I'm surprised no one brought this topic up yet, so I thought I'd lend a hand. The topic is the assassination of Hamas' spiritual leader Yassin. Do you think the Israelis can justifiably kill off anyone in Palestine that they don't like, as retribution for the deaths on their side? Because considering how easily they got away with it this time, I wouldn't be surprised if Arafat winds up being blown up in the near future.

To me, it seems pretty obvious that you can't fight fire with fire, especially in this case. More or less the whole Muslim world now vowed revenge on Israel, and the international community condemned it as well. And yet, Sharon even boasted about expanding the number of such assassinations in the future. Makes me wonder if there's any sense at all left in this conflict, on either side.

(A link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians) for anyone needing more info.)

Do you think the Israelis can justifiably kill off anyone in Palestine that they don't like, as retribution for the deaths on their side? No, but if you take out the "justifiably" part, then yes. I hate when Israel does stuff like this. The U.S. does back Israel 99% of the time, but we can't in this. All this assassination does is reinforce all the negative stereotypes regarding the U.S. and Israel held my thousands, if not millions, of extremists in the Muslim world.

How timely this thread is. Boortz had this link on his blog today:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

I cannot confirm the accuracy of the document, or the reliability of the source, but if this is true, then as far as I am concerned, Israel is welcome to put the crosshairs on any person who joins Hamas.

As it origin from an Isralei website, and IIRC a goverment one, I think that you can trust it as much as you can trust Hitler when he said that Jews were the root of all evil.

Do you think the Israelis can justifiably kill off anyone in Palestine that they don't like, as retribution for the deaths on their side?No offence Tal, but don't forget how many Palestinans that the IDF have killed over the years. They are not so nice, themself. They put the muslims in small camps and build walls around them, very noble of them. I just hope that Sharon gets what he deserves, quickly.

EDIT: This sounded very, very, wrong, and I do not wish to see the death of all jews, I just dislike the Israeli goverment and their goals.

I have always believed that the whole middle east situation will never be resolved peacefully; it will go on until it turns into a full-blown war. If the U.S. then gets involved, I hate to think what that would mean globally.

This latest action by Israel only reinforces my belief.

Whether or not it was justified I really can't say. It certainly wasn't a wise move, IMO. Yassin was considered one of the more peaceful and calming members of Hammas, advocating a non-violent approach publicly on several occasions. Whether that was just a public front or not we may never know. He could very well have been more dangerous than widely believed by the Palestinians.

But one thing is for sure. Any prayer the Roadmap had of success has now completely evaporated. Sharon gave Hammas and every fanatical Islamic jihadist the best recruitment tool they've had in years. I'm thankful I don't live in Israel right now.

Splunge, DR -- I heartily agree. This conflict has been going on so long now and each side is so convinced of all the wrongs that they've had to suffer at each other's hands, I don't see how it will ever be resolved.

I'm really torn about this topic in many ways. In some cases, such as with Iraq and Bin Laden, I've taken the stand... "just send someone in there and take him out!"...the assassin approach -- quietly done, but nevertheless, revenge. In this case, it's different. Israel is PROUD of the fact that they targeted and killed this individual...they announced their feat and continue to boast about it publicly. They wanted to make a show. Is one method better than the other. Morally, they're both reprehensible, or maybe it's just that one is easier to swallow than the other, because in one case we don't have to look at what we've done and in the other, we can't escape it.

I have always believed that the whole middle east situation will never be resolved peacefully; it will go on until it turns into a full-blown war.IMO, it already is war, and they might as well get on with it.

I see this as just another step in the cycle of violence. Yassim was by no means an angel but now at his death he has atleast ascended to martyrhood. What I cant understand is why Isreal again and again oblige the terrorists and give them "justification" for their hate and make another generation of Palestenians grow up to hate Israelis. Violence feeds violence. Always. Someone has to stop the cycle, which seems to be way too much to ask for. I had hopes for Isreal taking the first steps but after listening to some top officials in the Isreali structure that hope is shattered, their attityde is just like Hamas or the Hizbollah's, they dont see any occupation and they see the Palestinians as the embodiment of all evil. The only difference is that Israel has the luxury of atleast trying to aim towards combatants. Not that the civilian Palestanian casualty list is any shorther than the Israeli...

