelly repeats his odious call for war crimes from two weeks ago, urging Israel to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces." ("Israel Is Acting With Restraint," 8/29/01) Any expulsion of Palestinians, armed or not, is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Moreover, Kelly's implication that all of the 40,000 Palestinian police, as well as other armed Palestinians who might resist the Israeli assault he craves, should be expelled probably rises to the scale of a crime against humanity. Of course, Kelly continues to ignore the Convention, because he refuses to recognize the fact of the occupation. It is this fundamental lie, treating events which occur in the context of a 35 year military occupation as if there were no occupation at all, that allows him to cast Israel as being engaged in "a defensive war" when its army is on a rampage outside the borders of Israel for the sole purpose of denying another people their freedom. Yours, Hussein Ibish Communications Director, ADC TEXT OF COLUMN BY MICHEAL KELLY: Israel Is Acting With Restraint By Michael Kelly Washington Post Wednesday, August 29, 2001; Page A21 Two weeks ago I wrote that Israel was in a war and that the only way for Israel to win was to fight the war on its terms -- to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces that have declared war on Israel." Dozens of readers wrote to denounce what they described as an immoral, racist and even genocidal call to kill Palestinians in general. Likewise, many writers described Israel's use of force in the war to date as immoral. Let us take a second look. A first question is whether Israel is in fact exercising restraint. Many writers scoffed at this, pointing out that Israel was employing warplanes, tanks and missiles in its fight. This is undeniable, but Israel is nevertheless, also undeniably, exercising restraint. Israel possesses one of the great armies of the world; combined, the forces of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine do not amount to any sort of real army at all. If Israel chose to fully exercise its might, it could fairly quickly destroy the organized Palestinian forces, seize much of the Palestinian arms, expel the leadership of the Palestinian terrorist groups (indeed, if it wished, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority) and seal off Palestinian areas. Instead, Israel has used its planes, tanks and missiles only in a limited and targeted fashion. This is restraint. The only way in which Israel has used lethal force with clear lethal intent is in the targeted killings of Palestinians identified by Israel as directly involved in attacks on Israelis. One such killing occurred Monday. Israeli helicopters fired missiles into a building in the West Bank city of El Bireh, killing Mustafa Zibri, known as Abu Ali Mustafa, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The building housing Mustafa's offices also housed three Palestinian families, but reports indicated that no one other than Mustafa was killed or injured. State Department spokesman Richard L. Boucher responded to the Israeli attack thusly: "Israel needs to understand that targeted killings of Palestinians don't end the violence but are only inflaming an already volatile situation and making it much harder to restore calm." Is Boucher right? To put it another way, is Israel's one, limited use of purposeful lethal force wrong? Is it counterproductive, even from Israel's point of view (after all, no one claims that Israel does not want to "end the violence")? Is it immoral? Israel, to repeat, is engaged in a defensive war. Its enemy could stop the war by stopping its attacks on Israel. Instead, it forces the war on its terms, through bombings and other lethal attacks mostly aimed at noncombatant Israelis. Israel has responded (in terms of the use of lethal force) not on a wholesale basis but only with limited strikes -- targeted killings. What is the point of this policy? It is: (a) to discourage further attacks on Israelis by killing the relative few who have the skills to plan attacks and make bombs; (b) to disrupt the overall warmaking ability of the Palestinian forces by depriving those forces of their leadership, destroying their headquarters and disrupting their routines; (c) to avert specific imminent attacks by killing those engaged in their planning. In short, in the context of war, the point of Israel's policy of targeted killings is to "end the violence." Is this a moral policy? As the Israeli writer Hillel Halkin cogently argued in a column in the Wall Street Journal this week, it is. Israel under attack can respond through means redundantly proven ineffectual, such as asking the Palestinian Authority to arrest the bomb-makers. Or it can respond by waging a brutal all-out war, including the use of disproportionate retaliation against the Palestinian population for any attacks on the Israeli population. Or Israel can do as it has done -- target only those individuals known to Israel to be personally and, in effect, professionally engaged in the business of attacking Israel. Which is the better -- more moral -- choice? Israel at war has the right to wage war in return. It has the right, as I wrote, to "destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces that have declared war on Israel." This is adamantly not to say that Israel has the right to kill Palestinians in general, purposefully. Israel has never done that, and neither Israel nor its supporters have proposed that. Israel has not even attempted to wage proper war against the armed Palestinian forces in general. It has only, with restraint, sought to kill some of the leaders of those forces -- forces openly warring against Israel. Why -- again in the context of war -- is this not Israel's right? Indeed, Israel's duty?