PDA

View Full Version : Hamas founder killed


Clarkmeister
03-22-2004, 03:08 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Amazingly, things are going to get uglier over there.

ACPlayer
03-22-2004, 03:19 AM
Good news: One less religious fundamentalist to deal with.

Bad news: There are plenty of religious fundamentalists (Jews and Muslims) who like to wantonly kill each other left over there.

More Bad News: There are plenty of disaffected people on who can be used by the extremists on either side for their respective killing machines.

Killing in the name of God shall continue in the "Holy" lands.

I think I will avoid Palestine/Israel for the moment.

Zeno
03-22-2004, 03:36 AM
From the Article:

Al Aqsa, a secular group responsible for dozens of attacks on Israelis, said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press, "An eye for an eye, and the retaliation will be in the coming hours, God willing."

Outside the morgue at Shifa Hospital, Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin, said, "This is the moment Sheik Yassin dreamed about. Sheik Yassin lived and died and offered his life to Palestine.

"Sheik Yassin was a hero and a fighter and the leader of a nation, and (he) is in heaven now."

Cars drove through the streets blaring calls for revenge over loudspeakers. Some aired recordings of Yassin, saying, "We chose this road, and will end with martyrdom or victory."

Mosques read passages from the Quran and two Gaza churches rang their church bells.

-----------------------------------------------

Cyrus
03-22-2004, 05:26 AM
Violence between Israelis and Palestinians will escalate even further and will probably hit the United States as well.

Forget the characterizations for a moment and look at it from a practical point of view. Both Arafat and the Hamas leader, Yassin, have been termed "terrorists" by the Israelis. And Israel is admittedly extremely powerful and well-informed about the movements of these men. The question then about Israel's reasons for not killing them can only be answered thusly : Because Israel has chosen not to.

Why has it chosen not to? Well, as the article linked by Clarkmeister says, "Past Israeli governments were reluctant to target Yassin, fearing a firestorm of revenge attacks."

If that is so, let's ask ourselves not if Arafat or Yassin are criminals and not if they deserve to die. Let's ask ourselves if their killing (Yassin's for the monent) serves peace or serves a further descend into hell.

Then let's ask ourselves which of the two sides in the conflict is best served by such an escalation. (If you have troubles answering this question, try spelling "Bush Peace Road Map". Without laughing.)

Peace Now? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians)

nicky g
03-22-2004, 06:03 AM
This has killed any chance of a peaceful settlement for at least a decade.
What are the chances Sharon will "regretfully" have to indefinitely postpone his Gaza withdrawal plan once the cycle of revenge violence gets going? The Israeli government is deliberately engaging in the most blatant kind of terrorist tactitcs: provoke a terrible response from the other side to justify further violence.

adios
03-22-2004, 07:51 AM
Here's a safer bet for ya, suicide terrorist attacks will continue in Israel. When Hamas states that there will be retaliation what else is new? Like it really matters whether or not Yassin was killed. At least Yassin went the way he wanted to go.

adios
03-22-2004, 08:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This has killed any chance of a peaceful settlement for at least a decade.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dreaming, this hasn't effected the chance of a peaceful settlement one iota.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances Sharon will "regretfully" have to indefinitely postpone his Gaza withdrawal plan once the cycle of revenge violence gets going?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the Yassin assassanation was part of the cycle of revenge violence I'm not sure this has changed anything. What are the chances that Hamas will end it's terrorist attacks on Israel? NADA, the same as it was before Yassin was killed.

[ QUOTE ]
The Israeli government is deliberately engaging in the most blatant kind of terrorist tactitcs: provoke a terrible response from the other side to justify further violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got one for you. Just substitute "Hamas" for "The Isreali government."

Hamas is deliberately engaging in the most blatant kind of terrorist tactitcs:provoke a terrible response from the other side to justify further violence.

adios
03-22-2004, 08:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly, things are going to get uglier over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the cycle of violence won't be affected one bit due to this. Two excerpts from today's WSJ reporting on Yassin assassanation:
Israel held Mr. Yassin responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a former army general, was updated throughout the operation.

The Yassin assassination was seen as an enormous gamble by Mr. Sharon, who is trying to score a decisive victory against Hamas ahead of a possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, but risks triggering a dramatic escalation in bloodshed that could turn the public's mood in Israel against him.

Mr. Mofaz, the Israeli defense minister, said Mr. Yassin was the "Palestinian bin Laden," referring to fugitive Saudi terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Gideon Meir, an Israeli Foreign Ministry official, said Mr. Yassin was directly responsible for the scores of suicide attacks Hamas unleashed since 2000. "He is the one who is sending children and women to explode themselves," Mr. Meir said.

and

Hamas promised a harsh response. "Yassin is a man in a nation, and a nation in a man. And the retaliation of this nation will be of the size of this man," said Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a prominent Hamas leader in Gaza who himself escaped an Israeli assassination attempt last June.

For the first time, Hamas also threatened the U.S., saying America's backing of Israel made the assassination possible. "All the Muslims of the world will be honored to join in on the retaliation for this crime," Hamas said in a statement.

In the past, Hamas leaders have insisted their struggle is against Israel and that they would not get involved in causes by militant Muslims in other parts of the world. Monday's statement suggested that Hamas might seek outside help in carrying out revenge attacks, since its capabilities have been limited by Israeli military strikes.

The militant groups Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, sometimes at odds with Hamas, also promised revenge.

"This crime has affected every Palestinian, and the retaliation for it will be from every Palestinian," said Abu Qusay, an Al Aqsa leader in Gaza. An Al Aqsa statement said retaliation "will be in the coming hours, God willing."

