The Most Wanted List

On February 13, Imad Moughniyeh, a senior commander of Hizbollah, wasassassinated in Damascus. "The world is a better place without this man init," State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said: "one way orthe other he was brought to justice." Director of National IntelligenceMike McConnell added that Moughniyeh has been "responsible for more deathsof Americans and Israelis than any other terrorist with the exception of Osamabin Laden."

Joy was unconstrained in Israel too, as "one of the U.S. and Israel'smost wanted men" was brought to justice, the London Financial Timesreported. Under the heading, "A militant wanted the world over," anaccompanying story reported that he was "superseded on the most-wanted listby Osama bin Laden" after 9/11 and so ranked only second among "themost wanted militants in the world."

The terminology is accurate enough, according to the rules of Anglo-Americandiscourse, which defines "the world" as the political class inWashington and London (and whoever happens to agree with them on specificmatters). It is common, for example, to read that "the world" fullysupported George Bush when he ordered the bombing of Afghanistan. That may betrue of "the world," but hardly of the world, as revealed in aninternational Gallup Poll after the bombing was announced. Global support wasslight. In Latin America, which has some experience with U.S. behavior, supportranged from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama, and that support was conditional uponthe culprits being identified (they still weren't eight months later, the FBIreported), and civilian targets being spared (they were attacked at once). Therewas an overwhelming preference in the world for diplomatic/judicial measures,rejected out of hand by "the world."

Following the Terror Trail

In the present case, if "the world" were extended to the world, wemight find some other candidates for the honor of most hated arch-criminal. Itis instructive to ask why this might be true.

The Financial Times reports that most of the charges againstMoughniyeh are unsubstantiated, but "one of the very few times when hisinvolvement can be ascertained with certainty [is in] the hijacking of a TWAplane in 1985 in which a U.S. Navy diver was killed." This was one of twoterrorist atrocities the led a poll of newspaper editors to select terrorism inthe Middle East as the top story of 1985; the other was the hijacking of thepassenger liner Achille Lauro, in which a crippled American, LeonKlinghoffer, was brutally murdered,. That reflects the judgment of "theworld." It may be that the world saw matters somewhat differently.

The Achille Lauro hijacking was a retaliation for the bombing of Tunisordered a week earlier by Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. His air forcekilled 75 Tunisians and Palestinians with smart bombs that tore them to shreds,among other atrocities, as vividly reported from the scene by the prominentIsraeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk. Washington cooperated by failing to warn itsally Tunisia that the bombers were on the way, though the Sixth Fleet and U.S.intelligence could not have been unaware of the impending attack. Secretary ofState George Shultz informed Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir thatWashington "had considerable sympathy for the Israeli action," whichhe termed "a legitimate response" to "terrorist attacks," togeneral approbation. A few days later, the UN Security Council unanimouslydenounced the bombing as an "act of armed aggression" (with the U.S.abstaining). "Aggression" is, of course, a far more serious crime thaninternational terrorism. But giving the United States and Israel the benefit ofthe doubt, let us keep to the lesser charge against their leadership.

A few days after, Peres went to Washington to consult with the leadinginternational terrorist of the day, Ronald Reagan, who denounced "the evilscourge of terrorism," again with general acclaim by "the world."

The "terrorist attacks" that Shultz and Peres offered as thepretext for the bombing of Tunis were the killings of three Israelis in Larnaca,Cyprus. The killers, as Israel conceded, had nothing to do with Tunis, thoughthey might have had Syrian connections. Tunis was a preferable target, however.It was defenseless, unlike Damascus. And there was an extra pleasure: moreexiled Palestinians could be killed there.

The Larnaca killings, in turn, were regarded as retaliation by theperpetrators: They were a response to regular Israeli hijackings ininternational waters in which many victims were killed -- and many morekidnapped and sent to prisons in Israel, commonly to be held without charge forlong periods. The most notorious of these has been the secret prison/torturechamber Facility 1391. A good deal can be learned about it from the Israeli andforeign press. Such regular Israeli crimes are, of course, known to editors ofthe national press in the U.S., and occasionally receive some casual mention.

Klinghoffer's murder was properly viewed with horror, and is very famous. Itwas the topic of an acclaimed opera and a made-for-TV movie, as well as muchshocked commentary deploring the savagery of Palestinians -- "two-headedbeasts" (Prime Minister Menachem Begin), "drugged roaches scurryingaround in a bottle" (Chief of Staff Raful Eitan), "like grasshopperscompared to us," whose heads should be "smashed against the bouldersand walls" (Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir). Or more commonly just "Araboushim,"the slang counterpart of "kike" or "nigger."

Thus, after a particularly depraved display of settler-military terror andpurposeful humiliation in the West Bank town of Halhul in December 1982, whichdisgusted even Israeli hawks, the well-known military/political analyst YoramPeri wrote in dismay that one "task of the army today [is] to demolish therights of innocent people just because they are Araboushim living in territoriesthat God promised to us," a task that became far more urgent, and wascarried out with far more brutality, when the Araboushim began to "raisetheir heads" a few years later.

