Quote:Targeted killings, like most other military actions in densely populated areas, will inevitably lead to some civilian deaths, but Israel has taken action to reduce the ratio of civilian to terrorist deaths to the lowest point in history for comparable actions.
The Israeli Supreme Court has limited targeted killing to those engaged in terrorism. They would never permit it to be used against drug traffickers or those who would not qualify as combatants.
There will be some criticism of the US, but not condemnations - no draft of Resolution, boycott or divestment.
There will not even be the type of criticism directed against Israel by the likes of former UK foreign secretary Jack Straw, who declared: "The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called 'targeted assassinations' of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counter-productive."
Similarly, the French Foreign Ministry stated: France "declares once again that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable."
The Italian Foreign Minister joined this chorus of criticism, stating: "Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations."
Martin S. Indyk, a previous American ambassador to Israel, was also open in criticizing Israel's targeted killings when he said: "The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations... They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that."
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We continue to express our distress and opposition to these kinds of targeted killings and we will continue to do so."
What is unclear is whether these statements, when considered in the light of the recent announcement that drug traffickers are to be targeted for killing by US troops and drones, reflects a change in American policy, or is simply another example of the double standard applied against Israel. It certainly looks like the latter.
The double standard displayed by the world makes a mockery of universal human rights and international humanitarian law. Neither will retain any degree of credibility if the operating principle is "rights for me, but not for thee."