ComedyLimp
03-22-2004, 08:37 AM
I can't help feeling that the image a high-tech missile, fired from a multi-million dollar F-16 fighter jet being used to take out a 70 year-old man in a wheelchair belongs more in something like "Dr Strangelove" than real life.

nicky g
03-22-2004, 09:26 AM
Of course Hamas is engaged in similar tactics. They're a terrorist group that everyone here roundly condemns. Nevertheless, the Israeli government is now clearly playing exactly the same game.
You're the dreamer if you think this will have no bearing. The Israelis simply are not going to be able to defeat Hamas militarily. The only way to end the violence is some kind of negotiated solution that drains away support for the terrorists. Instead this is going to double it, and there is zero chance of a drop in the violence in the forseeable future. You will say that there never was such a chance but that repeated lulls and offers of ceasefires demonstrate that simply isn't true and you just demonstrate your ignorance of the situation by repeating such uninformed rhetoric.

B-Man
03-22-2004, 10:48 AM
One dead terrorist = a good start.

My only question is, what took them so long? Israel should have killed this guy a long time ago.

As for Hamas' threats to attack Israel for "revenge," what are they going to do now, send suicide bombers? Gee, I bet Sharon is shaking in his shoes! There have been over 100 separate suicide bombing attacks in Israel in the last 3.5 years. When Hamas is already doing everything it can to murder Israelis, threatening to kill Israelis in retaliation doesn't really carry much weight.

Since Hamas has repeatedly shown that they will carry out terrorist attacks regardless of what Israel does, Israel should try to kill every last one of them (starting with their leaders), as soon as possible.

B-Man
03-22-2004, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly, things are going to get uglier over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's amazing is that nobody made this observation after the terror attacks against Israel the last few weeks.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 10:53 AM
Yassin mindfucked impressionable young Arabs into believing that the only way to make something of themselves is to become a "martyr" for the Palestinian cause.

How does he do this? By expounding and furthering the notion that it is a required duty of Muslims to liberate "Muslim lands" from non-Muslim rule. It is this fanaticism that is bred in the territories, NOT an opposition to "occupation". And it is that fanaticism that the Israeli government must quell in order to allow the Arabs who value life to step forward and lead their people out of squalor.

If you believe Sharon will deviate from any course he has set his mind to, you're quite mistaken, and Gaza will be cleared of Jews quite soon (interesting, Cyrus hasn't said a word about that ethnic cleansing.

Now putting aside all conspiracy theories and your projections of what you all think what your motivation might be for such an assassination, and consider the people who are the foundation of the fanaticism described above have to be silenced, or more Israelis will die. This is not a war one wins by giving in to the other side, it is a war that will only be won when one side wins outright. You simply can't negotiate with people who don't value life. Why they don't value life is irrelevant.

But a million times I'll say it: given a choice between lowering their quality of life or preserving my right to life, the choice is automatic.

A short-sighted policy to say the least, but the man is responsible for targetting and murdering hundreds of innocents, and ironically, he would have been the happiest if he knew the way he went.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 10:54 AM
what took them so long?

While there's tons of intelligence data, to get the exact time and place one person will be, when any suspicious activity is enough to get you executed, is not as easy as it sounds.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 11:00 AM
Some aired recordings of Yassin, saying, "We chose this road, and will end with martyrdom or victory

More telling words were never spoken.

They chose this road.

It will most certainly end in the former.

ComedyLimp
03-22-2004, 11:07 AM
If even beligerant old right wigners like Michael Ancram have condemed this its diffuclt not to conclude it's a bad move for Israel.

UK condemns 'unlawful' Yassin killing

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday March 22, 2004

Tony Blair today condemned Israel's assassination of the Hamas spritual leader, Ahmed Yassin, calling it a "setback" for the peace process.

"What has happened this morning is clearly a setback," Tony Blair's official spokesman told reporters. "There is no point pretending otherwise." "It goes without saying that the prime minister also condemns today's killing. We have repeatedly made clear our opposition to Israel's use of targeted killings and assassinations.

"We recognise Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, but equally any steps should be within international law and should be neither disproportionate nor excessive.

Earlier, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, accused the Israeli government of committing an "unlawful killing" and urged it to act within international law.

Arriving in Brussels for EU talks on tackling terrorism, he said: "All of us understand Israel's need to defend itself against terrorism which affects it - within international law."

He called the missile strike, which killed the 67-year-old Hamas leader and seven other Palestinians, an "unlawful killing, which we condemn".

"It is unacceptable, it is unjustified and it is very unlikely to achieve its [Israel's] objectives."

The foreign secretary added that he did not believe that Israel would benefit from the killing of an old man in a wheelchair. The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, said Yassin's killing represented a "regrettable escalation" of violence in the Middle East.

"I quite accept the right of countries to protect their citizens - and this man may well have been the instigator of many terrorist acts against Israel - but I think the sadness of this is ... there is no military solution to this," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The only resolution of the problem in the Middle East is going to be through talks and that solution is further away now than ever."

Mr Ancram said everyone knew the answer to the Middle East situation was a "secure" Israel and a "viable" Palestinian state alongside it on the West Bank.

Once the peace process resumed, America, the UK and other parts of Europe would "have a role in encouraging that dialogue forward", he said.

"But I don't believe you can fight your way to the [negotiating] table, that you can actually bomb, shoot or kill your way to the table.

"I think it has to be done by building confidence and restoring confidence and I'm afraid what has happened today is the antithesis of this," Mr Ancram added.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "It is hard to think of a more provocative act than this.

"Assassination as an instrument of foreign policy is illegal, and has a long history of making matters worse.

"The killing of Sheikh Yassin in this way will put back for months any prospect of negotiation." Labour MP Joan Ruddock, who recently returned from Israel and the occupied territories, also condemned the assassination.

Ms Ruddock, who travelled there last week with fellow British MPs on a fact-finding mission organised by Christian Aid, said it would only result in more violence.