We can easily assess the sincerity of the sentiments expressed about theKlinghoffer murder. It is only necessary to investigate the reaction tocomparable U.S.-backed Israeli crimes. Take, for example, the murder in April2002 of two crippled Palestinians, Kemal Zughayer and Jamal Rashid, by Israeliforces rampaging through the refugee camp of Jenin in the West Bank. Zughayer'scrushed body and the remains of his wheelchair were found by British reporters,along with the remains of the white flag he was holding when he was shot deadwhile seeking to flee the Israeli tanks which then drove over him, ripping hisface in two and severing his arms and legs. Jamal Rashid was crushed in hiswheelchair when one of Israel's huge U.S.-supplied Caterpillar bulldozersdemolished his home in Jenin with his family inside. The differential reaction,or rather non-reaction, has become so routine and so easy to explain that nofurther commentary is necessary.

Car Bomb

Plainly, the 1985 Tunis bombing was a vastly more severe terrorist crime thanthe Achille Lauro hijacking, or the crime for which Moughniyeh's"involvement can be ascertained with certainty" in the same year. Buteven the Tunis bombing had competitors for the prize for worst terroristatrocity in the Mideast in the peak year of 1985.

One challenger was a car-bombing in Beirut right outside a mosque, timed togo off as worshippers were leaving Friday prayers. It killed 80 people andwounded 256. Most of the dead were girls and women, who had been leaving themosque, though the ferocity of the blast "burned babies in theirbeds," "killed a bride buying her trousseau," and "blew awaythree children as they walked home from the mosque." It also"devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirutsuburb, reported Nora Boustany three years later in the Washington Post.

The intended target had been the Shi'ite cleric Sheikh Mohammad HusseinFadlallah, who escaped. The bombing was carried out by Reagan's CIA and hisSaudi allies, with Britain's help, and was specifically authorized by CIADirector William Casey, according to Washington Post reporter BobWoodward's account in his book Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.Little is known beyond the bare facts, thanks to rigorous adherence to thedoctrine that we do not investigate our own crimes (unless they become tooprominent to suppress, and the inquiry can be limited to some low-level"bad apples" who were naturally "out of control").

"Terrorist Villagers"

A third competitor for the 1985 Mideast terrorism prize was Prime MinisterPeres' "Iron Fist" operations in southern Lebanese territories thenoccupied by Israel in violation of Security Council orders. The targets werewhat the Israeli high command called "terrorist villagers." Peres'scrimes in this case sank to new depths of "calculated brutality andarbitrary murder" in the words of a Western diplomat familiar with thearea, an assessment amply supported by direct coverage. They are, however, of nointerest to "the world" and therefore remain uninvestigated, inaccordance with the usual conventions. We might well ask whether these crimesfall under international terrorism or the far more severe crime of aggression,but let us again give the benefit of the doubt to Israel and its backers inWashington and keep to the lesser charge.

These are a few of the thoughts that might cross the minds of peopleelsewhere in the world, even if not those of "the world," whenconsidering "one of the very few times" Imad Moughniyeh was clearlyimplicated in a terrorist crime.

The U.S. also accuses him of responsibility for devastating double suicidetruck-bomb attacks on U.S. Marine and French paratrooper barracks in Lebanon in1983, killing 241 Marines and 58 paratroopers, as well as a prior attack on theU.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63, a particularly serious blow because of ameeting there of CIA officials at the time.

The Financial Times has, however, attributed the attack on the Marinebarracks to Islamic Jihad, not Hizbollah. Fawaz Gerges, one of the leadingscholars on the jihadi movements and on Lebanon, has written thatresponsibility was taken by an "unknown group called Islamic Jihad." Avoice speaking in classical Arabic called for all Americans to leave Lebanon orface death. It has been claimed that Moughniyeh was the head of Islamic Jihad atthe time, but to my knowledge, evidence is sparse.

The opinion of the world has not been sampled on the subject, but it ispossible that there might be some hesitancy about calling an attack on amilitary base in a foreign country a "terrorist attack," particularlywhen U.S. and French forces were carrying out heavy naval bombardments and airstrikes in Lebanon, and shortly after the U.S. provided decisive support for the1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which killed some 20,000 people and devastatedthe south, while leaving much of Beirut in ruins. It was finally called off byPresident Reagan when international protest became too intense to ignore afterthe Sabra-Shatila massacres.