What I really don't understand is what Israel is hoping to gain with these actions? Yassin may not have been exactly a peaceful man, but atleast he was willing to negotiate with the Israeli government, now if the truly extreme parts of Hamas take over the situation might completely spiral out of control.

There is really only two solutions for Israel to solve this conflict, the first is a peaceful solution and the other is ethnic cleansing...

Oh pity the poor palestinians. Everyone knows all they would have to do is renounce their violent ways and the region would eventually move towards peace. Every Israeli air strike is a retaliation for an earlier bombing.

Here is (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/408359.html) a great link to see what the Israeli people have to deal with. The Palestinians have raised an entire generation on hate. Are the Israeli's innocent, of course not. But to blame Israel for trying to defend its borders and citizens is irresponsible.

In Spain everyone accepts that Spain will hunt down the terrorists and prosecute them like the criminals they are. Lets see what happens if it turns out that the terrorists are from Morroco and enjoy the peace, safety, and protection of the Morrocan people and government.

I can't even imagine having to live in a country surrounded by people who hated you long before you developed an economy, a military, and especially the bomb. The hatred was there long before the IDF was able to launch its first air strike.

I've said it before and I will say it again. The only thing keeping the Palestinians alive is the ghost of Hitler. One day they will do something so horrific that the Israeli people will break and wipe them out completely.

Just for the record I am Jewish.

Oh pity the poor palestinians. Everyone knows all they would have to do is renounce their violent ways and the region would eventually move towards peace.And give up land (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/aeac80e740c782e4852561150071fdb0!OpenDocument).

Never forget the old adage about possession being 90% of the law.

Or as your link says

Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of "historical connection" since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the "Diaspora".

and then

The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia So maybe it isn't the palestinian's land to give up.

Are we talking physical possession, which the Palestinians clearly had, or nostalgia?

Both I guess. If you want to use the argument about who had the land first, the Israelis have a claim going back millenia. If you want to use the argument on who has the land now, the Israelis clearly have it and have governed/possessed it since post WWI (I do not know the actual date, I just remembered that from your link).

That wall they're putting up is looking suspiciously like another land grab - and if there's any issue hotter than religion, it's land - and here you have both combined in an explosive mix.

Wow, they blew up a major leader of an organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Amazing. And it's going to lead to another cycle of violence (as if the latest Intifada has been a piece of cake).

Please spare the rhetoric of the poor Palestinians. If they wanted peace, all Arafat had to do was agree to the last proposal. But no, he wasn't getting 100% of his demands so here we are.

I have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians (whoever they may be) that are dying or losing their property because of the actions of the militants. Excluded from my sympathy are officials of Hammas, no matter how "peaceful" they now claim to be, as well as those run-of-the-mill Palestinians who supply explicit or complicit support for the militants by allowing their relatives to be human bombs or by hiding or otherwise harboring the militants.

And one last thing - Israel at least aims at the people who paint targets on themselves, not the civilians. Last I checked, the militants mostly aimed at civilians.

For the record, I have many relatives in Israel, some of whom support the government, some of whom don't (amazing that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where that is allowed), but all of whom confirm the fact that, at least in Israel, no one is under the delusion that they have not been at war (this time) since the declaration of the Intifada.

What I really don't understand is what Israel is hoping to gain with these actions? Sharon is not an idiot, he knows that the assasination of Yasin will lead to a new wave of suicide bombings, which will have as a result dozens of dead Israelis. IMO his aim is that the bloodbath of the suicide bombings will gain the international sympathy for Israel and that it will give him the justification to proceed to his final solution with much less international pressure.

The only thing keeping the Palestinians alive is the ghost of Hitler Interesting opinion but I think that the only thing, that the ghost of Hitler has done, is to make the international community very tolerant with the israeli violations of the international law starting from the abduction of Adolf Eichmann to the things that are happening today in the middle east. Really, how many times Sharon and the rest israeli leaders have called nazi and antisemite everybody who disagrees with their policies?

Really, how many times Sharon and the rest israeli leaders have called nazi and antisemite everybody who disagrees with their policies? Can you blame them? The international press uses quotes just like this one you posted.

israeli violations of the international law starting from the abduction of Adolf Eichmann to the things that are happening today in the middle east. Now put yourself in their shoes. Nowhere in the above quote does it mention all of the settlers that have been shot, all the buses blown up, all the markets attacked. Doesn't that quote seem to imply that Israel is the aggressor and the poor palestinians are victims of an evil government? These are people that have been at war for 50 years. How else would you expect them to act?

I'm giving BOC the benefit of the doubt that he is not an anti-semite. I see you are from Greece. Historically, the Greeks and Turks have hated each other. Now imagine that for your entire life Turks have been blowing up and killing people in Greece and the Greeks have been retaliating the entire time. Wouldn't you be a little defensive if you were accused of international offenses et al while the Turks got a free pass? I use this scenerio working on the assumption that Greece is the stronger power militarily. I have no idea if this is really true.

Entirely by coincidence...this week, the 9/11 Commission here in the US slapped both Clinton and Bush for not killing bin Laden when they had the chance. Some have noted, however, that the actual 9/11 attack might've occurred even if bin Laden had been removed from the picture, and the attack would probably have been judged to have been retaliation for his death.

Assassination seems to be moral when missed chances are judged by hindsight, and immoral when taken chances are judged by foresight.

I still (naively) think the real answer to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is to merge the two into one big unhappy democratic family. But barring that, targeted assassinations seem a lot kinder than the kind of large-scale (and so effective!) executions favored by yesterday's Assad and Hussein.

The international press uses quotes just like this one you posted. So the fact that international press says that Israel violates international law, makes it antisemite? You know the thing that annoys me is that the Israeli leadership uses holocaust as a shield for everything they do. I consider this as disrespect to their own dead.

How else would you expect them to act? Perhaps as the prime ministers Eleftherios Venizelos and Ismet Inonou acted in 1930 by signing an treaty of peace and friendship after almost 12 years of war, ethning cleansing and thousands deads.

Wouldn't you be a little defensive if you were accused of international offenses et al while the Turks got a free pass? Turks got a free pass when they invaded Cyprus despite UN resolutions. I haven't seen a retaliation from the greek side. Also, I don't think that Palestinians are getting a free pass. I can't remember a single palestinian attack, which was not codemned by the whole international community (with the exception of the arab countries).

I use this scenerio working on the assumption that Greece is the stronger power militarily. I have no idea if this is really true. In terms of quantity we are outnumbered. In terms of quality I don't know but the popular opinion here is that we have far better pilots, sailors and special forces. Of course I don't want to learn if this is true.

PS. I'm not antisemite.

Now imagine that for your entire life Turks have been blowing up and killing people in Greece and the Greeks have been retaliating the entire time. Wouldn't you be a little defensive if you were accused of international offenses et al while the Turks got a free pass? This would be a good example if Turkey was a part of Greece, but since it isn't the example doesen't work.

Please spare the rhetoric of the poor Palestinians. If they wanted peace, all Arafat had to do was agree to the last proposal. But no, he wasn't getting 100% of his demands so here we are. You really think Arafat has that kind of power? Arafat is now weaker than ever, once he was strong yes, but not anymore. The problem with killing Yassin is really that it kills all possibilities for a new "road map" for a long time since Hamas will most probably be run by extremists who do not even care to negotiate peace with Israel (which Yassin by the way did). And no I'm not saying that Israel killed an innocent man here, Yassin organized suicide bombers and was a terrorist in every way, I just do not think that this is a right way to go towards peace, in fact I think only misery and death will follow for both sides.

I do not agree with BOC that Israel will go for the ethnic cleansing and a final solution, it would be condemned by all, and I doubt that even the Israeli people would support such methods which still leaves me quite confused as to what was the big idea with this strike.