"While I condemn suicide bombings, there can be no justification for the political assassination of Sheikh Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas," she said.

"Such assassinations are illegal and can only foster further violence.

"The Palestinians I met were in total despair as to how the peace sought by the vast majority of them and the vast majority of Israelis could be achieved.

"The conditions in Gaza and the West Bank which have just been imposed and which we saw last week are the equivalent of a lock-down at a prison.

"People will be prevented from going to work, going to school, going to hospital, and the sense of outrage and despair will only deepen the cycle of violence."

Afif Safieh, Palestinian general delegate to the UK, said: "I think it is a sad day and I personally feel ashamed of the world in which we live.

"I think prime minister Sharon is taking full advantage of the American presidential election year and the paralysis that results from that.

"This assassination will inflame the entire region and I believe that the world should be aware that every day we have an average of five Palestinians killed.

"I believe that today anti-Semitism is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

From http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1175312,00.html

B-Man
03-22-2004, 11:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "It is hard to think of a more provocative act than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Apparently this idiot hasn't heard about the 100+ suicide bombing attacks in Israel the last few years, including the attacks of the last few weeks. I guess murdering babies, women and children is not as "provocative" as killing a terrorist...

ComedyLimp
03-22-2004, 11:53 AM
Actually "this idiot" is one of our most respected Parliamentarians, highly intelligent and well educated and qualifed (MA in Law from Glasgow, MA in International Law from Stanford), he's a QC and a CBE and as a Shadow Foreign Affairs Spokesman and Foreign Secretary has taken a commited and deep interest in Israel & Palestine going back many years. He has visited the region many times in a political capacity and has ties with various Israeli and Palestinian figures.

So perhaps you'll forgive me if I take rather more account of his views than your rather emotive analysis.

B-Man
03-22-2004, 11:57 AM
Regardless of his education, his comment was absurd and showed ignorance of the conflict.

Perhaps he would like to retract his statement.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 12:20 PM
So you are saying that the assassination is less "provocative" than the terrorist attacks?

Just because someone went to school doesn't make him immune to bias. After all, many say Daniel Pipes is an anti-Muslim racist, when in fact he owns a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies. I, for one, think he tells the truth, but I'm sure you would disagree.

Though, it would make more sense on a strictly logical scale that only the Israeli action is to be viewed as a provocation while the terrorism is more benign. Terrorist attacks generally result in little more than national mourning and policework/arrests by IDF soldiers. On the other hand, any IDF counter-terrorist action, including fence-building/arrests/raids on terrorist bases results in rioting and outright insanity in the Territories.

nicky g
03-22-2004, 12:22 PM
I agree with you that a bomb that killed ten innocent people should be regarded as more "provocative" than the assassination of a senior political/military/terrorist figure. But in practice it isn't, for the simple reason that figureheads are known and followed by thousands and ahve large scale followings, while ordinary people tend to be forgotten very quickly. If a nation's secret services planted a bomb in the US that killed a dozen people or asassinated George Bush, which do you think would be regarded as more "provocative"? If Hamas killed Sharon it would escalate the conflict far more than another bus bombing, and this will sadly escalate the conflict far more than the murder of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians by the IDF has. The entire world media has reported this as a significant escalation, not just Menzies Campbell.

I don't understand what you think this accomplishes. Will it prevent any more bombings? Do you think a 70- year-old paraplegic was intimately involved in the planning and carrying out of attacks or had anything useful to contribute to them? Yassin's rhetoric may have been deplorable but the bombers don't need his go-ahead to carry out attacks, as we'll no doubt see in the near future. Should other religious/political leaders that condone terrorist tactics be assassinated? What of the numerous right-wing rabbis in Israel who condone or even praise Baruch Goldstein's acts? What makes them any different from Yassin?

You joke about Sharon trembling in his boots at the thought of more suicide bombers, but Sharon ins't going to be affected by them, and it will be no laughing matter for the dozens that will no doubt die in the aftermath of this. You are kidding yourself if youbelieve that the number of attacks can't increase, or that this can't radicalise people further or recruit more bombers, or that this won't push back a negotiated settlement. Someone else will replace Yassin, a lot more people will die, and nothing will have been accomplished except Sharon getting a hard-on from directing another pointless killing.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 12:23 PM
It reminds me of British MP Jenny Tonge, who announced that if she were in "Palestine" she would have been a suicide bomber.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 12:34 PM
the murder of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians by the IDF has.

The word "murder" implies that the soldiers were given orders and their overall strategy is to kill Arabs. This, as we all know, is little more than a lie.

The entire world media has reported this as a significant escalation, not just Menzies Campbell.

The "entire world" also believed the earth was flat.

Will it prevent any more bombings?

In the long run, yes.

Do you think a 70- year-old paraplegic was intimately involved in the planning and carrying out of attacks or had anything useful to contribute to them?

Yassin has been confined to a wheelchair since he was 12 years old. He managed to stay healthily involved for the 60 years he was confined to it.

Should other religious/political leaders that condone terrorist tactics be assassinated?

Only if they begin to pay for the dynamite, counsel the terrorists, and organize groups of terrorists to carry out these acts, as Yassin did.

What of the numerous right-wing rabbis in Israel who condone or even praise Baruch Goldstein's acts? What makes them any different from Yassin?