In the United States, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is regularly describedas a reaction to Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist attacks onnorthern Israel from their Lebanese bases, making our crucial contribution tothese major war crimes understandable. In the real world, the Lebanese borderarea had been quiet for a year, apart from repeated Israeli attacks, many ofthem murderous, in an effort to elicit some PLO response that could be used as apretext for the already planned invasion. Its actual purpose was not concealedat the time by Israeli commentators and leaders: to safeguard the Israelitakeover of the occupied West Bank. It is of some interest that the sole seriouserror in Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is therepetition of this propaganda concoction about PLO attacks from Lebanon beingthe motive for the Israeli invasion. The book was bitterly attacked, anddesperate efforts were made to find some phrase that could be misinterpreted,but this glaring error -- the only one -- was ignored. Reasonably, since itsatisfies the criterion of adhering to useful doctrinal fabrications.

Killing without Intent

Another allegation is that Moughniyeh "masterminded" the bombing ofIsrael's embassy in Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992, killing 29 people, inresponse, as the Financial Times put it, to Israel's "assassinationof former Hizbollah leader Abbas Al-Mussawi in an air attack in southernLebanon." About the assassination, there is no need for evidence: Israelproudly took credit for it. The world might have some interest in the rest ofthe story. Al-Mussawi was murdered with a U.S.-supplied helicopter, well northof Israel's illegal "security zone" in southern Lebanon. He was on hisway to Sidon from the village of Jibshit, where he had spoken at the memorialfor another Imam murdered by Israeli forces. The helicopter attack also killedhis wife and five-year old child. Israel then employed U.S.-supplied helicoptersto attack a car bringing survivors of the first attack to a hospital.

After the murder of the family, Hezbollah "changed the rules of thegame," Prime Minister Rabin informed the Israeli Knesset. Previously, norockets had been launched at Israel. Until then, the rules of the game had beenthat Israel could launch murderous attacks anywhere in Lebanon at will, andHizbollah would respond only within Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory.

After the murder of its leader (and his family), Hizbollah began to respondto Israeli crimes in Lebanon by rocketing northern Israel. The latter is, ofcourse, intolerable terror, so Rabin launched an invasion that drove some500,000 people out of their homes and killed well over 100. The mercilessIsraeli attacks reached as far as northern Lebanon.

In the south, 80% of the city of Tyre fled and Nabatiye was left a"ghost town," Jibshit was about 70% destroyed according to an Israeliarmy spokesperson, who explained that the intent was "to destroy thevillage completely because of its importance to the Shi'ite population ofsouthern Lebanon." The goal was "to wipe the villages from the face ofthe earth and sow destruction around them," as a senior officer of theIsraeli northern command described the operation.

Jibshit may have been a particular target because it was the home of SheikhAbdul Karim Obeid, kidnapped and brought to Israel several years earlier.Obeid's home "received a direct hit from a missile," Britishjournalist Robert Fisk reported, "although the Israelis were presumablygunning for his wife and three children." Those who had not escaped hid interror, wrote Mark Nicholson in the Financial Times, "because anyvisible movement inside or outside their houses is likely to attract theattention of Israeli artillery spotters, who… were pounding their shellsrepeatedly and devastatingly into selected targets." Artillery shells werehitting some villages at a rate of more than 10 rounds a minute at times.

All of this received the firm support of President Bill Clinton, whounderstood the need to instruct the Araboushim sternly on the "rulesof the game." And Rabin emerged as another grand hero and man of peace, sodifferent from the two-legged beasts, grasshoppers, and drugged roaches.

This is only a small sample of facts that the world might find of interest inconnection with the alleged responsibility of Moughniyeh for the retaliatoryterrorist act in Buenos Aires.

Other charges are that Moughniyeh helped prepare Hizbollah defenses againstthe 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, evidently an intolerable terrorist crimeby the standards of "the world," which understands that the UnitedStates and its clients must face no impediments in their just terror andaggression.

The more vulgar apologists for U.S. and Israeli crimes solemnly explain that,while Arabs purposely kill people, the U.S. and Israel, being democraticsocieties, do not intend to do so. Their killings are just accidental ones,hence not at the level of moral depravity of their adversaries. That was, forexample, the stand of Israel's High Court when it recently authorized severecollective punishment of the people of Gaza by depriving them of electricity(hence water, sewage disposal, and other such basics of civilized life).

The same line of defense is common with regard to some of Washington's pastpeccadilloes, like the destruction in 1998 of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plantin Sudan. The attack apparently led to the deaths of tens of thousands ofpeople, but without intent to kill them, hence not a crime on the order ofintentional killing -- so we are instructed by moralists who consistentlysuppress the response that had already been given to these vulgar efforts atself-justification.

To repeat once again, we can distinguish three categories of crimes: murderwith intent, accidental killing, and murder with foreknowledge but withoutspecific intent. Israeli and U.S. atrocities typically fall into the thirdcategory. Thus, when Israel destroys Gaza's power supply or sets up barriers totravel in the West Bank, it does not specifically intend to murder theparticular people who will die from polluted water or in ambulances that cannotreach hospitals. And when Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of the al-Shifaplant, it was obvious that it would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe.