Was it right to assassinate Yassin?

NO: Like other attacks, this killing will only fuel the militants, says MICHAEL BELL

By MICHAEL BELL
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - Page A15

When Israeli helicopters attacked Hamas spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin yesterday at dawn, it wasn't the first time Israel had resorted to assassination in an effort to stem Palestinian militancy. In view of whom it targeted this time, however, it's unlikely to be the last.

The tactic of targeted killing was intensified by Israel three years ago in an attempt to defeat terrorism by eliminating the leadership of radical Palestinian movements. Prior to that, the country had engaged in assassination less frequently, as in 1988, when Israeli commandoes stormed the home of PLO commander Khalil Wazir in Tunis, killing him; and, in 1995, when then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin ordered the assassination of Fathi Shukaki, the Damascus-based leader of the radical Islamic Jihad group, as the man passed through Malta.

As in most such cases, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon oversaw the entire Sheik Yassin operation. Planning was apparently initiated in the wake of the double suicide bombing earlier this month in the southern port city of Ashdod, in which 10 Israelis died. What was striking about the Ashdod attack was that its targets were precariously close to lethal chemical supplies stored in the port, and that it was the first time bombers from Gaza had succeeded in eluding Israel's new security fence around the Palestinian territory.

I find it impossible to condemn outright Israel's policy of targeted killings of those who are committed to indiscriminate murder. Any government has obligations to its citizens, chief among them being to ensure their security. In the complex world of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, methods are sometimes rough, no matter how much we wish it might be otherwise. In the specific case of Sheik Yassin, Ariel Sharon also believed he had to act to undermine Hamas so that if Israel withdraws from Gaza and dismantles Jewish settlements there as he has promised, these moves are not interpreted as weakness in response to ongoing Palestinian armed resistance.

more...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040323/COBELL23/TPComment/TopStories

(/snip)

Israel be more safe? Will there be greater will for peace among Palestinians? Will this reduce the number of suicide bombers? Or will it only fuel the fire? The answers are obvious

As Uri Avnery said, pure stupidity...

...last Friday IsraelNationalNews had a story about Sharon being disinvited to the White House. The thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x61265

In it they stated "... Israel News Agency sources indicate that in coming days a major announcement regarding charges against the Prime Minister and his sons are scheduled to be made."

Sharon could have pulled the trigger on Yassin anytime. Funny he should choose this week, the week that might see him and his sons in major hot water over their various scandals.

VERY interesting fact...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So he needs to blow up Hamas leaders to prevent anyone from reaching the conclusion that terrorism drove Israel out of Gaza. Perhaps there are two audiences for this message: the Palestinians, and the Israeli right wing.

Right in the sense of legal? Yes, the killing was legal. Once we accept that this is an armed conflict, combatants are fair game. Sheikh Yassin directed militants against Israeli targets. He was a guerrilla leader. That makes him fair game.

Moreover, Sheikh Yassin was a war criminal. He deliberately targeted civilians who had no direct association with the conflict and were engaged at the time they were attacked in mundane, day=to-day activities. Yes, it would have been better to put him on trial for that, but we don't need formal proceedings to draw that conclusion.

Sheikh Yassin was a racist. He openly called for the removal of Jews from Israel. It's one thing to call for the removal of illegal settlements from occupied territory; it's not racist to ask that an occupying power respect international law and the rights of the residents of occupied territory by refraining from transferring parts of its own population to land beyond its borders that it controls. However, it racist to tell people to leave their homes simply because they are of the wrong ethnic group.

Was it right in the sense of being a good idea? Israel will see no short term benefit from this assassination. It won't prevent one attack that would have happened anyway. Israel can assassinate all of Hamas' leaders and more will rise to replace them.

Even in the long term, the only thing that is going to break the Palestinian Resistance is the end of occupation. One does not need to call the end of the "Zionist entity" (I don't) in order to realize that Palestinians have some serious legitimate grievances against the occupying power of the West Bank and Gaza. Rightly or wrongly, were I a Palestinian, I would believe that an end to resistance would mean bringing about a world were Israelis can with impunity and without just cause force Palestinians from their homes in order build housing where the former residents are prohibited from living and accessed on segregated roads. That is happening today and as long as it appears to be what Israel is fighting for in the occupied territories, then resistance is natural and just. It will continue.