Numerous? How many? 1? 2? And they didn't hand him the gun, as Yassin did. Nor do they actively recruit other Baruch Goldsteins to carry out further activities. Even the most right wing Rabbis now (and I'm thinking of Ovadia Yosef) are demanding peace in the spirit of Pikuach Nefesh (preservation of the soul), as no piece of land is worth human lives, Arab or Israeli.

nicky g
03-22-2004, 12:40 PM
"Only if they begin to pay for the dynamite, counsel the terrorists, and organize groups of terrorists to carry out these acts, as Yassin did. "

Someone else will do exactly the same thing now Yassin is dead. And dozens of people will die. When are you going to get it through your head that if Israel hasn't managed to achieve a military solution to the problem of 50 years, despite overwheliming miltary superiority int he region, it never is?

adios
03-22-2004, 12:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You're the dreamer if you think this will have no bearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you stated in another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Someone else will replace Yassin, a lot more people will die, and nothing will have been accomplished except Sharon getting a hard-on from directing another pointless killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for making my case for me. Same old stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to end the violence is some kind of negotiated solution that drains away support for the terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok what sort? Outline the parameters and of such a solution that Hamas and Sharon will accept.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead this is going to double it, and there is zero chance of a drop in the violence in the forseeable future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep more people killed at a faster rate I really can't argue with that.

[ QUOTE ]
You will say that there never was such a chance but that repeated lulls and offers of ceasefires demonstrate that simply isn't true

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that I haven't heard one bit of common ground between Hamas and the Israelis I think that your statement is wishful thinking. There isn't a shred of evidence to back it up.

[ QUOTE ]
you just demonstrate your ignorance of the situation by repeating such uninformed rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rhetoric? What post are you referring to? Where's the common ground between Hamas and the Israeli's on which a settlement can be negotiated?

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 12:59 PM
When are you going to get it through your head that if Israel hasn't managed to achieve a military solution to the problem of 50 years, despite overwheliming miltary superiority int he region, it never is?

That is a fair question I don't have an answer.

But that doesn't make the Israeli religious elite nor the Israeli army anything close, on a moral scale, to a single member of the Hamas, as you tried to assert via your questions.

nicky g
03-22-2004, 01:01 PM
"Thanks for making my case for me. Same old stuff."

Bit early to be hitting the hard stuff isn't it. My first statement implies that this will increase Hamas activities and escalate the violence. My second implies that it will not hinder the violence. These are not quite incompatible.

"Considering that I haven't heard one bit a common ground between Hamas and the Israelis I think that your statement is wishful thinking. There isn't a shred of evidence to back it up."

Which goes to back up my uninformed charge, as Hamas repeatedly offered to implement a ceasefire in return for an end to the assassinations and incursions. There is zero chance of any such offer in the near future. Whether Hamas and Israel ahve any common ground for a long-term solution is more debatable, but Rantissi has repeatedly made it clear that an end to the occupation would see a shift to political rather than terrorist tactics. Furthermore an ened to teh occupation and Israeli atrocities would certainly see a huge drop in support for terrorist tactics.

Whatever guys. Keep on with the current tactics. They've done so well in bringing peace to the region.

Cyrus
03-22-2004, 01:03 PM
I find the knee-jerk support by otherwise intelligent persons of everything and anything Israel does a bit surprising, even after many years of being witness to such behavior. There's a blind spot there, that inhibits critical judgement.

I'd bet that such people would find it equally defensible and proper if Israel had sent a Special Forces detachment to save Sheikh Yassin from assassination!

ComedyLimp
03-22-2004, 01:06 PM
"So you are saying that the assassination is less "provocative" than the terrorist attacks?"

No. I imagine Campbell's comment means its difficult to imagine a more provocative act *by Israel*. Like all reasonable people Campbell comdemns and abhors the continued attacks by the likes of Hamas.

The question is do illegal assininations of Palestian leaders help Israel's cause. Most people in the UK of all political views think not -- becuase a) it Israel loses more from such acts in terms of international support than it gains from reducing the terrorist threat and b) for purely practical reasons you can't possibly hope to kill all the terrorists as each time you blow one up you make a fewhundred more.

"Just because someone went to school doesn't make him immune to bias"

No but it does make them not an "idiot" as was suggested about Campbell.

nicky g
03-22-2004, 01:08 PM
That is not in general what I mant to imply; my post was about practicalities rather than morality. I don't believe such assassinations improve the situation for anyone. To say that not a single Israeli soldier can be as bad as a single Hamas member however is absurd. You can't seriously believe that every civilian death at the hands of the IDF in the territories has been some sort of tragic accident. Murder is murder, whoever does it.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-22-2004, 01:10 PM
uglier over there and over here too when the new batch of psycho terrorists go to blow us up, as well as the israelis.

even if ALL of them got EVERYTHING they wanted they would still keep on hating and killing each other. I have no love for israel and wish the US wouldn't keep supporting them at the great risk to ourselves. I also could care less if they palestinians ever get their way either, because they act just as badly as israel. The whole damn region should try moving into the 21st century instead of insisting on remaining in the ugly past.

al

adios
03-22-2004, 01:22 PM
You write:

[ QUOTE ]
This has killed any chance of a peaceful settlement for at least a decade.

[/ QUOTE ]


I respond:

[ QUOTE ]
You're dreaming, this hasn't effected the chance of a peaceful settlement one iota.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you respond:

[ QUOTE ]
You're the dreamer if you think this will have no bearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I contrast this quote with your statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Someone else will replace Yassin, a lot more people will die, and nothing will have been accomplished except Sharon getting a hard-on from directing another pointless killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's never to early to hit the hard stuff /images/graemlins/smile.gif. All I'm pointing out is that the status quo remains in effect. Nothing has changed. The Israeli's position hasn't changed and neither has the position of Hamas. How could something that maintains the status quo have any effect on a negotiated peace settlement? Zero times 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is precisely zero. Read it there is no chance, nada, squat, not a snowball's chance in hell for a negotiated peace settlement given the current positions of Hamas and the Israelis.