EDIT: I have to give some credit for Sharon though as he really is pushing to stop the building of Israeli settlements on Palestine terretory, he is clearly striving to peace, but his methods are very very questionable.

Something that I've forgotten to include in my previous post and I don't know if you are aware of it. Israeli and palestinian politicians after two years of negotiations in Geneva with the backing of Swiss goverment made the Geneva Accord, a treaty which gives a permanent solution to the palestinian problem. The people who participated in the discussions have no authority in their countries and I think that Sharon has rejected the treaty and I don't know which was Arafat's reaction, although this treaty shows that a solution is or was possible. You can read the treaty here. (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article5019.htm)

What say we ratchet down the rhetoric here? None of us should be bandying about terms like "anti-semite" and "final solution" out of their proper context. The European position seems mostly anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic, and there's a big difference between the two - the former is a political judgement, the other ethnic. And there's no way Israel would embark upon anything remotely like a "final solution". Even with the wall, the Israeli economy still depends upon a daily inflow of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers. Under the Sharon "solution" walling Israel off from the Palestinian sector, that daily migration wouldn't cease - it would just be more securely managed.

The issue is assassination, remember - its utility and morality (perhaps separate, perhaps interconnected) - compared to other means at Israel's disposal: massacres, mass imprisonments, a full military reoccupation of Gaza, economic sanctions, etc. Doesn't strike me that assassination strikes are the least just of the possibilities.

Oh, as for that Geneva agreement - it was a dead-letter to begin with. The equivalent would be if US Democratic congressmen joined with British Tory MPs to forge a "Joint US-UK Iraq Plan" to evacuate the territory and return control to the Ba'athists. Sometimes marrying contradictory positions requires a divorce from reality.

I want to commend Grey on his insite. I read the news every day, and I never even considered the link between the 9/11 hearings, and the killing of Hamas' spiritual leader Yassin. Good point!

What would have happened if the US had killed Bin Laden before 9/11? Would it would have been a violation of international law? Would there have been protestes and condemnations? I bet there would have been. Was the killng of Yassin a violation of international law?

Bin Laden is, in effect, the spirtual leader of Al Queida. Yassin was the spirutal leader of Hammas.

My first reaction to Yassin's killing was negative. Too much killing in that part of the world to begin with. But now that I think about it, and try to put myself in the shoes of the Israel government, I'm not so sure. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

Yassin was responsible for hundreds of dead Israeli citizens, by telling young Palestinians to become a martyr by blowing themselves up in the direct vicinity of as much Israeli's as possible.

So good riddance to him. They should have blasted him out of his wheelchair a long time ago.

And this isn't going to change a single thing. The Arab world was already after the destruction of the state of Israel, so how could things possibly become any worse ?

[ Careful with with your terminology. "The Arab world" lumps all Arabs together as anti-semitic, which makes your comment too generalized. ] - Beren

[ March 25, 2004, 20:49: Message edited by: Beren ]

Pac man,
have you ever considered who is the stronger and who's the weaker part in this conflict? Naturally, one might say Israel. It has all the arms and army and infrastructure and after a terrorist attack they retaliate with ferocity. The Israelis likely are about equal with the palestinians considering the overall bodycount.
The Israelis do a war by attrition - they guess that at one point the resistance will be broken and that then there is a way to achieve peace - through victory.

Then there are Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Except for the occasional bombings and murders it is relatively quiet - high key terror acts have been very rare in the reccent time. It is a fair guess that over the years the IRA and protestants and their respective splinter groups have likely killed more british policemen and soldiers than the brits killed terrorists in return.

So did Britain lose? Considering the overall much better situation there compared to Israel one has to say they won, but only by points. And maybe that's the best possible result.

It ist likely so that, in an occupation situation where non-state actors fight, deterrence, in the way of retaliation, becomes ineffective and worse, counter-productive. You can scare a country by threatening to rubble it's industrial base and economy. That approach fails with terrorists. That is what the "Iraq was a smackdown" goons don't get: In a terrorism context retaliation amplifies.

