This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
According to international law Professor David Kretchmer, "It turns out that in total contradiction to the High Court ruling, there are cases in which there is an order to assassinate someone when it is possible to arrest him. Advance approval to kill civilians who do not take part in hostile activities (or against whom no evidence proves guilt) makes things even worse....
Postponing an operation for diplomatic reasons is unequivocal proof (that) this is not a 'ticking bomb' situation."
General Naveh (Central Command head from 2005 - 2007) admitted that at times "no genuine attempts are made to arrest wanted men." Saying they never happened on his watch, he claimed Malaisha and Abed were legitimate targets as "ticking bombs," despite no evidence to prove it and in defiance of a High Court ruling.
"Don't bother me with the High Court orders," he said. "I don't know when there were High Court orders and when there weren't. I know that a targeted assassination is approved and there is a preventive action procedure and I received instructions from the Operations Directorate."
The only State justification ever given is that targeted killings are "an exceptional step (taken) only when there is no other, less severe way of" acting.
From seclusion in London, Haaretz published Blau's April 10, 2010 article headlined, "This isn't just a war for my freedom but for Israel's image," saying: he never imagined his foreign trip would prevent him from "return(ing) to Tel Aviv as a journalist and a free man, only because I published reports that were not convenient to the establishment."
So when told if he returned, he "could be silenced forever (and/or) be charged for crimes related to espionage, (he) decided to fight," repeating the above title he chose for this article.
As a journalist, he expressed commitment to provide "as much information as possible and in the best way, with maximum objectivity. (For Haaretz, his) name has appeared, alone and with others (revealing) exposes dealing with (high) public figures and institutions of all kinds." None could have been published without sources and corroborating documents.
All previous military related exposes "were vetted by (their) censors before publication." They weren't "pleasant to read," but no matter. A journalist's job is to provide facts on relevant "goings-on around them....but no Israeli journalist has known until now that such exposes could have him declared an enemy of the state and find himself in jail" or perhaps killed.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