[ QUOTE ]
Which goes to back up my uninformed charge, as Hamas repeatedly offered to implement a ceasefire in return for an end to the assassinations and incursions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? These offers by Hamas haven't changed the Israeli position one bit. Apparently this isn't the common ground needed for a negotiated settlement.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether Hamas and Israel ahve any common ground for a long-term solution is more debatable,

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! You're starting to understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Rantissi has repeatedly made it clear that an end to the occupation would see a shift to political rather than terrorist tactics. Furthermore an ened to teh occupation and Israeli atrocities would certainly see a huge drop in support for terrorist tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently this doesn't provide a basis for a negotiated settlement either.

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever guys. Keep on with the current tactics. They've done so well in bringing peace to the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

What tactics are you reffering to?

adios
03-22-2004, 01:26 PM
How is this knee jerk support of Israel?

I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a safer bet for ya, suicide terrorist attacks will continue in Israel. When Hamas states that there will be retaliation what else is new? Like it really matters whether or not Yassin was killed. At least Yassin went the way he wanted to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where one thing I stated is false.

Cyrus
03-22-2004, 01:37 PM
"If you believe Sharon will deviate from any course he has set his mind to, you're quite mistaken, and Gaza will be cleared of Jews quite soon (interesting, Cyrus hasn't said a word about that ethnic cleansing)."

I believe that Sharon is capable of anything. Sick-minded people usually are capable of everything. (The assassinated Hamas leader had a similarly warped mind.)

But, exactitude, please! When a nation's leader orders the expulsion of his own nationals from a region, this cannot be called "ethnic cleansing". You may call it "population exchange" (if there's reciprocity, e.g. Asia Minor ca. early 1920s) or "evacuation" if there's not. And if that evacuation is forced upon the departing folks, it is simply "forced evacuation". But not ethnic cleansing! Ethnic cleansing is practiced by the victor against the loser, e.g. Israel from 1948 onwards.

"Yassin mindfucked impressionable young Arabs"

Propaganda and brain washing can only go so far. You cannot have the mass resistance movement that is Hamas without a real and strong justification from real life. And in real life, the Palestinians find daily ample cause to get redicalized, to get angry and to take arms against the Israelis. In some occasions, even to blow themselves up along with their enemies.

Condemn the crimes of the terrorists as much as you want, and I do share those condemnations fully, but one thing is certain : <font color="red"> The militaristic solution to the Middle East conflict has failed </font> . It has been tried by Israel for 50 years but the Palestinians donm't seem willing to up and disappear.

Insist on the same route of militaristic folly (and ignore reality) at your peril.

Cyrus
03-22-2004, 01:55 PM
"How is this knee jerk support of Israel?"

You found no fault whatsoever with Israel's assassination of Yassin, not even from the purely practical point of view. You believe that the situation isn't affected whether that guy got killed or not.

Since I proceed with the assumption that you are an intellginent and thinking person, the above-described beliefs can only be ascribed to a knee jerk, unthinking support of Israel.

adios
03-22-2004, 02:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You found no fault whatsoever with Israel's assassination of Yassin, not even from the purely practical point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that in another thread that I stated that there would be more killing at a faster rate that's actually not true. You and Nicky keep trying to pin this "you're condemning Hamas but condoning Israel" position on me. I haven't condemned or praised either side in this thread. It's revealing regarding on how you and Nicky think. Pointing out that suicide terror attack will continue in Israel is merely stating an apparent truth.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that the situation isn't affected whether that guy got killed or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the statement above. To the extent that the this action neither changes Israeli nor Hamas positions, I'm absolutely correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Since I proceed with the assumption that you are an intellginent and thinking person, the above-described beliefs can only be ascribed to a knee jerk, unthinking support of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try Cyrus. Everything I wrote was true. Did you ever buy any of those tanker company stocks I recommended in a post to you awhile back. Hopefully you did, hang on to em /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-22-2004, 02:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
but one thing is certain : The militaristic solution to the Middle East conflict has failed . It has been tried by Israel for 50 years but the Palestinians donm't seem willing to up and disappear.


[/ QUOTE ]

and the terroristic solution? does it too need to go fifty full years before they too are too stubborn and stupid to realize their failure?

My question for both sides is this: if you got 100% of the concessions you are asking for, would your hatred not still consume you?

al

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 02:36 PM
The question is do illegal assininations of Palestian leaders help Israel's cause. Most people in the UK of all political views think not -- becuase a) it Israel loses more from such acts in terms of international support than it gains from reducing the terrorist threat and b) for purely practical reasons you can't possibly hope to kill all the terrorists as each time you blow one up you make a few hundred more.

International support is hardly at the top of Israel's agenda, nor should it be. I think as Islamic fundamentalist terrorism increases, international support will increase.

On the other hand, when the Americans finally find out where bin Laden is hiding, and realize it will cost the lives of at least 100 American soldiers to pick him up and arrest him, do you think they won't fire a missile into the cave?

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 02:40 PM
You can't seriously believe that every civilian death at the hands of the IDF in the territories has been some sort of tragic accident.

Avoidable accident, I'll give you. But not a single Israeli puts on his flak jacket and announces "I'm gonna bag me an Arab!"

Whether enough care is taken to avoid civilian death is at best debatable, but the orders are always designed to minimize casualties. No other democracy on earth has come even close to Israel's track record in the face of a an enemy nested among civilians.

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 02:51 PM
The militaristic solution to the Middle East conflict has failed

You can't keep getting away with these implied lies! Negative lies must be based on current odds that I won't catch it, not the chance that I will miss other ones in the future! This is not a hit-the-flop or fold scenario.

The military solution is not intended to be a solution, but rather a defense mechanism.

The rule has always been that peace would be achieved on the negotiating table. But no negotiations under fire. Under any circumstances. Israel won every war, and as a result, it negotiates from a position of power. That's the way it works: The winner dictates the terms. If it doesn't, then there's no deterrent for Arab States to wage war in the first place (after all, we have seen the value Arab leadership places on human life - stonings for being raped, death for conversion, etc. etc.).

