White paper should tackle terrorist television
Bren Carlill, The Australian, March 10, 2010

CONCERN about domestic radicalisation and home-grown terrorism is a big part of the government's white paper on counter-terrorism released last week.

So why haven't successive governments banned Hezbollah's television station, al-Manar, from screening in Australia?

After all, al-Manar is all about radicalising its viewers.

The paper advises that Hezbollah has an Australian support base. It goes on to caution that "terrorist movements with a presence or support base in Australia could become willing to engage in operational activity here".

This is no idle threat. US intelligence reports have stated that Hezbollah has cells in Europe, North and South America and Africa. The group has never constrained its actions to Israel and Lebanon, having carried out terrorist attacks in Argentina, Britain, France, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Spain, with numerous failed attempts in Asian countries.

Hezbollah established al-Manar in 1991. It has been glorifying terrorism and encouraging its viewers to follow the path of the "martyrs" who have gone before them since.

The station also regularly broadcasts anti-Jewish propaganda in sermons, miniseries and children's shows.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has an anti-terrorism standard by which it assesses whether any TV station crosses the line between free speech and raising money or recruits for terrorist groups.

The standard stipulates that TV providers must not directly recruit people or solicit funds for a terrorist organisation.

When al-Manar began broadcasting into Australia a few years ago, ACMA applied its anti-terrorism standard against its broadcasts.

However, even though al-Manar extensively praises Hezbollah, ACMA cleared it to keep on broadcasting since it doesn't flash the phone number of Hezbollah's recruitment office on the screen.

The problem lies with the anti-terrorism standard's guidelines, which suggest that directly recruiting for a terrorist organisation means providing details on how to become members, and directly soliciting funds means providing bank account numbers.

This standard should be changed. Any TV station owned and-or operated by a terrorist organisation should be banned in Australia.

If our law enforcement agencies - and, in the case of al-Qa'ida, our defence forces - are in battle against these terrorists, why should their terrorist-promoting, racist propaganda be allowed to beam into Australian homes?

It seems as if ACMA has recognised this problem. It recently announced a new investigation into al-Manar and suggested that, at its conclusion, it will determine whether its anti-terrorism standard will need to be changed.

But this is a weighty matter beyond the responsibility of the broadcasting authority.

It's ultimately up to the government of the day to make this decision, a decision in line with existing Australian law.

The Australian criminal code states that any organisation that "directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act [or] directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person to engage in a terrorist act" will be proscribed by the Attorney-General.

Al-Manar has been doing this for years, but successive governments haven't done anything about it.

France, Spain, Germany and the US have all banned al-Manar, resulting in eight satellite providers dropping it from their services. It can no longer be seen in North or South America, most of Africa or most of Europe.

Only the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Australia are subjected to its poisonous messages.

Whereas France cited the station's gross anti-Semitism, Germany's reason was the potential radicalisation of that country's Muslims.

Sound familiar?

Al-Manar is a TV station that calls for terrorist actions, triumphs in violent jihad and martyrdom, revels in promoting overt racism and hopes to radicalise its Lebanese and international viewers in support of a terrorist organisation.

It needs to be banned.

Bren Carlill is an analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.

Israel has friends in Christian places
Dvir Abramovich, The National Times, March 4, 2010

Question: Who said the following: "Israel has no better friends in the world than Christian Zionists. This is a friendship of the heart, a friendship of common roots, and a friendship of common civilisation."

It wasn’t a pastor at a local church. It was Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu speaking at a conference of American evangelicals in Jerusalem in April 2008.

In a 2008 poll taken in the US, more than 80 per cent of Christians stated that they had a "moral and biblical" obligation to love, pray and support Israel, while 62 per cent of evangelicals said that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital.

