Netanyahu commits the terrorism and demands to fight it
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fought off a storm of criticism over a botched attempt by suspected Israeli agents to assassinate Khaled Mishal, the head of the Amman-based political bureau of Hamas a few days ago.
Netanyahu's cabinet issued a statement refusing "at this time" to comment on the attack, but the statement went on to say Mishal was "responsible for the murder of innocent Israeli civilians" - an apparent reference to recent suicide bombing in Jerusalem - and defended Israel's responsibility "to protect the lives of its citizens and fight uncompromisingly against terrorism."
It is clear from all the previous facts that the Israeli government has committed the terrorism and the organized crime. The Israeli prime minister himself is responsible for acts of terrorism.
Where a state's president orders that a terrorist act be committed, his international responsibility is established according to the Nuremberg Law, as in World War II, also the state's president is responsible.
But the problem here is how to prosecute a state president. Does the state agree to his extradition? We have a clear example in Serbia, where this problem is present in the international law or the international community, because it is hard to execute the extradition of public personalities responsible for a country.
That's why Nuremberg can't be considered a precedent in prosecuting the responsibl state due to acts of aggression, and we can't apply it automatically in Netanyahu's case because it was the trial of the winner who subjected the defeated to his conditions, and if Germany was the winner in the war, we would see the opposite happening.
As for terrorism acts committed by the state, such as when a state sends some groups or some of her agents to commit terrorist acts in another country, like the Israeli operation in Jordan, this should not be considered an act of terrorism but an act of aggression--and aggression is more dangerous than terrorism because it touches on the whole interests of a country.
The definition of aggression issued by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1974 included the cases when a country sends some groups or persons to commit subversive acts in another country. This should lead the Security Council to act and impose sanctions upon on the country and condemn it and consider it as an aggressive country.
Israel and its government commit terrorist acts and organized crime and at the same time demand that the international community and the Palestinian Authority fight terrorism. There is a big difference between the Israeli acts and the Palestinian acts.
Palestinians should have, of course, the right of self determination, as the UN resolution has put it. But I think that the main problem is to wage such a fight according to rules of international law. This addressed in the first and second protocols of the Geneva convention, and if the state or the group of people or a nation is conducting their war or conducting their fight according to such rules, we cannot say they are terrorists, we cannot say that we are dealing with a terrorist group. It is a nation fighting for its right to self-determination.