Yassin's idea of what Palestinian resistance should look like was abominable. His goals for the ends that resistance should be were unobtainable. Nevertheless, Yassin didn't start this conflict and killing him won't end it.

It doesn't matter who's doing it.

Killing sometimes is entirely right. It would have been right to kill Hitler, Stalin and a host of other villains in history. It is OK to kill someone about to kill others.

Sharon who kills others?

the rightist idealist view of 'good' killing

realism is recognizing the long term consequences of this action.

That is realism, the rest is vengeance.

Killing a person is an atrocity, and just because someone may be about to perpetrate that atrocity does not make it magically okay for you to descend to their level to stop it. There are many, many other options, including non-lethal violence, to prevent the taking of life.

That is my opinion of murder, be it perpetrated by the individual or by the state. The question was, was it right to assassinate this man; my answer was no. It is no one's place to decide when to end the life of a sapient being, regardless of what that sapient being has done, is doing, or is about to do.

This response, additionally, entirely omits the extrajudicial nature of this act.

But it's still amazing.

You clearly live in a utopian place. I hear it's nice, but you are about the only one I know who has a house there.

For the rest of us, there are indeed threats that are worth killing someone. I'm sorry there is nothing in life that you consider important enough to kill for. I consider freedom and innocent lives two examples of what I am willing to kill to protect. Non-lethal acts don't always guarantee success.

Three minutes. Did you have that all typed up and ready to go?

Regarding your view that murder is ethical:

I do not live in a utopian place; as a matter of fact, I live in America, which is not very uptopian at all. I own firearms. I know how to use said firearms, and will not hesitate to do so, in a non-lethal fashion, to protect myself or those I love. Even if I must die to resolve a situation without murdering a human being, I find that preferable to murder. Am I crazy? Maybe. But in my view, I come out ahead, for I will never be guilty of such depravity as murder.

Your assertion that non-lethal resolutions cannot be guaranteed is false as well. All that is needed is a sufficient quantity of imagination, a quality that everyone has in abundance (though, sadly, few use), and any problem can be solved in any way you want.

In the end, this all comes down to a matter of belief. Our opinions on the topic vary: I am willing to die if I can, by dying, secure a resolution that does not result in the deaths of any others; you are not.

Are we including self defense here? Are we also including a wife and child also? It's hardly murder if you kill someone in self defense.

I'm not as idealistic as you are I guess, I'd kill a person in a second if it meant that my wife and kids wouldn't die. Or are you being a bit melodramatic here?

To me, there's no difference between willingly killing someone in cold blood or in self defense. I don't believe it's a defensible course of action.

As for a wife and kids...I doubt I'll ever find a woman willing to tolerate me, and I don't think bringing kids into such a shitty world is a nice thing to do. :)

I find that real sad

the palestinian air force...wings of freedom

"I'm not as idealistic as you are I guess, I'd kill a person in a second if it meant that my wife and kids wouldn't die. Or are you being a bit melodramatic here?"

of course this realistic view doesn't extend to palestinians. Non-violence is the answer for them! Shoot kids on the way to school, bulldoze a house so a family will have no shelter, destroy food sources...them crybabies should just pull up their socks!

because "It's hardly murder if you kill someone in self defense"

unless of course you are palestinian...then hey...ummm...

the palestinian navy...be all that you can be

"I consider freedom and innocent lives two examples of what I am willing to kill to protect. Non-lethal acts don't always guarantee success."

how this relates to your position on palestinians is beyond comprehension...

priceless

but the method of sending bombs into the streets of your opponent also lends credence to the coming response. Like a pebble dropped in a pond, the ripples have yet to reach the shore. I still wonder if there will be continued celebrating when Israeli body parts, once again, litter the streets of Tel Aviv.