I recall witnessing the waves of love when 400 Christians, representing more than 10 organisations, gathered two years ago in Melbourne for a Stand with Israel evening. The affection for Israel was palpable. Shorn of Christian signs such as the cross, the event featured Israeli dancing and songs, banners, waving of the Israeli flag, a pep-rally eruption of cheers and standing ovations for Israel, and speeches praising and praying for the Jewish people. Particularly striking was an apology offered by an elderly German woman to the Jewish people for the evil perpetrated by the Nazis and one by a pastor for anti-semitism.

Such words of contrition are not often heard.

Baffling? Only to those who don’t understand a controversial end-time theology that began in 19th century Britain and which divides history into eras (dispensations). According to this theology, Israel’s creation and the 1967 war were galvanising signs that God’s hand moves in history and the clock of prophecy had started up again. Driven by a literal interpretation that prophesies Israel’s establishment as a prelude to the second coming of Jesus, tens of millions are now convinced they are living in the final days as described in the Book of Revelation. They are often called Christian Zionists.

This intense passion was given a boost with the publication of Hal Lindsey’s 1970’s blockbuster book The Late Great Planet and continues today with Tim LaHaye’s prophetic Left Behind Series that has sold 70 million copies.

A review of the recently released documentary Waiting for Armageddon explains the four stages:

1. The Rapture, when, in a microsecond, all true believers, living and dead, will be transported into the clouds with Jesus.
2. The Tribulation, during which untold horrendous catastrophes, ecological and man-made, will rain down upon those haplessly left behind;
3. Armageddon, when Christ will return with a sword to judge the sinners and defeat the Antichrist, who will be placed in a bottomless pit for 1000 years.
4. The Millennium, encompassing the 1000-year reign of heaven on earth reserved for Christ and his followers (along with 144,000 converted Jews).

Standing with Israel guarantees evangelicals that they will be on God’s side when the Battle of Armageddon occurs in Megiddo, Israel. This occurs after the Antichrist is released from his imprisonment, recruits the armies of Gog and Magog and attacks the New Jerusalem. In the final battle, it should be noted, most Jews are wiped out and the rest embrace Christ after he defeats the Antichrist and throws him into the Lake of Fire or Gehena. Jews who don’t accept Jesus are condemned to eternal damnation, while Christians ascend to heaven.

Gershom Goremberg, author of the book The End of Days, is unsure about the evangelicals’ affection. He explains the evangelical attitudes towards Jews as: "We love you and want you to give up what is most basic to your identity."

Historical examples of Christian Zionists include William Blackstone, author of Jesus is Coming, who organised a petition for restoring Palestine to the chosen people, Lord Balfour and his 1917 declaration promising a homeland for the Jewish in Palestine and President Harry S. Truman and his support for US recognition of Israel despite the objections of the American State Department.

Indeed, an increasing number emphasise that Christian Zionism is based on the biblical promise that God will bless those who bless the Jews, and curse those who curse the Jews. For many, at a time when Israel faces the threat of nuclear threat from Iran and global anti-semitism is on the rise, biblical motives count for little.

To properly understand the level of evangelical devotion to Israel, one only has to mention the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, which has raised $US250,000,000 ($A277,000,000) for various projects in Israel. The Joshua Fund, an evangelical organisation aims to marshal more than $100 million to fund projects for health, immigrant integration, education and victims of terrorism in Israel.

Yet, there are those who feel a discomfort with this backing. Televangelist Pat Robertson, a leading Christian Zionist said at the time of Ariel Sharon’s stroke that Sharon was being punished for withdrawing from Gaza and "dividing God’s land". Jerry Falwell, regarded as the father of the movement in the US, described the Antichrist as being Jewish. John Hagee, John McCain’s pastor, who organises an annual Night to Honour Israel and heads Christians United for Israel, wrote in his 1996 book that the assassination of Yitzak Rabin "launched biblical prophecy onto the fast track" and has made several offensive remarks about Jews.

