There is a solemn logic behind the principles of Nuremberg  - the logic of fairness, proof and an overarching sense of justice.  It is only so that Goering and Milosevic were brought to trial, not nuked to death like Yassin. Why the disparity of treatment?  And how can one tolerate this disparity? Indeed the former, who both ordered the deaths of thousands, committed acts far more heinous than a man, who spoke of the right of the Palestinians to use force to end the tyranny and dispossession experienced by them for over half a century now.  So if we oblige ourselves to put Goering and Milosovic on the stand, we must then see to it that Yassin too gets his day on that stand.  And we must come out clearly and without hesitation against any one who prevents this from happening.  We must therefore condemn the Israeli government for this assassination.  We must let them know in the clearest terms possible that they are not above the law.  They are not above the sacred message of Nuremberg.  And that just as we would not accept the assassination of Ariel Sharon - who among other things, oversaw the massacre of more than a thousand men, women and children in Sabra and Shatila - we do not accept the assassination of Sheikh Yassin.

But Principle V is not the only part of Nuremberg that the Israeli government violated in assassinating Yassin.  It also trampled over Principle VI:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law...Crimes against peace: i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression..." (Principle VI, Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950)

In the backdrop of the continuing occupation and acute immiseration of the Palestinian people, and the construction of an apartheid wall in the West Bank, Yassin's assassination is a grotesque attack on hopes for peace.  Yassin represented the moderate wing of Hamas and supported a truce in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Notably, this position is in line with the international consensus as encapsulated in U.N. Resolution 242.  But the Israeli government would have none of it. Instead, it reiterated the message it has relayed time and again ­ that it will only speak the language of force, and crucially, indeed problematically, that it is only the language of force that it understands.  With Yassin's assassination the Israeli government is now beginning a new, ever-more destructive phase of the occupation, signaling its intent to impose upon the Palestinians a solution forged not in right, but in might - a formal military solution, perhaps tantamount to nothing less than a final solution.

Given this somber reality it is utterly unfortunate and woefully distressing that the U.S. government has not condemned Israel's act for what it is ­ an unlawful, extra-judicial killing, an assassination.  Indeed, the first official words from Washington, which came from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, even appeared perilously close to endorsing the assassination.  The best the U.S. government could muster was a statement from State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, in which he said that Washington was deeply troubled by the attack.  And late in the afternoon of March 23, 2004, the U.S. prevented a statement from being issued by the U.N. Security Council condemning Yassin’s assassination.

Needless to say the U.S. government's response is lamentable.  It is all the more troubling because for the U.S. there is a significant issue at stake complicity.  More than 3 billion dollars of U.S. tax money goes to Israel each year.  In addition, Israel receives considerable arms shipments from the U.S., and unwavering diplomatic support.  So the missile that assassinated Yassin and the aircraft that fired it, were very likely either bought with our tax dollars or produced in U.S. factories.  The fuel that powered that aircraft may well have been bought with our money.  Indeed, the pilot of the aircraft may well have received training from U.S. air force manuals.  In other words, just as the occupation of Palestine and the oppression of Palestinians occur with our tax dollars and with U.S. military and diplomatic support for Israel, Yassin's assassination may well not have occurred without such support.

Principle VII of Nuremberg states:

"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law." (Principle VII, Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950)

With this in mind, we must not look to the U.S. government and must instead take it upon ourselves to form an adequate response to the Israeli government’s unlawful act.  We must tell the world that the U.S. government does not speak for us when it does not condemn Israel’s breach of Nuremberg’s principles.  We must tell the world that we are committed to Nuremberg’s principles and that we categorically deplore the Israeli government’s violation of them.  And we must act to enforce Nuremberg’s principles against any and all figures within the Israeli government who ordered Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s assassination.

A little more than a year ago, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old peace activist from Olympia, Washington, was killed by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip.  Rachel was crushed to death by a U.S.-made Caterpillar bulldozer, driven by an Israeli soldier as she non-violently tried to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home.  A few days before her death Rachel, talking about the oppression of the Palestinians, wrote her parents, Craig and Cindy Corrie:

“This has to stop.  I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop.  I don’t think it is an extremist thing anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers.  But I also want this to stop.”

Rachel was a remarkable individual, and there are perhaps only a few of us who have it in them to rise for the defense of an "other" and stand unflinchingly before a bulldozer, the way she did.  Maybe we are not yet at the point where that is required of us.  But given the Israeli government’s recent actions and its intentions, we undoubtedly are at the point where we cannot be silent.