A Jewish man was murdered yesterday, beaten and hacked to death by two Arabs with metal bars and axes. Here is a bit from the BBC news item:
The incident happened in a part of the Jordan Valley which Israel captured in the war of 1967 where the construction of Israeli homes and businesses is widely considered a breach of international law – something Israel does not accept, says the BBC’s Kevin Connolly in Jerusalem.
The dead man is the third Israeli to be killed in what Israel characterises as “terror attacks” in the last month in the West Bank. Two serving soldiers have also died.
So what exactly does what is “widely considered” have to do with this murder?
It is also widely considered — by many authorities in international law, not just ‘Israel’ — that construction of such buildings is not illegal. In fact, before the Jordanian occupation of this area in 1948, nobody said that Jews couldn’t build in this area.
Then — in actual violation of international law and the UN Charter — Jordan invaded the area, annexed it, and ethnically cleansed it of its Jewish population. The only country that recognized the annexation was the BBC’s homeland, the UK. But I don’t recall protests against illegal Jordanian construction.
In 1967, in a defensive war, Israel reversed these illegal acts. The least the international community could do would be to say thanks! Instead, it became “widely” thought that it was illegal for Jews to live there.
Is it being insinuated that the victims (the man’s wife was injured but escaped) deserved what they got? Or that the murders were somehow justified, or if not justified, understood?
Incidentally, the word ‘murdered’ does not appear in the piece. Only ‘killed’.