An Israeli journalist noted that this extending of a hand in friendship is offered in good faith and that the "ancient tribal instinct to slap that hand away" is an unwise one. Christians United For Israel executive director David Brog, who last year arranged for 34 Christian students to take part in March of the Living in Poland’s Nazi camps, claims that Christian Zionists are the heirs of the righteous gentiles. His book Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State is fascinating read.

Jews as pawns in a Christian prophecy leading the way to the end-of-days battle? Only if you believe it.

Jewish-Agency-style ‘Palestine Network’ launched in Bethlehem
Arieh O'Sullivan and Felice Friedson, Jerusalem Post, March 3, 2010

When Hanny Elqutub, the son of Palestinian refugees, arrived in America 30 years ago he was focused on carving out a life for himself in Houston. Palestinian identity was a frame of mind but never something he engaged personally.

“Sometimes people who went to the US or Europe or South America were running away from bad economics, running away from occupation, running away from political circumstances,” Elqutub says.

But now, the mortgage broker says he and his fellow diaspora Palestinians spread out across the globe believe they have something to contribute toward the shaping of a sustainable, democratic, secular Palestinian state.

“The American experience inspired me to work towards having the same thing in Palestine,” says Elqutub.

The state of Palestine does not exist; the courts are still not working, local government has numerous problems, not to mention health care, education and infrastructure. Representatives of Palestinian communities abroad have come to Bethlehem to kick off the independent “Palestine Network.”

“Welcome to your second home,” announces Ramzi Khoury, executive director of the Palestine Network. “You are representatives from 23 countries who have chosen to be engaged in building this Palestinian state and not just talking about it. This is a do tank, rather than a talk tank. This is not a political club.”

Of the estimated 10 million Palestinians living today, at least half live in what Palestinians call its diaspora – away from the region. According to Khoury, the Palestine Network is establishing chapters across the world that will serve as a conduit for professionals, entrepreneurs and intellectuals to lay the foundations for a Palestinian state.

“If you want to build a democratic state, you need to tackle all the sectors of that state,” Khoury says. “So doctors need to come down here and revamp our health system, engineers need to come here and help us build, lawyers and judges need to come and help us create an independent judiciary and a state of law, and we need educators.”

The Palestine Network is not just another charity or source of funding. The Palestinians have many economic backers. In 2008, global financial aid to the Palestinian Authority exceeded $2 billion, including about $526 million from Arab countries, $651m. from the European Union, $300m. from the US and about $238m. from the World Bank, according to the Arab League’s 2009 economic report.

The founding conference, sponsored by the governments of Germany and Belgium, was held in the opulent Convention Center on the outskirts of Bethlehem, hub of Palestinian culture and tourism.

The network’s goal is to use expertise from Palestine’s diaspora communities to develop the local economy, judiciary, education and health infrastructures in what will be the future state.

With half a million people of Palestinian origin living inside its borders, Chile represents the largest Palestinian community outside of the Arab world. Daniel Jadue of Santiago believes they can help.

“I have been working for the Palestinian cause for about 30 years,” Jadue says. “This is the first time that the Palestinians from outside and the Palestinians from inside Palestine are in the same space discussing and taking decisions like a nation.”

For some visitors who had grown up in a democratic society, the visit to the region brought a stark realization of the struggles the local Palestinians have had to face in the seemingly endless conflict with Israel. All were intensively questioned by security when arriving via Israel and some were refused entry and sent back.

Working with local Palestinians may also prove to be challenging when it comes to allocating resources and aid. A board was chosen to help map out future endeavors.

Nabil Shaath, a minister in the Palestinian Authority and former peace negotiator, says that the amount of money that is expected to come from the Palestine Network “is not going to be significant.”

“But their involvement with their country, their commitment, their networking is going to be an element of strength for the people inside as much as satisfaction for the people outside,” the minister adds.

“I understand that the many people who emigrated are willing to really come back, either permanently or to make businesses and go back again, which is fine with us,” Shaath concludes.

The Palestinian Network is setting up clubs across the world, several each in major cities like London and Chicago. The first club will symbolically be in Jerusalem, headed by Theodosios Attallah Hanna, Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Sebastia.

Notably absent were Palestinians from Arab states, where an estimated 1.2 million live. Khoury says that club formation there was contingent on Arab governments’ approval, which they hope will come later. Clubs will also be opened in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as inside Israeli Arab communities. Non-Palestinian supporters were also welcomed.

Claudia Baba, a Palestinian American from Houston, says forming a solid base for democracy is necessary for a Palestine to remain free and accountable.

“Leaders come and go,” Baba says. “But as long as institutions are intact and strong enough to withstand whatever type of leader may come into office, then your chances for a democratic state to last, be viable and to work for all the people are much better.”

The Palestinians are the first to admit they have borrowed from the Israeli experience, which set up the Jewish Agency to build Israel.

“It is a model, why not,” Khoury says. “It was a network like this that established the Jewish-state idea. What they did is create all the programs on the ground to bring in Jews into Palestine and create the infrastructure that is still needed for the State of Israel today.

“Today there are many networks out there which are there to support Israel,” he continues. “Some of them are left-leaning, others are right-leaning. You find them clashing and arguing and they are not harmonious. But at the end of the day they are there to support Israel... and this is what Palestine needs.”

Michael Jankelowitz, spokesman for the Jewish Agency, says that the Palestine Network is not the first attempt at setting up a worldwide organization of the Palestinian diaspora. He mentioned that even back in 1929 the British offered both the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine help in setting up national agencies that would serve as a forerunner to an independent state.

“The Jews accepted the challenge and the Jewish Agency was formed, but the Arabs rejected it,” Jankelowitz says adding that previous attempts by the Palestinians to set up “Jewish Agency-like” organizations fizzled.

“But now, if their goal is to set up a state that will live peacefully side by side with Israel, then I say this step is better late than never,” he says.

And like the Jewish Agency, the Palestine Network aims to imbue a greater sense of identity to the members of diaspora communities.

“I have always said that culture is a way to demonstrate or prove the existence of a people and that is what we need to prove,” says Odette Yidi, a 19-year-old student from Barranquilla, Columbia. “We need to revive that feeling among our [Palestinian] community that we have a place of origin, that we have a culture and a tradition.”

The weeklong conference left participants energized to move forward.

“Our main goal is to build the economy and help build the democratic Palestinian state,” says Elqutub. “We have a lot of expertise in our community. I’m talking specifically on the American side. I was really surprised to see how much expertise and wealth we have in South America and in Europe. We have a number of experts in their fields; doctors, engineers, professionals, successful IT businessmen and they have a big role to play in the future of Palestine.”

The apartheid libel
Editorial, Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2010

The sixth international Israeli Apartheid Week kicked off on Monday, promising 14 days of Israel-bashing in about 40 cities around the world, mostly on college campuses. Organizers say the events will “educate” about Israel’s so-called “apartheid system” and encourage BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) against the Jewish state. Punishing Israel into submission will lead to the end of “colonization” of Arab land, the beginning of equal rights for Arab-Palestinians, the dismantling of the security barrier, and instituting the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Naomi Klein, the Jewish anti-globalization savant who has in recent years branched out to include demonizing Israel in her repertoire, pointed out in the opening speech of last year’s extravaganza that “serious movements have serious enemies,” arguing that the fierce opposition to Israeli Apartheid Week proved its importance. According to that reasoning, perhaps it would be better to simply ignore the festivities and allow the whole thing to blow over.

Problem is, if left unchallenged, proponents of the apartheid analogy are liable to stifle free speech and trample open debate on campuses by using intimidation and bullying tactics. They recently prevented Ambassador Michael Oren from finishing a speech at UC Irvine, and on the same day in Cambridge they interrupted Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, allegedly shouting in Arabic, “Slaughter the Jews.” Meanwhile, Cambridge University’s Israel Society bowed to pressure from Muslim students to cancel a speech by historian Benny Morris.

CONSIDERING ITS sordid historical roots, it is not surprising that Israel Apartheid Week’s proponents are hostile to free expression.

In his new book, A Lethal Obsession, Robert S. Wistrich shows that the intellectual roots of the apartheid libel can be traced to Soviet totalitarianism. Building on deep-seated anti-Semitism dating from the czarist era, the Soviet Union launched a ferocious anti-Israel campaign in the wake of Israel’s victory in the Six Day War in an attempt to squash Zionism and with it other national liberation movements that threatened to challenge blind loyalty to the Soviet Republic. Equating Jerusalem with Pretoria also served the Soviets in gaining influence in Africa and aligning the Third World against the US and other western states that supported Israel. Interestingly, Trotskyists – with Jews prominent in their ranks – became the most enthusiastic propagators of the Zionist racist mythology, perhaps in an attempt to negate their Jewishness and prove their fidelity to the communist cause.

In the ’70s the PLO and Arab governments, recognizing the political efficacy of latching on to the Soviet-made analogy, joined forces with the USSR to spread lies about Israel. “The apartheid libel transformed Zionism (and by implication Jews and Judaism) into an inhuman ideology and the foundation of a state policy that supposedly divides the world into Jews (a chosen people) and goyim (inferior beings designated to be slaves),” writes Wistrich. Once this was accomplished, dismantling the Jewish state with the use of boycotts, divestment and sanctions could be justified. Even terrorist violence could be forgiven.

Sadly, Soviet propaganda has worked.

While rogue states such as Sudan commit horrendous crimes against humanity, and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other self-proclaimed Muslim states do not even attempt to hide their contempt for non-Muslims, only Israel is singled out for castigation. This is the Israel that translates hostile Palestinian authors into Hebrew; that maintains a Supreme Court that defends the human rights of Palestinians, including its recent ruling to open Route 443 to Palestinians despite real fears that this could lead to drive-by shootings; that keeps its universities open to Arab citizens and grants them the right to vote.

It’s not only Desmond Tutu and former US president Jimmy Carter who make the apartheid case. Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stumbled.

“As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,” Barak said during a speech last month at the Herzliya Conference.

“If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state,” he added, playing into the hands of Israel’s most manipulative detractors and ignoring the facts that Israel is committed to seeking an accommodation with the Palestinians precisely to avoid any such state of affairs, and that it is those who would seek to deny the Jewish nation its only state who are guilty of apartheid attitudes.

Instead of adopting anti-Semitic newspeak, Israel’s representatives need to perfect the craft of hitting back diplomatically – “to delegitimize the delegitimizers,” in the memorable phrase of Canadian law professor and human rights activist Irwin Cotler. Part of that task is knowing the despicable history of the apartheid libel, understanding whose interests it serves and, most importantly, protecting free speech against those who would deny it.

UK Muslim leader to issue fatwa against Jihad
Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2010

A revered mainstream Muslim scholar is set to announce in London on Tuesday a fatwa (Muslim ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing in the name of Islam.

Sheikh Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, a widely recognized and respected authority on Islamic jurisprudence, will issue a comprehensive fatwa prohibiting terrorism and suicide bombing at a press conference in Westminster, central London.

The Pakistani-born Dr. Qadri has authored an unprecedented, 600-page fatwa on why suicide bombings and terrorism are un-Islamic and scripturally forbidden. The ruling is the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date.

The fatwa will also be posted on the Internet and in English, making it readily accessible. It will also set an important precedent and allow other scholars to similarly condemn the ideas behind terrorism.

Dr. Qadri has used texts in the Koran and other Islamic writings to argue that suicide and other terrorist attacks are “absolutely against the teachings of Islam” and that “Islam does not permit such acts on any excuse, reason or pretext.”

The fatwa condemns suicide bombers as destined for hell, refuting the claim used by Islamists that such terrorists will earn paradise after death.

“Today’s tragedy is that terrorists, murderers, mischief-mongers and rioters try to prove their criminal, rebellious, tyrannous, brutal and blasphemous activities as a right and a justified reaction to foreign aggression under the garb of defense of Islam and national interests,” he says about suicide bombing.

“It can in no way be permissible to keep foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation for interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances of their countries,” Qadri said, asserting, “The one who does has no relation to Islam.”

Dr. Qadri is the founder of the international Minhaj-ul-Quran movement. Supporters say his fatwa is significant because he is issuing it himself and his movement, a major grass-roots global organization, has hundreds of thousands of followers in South Asia and the UK.

The move has been welcomed by the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based anti-extremism think-tank led by former Islamists.

“This fatwa has the potential to be a highly significant step towards eradicating Islamist terrorism,” a Quilliam spokesperson said. “Fatwas by Wahhabi-influenced clerics and Islamist ideologues initiated modern terrorism against civilians. Terrorist groups such as al-Qaida continue to justify their mass killings with self-serving readings of religious scripture.

“Fatwas that demolish and expose such theological innovations will consign Islamist terrorism to the dustbin of history.”

London’s Centre for Social Cohesion think-tank has also welcomed the initiative.

CSC director Douglas Murray believes that in recent years, and since the July 2005 terrorist attack in London, Muslim leaders have failed to unequivocally condemn violence committed in the name of Islam.

“A sentence that may to many people seem clear, such as ‘There can be no justification for the killing of innocent people’ is filled with caveats – what is an ‘innocent’ person? Who decides who is or is not ‘innocent’?

“Too many Muslim religious figures sound as if they are condemning violence when in fact they are merely condemning violence in certain situations, against certain people,” he said.

Murray said the fatwa takes away the caveats and will have far-reaching consequences. However he said it won’t stop Islamic terrorism instantaneously.v

“Dr. ul-Qadri is respected for his ability to cross some of the notable sectarian boundaries that abound in the Islamic faith as in all others. Even Muslims who might dislike him will not be able to dismiss him out of hand.v

“Yet even if the contents of this fatwa are what people have long hoped for, it will not, of course, stop Islamic terrorism straight away. A single fatwa will not change the level of denial and lack of self-criticism inherent in so much of modern Islam. Nor will it stop every fevered young radical eager to kill and maim. But the trickle-down effect is important. The most violent interpretations of Islam have indeed trickled down to terrorists via learned scholars,” he said.

Hitting the wrong target
Sunday Age, Sunday Age, February 28, 2010

The false-passport row denies Israel's right to act against those trying to destroy it.

FOR average Israelis, members of the silent majority (as distinct from the country's chattering cliquey elite), the false-passports brouhaha abroad is just another sideshow in the international community's theatre of the absurd.

In this global burlesque, everything can be turned upside down. The lie is granted equal standing with truth, and flagrant canards frequently gain the ascendancy and are paraded as fact. Values are devalued. Good and evil are interchangeable. Anything goes.

In this environment of intellectual anarchy, Israel's existential struggle stands no chance of being granted anything vaguely resembling a fair hearing.

The case of terror kingpin Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is instructive. After his body was discovered in a Dubai hotel, his own son, Abdel-Rauf, bragged on TV that the late lamented ''fought the Jews, hit the Jews, kidnapped and killed Israelis. He outfitted and dispatched suicide-bombers.'' That evidently made him an object for admiration. Killing Jews is a noble objective, one to take pride in, to revere.

Mabhouh co-founded the Hamas military wing and Hamas declared war on Israel. He was a self-confessed murderer.

Last year he boasted on al-Jazeera about his personal culpability in the separate 1989 kidnap-murders of Israeli soldiers Avi Sasportas and Ilan Sa'adon.

He crowed about smuggling into Gaza thousands of Iranian-made missiles for the sole purpose of making the lives of Israeli civilians hellish in the country's heartland, including Tel Aviv.