Fighting in terrorism situations seems to be turned upside down: In a terror war the stronger side may be the weaker one. And sometimes the best way to win may be not to fight and to indeed suffer the casualties in order to win.

In a war on terrorists winning means denying the enemy sympathy and support in the population. You don't win by accelerating the bodycount in hope the other side will one day run out of fanatics. Retaliation only adds sympathy for the terrorists as it underlines their claim to be fighting opression (especially in shape of retaliation).

And as terrorism is born out of a political problem, and without adressing that root cause you'll achieve nothing - you don't solve a problem of being late by breaking the watch.

I think you're on the wrong track Pac man. Very much so.

[ March 25, 2004, 15:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

You seem to forget that no matter what the Israeli's do, wheter it be retaliation, or trying to keep the peaceprocess going on, it will NEVER EVER satisfy the majority of the Arab world. That can only be achieved when the last Israeli is either dead, or moved out of the middle east.

I also like to remind you that the Israeli's did NOT draw first blood in this whole thing. From day one they are surrounded only by hostile nations, who tried anything within their limits to bring the state of Israel down. All the Israeli's were doing is defend themselves, and you can't blame them for doing it by all means necessary. This has turned into a survival of the fittest contest, and there can be only one ending.

You seem to forget that no matter what the Israeli's do, wheter it be retaliation, or trying to keep the peaceprocess going on, it will NEVER EVER satisfy the majority of the Arab world.You also seem to forget that it was an Israeli, a Jew, who killed Rabin for promoting the peace process. That can only be achieved when the last Israeli is either dead, or moved out of the middle east.I wouldn't be too sure about that. Likud likes to tell that a lot, it serves their picture of a mortal, relentless enemy. I'm not so convinced.
Basically you say this conflict is special because it is about two religions and Jews. I don't think the extinction of Jews is the aim of the Palestinian struggle.
The Palestinians would likely be quite happy if they only can live and handle their lives in their country freely, a much less ambitious and arcane goal still worth fighting for.

For both sides, Palestinian and Israeli hardliners the conflict is a must. They need each other. With Israel at *peace*, without an external threat from Egypt, Syria and Jordan in sight Israeli hardliners need another enemy to keep their political influence - Palestinian terrorism. For the Palestinians of Hamas it's the harsh reality of Isreali occupation forces. Both points serve just fine as an excuse to perpetuate violence.
And for both sides it's for blood and soil, for the Israelis and the Palestinians it is about Lebensraum. And both sides are quite ideological and sure suffer no lack of fanatism.

That reminds me of that old saying about antisemites and Jews - and paraphrase it yourself: For an antisemite the worst problem is that he defines himself by hating his worst enemy. That is, he requires his enemy to maintain his identity. Take that away and he's nothing.

That is: Deadlocked in a mortal struggle with his mortal enemy may for a fanatic be a desirable state of affairs. They might not want peace.

Unimportance is the worst and cruelest death a politico can die, and to avoid that killing is a way out. That's what makes me pessimistic about an achievable peace there.

Both sides have an easy time to kill any sign of hope: One more suicide attack or another air raid and the peace process is in shambles again. And on for another round ...

Notes in the margin:
Israel holds Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 - before these were parts of Egypt and Jordan. The Palestinians didn't want to become part of Israel, and no one ever asked them. And now Israel is settling on their land. That would upset me a bit too, if I was one of them.

And as I said, without adressing the root cause that problem will not be solved.

On the other hand, it is another example of blowback - Israel first encouraged the creation of Hamas as a religious counterweight to secular PLO which at that time was Israels major concern, in an attempt to weaken PLO. They succeeded. Today Hamas is conducting the terroist acts. Bravo!
Today Israel demands from the very PLO they themselve weakened that they fight Hamas, which emerged as a new menace.

That other aspect is quite interesting, sort of analogous to the US creating the Mujaheddin volunteer forces in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, only to see them turning on them in shape of Al Qaeda - classical blowback.

[ March 25, 2004, 17:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]