Wait! We already know. Israel did in fact assassinate several terrorist leaders in the Gaza Strip, and did allegedly conduct another covert operation in the United Arab Emirates. These terrorists had orchestrated the murder of more Israeli civilians, as a percentage of its population, than the number killed by Osama Bin Laden. But when Israel neutralized an ongoing threat against its civilians by targeting terrorist leaders for assassination, the international community - most particularly the European Union and the United Nations - was apoplectic.
Let's sample a few reactions from around the world at the time. The French Foreign Ministry declared "that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable." The Italian foreign minister said, "Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations." The British foreign secretary said, "So-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive." The Jordanians said, "Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination and its position on this has always been clear."
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared, quite unequivocally, "that extrajudicial killings are violations of international law." Have you ever heard such unanimity in global opinion?
The fact that none of these convenient critics of Israel has dared challenge the wisdom or legitimacy of the assassination of Bin Laden by the United States lays the double standard bare: Israel is the one country whose right to defend itself is systematically questioned.
What the United States did in Pakistan stretched, but did not break, the loosely defined bounds of international law. Bin Laden, like the terrorist leaders of Hamas, was a combatant under any reasonable definition of that term. Under the rules of warfare, he was an appropriate target of a kill-or-capture operation. As long as he did not try to surrender, he could be shot the way an ordinary soldier can be shot during a combat operation.
Likewise, when Israel singles out terrorist leaders or organizations for military action, they are acting well within the bounds of customary international law. Nations throughout history have engaged in similar acts of proactive self-defense without criticism.
But Israel risks condemnation every time it seeks to defend its civilians. There are resolutions by the United Nations, Goldstone reports and threats to haul its leaders in front of international and domestic courts.
The broad consensus among reasonable people is that the United States acted properly in going after Osama Bin Laden, who had murdered thousands of innocent Americans in cold blood. This action, and its widespread approval, has now become part of customary international law. When Israel engaged in similar actions, the international community condemned them as outside of international law.
When President Obama comes to Ground Zero today, he will be appropriately applauded not only by most Americans but by most reasonable people around the world. His actions made the United States and the world a bit safer from the scourge of international terrorism.
Likewise, when Benjamin Netanyahu comes to Washington, he, too, should be applauded for making the world and his own citizens a bit safer. We must have one standard in judging military actions. Both the United States and Israel have helped to create that standard by seeking to balance the need for aggressive actions against terrorists with compliance to the rule of law.
Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard Law School.