So when Israelis point to Mabhouh's gory record, it isn't just their biased say-so. It's hardly an unsubstantiated assertion, an excuse to justify assassination.

Accustomed and resigned as Israelis are to the world's double standards, they nevertheless watch with renewed amazement as Mabhouh's suspected killers are placed on Interpol's wanted list, where Mabhouh himself never appeared - soaked with blood as his hands were. Has anyone, incidentally, bothered inquiring which passport Mabhouh was travelling under and why he was allowed to enter Dubai on a gun-running mission?

The hullabaloo about secret agents using fake passports is just a very telling footnote to the larger travesty. To begin with, none of the supposedly offended countries possesses credible proof of Israeli involvement, though it's easy to point fingers at Israel because from its perspective Mabhouh was an implacable foe. But so he was, too, to certain Palestinian factions and perhaps to some Iranian contacts (two alleged assassins escaped by boat to Iran, after all).

But let's assume, for argument's sake, that it was Israel's Mossad that got its man. Even so, isn't the righteous hand-wringing about passport-forging a tad excessive and more than a little hypocritical? Is there honestly a single country whose intelligence operatives don't resort to using less-than-genuine documents?

Or is it that given sets of rules apply for all nations, but others are imposed on beleaguered, existentially threatened Israel? Give us all a break, please.

The British, French, Irish, Germans and Australians all know in their heart-of-hearts that there is no real cause to fear that the tradecraft employed in this assassination (assuming the cloak-and-dagger tales are true) jeopardises any one of their nationals. The terror syndicates, which increasingly menace Westerners anywhere, need no pretexts. They have no trouble fabricating provocations.

The only reason for Israel's fellow democracies to harp on the purported insult to their hallowed papers is to curry favour with the terror-sponsors and bask in the warm ambience of the Israel-bashing fraternity. This presumably accords them some temporary anti-aggression insurance.

The illusion may be sweet, but weren't Australians targeted in the Bali atrocity without an Israeli link? If anything, we are in the same boat rather than on opposing sides. It behoves Western democracies not to lose sight of the fact there are instances in which ends do justify means.

Adolf Eichmann was apprehended in Argentina and taken to Israel by means that weren't quite orthodox. Yet wasn't it justice? Had Osama bin Laden been bumped off in Dubai, would the outcry have been as vehement?

Overlooking the crime and focusing on technical, legalistic niceties attests to a skewed moral compass, indeed, to outright moral impoverishment. It signals to Israelis that their blood is cheaper than passport-paper. It signals acceptance by the West of lopsided Arab logic whereby Arabs have the right to inflict incalculable harm on Jews, and to do so in the most sadistically inventive ways, while the Jews' attempts to deflect such blows are evil and deserving of punishment.

The counterfeit passport kerfuffle underscores the fact that the international community appears to deny Israel any possible measure in aid of its self-preservation. Campaigns like Defensive Shield, the Lebanon war or Cast Lead are decried for ''lack of proportionality''.

However, there is censure even for pinpointed targeting such as perhaps the Mabhouh caper was.

Another case in point is the recent Nablus killing (in an exchange of fire during an attempted arrest) of the three ambushers who had earlier slain Israeli civilian Meir Avshalom Chai in a drive-by shooting. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate by world conventional wisdom, described them as ''ruthlessly executed martyrs''. Even the trials and convictions of murderers such as Marwan Barghouti are portrayed overseas as illegitimate. There plainly is just nothing Israel may do to secure itself. Even the most legalistically scrupulous remedies are repudiated.

Since it's less than likely that the International Criminal Court or the UN Human Rights Council would have indicted Mabhouh for violating Israelis' basic human right to life, what then is left to Israelis? Are they to submit to the precept Jews must die and have no right to resist? That this is their lot? That is too much to expect of anyone, even Jews.

Sarah Honig is a columnist and senior editorial writer for The Jerusalem Post.