"If at first you don't succeed, dust yourself off and try again"

andyfox
03-22-2004, 03:05 PM
You've hit the nail on the head. Stubbornness and stupidity are the hallmarks of the conflict. The hatred would indeed survive a solution in which both sides were 100% satisfied.

Now watch: there'll be reponses blaming the other side for their intransigence.

ComedyLimp
03-22-2004, 03:14 PM
"International support is hardly at the top of Israel's agenda, nor should it be"

I suppose there's a pragmatic approach which says as long as Israel gets approval and support from the US then the rest of them hardly matter but its not wise in the long run.

Remeber that Israel's friends and allies -- such as the UK -- criticise Israeli actions and policies not out of some squeamish Liberal consiousness but our of a genuine belief based on out own experience that its does Israel more harm than good.

A wise man listens to his friends (at least some of the time).

"I think as Islamic fundamentalist terrorism increases, international support will increase"

The contrary appears may well be true. If your foreign policy increases the amount of terrorists and therefore terrorism your allies keep pointing this out then if they become victims as well if anything they are likely to put more pressure on you to engage in the process in the way they think (whether rightly or wrongly) you can best solve the problem and ensure your security.

"The rule has always been that peace would be achieved on the negotiating table. But no negotiations under fire"

That was the British governments position for 30 years and got us nowhere. We didn't make progress until we started negotiating with Sinn Fein whilst the IRA continued its campaign. It's just something you have to accept if you want the bombing to stop.

bugstud
03-22-2004, 03:47 PM
Make the middle east a glass parking lot and nuke it to the stone age...hey, it's what the want, right? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I wonder how Dubya reacts to it spreading over to this side of the pond.

John Cole
03-22-2004, 04:57 PM
Gamblor, please, no mixed metaphors: It should be "If at first you dont' succeed, try, try again" or "Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As far as starting all over again. Well-- /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

sam h
03-22-2004, 07:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Israel won every war, and as a result, it negotiates from a position of power. That's the way it works: The winner dictates the terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem, I think. This is the way historically such things have worked in most circumstances and - perhaps because of this precedent - this is the way many people feel it should work, but for it to in fact work, both sides have to accept the unbalanced nature of negotiations, which is clearly unlikely to be the case in the current conflict.

Al_Capone_Junior
03-22-2004, 10:19 PM
well I am not going to be real critical of Blair. But him, Bush, and dozens of other world leaders will probably condemn what is obviously a dumb move by israel, and no doubt what will be a dumb follow up by the palestinians, and what will be an even dumber re-follow-up etc etc et al ad infinitum till by death we all do part.

If you need me, I'll be praying to the porcelain alter, or driving the porcelain bus. Or maybe watching the news, it's all the same when it comes to the middle east.

al

Gamblor
03-22-2004, 10:46 PM
this is the way many people feel it should work

It has to work this way, because if it doesn't, and I lose one war, what prevents me from attacking again? Every time Israel has won, the world has forced it to endure the humiliation of negotiating on level ground with the very nations it successfully prevented from destroying it. In some cases, Israel has endured the humiliation of being forced to submit its right to self-determination to an external plan written by people with no vested interest in the outcome of the conflict, as is the case with the Road Map.

Now, if I lose a war and all that happens to cut my losses and achieve a cease fire is smile for the camera and take a little of the land my enemy conquered back, what on earth prevents me from declaring war as soon as my army is back at full capacity?

Ray Zee
03-22-2004, 11:08 PM
gamblor you hit the nail on the head. if a country is attacked it has every right to keep striking back until it feels all threat to its future is gone. despite what the world wants it to do for their benefit.

jcx
03-23-2004, 12:32 AM
The militaristic solution to the Middle East conflict has failed

This is only because the Israelis are not quite as ruthless as the Palestinians. They could carpet bomb the Gaza Strip, have Arafat killed in an instant. But they show remarkable restraint, despite having to endure situations in daily life that no other industrialized nation would tolerate. If the situation was reversed, and the Palestinians held the military edge, do you think for one instant they would not kill every Jew they could find? To illustrate the fundamental difference between the two groups, look at what happens when an Israeli soldier dies in combat. His family weeps for him, cries to God and asks how could this have happened to their son? When a Palestinian CHOOSES to slaughter themselves (And take as many Jews with them as possible) his family expresses joy that their son is dead and asks Allah to spill even more blood! To paraphrase Golda Meier: "There will be peace between Israelis and Palestinians when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel".

ComedyLimp
03-23-2004, 06:12 AM
The Wrap: Israel makes a martyr of Yassin

Ros Taylor
23 March 2004

Welcome to the Wrap, Guardian Unlimited's round-up of the best of the
day's papers.

Also in today's Wrap: British soldiers are firebombed in Basra

PALESTINIANS VOW REVENGE

In what the FT describes as an "extremely stupid action", Israeli
forces killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, as
he was pushed in his wheelchair outside his local mosque yesterday.

Yassin died instantly, according to the Independent. "The side of his
head and face had been blown off, and he was lying on the road with
the wheelchair about a metre away from him," an eyewitness tells the
paper. At least six other people, some of them his bodyguards, were
also killed in the missile attack.

Assassination? Extra-judicial killing? No one doubts that Yassin
directed terrorist attacks: although a virtually blind paraplegic
with a "deceptively saintly appearance" (the Independent), he
approved numerous suicide bombings. "Assistants ... held sheets of
paper inches in front of his face for him to peruse," writes the
Times' Stephen Farrell, who has met him. "A nod, or a shake of the
head, and policy was decided."

But one thing is clear: the Palestinian cause has gained another
martyr. "The military had tried and failed to kill Sheikh Yassin in
September," reports Chris McGreal in the Guardian. "But when it came,
many Gazans saw the attack as a cowardly execution of a frail old man
in a wheelchair who did not attempt to hide."

