Hamas founder killed

[andyfox]

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]

"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]

Make the middle east a glass parking lot and nuke it to the stone age...hey, it's what the want, right? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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

[John Cole]

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." [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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

[sam h]

[ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/Sto...175879,00.html)
* "He'll kill more in death..."
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...175829,00.html)
* Times: Sharon has to show that he has a political strategy
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...048007,00.html)
* Telegraph: Leader
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$TQMVYSOCXS00RQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/opinion/2004/03/23/dl2301.xml&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&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,,3...132154,00.html)

From The Guardian's excellent daily newspaper overview "The Wrap"