Israel's Campaign of Targeted Assassanations Apparently is Working

[BadBoyBenny]

While people are accountable for their own actions, by eliminating leaders who spread rhetoric that drives people to turn anger into violence, you can reduce the violence.

That doesn't mean the people who already bought into the propaganda and commited a violent or terroist act are less responsible for what they've done.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Now that Hamas has said they will target the U.S. has anyone thought about what the U.S. might do?
This could be a very volatile situation to say the least. If there is an attack on U.S. targets by Hamas, I can only imagine how much worse things will get. I can picture U.S. ships off of Gaza, U.S. and Israeli Planes bombing palestinian targets....
God this could get really really bad.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[nicky g]

"Yassin was by no means a spiritual leader. Yassin's brand of 'spirituality' is the ideological and emotional fuel that drives Palestinian (and worldwide Islamic) terrorism. He called suicide terrorism a religious obligation, and even said about himself that "the day in which I will die as a shahid [martyr] will be the happiest day of my life." (Al-Quds, July 26, 1998) "

None of this precludes him from being a spiritual leader. Spiritual leaders can be bad and say bad things; I didn't mean to praise him with the term. He was someone who incvited and approved of violence. But there is a difference between that and someone who is actively involved in violence such as bin Laden and so far I've seen no evidence of Yassin's direct involvement except for Condaleeza Rice's say-so, which I hold in similar esteem to Bill CLinton's.

"His house in Gaza is pretty remote for a 20-year old Israeli in full combat gear. "

Clearly not for an Israeli helicopter.

We can agree to disagree whether Yassin was a different sort of figure from bin Laden. But you can't deny that for his supporters definitely saw him as a different kind of figure.

"As far as the Hebrew question goes, they were probably speaking Yiddish, a mix of German and old Hebrew that most Jews spoke in Eastern Europe before the 1940s. Orthodox Jews now, in Israel and abroad (who are still living in the 19th century) still speak in Yiddish because they feel Hebrew is only for religious use. On the other hand, 99% of Israeli emigres end up in North America or London, England. But I don't know of any non-Israeli/non-ex-Israeli who speaks Hebrew as a first language."

Thanks. I know what Yiddish sounds like (you hear it in Belgium a lot, significant Orthodox community in Antwerp), these people were definitely speaking Hebrew, so I assume they were of Israeli background. Is Yiddish a written as well as spoken language? If so, in what alphabet?

[nicky g]

If the violence is a symptom of despair and the despair is all Arafat's fault, where did the first Intifada, which started and ran for years while Arafat was exiled, come from?

[Gamblor]

If the violence is a symptom of despair and the despair is all Arafat's fault, where did the first Intifada, which started and ran for years while Arafat was exiled, come from?

Arafat had been promising his people from Day One that the PLO would eventually rule over all of Israel and Israel itself would be destroyed. By 1987, they were getting antsy, and Arafat's failing to live up to his promise, they tried to take matters into their own hands.

Arafat has tried to position himself as the ultimate hero of the Palestinian people, and the man who would lead them to victory over the Zionist entity.

After bootings from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and (during the first intifada) Tunisia, they had become sick of it and began to circulate false rumours. For example, after one Israeli was killed on a shopping trip, a few Arabs got killed in a car accident - which was immediately blamed on the Israeli army's revenge tactics. These stories were the basis for Arab anger.

Halfway through, Arafat began to try to control the intifada and pushed it through until Oslo in 1993. But everyday Arabs knew that his presence at Oslo was a sham - he was only trying to put his face on the Palestinian cause. He spoke for nobody but the PLO, and unfortunately for the average Arab, they viewed that voice much the same way I'm sure you view Tony Blair's - as the voice of an official, not of the people.

[Gamblor]

Thanks a lot that's exactly what I was interested in.

Mainly, the confusion surrounding King George's flag at the World Cup and Olympics vs. the traditional Union Jack (which, I gather from your post, will likely be extinct sooner or later).

I, for one, like the Union Jack, but I doubt many Irish/Scots/Welsh do.

I played two years of rugby in elementary school (Gr. 5-6 - 'cept we called it Form 3 and Form 4) and as a result have an appreciation for Welsh character - they once flew over to Canada for a few exhibition matches (and ear pulling/calf-raking sessions). Our school was formed in 1829, and as such is the last bastion of British colonialism in Canada, and most of our teachers were British Nationals, mainly Scots and English I(which I can now specifically define thanks to you [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]). Perhaps you've heard of Upper Canada College

[Gamblor]

But there is a difference between that and someone who is actively involved in violence such as bin Laden and so far I've seen no evidence of Yassin's direct involvement except for Condaleeza Rice's say-so, which I hold in similar esteem to Bill CLinton's.