"Why bring fire on yourself?" a Palestinian professor asks McGreal. "I
want every Israeli to ask themselves that question. They are very
stupid. I really don't understand them."

Even the Telegraph - a steadfast supporter of Israel - is bemused. "To
kill Yassin already looks like a serious mistake, less for moral than
for strategic reasons," the paper says. "By granting Yassin the
martyrdom he craved, the Israelis have provided a motive for new
suicide attacks."

Only the Sun wholeheartedly approves of Yassin's assassination. "Being
'spiritual leader' of Hamas is not like being the Archbishop of
Canterbury," says the paper, in what is essentially a slightly
dumbed-down version of the editorial in its sister paper, the Times.
"Ahmed Yassin was a Godfather of Terror, the man who founded the
Palestinian killing machine ... One more terrorist mastermind is
dead."

What was the intention of the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon?
The papers supply a couple of possible motives, with the Telegraph
suggesting that the assassination was a token show of strength before
Israel's withdrawal from parts of Gaza.

"The Israeli security elite would also claim that picking off the
leaders of Hamas will weaken it and thus allow saner heads loyal to
Yasser Arafat ... to take over security ... when the Israelis pull
out," suggests the paper's foreign editor. The Times confirms that Mr
Sharon regards Hamas as a "top-down" rather than a "bottom-up"
organisation.

All the more appallingly ironic, then, that most of the papers ran a
picture of two British soldiers engulfed by flames in Basra
yesterday. Iraqis, some of whom were chanting Yassin's name, had
lobbed petrol bombs at them. Yassin, the Palestinian professor tells
McGreal, will kill more Israelis dead than he did alive.

* The call for bloody revenge
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1175879,00.html)
* "He'll kill more in death..."
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1175829,00.html)
* Times: Sharon has to show that he has a political strategy
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1048007,00.html)
* Telegraph: Leader
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$TQMVYSOCXS00RQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/opinion/2004/03/23/dl2301.xml&amp;sSheet=/portal/2004/03/23/ixportal.html)
* Telegraph: A stupid decision
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$TQMVYSOCXS00RQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/opinion/2004/03/23/do2301.xml&amp;sSheet=/portal/2004/03/23/ixportal.html)
* Sun: Our Boys burn
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004132299,00.html)
* Sun: Proper target
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2004132154,00.html)

From The Guardian's excellent daily newspaper overview "The Wrap" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wrap/0,1189,541579,00.html)

B-Man
03-23-2004, 09:36 AM

Gamblor
03-23-2004, 10:39 AM
Aliyah is Hebrew for immigration to Israel (literally, "ascending"). To immigrate to Israel is to "Make Aliya"

The Arab states have never succeeded and have no deterrent to further attacks, so they Try, Try Again (http://www.diana-drubig.de/aaliyah/lyrics/tryagain.html)

Gamblor
03-23-2004, 12:03 PM
That was the British governments position for 30 years and got us nowhere. We didn't make progress until we started negotiating with Sinn Fein whilst the IRA continued its campaign. It's just something you have to accept if you want the bombing to stop.

Depends on how you define progress. The political validity of the Hamas position, or the Palestinian position for that matter, is not what I am arguing, that we can argue til we're blue in the face and still get nowhere.

The only factor is this: no government has stood up to terrorism in history. The British tried and they finally gave up. And terrorism still exists. Only when terrorism is shown to be completely ineffective, then will it stop.

Read "Why Terrorism Works" by Alan Dershowitz

ComedyLimp
03-23-2004, 12:16 PM
"no government has stood up to terrorism in history. The British tried and they finally gave up. And terrorism still exists"

This shows, if you'll forgive me, a complete misunderstanding of the situaion and history of Great Britain and Ireland. The only people who would agree with this view are the terrorist splinter groups and a minority of extremist, predominantly Unionist, politicians -- both of whom who would like nothing better than the abandonment of the political process and return to a futile attempt at mutual annihilation.

"Only when terrorism is shown to be completely ineffective, then will it stop"

This view rather condemns Israel to perpetual terror.

Matthew

sam h
03-23-2004, 02:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Now, if I lose a war and all that happens to cut my losses and achieve a cease fire is smile for the camera and take a little of the land my enemy conquered back, what on earth prevents me from declaring war as soon as my army is back at full capacity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, logically you want a deterrent/punishment to dissuade people from making war again. But historically, this strategy has also often backfired as draconian terms have pushed the vanquished into positions where they feel they have nothing to lose by fighting again, having lost everything already. Not to say this is necessarily the case in Israel, but just to point out that universal generalizations about how wars should be wrapped up are highly suspect.

My point vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and admittedly I'm no expert, is simpler: I just don't think that the Palestinians are likely to negotiate in the near future under the terms Israel wants them to, both because the leadership doesn't have enough control over the extremists and because if they give up the threat of violence they will have no leverage. I'm not defending this position, I'm just positing that it may be a reality. And given that reality, one has to conclude that the decision on Israel's part not to negotiate unless the bombings stop is essentially a decision not to negotiate at all.

Cyrus
03-23-2004, 02:31 PM
"The militaristic solution to the Middle East conflict has failed ... because the Israelis are not quite as ruthless as the Palestinians."


There are 3 reasons that the Israelis have not gone through to the end, as you insinuated, and tranformed their military superiority into a complete annihilation of the Palestinian people.

1. The action would cross a threshold in the tolerance of the American public on whose attitude towards the Palestinians (85% of American are polled as "feeling hostile" to the Palestinians) Israel relies for the continuation of the subsidies and the grants and all kinds of American assistance. If hostility turns to sympathy, the Israeli cause is doomed in the US! So, the Israelis have to be careful with their butchering. (Experience in preparing kosher food come shandy, in this endavor, perhaps.)

