What goes around comes around

News had it that the Iraqi cabinet has approved the death sentence of Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali". So he is going to be hanged soon. But there's a problem inside the Iraqi presidential council that has delayed finalization of this verdict.

 

According to the released verdict, Chemical Ali's main charge is massacre of 180 thousand Kurds, men and women, young and old, in al-Anfal campaign. His other crimes and murders during all those years of Saddam Hussein's oppressive rule aside, isn't this single massacre of 180 thousand (or 8 thousand, or 800, or 80, whatever) enough to invalidate belief of those who stand against death sentence?

 

Having such stance may be debatable and probably acceptable in developed societies. Definitely death sentence cannot be acceptable at all times, all cases, from a humanistic, moral, and psychological point. But when we talk of massacre, the story changes.

 

In the 20^th century, two leaders became famous for their massacre of millions: Hitler, Fuhrer of the Nazi Germany, and Joseph Stalin, Leader of the former Soviet Union. Closer to our age, criminals like Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia (and later Serbia) come to our mind and his "generals" who in Bosnia and Herzegovina, slaughtered Muslims in Sarajevo –that beautiful and historical city- and ran a feast of bloodshed in Mostar.

 

In the final days of his trial in International Court of Justice, Milosevic died after a heart attack and escaped punishment. But his two assisting "generals" are still on the lam and the present government of Serbia refuses to arrest and hand them to Hague International Court.

 

Crimes of these Serb "nationalists" were not restricted to Sarajevo and Mostar. There were other republics of former Yugoslavia that tasted their fierce endeavor and massacre to realize the supremacy of the Serb race. All this led to Yugoslavia's dissolution and formation of independent republics like Croatia and Slovenia.

 

Conflagrations triggered by these Serb "nationalists" –you read it bloodthirsties- caused the death of tens of thousands and displaced some other millions, most of which haven't still had a chance to return to their homes. The nationalists even ruined their own country, Yugoslavia. So tell me: is it fair –or sensible- to take a "fundamental" stance when talking of these crimes and criminals and talk about futility of death sentence?

 

My opinion may be put to debate. After all I don't want to insist on its correctness. But who deserves a death sentence, other than true criminals? When they run massacres and genocides consciously and abuse their power, and they live their life free of any worries for execution, how will their destiny bring sense to other potential criminals?

 

Seems like I'm talking nonsense and this "admonition" has no importance at the current international scene. Israel is launching air and ground strikes on innocent people of Gaza day by day and looks like it is so proud of it. We will continue until we diminish all "terrorists". That's what they say.

 

First of all, these so-called "terrorists" have won in a relatively democratic election. Second; suppose that what you Israelis claim about their nature is true. What does it have to do with the lives and properties of innocent civilians? If we believe that reaction must be proportionate to action, how the sporadic missile shootings of Hamas inside Israel –that according to what Israelis say themselves has taken lives of few- could be compared to the all-out attack of Israel that has killed around 100 people only in five days? (These statistics were reported by all international media and news agencies.)

 

Third; suppose we accept Israel's claims that Hamas has been created by foreign governments including Iran. Is it reasonable to think of a movement that has at any rate won a public election and carries the support of the majority of 1.5 million residents of Gaza –let's not mention the West Bank and other countries of Middle East- as a puppet of other countries?

 

True. Israel has the upper hand now, and basking in United States' support it has no worries of being condemned by UN Security Council. But what will be the result of this campaign? Does it sooth the historical cynicisms over Jews or vice versa? That will increase with such policies of the Israeli state? Hasn't it undermined the other Palestinian party, Fatah and the West Bank Authority?

 

It was natural for Mahmoud Abbas and his administration -who were getting prepared to negotiate and compromise with Israel- to stand against slaughter of their citizens and suspend the negotiations. So give me the name of somebody –except extremists and Jewish "fundamentalists"- who benefit from all this violence.

 

The current Israeli government is a rainbow of nearly all Israeli mainstream parties and movements. Simon Perez, the so-called "dove", is the president. Barrack who once opposed the "radical" Netanyahu is Minister of War. That means he's the one who gives direct orders of raids and slaughters. Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, claims that he wants to end this Palestinian tragedy!

 

When in the history have such measures brought with themselves beneficial outcomes for the ones who carry them out? Was it Europe at the time of Hitler, East Bloc at the time of Stalin, Uganda of Idi Amin, Iraq of Saddam Hussein, or it happened in Cultural Revolution of the Communist China…? Wouldn't all this restrained grudge, sooner or later, erupt and take revenge?

 

History has shown us that no one will remain powerful for ever. Every act of crime will face its reaction one day. It is true that all dictators and tyrant regimes think of themselves as exceptions and do not learn a lesson from the history. But hasn't our experience, accumulated through all these centuries, proved to us that a day of judgment will come at last?

 

The misery of Nazi leaders in Nuremberg trials and Saddam's desperation in the court -after all that 30 years of kingly life and oppression-; aren't they enough to remind murderers and their cronies of the final day? What Israel and its matches do gives us a 'no' answer. But that's what all tyrants of the history said.

 
So, is it really irrelevant to ask which people and which regimes get relieved with "fundamental" stance of those who oppose death sentence? I like to know your idea.