Israel's Campaign of Targeted Assassanations Apparently is Working

[adios]

My understanding is that since Israel stepped up it's this campaign in 2003 that the number of terrorist attacks and the Israeli fatalities have declined significantly.

Fatalities in Palestinian Terror Attacks

In 2002 the number of deaths from terrorist attacks was 451 and in 2003 it was 213.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

statistics can say anything you want them to say.

while some fatalities have been reduced lately, it's still obvious that the conflict is escalating.

al

[nicky g]

There were several long lulls in 2003, in part due to short-term ceasefires and negotiations etc. Did the Israelis step up targetting miltants in 2003? I'm fairly sure they were assassinating people in 2002 as well. Sections of the wall going into place may also have had an effect. I don't see an obvious case for a direct or primary link, perhaps you'd care to elaborate. Nevertheless, of course targetting militants etc is going to have some effect in disrupting attacks. It's also not particularly likely to inspire large-scale calls for revenge. Assassinating political and spiritual leaders on the other hand, especially ones willing to accept some kind of compromis such as Shanab and to a lesser extent Yassin, is unlikely to significantly hinder operations, and hugely inflames opinion and support for attacks. You might find this article about how the attack affects the balance of power interesting: Barak Barfi article

Is it really your contention that this doesn't escalate or affect the conflict at all? I'd have thought you of all people would take heed of the effect it had on financial markets yesterday. They don't seem to be too thrilled about possible consequences.

[Gamblor]

Is it really your contention that this doesn't escalate or affect the conflict at all?

Suppose the Americans discover where bin Laden has been hiding all these years. They want to go in there, but Tommy Franks himself calculates that it will cost upwards of 100 American lives to arrest him, due to al-Qaeda resistance. Do you think he won't drop a few missiles into that cave?

But wait! Al-Qaeda will surely vow revenge! They will surely attempt to commit more and more terrorist attacks! After all, bin Laden is attached to a dialysis machine! How could he be involved, he's so frail! He reminds me of another religious zealot, who happens to be confined to a wheelchair.

Is it really your contention that assassinating bin Ladin wouldn't escalate this conflict? Why isn't Bush being forced to negotiate with bin Laden? Where is the American-al-Qaeda Road Map?

[nicky g]

You're veering into the morality of such actions again when I was simply asking Tom if he really beleives whether this would escalate the conflict or not.
But to anwer your questions, I do think there is a difference in the two situations. Bin Laden is already an acknowledged target. The conflict between AQ and the US has seen the WTC attacks, the invasion of countries etc; it is significantly more "escalated" than the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Furthermore bin Laden is the acknowledged leader of a paramilitary outfit. He does not claim anything else. Yassin claimed to be and was seen by many, whether you agree with them or not (and I'm sure you don't) as the spiritual leader of a religious-social movement (Hamas) with a paramilitary off-shoot (Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades). Bin Laden has boasted of his involvement in planning attacks; Yassin denied he gave them anything other than his approval. Bin Laden is hding in the remotest place on earth; Yassin lived openly at his house in Gaza. Whether you see it or not, most people including the Israeli government up until recently, saw a clear difference between their status as "targets".
On the related point of whether I think killing bin Laden would make much of a practical difference to the fight against al-Qaeda? No, not really, except in morale terms. Yassin can be replaced; bin Laden doesn't really need to be. Most of "al Qaeda" consists of local groups who have zero contact with people hiding in Afghan mountains.

[nicky g]

To clarify a little further, killing a leader of the Brigades would be a closer analogy in my mind to killing Bin Laden, and killing an extremist Wahabbi cleric with ties to AQ would be closer to killing Yassin. The analogy isn't perfect because they're different situations and differently structured organisations.

[Ray Zee]

we seem sometimes to overlook that most of thepeople we talk about are in fact good kind people. its the leaders that rile them up and teach them to be killers or fanatics. so by taking out that leadership one by one or however you can, you get to destroy the machine that creates this hatred. there will always be lingering hatred, but removing the source cuts down on it. when the leadership fails then its back to just a bunch of unhappy people who pose less of a threat. then try to uplift their economic well being. it always seem when people are well off they dont want to blow up everyone.

[adios]

This is an answer to you and Al. That stats I point out don't indicate a slight of hand. What they may indicate is a correlation but not a causation. Or they may will indicate a causation. The question I think we need to ask ourselves is when do statistics convince us that our world view is right or wrong?

[nicky g]

"then try to uplift their economic well being. it always seem when people are well off they dont want to blow up everyone"

This is the point. The leadership fans the hatred but it isn't its source. The dire conditions in the territories and 30 years of occupation are its source.

[Gamblor]

I'm more inclined to believe that the fence has had a greater impact on this statistic than the assassinations. But those don't hurt either, especially when a young kid picks a soccer player as his hero instead of a murderer.