2. The Jews are culturally and politically more advanced than the Arabs (not so much the Palestinians, Palestinians have always been among most educated and advanced of Arabs). The Israeli democracy (a democracy for Jews, more than anything else, much like a South African democracy for Whites) is alive and functionign enough to stop such a whole sale massacre - if it is done wholesale. (It is currently been done in small doses --- Three Palestinians for every Israeli dead, is the ratio, if you didn't know.)

3. The Israeli population itself would not accept such a Final Solution. The Jews have a relatively recent (and horrific) memory of another, more famous Final Solution, the one that the Nazis reserved for them in Europe. The memory of the Holocaust is still alive! This fact, coupled with the Israeli democracy allowing people to influence their government, as described above, does not allow those in power to go through with a massacre (although people like Sharon have explicitly stated their preference for a total wipe-out "and ship the remnants to Jordan"). Of course, that older generation is dying off, as time passes. And the new generations of Israelis have fewer scruples about "radical solutions" than those Jewish elders who had arms tattooed with numbers.

...Note that I didn't bring anywhere in my reasoning world opinion or the United Nations, as factors that could stop Israel from exterminating the Palestinians. Both are equally helpless when faced with a mighty America that supports unquestioningly everything and anything that Israel does.

Take care.

B-Man
03-23-2004, 02:58 PM
Your 3 statements are true, but you left out the most important reasons--because it would be morally wrong, and because Israelis (save perhaps for a very small number of lunatics) have no desire to commit genocide.

Contrast that with the Palestinians, most of whom would like to push the Jews into the sea. If the Palestinians could wipe out Israel, they would. Israel could wipe out the Palestinians, but chooses not to.

Yet another example of the lack of moral equivalence between the actions of the two sides.

Gamblor
03-23-2004, 03:14 PM
(not so much the Palestinians, Palestinians have always been among most educated and advanced of Arabs).

You might get a small argument from pretty much every Arab in the Middle East, as these "Palestinians" are generally looked at by the Arab street as leeches and uncivilized barbarians. But I digess:

Why do you think that is? Might it be the universities and infrastructure they have? You wouldn't happen to know who paid for that, would you? Ah yes, those genocidal Israelis built the educational institutions that now act as centres of terrorist activism.

In any event, I was under the impression that Israel is the puppeteer for the American public and that it didn't care about world opinion, as I'm sure the recent events in Gaza city might imply.

The only thing guaranteed to prevent more and more of the Nazi regime is a State with a Jewish majority. That has to be accomplished as peacefully as possible, but it must be accomplished. Perhaps the recent events in Toronto might influence your opinion. Check out the front page of the Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com) and Toronto Globe and Mail (http://www.globeandmail.com).

By definition, a democracy's government is the voice of the people (in reality, it's a republic, but we won't confuse you with such mumbo jumbo).

As such, ideally, Israel would be Jewish simply because there'd be no reason for anyone to want to live there. But, alas, the Arab powers have conspired against the descendants of British Mandate Arabs, and as such, their hatred is misplaced towards Israel, and more and more of the information we receive is based on that misdirected hatred, as the great Pan-Arabian peninsula must not be compromised by Jews. Incidentally, did you know that the Zionists have already begun plans to colonize Northern Iraq? (http://www.arutz7.net/news.php3?id=58611)?

Cyrus
03-23-2004, 05:20 PM
The problem with Israel is not just that it pursues the militaristic solution after five decades and that it has yet to make any single diplomatic opening (except for Egypt, again for military reasons!) . The problem with Israel is the complete militarization of its policies.

"The rule has always been that peace would be achieved on the negotiating table. But no negotiations under fire. Under any circumstances."

Suppose the Palestinians have the same attitude. And they say, if the fire doesn't stop and the killing of Palestinians doesn't stop, there will be no peace and no peace negotiations. Then what?

"Israel won every war, and as a result, it negotiates from a position of power. That's the way it works: The winner dictates the terms."

Suppose the Palestinians have the same attitude. And they hold off any prospects for dialogue until they achieve military victory, or its equivalent in terror. Then what?

John Cole
03-24-2004, 12:09 AM
BTW, I did note the quotation marks.

Gamblor
03-24-2004, 09:55 AM
And they say, if the fire doesn't stop and the killing of Palestinians doesn't stop, there will be no peace and no peace negotiations. Then what?

And they hold off any prospects for dialogue until they achieve military victory, or its equivalent in terror. Then what?

Best man wins. But Israel, unfortunately, has people like you demanding they cede to terrorist demands. Which, of course, will eventually be to have all the Jews as slaves to Muslim superiority. There's 4 different terrorist organizations demanding 4 different things - how do you deal with that? What's your solution? Their occupation ain't the West Bank and Gaza. Their occupation, is the whole damn thing, as any of them would love to explain to you.

MMMMMM
04-05-2004, 01:59 AM
Nicky, I agree that killing the terrorist "spiritual leader" of Hamas may well engender more violence. However, killing the terrorist "spiritual leader" of al-Qaeda may engender more violence as well.

Avoiding outrage is not, IMO, the primary consideration in either of these cases, although of course in the case of bin-Laden the situation is even more outlandish.

MMMMMM
04-05-2004, 02:08 AM
Exactly right, B-Man: A far higher percentage of Arabs/Palestinians are pro-genocide than are Israelis.

MMMMMM
04-05-2004, 02:17 AM
Cyrus to Adios: "You found no fault whatsoever with Israel's assassination of Yassin, not even from the purely practical point of view. You believe that the situation isn't affected whether that guy got killed or not."

Make it a good fence.

Gamblor
04-05-2004, 09:09 AM
The Good Fence borders Lebanon, not Jordan/Egypt/PA-occupied territory. /images/graemlins/grin.gif