I don't believe bin Laden has even been directly involved outside of funding and support, but I might be wrong. Most of the evidence implicating bin Laden is from the mouths of American government officials, who I believe tell the truth at least as much as a British official [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. That's their job. They lie to us so our lives are easier. And as long as my life is easier, I don't mind so much. When my life gets difficult, then I get active. Yassin, instead of providing the financial fuel, provides the ideological fuel, which I find equally as despicable, but we're entitled to disagree here, as you say:

We can agree to disagree whether Yassin was a different sort of figure from bin Laden. But you can't deny that for his supporters definitely saw him as a different kind of figure.

The only difference, for his supporters, is as follows:
Yassin championed our cause, while bin Laden championed their cause, and our cause is better because its ours. That's like an English fan claiming Beckham is the greatest player alive, while a Brazilian claiming he's trash, that Ronaldo is the greatest player alive - but the English can't stand him.

The point is that Yassin was the founder of an organization that plans and incites the murder of innocent people, regardless of whatever other social function they perform. And no organization lasts in the long run after the leader is dead. Why do you think soldiers take off all rank identification in the field? Snipers go after officers, because the unit descends into disarray when the leader is gone.

Is Yiddish a written as well as spoken language? If so, in what alphabet?

The Hebrew alphabet. Those people must have been Israeli. Ask them if they keep kosher- if not, then they're Israeli. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[nicky g]

"Yassin, instead of providing the financial fuel, provides the ideological fuel, which I find equally as despicable"

That's fine, but that is a distinction. From there you get into the argument as to whether targetting ideologues etc is legitimate. I'm not in the mood to get into that argument, but my point was that for many people, there is a huge difference, and that's why the Yassin assassination is going to generate a lot more anger and a lot more reprisals than killing bin Laden or an active terrorist would. Again, the point I've been trying to make isn't about the rights or wrongs of this, although I do think it was wrong; I'm trying to establish that this is an escalation, and will have consequences, whether you approve or not.

[nicky g]

"The Hebrew alphabet."

Aha. THis is what was confusing us. My wife and my friend were willing to accept that the local orthodox communites spoke Yiddish and not Hebrew but then my friend pointed out that there were signs in the Hebrew alphabet everywhere, and we were all under the impression that Yiddish was written in the Roman alphabet. Thanks for the info.

[Gamblor]

This has gone on far enough.

It would be so easy to look at the Palestinians as weeds in the grass, and that is the way you (and Alger/Cyrus) currently view them. Kill one of them, and they come back twice as fast.

That's the beauty of suicide terrorism - young kids, women, and men are brainwashed into believing somehow, that if the world sees how desperate they are, and how resilient they are, the world will see that life doesn't matter to them unless they get it. By showing that Israel's tanks and fighter jets are really just scrap metal in the face of the Palestinians' superhuman determination, they hope that the world will see that Israeli military action is really a useless measure.

In real life, however, in a world where academia and political theory are not reality, but extra-curricular activities, we see that the Palestinians are indeed human. They think in terms of costs and benefits, and that death does indeed scare them. Suicide bombers are not successful lawyers or businessmen or Hamas leaders, but social deviants and misfits. Take the mother who blew herself up at the Erez crossing last month - her "goodbye" video said that she had dreamed her whole life of becoming a shahid - only after did the public learn that she had been caught in adultery, and her husband and lover had agreed that the suicide bombing was the best way to settle the matter.

Despite their constant rhetoric, even Hamas leaders care about their lives. You'll notice that after the failed assassination of Rantisi, you all claimed Isarel was inciting violence. In reality, Hamas instantly agreed to a hudna with other Islamic terrorist groups. Subsequently, the number of Palestinians killed fell from 1000 in 2002 to 700 in 2003 - mainly because as the leaders were assassinated, the groups were less able to carry out the kind of attacks that had provoked Israeli reprisals.

You all continue to admonish Israel for Yassin's assassination, claiming that while Israel is entitled to act in self-defence, assassinations serve only to forment further hatred. What exactly would you have Israel do to act in self-defence then?

Ultimately, it isn't respect for the Palestinians you have - it your complete lack of respect for their ability to think rationally, not as weeds, but as humans capable of acting in their own best interests.

Terrorism is a top-heavy business- the leaders have all of the control. In poker, one of the first things we learn is to be tight-aggressive; Why not weak-tight, or loose-passive? Because the best defence is a good offence, and the best offence is a selective offence. There is no point in attacking random Palestinians on the street, as that accomplishes nothing. It only follows that any Palestinian civilian death is at best accidental. But attack the leadership, and the desire to murder decreases: there is nobody who will take the personal risk of brainwashing the pawns of Palestine to continue the jihad.